House of Commons
Thursday, February 6, 1936
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Axbridge Rural District Council Bill,
"to provide that all expenses of the Axbridge Rural District Council of providing supplies of water in their district and of constructing and maintaining works therefor so far as such expenses are not defrayed out of water rates rents and charges shall be charged on the general rate fund and general rate of the district; to make further provision with regard to the supply of water in the district; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Barnsley Extension Bill,
"to extend the boundaries of the county borough of Barnsley and for purposes incidental thereto," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Brentford and Chiswick Corporation Bill,
"to confer further powers on the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Brentford and Chiswick in regard to their electricity and market undertakings and to make further and better provision for the improvement health and local government of their borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill,
"to empower the Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Company to redeem its preference shares; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Cheltenham and Gloucester Joint Water Board Etc. Bill,
"to establish a Joint Board consisting of representatives of the Corporations of Cheltenham and Gloucester; to transfer to the Board certain waterworks of the Cheltenham Corporation; to authorise the Board to construct works and supply water; to confer further powers upon the Cheltenham Corporation and the Gloucester Corporation with respect to the supply of water and to extend the limits for the supply of water by the Cheltenham Corporation and the Gloucester Corporation; to confer further powers upon the Cheltenham Corporation; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Cleethorpes Trolley Vehicles Bill,
"to authorise the Great Grimsby Street Tramways Company to run trolley vehicles in the urban district of Cleethorpes and to abandon their tramways; to change the name of the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Colne Valley and Northwood Electricity Bill,
"to synchronise the dates of purchase of the undertakings carried on by the Colne Valley Electric Supply Company, Limited, and the Northwood Electric Light and Power Company, Limited; to provide for those undertakings being purchaseable together by the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, and to make consequential provisions with regard thereto; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Coventry Corporation Bill,
"to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Coventry to construct street and road works; to apply the provisions of the Coventry Corporation Act, 1930, enabling the Corporation to levy frontage charges towards the cost of the by-pass road authorised by that Act to the substituted roads authorised by this Act and to make other provision with regard to those charges; to authorise the construction of waterworks and to enact further provisions with regard to water supply; to extend the limits of the Corporation for the supply of gas; to confer further powers on the Corporation with regard to the health improvement and good government of the city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Dalton-In-Furness Urban District Council Bill,
"to provide for the transfer to the urban district council of Dalton-in-Furness of the Dalton gasworks; to confer further powers upon that council with respect to their gas and other undertakings and to make further provision in regard to the health local government improvement and finance of the urban district of Dalton-in-Furness; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Dewsbury and Heckmondwikr Waterworks Board Bill,
"to amend the provisions of the Dewsbury and Heckmondwike Waterworks Act 1876 and the Dewsbury and Heckmondwike Order confirmed by the Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Act 1887 with respect to compensation water; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Gas Light and Coke Company (No. 1) Bill,
"to empower the Gas Light and Coke Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Gas Light and Coke Company (No. 2) Bill,
"to confer upon the Gas Light and Coke Company powers with reference to the making of provision for supplies of gas in certain cases; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill,
"to empower the Great Western Railway Company to construct railways and other works in connection with their undertaking and to acquire lands; to authorise financial arrangements with respect to certain works and facilities to be provided by the said Company under an agreement with the Treasury; to abandon certain railways; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Great Western Railway (Ealing and Shepherd's Bush Railway Extension) Bill,
"to empower the Great Western Railway Company to construct railways and to acquire lands; to authorise financial arrangements with respect to certain works and facilities to be provided by the said Company under an agreement with the Treasury in connection with passenger transport services in the London Transport Area and to raise additional capital; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Hereford Corporation Bill,
"to extend the limits within which the Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of the city of Hereford may supply water and gas; to confer further powers upon the said Mayor Aldermen and Citizens with reference to their water, gas, and markets undertakings; to make further provision with regard to the health local government and improvement of the city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Llanelly District Traction Bill,
"to empower the Llanelly and District Electric Supply Company Limited to run trolley vehicles on certain routes; to extend the Company's powers of running omnibuses; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time.
London and Middlesex (Improvements, Etc.) Bill,
"to empower the county councils of the administrative counties of London and Middlesex to make new streets, street widenings and other works for the improvement of traffic facilities between West Cromwell Road and Great West Road in the counties of London and Middlesex respectively; to make further provision in regard to the issue of precepts and the appointment of justices' clerks in Middlesex; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill,
"to empower the London and North Eastern Railway Company to widen certain of their railways to construct other works in connection with their undertaking and to acquire lands; to authorise financial arrangements with respect to certain works and facilities to be provided by the said Company under an agreement with the Treasury; to raise additional capital; to dispose of or close the Grantham Canal; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
London and North Eastern Railway (London Transport) Bill,
"to empower the London and North Eastern Railway Company to widen certain of their railways to construct other works in connection with their undertaking and to acquire lands; to revive the powers and extend the time for the completion of certain railways; to raise money for or in connection with passenger transport services in the London Transport area; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,
"to empower the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company to construct works and to acquire lands; to authorise financial arrangements with respect to certain works and facilities to be provided by the said Company under an agreement with the Treasury; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
London Passenger Transport Board Bill,
"to empower the London Passenger Transport Board to provide certain services of trolley vehicles; to construct new works; to acquire lands; to raise additional moneys; to confer further powers on the Board; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
London Rating (Unoccupied Hereditaments) Bill,
"to provide for the rating of owners of unoccupied hereditaments in metropolitan boroughs; and for purposes connected therewith," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill,
"to extend the period for the completion of works authorised to be constructed by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Merton and Morden Urban District Council Bill,
"to confer further powers on the urban district council of Merton and Morden for and in connection with the improvement health good government and finances of their district; to confer powers on the council in relation to street trading; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
North Wales Electric Power Bill,
"to authorise an increase in the capital of North Wales Power Company Limited; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Severn Bridge Bill,
"to provide for the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the River Severn with approach roads in connection therewith; to constitute a Joint Committee for the control and management of such bridge; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Solihull Urban District Council Bill,
"to confer further powers on the urban district council of Solihull for and in connection with the improvement health good government and finances of their district; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
South East Cornwall Water Board Bill,
"to constitute and incorporate a joint board consisting of representatives of the rural district council of St. Germans and the urban district council of Looe with power to construct works for intercepting and distributing the waters of the Rushyford Brook, otherwise the Rushy Brook and the Withey Brook; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
South Essex Waterworks Bill,
"to make better provision with respect to the laying and maintenance of pipes for the supply of water within the limits of supply of the South Essex Waterworks Company and for purposes connected therewith," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Southern Railway Bill,
"to empower the Southern Railway Company to construct works and acquire lands; to extend the time for the compulsory purchase of certain lands; to empower the said Company and the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company to construct certain works; to authorise financial arrangements with respect to certain works and facilities to be provided by the Southern Railway Company under an Agreement with the Treasury; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Stalybridge Hyde Mossley and Dukinfield Transport and Electricity Board Bill,
"to authorise the Stalybridge Hyde Mossley and Dukinfield Tramways and Electricity Board to provide and work trolley vehicles; to confer further powers on the Board in regard to their electricity undertaking; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Surrey County Council Bill,
"to authorise the Surrey County Council to execute works for the improvement of Beverley Brook and Pyl Brook and other brooks and streams in the county of Surrey; to confer further powers on the Council and to enact further provisions for the good government and administration and the preservation of the amenities of the county; to enact provisions with respect to the control of private schools wrestling entertainments and swimming baths and with respect to town planning and roads within the county; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Thornton Cleveleys Improvement Bill,
"to provide that separate sewers for sewage and surface water shall be required in the Thornton Cleveleys urban district; to prohibit vehicular traffic to and from certain streets in the district across the Blackpool and Fleetwood tramroad; to extend the time for the construction by the Thornton Cleveleys Urban District Council of part of the promenade authorised by the Thornton Urban District Council Act, 1923; to extend the limits of the Council for the supply of gas; to make further provision with regard to the improvement of the seashore in the district and with regard to the health improvement and good government of the district; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Uckfield Water Bill,
"to confer further powers upon the Uckfield Water Company; to extend the limits for the supply of water by the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Warkworth Harbour Bill,
"to make further provision with respect to the rates tolls and dues leviable by the Warkworth Harbour Commissioners," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill,
"to empower the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Wolverhampton to construct street improvements and waterworks and to acquire lands for those and other purposes; to confer further powers upon them with regard to the provision and working of trolley vehicles; to provide for the transfer to the Corporation of the undertaking of the Wolverhampton General Cemetery Company and to authorise the establishment of a crematorium; to extend the area for the supply of water by the Corporation and to make further provision with regard to their water and electricity undertakings and the health local government and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
York Gas Bill,
"to confer upon the York Gas Company powers with reference to the making of provision for supplies of gas in certain cases; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
Members Sworn
Several Members took and subscribed the Oath or made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.
Oral Answers to Questions
Unemployment
Five-Day Week
asked the Minister of Labour the names of the trades to whom invitations have at present been issued for the purpose of discussing the arrangement of a five-day working week; how many meetings have been held; will he give particulars of these conversations which have not been confidential; and what progress has been made?
I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the discussions with industrial organisations which I am pursuing on the question of the absorption of the unemployed by the reduction of hours of work and allied measures. As the reply is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Will the Minister reply to the latter part of my question in which I ask him to give particulars of any conversations that have not been confidential?
I have given in the reply all the information that I can.
Will the circulated answer state what progress has been made? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a White Paper?
I think the House had better see the answer, and hon. Members can put further questions if necessary.
Have my right hon. Friend's discussions included employe's in the amusement industries?
Not yet.
Following is the reply:
Invitations have been issued to employers' organisations in the following industries:
Engineering.
Shipbuilding.
Iron and Steel.
Building.
Public Works Contracting.
Brick and Tile.
Pottery.
Chemicals.
Glass and Glass Bottle.
Railway Service.
Tobacco.
Printing.
Woollen and Worsted.
Textile Bleaching, Dyeing and Finishing.
Hosiery.
Boot and Shoe.
Electricity Supply.
Gas Supply.
Sugar Confectionery and Food Preserving.
Tin Box.
Licensed Hotel and Restaurant Service.
Wholesale Clothing (Men's).
Shirt, Collar, etc.
Catering (Light Refreshment Branch).
Twenty-two meetings have been held. Further invitations are about to issue to the distributive and bread baking and flour confectionery trades. All these conversations have been of a confidential nature, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement with regard to the proceedings.
New Industries (Lancashire)
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the figures of employment in 1935 for new industries set up in Lancashire?
At the end of 1935, a total of 10,788 workpeople was employed in factories established in Lancashire during that year. Many of these factories, however, had not then reached their full production, and it is anticipated that employment for more than 16,000 workpeople will eventually be provided in them.
New Exchanges (Accommodation)
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the lack of accommodation at the new Employment Exchanges; and whether he will take steps to see that no men and women who attend to sign on shall be forced to stand in the open outside the buildings?
The amount of accommodation to be provided in new buildings for Employment Exchanges is carefully considered in each case. Under the arrangements for timing the attendance of applicants, there is no need for them, save in quite exceptional cases, to have to wait for any appreciable period, if they attend at the times indicated. Perhaps, if the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, he will communicate with me.
Transferred Workers
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the House any information relative to the case of James Prince, who was charged at the Enfield police court with stealing as bailee furniture worth £24; whether he is aware that this man was brought from Oldham to Enfield under the Ministry of Labour's scheme for assisting distressed areas, and after three days' employment was discharged; and whether he can state the number of persons transferred from distressed areas to London and the home counties that have been discharged after working a week or less?
As the reply to this question is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
Mr. Prince was transferred to employment with the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield on the 4th October last. He was informed before he left Oldham that, if his employment appeared likely to continue, the Ministry would pay the cost of removing his household. On the 5th October, however, Mr. Prince of his own initiative (having first disposed of his furniture at Oldham) brought his wife and family to Enfield. He began work at the Factory on the 9th October, but was discharged after two days as unsuitable. He afterwards obtained other work which lasted for over a month. The Employment Exchange then placed him with another employer, but Mr. Prince held this work for one day only. The Exchange was unable to find other work locally for which Mr. Prince seemed suitable, but brought his qualifications to the notice of employers in other districts. On the 29th January the Exchange learned that Mr. Prince had been accepted by an employer at Dartford, and that an employer at Croydon wished to interview him, but he had by this time returned to Oldham. The Ministry cannot, of course, give a man any guarantee that employment in which he is placed will be permanent; this must depend on his proving satisfactory to his employer. I do not know why Mr. Prince decided to return to Oldham after he had set up a home at Enfield, but it will foe seen that, if he had waited a little longer, he would probably have obtained further employment. I am not able to give a precise answer to the last part of the question, but the number is undoubtedly very small. On the whole the work of transfer has been a marked and increasing success from the point of view both of men and employers.
asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements are being made for the supervision of boys transferred from the special areas; what staff the Ministry of Labour possesses to keep in touch with the boys after they leave work in the evenings; and whether reports of the boys' behaviour have in all respects been satisfactory?
Special arrangements are made for the supervision of boys transferred from the special areas, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a memorandum on the subject which describes in detail the model scheme of after-care adopted, with local variations, in most of the areas to which these boys have been transferred. As this after-care work is performed mainly by voluntary bodies and persons interested in the welfare of young people, the staff of the Ministry of Labour is not augmented for this express purpose. Reports on the boys' behaviour are in general satisfactory.
Is the Minister aware that there has been a good deal of criticism of the arrangements for looking after these boys after working hours; and will he be good enough to look further into that matter?
Perhaps the hon. Member will read the memorandum, which gives full information. If he has any further information, I shall be glad to hear it.
Does this Order apply to the girls?
Certainly.
asked the Minister of Labour how many hostels have been opened by the Ministry for young persons transferred to the London area for employment; what is the total accommodation; and will he give the scale of charges?
Two hostels, providing accommodation for 120 transferred boys, have been established by the Ministry in the London area, in co-operation with the Young Men's Christian Association. Two others with a similar total accommodation will be opened shortly. The full cost for board, lodging and laundry is 19s. a week, but the actual charge made is in general reduced according to the boy's rate of wages and his outgoings for fares and other necessary expenses. The actual charge for boys aged 16 or 17 is from 12s. to 14s. in most cases.
Special Areas
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now state the nature of the scheme to establish trading estates in the North-east depressed area and also the amount of the Government grant involved?
asked the Minister of Labour what assistance is to be granted to housing associations from the Commissioner for special areas?
These matters will, I understand, be dealt with in the further report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas (England and Wales), which I hope to be able to lay before the House early next week. Perhaps the hon. Members would be good enough to await the publication of that report.
Assistance
asked the Minister of Labour in which towns Clause 6, Section 3, of the Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) Regulations, 1934, is at present being applied?
The Clause referred to, which gives the board power to provide for needs of an exceptional character, is quite general in its character, and is not limited to any particular area or areas.
Is the Minister aware that the officer in charge of unemployment assistance in Burnley declines to operate the Clause, on the ground that he has received no specific instructions to do so; and will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, see that the official is informed that specific instructions are not necessary before the Clause can be applied?
Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with me, and I will communicate with the Department on the subject.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think a system is desirable which leaves the matter to the decision of a paid official of the Department?
The hon. Lady will understand that this Clause is applied under the discretion granted to the board. The investigations are made quite regularly, once a month, and each case must be dealt with on its merits. If there are any particular points, I shall be glad to hear about them.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complaints about this Clause are not confined to Burnley, but are fairly general?
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that if a recipient of unemployment assistance benefit dies on the day benefit is due, his dependant is deprived of same; and whether he will take steps to eliminate this hardship?
As the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown) was informed on 11th December last, the board have been advised that they have no power to pay allowances generally in respect of deceased persons.
As then promised, the precise extent of the board's powers have meanwhile been further examined, and as a result the board have informed me that they can make arrangements that will meet the type of case that the hon. Member has in mind.
Do I understand that this will be retrospective, so as to include the case submitted some months ago?
It was with that object in view that the examination was made.
Insurance Fund
asked the Minister of Labour what have been the weekly incomings and outgoings of the Unemployment Insurance Fund during the past three months; and what has been the average surplus?
During the three months ended 25th January, 1936, the receipts of the Unemployment Fund on insurance account amounted approximately to £16,300,000, and the payments to £13,100,000 after allowing for the accruing charge for debt services under Section 60 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935. The average balance was £245,000 per week.
Will the Minister consider using part of the surplus to improve the benefit position?
I am now awaiting the report of the committee which is charged with this duty.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of using some of the surplus to wipe off the debt?
I understand that a good deal of evidence has been put before the committee and various suggestions have been made. I must await the report.
Juveniles, London Area
asked the Minister of Labour the number of young persons placed in employment by the juvenile advisory committees in London and adjacent area during November and December, 1935, and January, 1936?
The number of juveniles between 14 and 18 years of age placed in employment in the area covered by the London Regional Advisory Council was:
Are we likely to have a report on the work of the bodies covering the area to which my question refers?
Does the hon. Member mean a special report?
A report on their work— an annual report?
I assume that a report will be made to the Ministry of Labour.
Can the Minister say how many are in blind-alley occupations?
The Noble Lady had better put that question down.
Special Areas (Schemes)
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation, on 19th September, 1935, made application to the Commissioner for the special areas for a grant out of the Special Areas (England and Wales) Fund in respect of certain schemes submitted by the authority, and that they have also applied to the Ministry of Health for leave to borrow the necessary moneys; and that the Ministry is ready to grant this leave but cannot do so until the Commissioner has given his decision on the question of grant and whether he will ask the Commissioner to expedite his decision?
I understand that the Commissioner will issue his decision in the matter at an early date.
In view of the fact that some five and a-half months have elapsed since the application was made, can we be positive that we shall have an early reply?
Yes, quite soon.
Has the Commissioner really the power—he seems to be not quite definite as to whether he has— to give the assistance asked for?
The hon. Lady had better await the decision, and perhaps, if she is not satisfied, she will let me know.
Limestone Quarry Workers, Stanhope, Durham
asked the Minister of Labour what is the average number of days worked per week for the year 1935 by datal workers, adults and boys under 21 years of age, respectively, in the Newlandside limestone quarry at Stanhope, in the county of Durham, such quarry being owned by Messrs. Dorman, Long, Limited; and what are the average weekly earnings of adults and boys under 21 years of age, respectively, for 1935 in the same quarry?
I am not in possession of information on the points mentioned.
Prevention of Crime
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that 1,200 persons were arrested last year in London and charged as suspected persons under the Prevention of Crimes Acts, who were later discharged as innocent by the courts, he will consider setting up a committee to inquire into the powers of arrest under this Act with the object of introducing legislation to limit powers of arrest, and so prevent unnecessary loss of liberty of innocent persons?
In 1935 the number of suspected persons charged with loitering with intent to commit felony in the Metropolitan Police district was 3,672, and 2,439 of these were convicted. The first duty of the police is to prevent crime and their experience is that a large number of crimes have, in fact, been prevented by the use of these provisions. The fact that in a proportion of these cases the Court does not regard the evidence as sufficient to warrant a conviction does not necessarily mean that the police were wrong in bringing the case before the Court; and in many cases the Magistrates, when dismissing a charge, have made it clear that in their view the police were justified in bringing the defendant before the Court. While I do not consider that there is sufficient ground for an inquiry such as is suggested by the hon. Member, at the same time I recognise that constant vigilance must be exercised to guard against any improper use of these provisions, and the Commissioner, with whom I have been in consultation, is fully conscious of the importance of this point. Constant watch is kept by the authorities at Scotland Yard over these cases, and great care is being taken to prevent any misuse of these provisions.
Would the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the commissioner that the fact that a man appears to be poor and destitute is no evidence that he is a potential criminal?
Certainly that is the case. No particular class is exempt.
Police Cars (Accidents)
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the accident at Ealing on 27th December when a man was killed by a police car while in pursuit of motor bandits, he will alter the law to give a legal right to dependants of appeal to the courts for compensation; and, in the meantime, will he consider making an ex-gratia grant to the widow and four children of the man who lost his life?
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of recent tragic experience, he will take all possible steps to secure that the police, in the course of pursuing offenders in motor cars, shall not drive in a manner which endangers the lives of the public?
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an accident which recently occurred at Ealing, in which an innocent member of the public named John Patrick Green was knocked down and killed by one of the police motor cars; in view of the fact that under existing legislation no action for damages for any such occurrences can be taken by members of the public against Crown servants, will he consider the introduction of amending legislation which will give to members of the public the rights to have any similar claims legally determined; and will he consider, in the interest of the public, introducing regulations in the Metropolitan Police Force which will ensure that all police motor car or transport drivers are covered by third-party insurance in the same manner as other motor car drivers?
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the recent death of a citizen caused by a police motor car, it is proposed to take any steps to ensure that in such cases in future proper compensation shall be payable?
In the first place I should like to express my deep regret at the fatality which has given rise to these questions. I have already been in communication with the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) regarding the case, and my letter to him was published in the Press yesterday. I am glad to have this further opportunity of removing the misapprehensions which appear to exist. There is no foundation for the view that a member of the public who suffers loss or injury as the result of the negligence or other wrongful act of a police officer is unable under the existing law to enforce his claim to compensation in the courts. In the case in question, while it is not admitted that the officer driving the police car was guilty of any negligence, an adequate offer of compensation will, hon. Members may rest assured, be made to the widow. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) is now receiving the close attention of the Commissioner of Police.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?
I did not deal with it because I think the question must be based on some misapprehension. Third party insurance is needed in cases where there is a risk of the person primarily liable going bankrupt or disappearing. That is extremely unlikely in the case of a police officer. In addition, third party insurance is insurance by an insurance company to pay if the principal person is liable. If the principal person is liable, the police fund will pay.
asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the hardships falling upon the dependants of citizens killed or injured as a result of the actions of servants of the Crown; and whether His Majesty's Government will grant to such dependants the rights of legal process in these cases?
I am not aware of any such hardship as is suggested by my hon. Friend. Where a person is injured or killed by the wrongful act of an officer of the Crown in the course of his official duty, he or his dependants have a right of action in the courts against that officer and it is the invariable practice of the Crown in such cases to pay any damages and costs awarded by the court.
Aliens
Late Emil Allard
asked the Home Secretary what was the nationality of the late Emil Allard or Max Kassel; and in what circumstances was he granted a permit to live in this country?
It is believed that the dead man entered the country with papers representing him to be a British subject.
Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied with the conditions under which apparently undesirable aliens are allowed to enter the country and, in view of the considerable public uneasiness that is being caused, will he conduct an overhaul of the whole circumstances?
While judicial proceedings are, or may be, pending in reference to this matter I would ask hon. Members to defer further questions about the case. At a later date I shall be ready to answer all questions I can. I can assure the hon. Member that that aspect of the matter is very much in the mind of everyone. I do not think the regulations are defective, but that is no reason for not looking to see.
Inquiries
asked the Home Secretary whether the police inquiries in connection with a recent murder case have disclosed the presence in this country of any considerable number of undesirable aliens; and whether he intends to institute an inquiry into the effectiveness of the arrangements at the ports for checking the entrance into this country of undesirable aliens?
The hon. Member will appreciate that the first object of police inquiries has been to endeavour to trace any persons who may have been concerned in the murder and that there has been no opportunity for considering any consequential information derived from those inquiries. Such information will be reviewed in due course, but it would be undesirable that I should at present make any statement regarding the character of persons who may be concerned in judicial proceedings.
Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that the system of week-end tickets, which I understand require no passport, has enabled a certain number of aliens to secure illegal admittance into the country and, in pursuing his further inquiries, will he look into this aspect of the matter?
I am sure that will be included in any consideration. The hon. Member must remember that there would be inconvenience if everyone who went from Boulogne or Dover across the Channel had to go through the performance merely for the purpose of being in England or France for a day.
Employment of Young Persons
asked the Home Secretary whether the Departmental Committee has been set up to investigate the need for regulation of the hours of employment of young persons in unregulated trades; and, if so, when the report may be expected?
The Departmental Committee to which the Noble Lady refers was appointed on 16th January, and I am sending her a copy of the Warrant of Appointment. I cannot at present give any indication as to the date when the Committee's report may be expected.
Does not the hon. Gentleman think it was rather unnecessary to set up a Departmental Committee as five Governments have pledged themselves to bring in a Bill to regulate the employment of these children in unregulated trades? Is it not a sheer waste of time, and would it not be better to bring in a Bill based on the findings of five Governments?
This Committee has been invited to consider not merely how far but also by what method this proposal can be carried out.
Charities (Gambling Parties)
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from the Chief Commissioner of Police in connection with the proceedings recently terminated in the King's Bench Division relative to the gambling party at Sunderland House; whether his attention has been drawn to the strictures made by the judge who tried the case; whether he can state the number of similar houses between Lancaster Gate and Oxford Circus which are known to the police; and what action he intends taking in the matter?
I am glad to have the opportunity of associating myself with the views expressed by the learned Judge who tried this case to the effect that it is much to be hoped that no reputable charity will in the future resort to so questionable a method of raising money as the organisation of gambling parties. The Commissioner of Police will not hesitate to prosecute in any case where the necessary evidence is forthcoming to prove an offence against the law.
Has the right hon. Gentleman any definite views and, if so, is he prepared to put them into operation?
The first part of my answer was intended to express a very definite view, and the second part was intended to convey an intention as to action.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) took sixteenth place in a gamble in the House this morning?
Then, as a matter of fact, we are all gamblers.
Crane Accident, Greenwich
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his factory inspector relative to the death of a crane-driver, William Thumwood, who was killed at the Delta Metal Works, Greenwich, when his crane fell from a jetty at East Greenwich on Friday last; whether his attention has been drawn to the disclosures at the inquest relative to the testing of the crane by an inspector of the General Accident and Fire Insurance Company; and what action he intends taking in the matter?
I have received a preliminary report on this accident. Further investigation is necessary, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to what action may prove desirable.
Transport
Motor Cases (Police Representation)
asked the Home Secretary whether he has had brought to his notice a letter, dated 11th November, 1934, from the clerk to the Croydon county petty sessional division of Surrey, calling attention to the inadequacy of legal representation of the Metropolitan police in motor cases; the reply of his department thereto dated 26th March, 1935; and the resolution of the same bench which was read in open court on 11th December, 1935; and what steps are being taken to remedy the situation disclosed?
Yes, Sir, I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that every effort is made to furnish legal aid to assist the Court in those cases in which it is deemed necessary for the proper presentation of the case. The views of the Croydon justices on this matter have been before the Commissioner and he is at present in communication with the Court on the subject.
New Bridge (Eccles-Salford)
asked the Minister of Transport what is the position with regard to the proposed new bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal between Eccles and Salford; and is he aware of the need for this bridge to relieve Barton and Trafford bridges and link up the new Lancashire road with Trafford Park and the South?
A proposal to construct a new north to south by-pass to the west of Manchester and Salford includes a new bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal between Eccles and Salford. No definite scheme has been submitted for my consideration, but I am aware of its general desirability and am prepared to give favourable consideration to any application for a grant from the Road Fund to a proposal which is favoured by the authorities concerned.
Headlights
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the new motor-car lighting regulations recently introduced by the French ministry of public works, by which it will be compulsory for all motorists in that country to use cadmium yellow headlights instead of white ones; and whether he is giving consideration to the advantages claimed for cadmium yellow light, with a view to introducing similar legislation in this country?
I am informed that no such regulations have actually been approved in France, but I have obtained from the French authorities a report on the subject.
Road Accidents
asked the Minister of Transport whether he regards the present returns of road fatalities as satisfactory; and, if not, what further measures he proposes?
While the figures for fatal accidents for 1935 show a reduction of about 11 per cent. as compared with the previous year, no one can rest content with the position. I cannot detail all the measures already taken or contemplated in the interests of greater safety in answer to a Parliamentary Question, but I regard a higher standard of road usage to be essential, for the solution of this problem is to be achieved not so much by the measures taken as by an increased sense of individual responsibility and a higher standard of road conduct.
Money Payments Act
asked the Home Secretary what action is generally being taken by magistrates to carry out under the Money Payments Act the investigations necessary, whether by the appointment of a special clerk, adding it to the duties of a probation officer or otherwise; and what course is recommended by the Home Office?
The Money Payments Act provides for the supervision of defaulters in certain cases, and in a circular sent to justices I have expressed the view that the probation officer is a suitable person to carry out duties of supervision. No provision was made in this Act for the appointment of any special officer to carry out investigations as to means, and before making any recommendation to justices on this subject I am awaiting the Report of the committee which is inquiring into the general organisation of social services connected with courts of summary jurisdiction, including the making of social investigations on behalf of the court and other work falling or likely to fall upon probation officers.
Is the right hon. Gentleman's advice being generally taken by benches?
I think the view that a probation officer is a suitable person is not opposed. The report of this Committee will throw a good deal of light as to the best way to do it. It may be expected next month.
Workmen's Compensation
asked the Home Secretary whether he will arrange that in future annual statistics on workmen's compensation legal and medical expenses shall be shown as separate items?
The Returns under the Workmen's Compensation Act on which the Annual Home Office Statistics are based cover only the compensation paid, and I am afraid there would be great difficulties in the way of obtaining the amount of the legal and medical expenses incurred by the various parties concerned. So far as regards Insurance Companies, I understand that for the group belonging to the Accident Offices Association, which includes most of the larger companies, legal expenses are estimated at 2½ per cent. and medical expenses as 1¾ per cent. of the premium income.
Education
Attendance Exemptions
asked the President of the Board of Education over what period have exemptions for school children over 14 been granted in Plymouth and Carnarvon; how many have been granted; what the total cost of maintenance grants has been; and what is the average cost per child?
As the answer contains a large number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the position in Plymouth and Carnarvon, and think well before he allows exemptions in his new Bill?
I have no doubt that if I do not bear it in mind, the Noble Lady will remind me.
In view of the Bill that is before the House will the right hon. Gentleman have a complete analysis of the exemptions in all areas so that he may come to some conclusion as to how the exemptions work?
All the information I have will be available.
Following is the answer:
The by-laws raising the school leaving age in Carnarvonshire and Plymouth from 14 to 15 came into operation on 1st January, 1925, and 2nd September, 1927, respectively. The board have no information as to the number of exemptions from attendance granted in those areas prior to 1st April, 1928, but from that date the numbers of children exempted at some time after attaining the age of 14 have been as follow:
Financial Year. Carnarvonshire. Plymouth. 1928–29 769 1,558 1929–30 279 1,330 1930–31 313 1,340 1931–32 247 1,619 1932–33 282 1,340 1933–34 362 1,729 1934–35 361 2,127
In the case of Plymouth no maintenance allowances were granted to children over 14 in attendance at public elementary schools during the above period.
Financial Year. Number of children over 14 who received maintenance allowances at any time during the year. Number of allowances current at the end of the year Cost. £ 1928–29 … … … 44 30 234 1929–30 … … … 165 140 597 1930–31 … … … 302 220 1,200 1931–32 … … … 389 180 1,395 1932–33 … … … 378 211 1,333 1933–34 … … … 428 195 1,347 1934–35 … … … Information not yet available. 325 1,808
The average cost per child assisted for the last year for which particulars are available was approximately £3 3s. The cost is shared equally between the Exchequer and the local education authority.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children who have entered unregulated trades in those areas where exemptions have been permitted, together with the total number of children granted exemptions?
I regret that the information at my disposal does not enable me to give a complete or exact answer to the hon. Member's question. It would appear however that in the areas in which a by-law requiring attendance at school till 15 was in operation, out of the 10,500 children exempted during 1934–35, about 10 per cent., were employed as messengers or van boys, or in warehouses.
Transport Facilities (Grant)
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the increase of the transport to school grant announced in the recent circular applies to the conveyance of children to all types of schools, including special schools?
The increase of the grant for conveyance to 40 per cent., announced in Circular 1444, applies to elementary schools. Where conveyance is provided to other types of schools, including special schools, the cost already ranks for grant at 50 per cent.
The numbers of such allowances granted in Carnarvonshire, and the expenditure thereon, have been as follow:
School-Leaving Age (Statistics)
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of boys and girls who, at the age of 14, left the elementary schools in December, 1934, and December, 1935?
As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
I regret that the particulars which the Board receive regarding the pupils who leave the elementary schools relate only to the year ending 31st March. The numbers who left on attaining the age of exemption from compulsory school attendance for reasons other than further education in the years ended 31st March, 1934, and 31st March, 1935, were as follow:
Year ended 31st March, 1934— Boys. Girls. Total. 223,272 225,336 448,608 Year ended 31st March, 1935— Boys. Girls. Total. 221,270 223,694 444,964
Nutrition Surveys
asked the President of the Board of Education, in view of his Departmental circular on free meals and free milk for underfed school children, whether any education authorities are acting on his advice to hold periodically nutrition surveys at which all children not receiving free meals would be passed under review; and whether he can give the names of such authorities?
I understand that certain local education authorities have acted, or propose to act, on the Board's suggestions that periodical nutrition surveys should be held at which children not receiving meals would be passed under review. I am afraid, however, that I have no information about the number of these authorities, but I understand that the areas in which complete or partial surveys have been or will be held include Swansea, Gateshead, Norwich, Liverpool and Workington.
Contributory Pensions
asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to introduce legislation dealing with the difficulties in connection with the Widows' and Old Age Pensions Acts which hae arisen; and, if so, when he hopes to do so?
I am not aware of difficulties in connection with the widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions scheme which make amending legislation desirable, but if my hon. Friend will let me know the particular difficulties he has in mind, I will be glad to consider them.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman know of the serious anomaly of the widow who gets a pension whose husband never contributed at all and of the thousands of widows who have not received a pension whose husbands did contribute; and is he also aware of the case of the men reaching 65 years of age and getting the contributory pension whose wives are 63 or 64 years of age and are not in receipt of it?
If the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) will read the question, he will see that the hon. Gentleman is not asking me about whether any extensions of the Act are necessary, but it relates, as I understand it, to administrative difficulties.
Housing Associations
39 and 40.
asked the Minister of Health (1) what arrangements are being made to establish housing associations under the 1935 Housing Act; and how such associations when formed, are to be financed;
(2) what figure per house is to be granted to housing associations, and for what period?
The Exchequer assistance provided under the Housing Acts, 1930 and 1935, is made available to housing associations through the medium of local authorities by Section 27 of the Act of 1935. I hope that full use will be made of this Section, and that it will lead to a substantial extension in the operations of these associations. The amount of the grant payable by the local authority to the association is a matter for arrangement between the two bodies, subject to my approval.
Are we to understand that in future every local authority will he compelled to become members of a housing association before they can get any assistance from the Government?
I do not think that my answer would bear that out, but if the hon. Gentleman will put his question on the Paper, I will answer it.
Deaf and Dumb Persons
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider introducing legislation that will place deaf and dumb persons in a similar position under the social services as the blind?
I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on this subject on 16th December to the hon. Member for West Toxteth (Mr. Gibbins) of which I am sending him a copy. For the reasons there stated, I am not at present satisfied that there is need for such legislation as is suggested in the question.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the industrial depression, deaf and dumb persons on reaching 14 years of age are having very great difficulty in finding any employment at all, and that charitable organisations have done very little for the deaf and dumb compared with what they have done for the blind?
Yes, but I would like the hon. Gentleman to study this report, if he will, and I will gladly consider it with him later.
Public Health
Water Supplies (Grants)
44 and 46.
asked the Minister of Health (1), the number of applications received in respect of water supplies and the total amount of grants up to the end of January last, and also the number of grants that have been given for areas where the rates, previous to a proposed scheme, have been under 10s. in the £;
(2) the total number of cases in which applications for grants in respect of water supplies have been refused?
Up to the end of January last, applications had been received in respect of 876 schemes relating to 2,227 parishes. Grants totalling £831,000 had been provisionally allocated in respect of 550 schemes for 1,707 parishes, including 182 schemes where, previous to the proposed scheme, the rates were less than 10s. in the £. Grants had been refused in respect of 190 schemes on the ground that they were not needed to enable the schemes to be carried out.
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the New Forest Rural District Council is included in this list?
I will inquire into that matter and communicate with my hon. Friend.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that we want a better distribution of the water just as we do of the wealth?
The water has been plentifully distributed lately.
Typhoid Fever (Langwith, Derbyshire)
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that an outbreak of typhoid fever is affecting a number of persons residing in the village of Langwith, Derbyshire, in the area controlled by the Blackwell Rural District Council; and what steps have been taken to deal with the matter?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, on the recommendation of my Department the previous source of the water supply to this village has now been abandoned in favour of one which, it is believed, is free from pollution, and I hope that there will be no recurrence of the outbreak.
Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is running water in most of the houses in that village?
No. I am afraid that I must ask for notice of that question.
Floods (Pinxton)
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the frequent floodings from a canal on one side and a polluted river on the other of houses situate in Meadow Rams, Pinxton, Derbyshire, endangering the health of the inhabitants and giving rise to great inconvenience; and is he satisfied that proper progress is being made by the Blackwell Rural District Council in dealing with the matter?
My attention has not previously been drawn to this matter. I will make inquiries and let the hon. Member know the result.
Mental Treatment
asked the Minister of Health what was the increase, if any, in proportion to the population, in the number of persons receiving mental treatment in private homes and State and voluntary hospitals, in the years 1900, 1920, 1930, and 1935, respectively; and whether there was in every case sufficient accommodation for those requiring treatment?
The number of persons per 10,000 of population receiving mental treatment in the places indicated was:
Committee on Ministers' Powers (Report)
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to give the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss fully the Report of the Committee on Minister's Powers during the lifetime of the present Parliament; and, if so, can he give any indication when?
I fear I can hold out no hope of time being given for a discussion of the report referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. I may add, however, that the views expressed are being borne in mind in relation to current legislation as occasion arises.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members in this House do not consider that these recommendations are being carried out, and that being so, could not my right hon. Friend really seriously consider whether an opportunity can be given to discuss this very important report?
There are many things that are important, and I have given an answer as far as I can see ahead. I can give no undertaking with regard to the present Parliament— that would be absurd—but I am quite clear that in the present Session of Parliament there can be no possibility at all of giving a day for this purpose.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling on the matter outside this House?
No, I think not.
National Health Insurance
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the desirability of arranging that spa treatment shall be an additional benefit under National Health Insurance?
The present list of additional benefits affords to approved societies a wide variety of forms of remedial treatment, and in fact the surplus funds of societies available as a result of the last valuation have already been allocated on this basis. The addition of spa treatment was considered but was not selected. If before the date of the next valuation I have evidence that there is a fairly widespread desire on the part of societies for the suggested addition, I will give the matter further consideration.
Has not the right hon. Gentleman recently had a good many representations from societies on this subject?
Yes, Sir, that is so.
Public Assistance (Putney, Roehampton and Southfields)
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the local public assistance committee is closing the offices of Relief District No. 23, covering Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, and transferring them to the Swaffield institution this month, which is out of the area; and, in view of the hardships which this will cause to the applicants for relief owing to the long distance they will have to travel in future, costing applicants from Roehamptan 8d. return and from Putney Common 6d. return, will he remedy this?
My attention had not previously been drawn to these arrangements, which do not require my sanction. I understand that the change is necessitated by the bad condition of the existing relief offices, and that the new premises will be conveniently situated for the great majority of applicants in the area which they will serve. I am assured that if the new arrangements prove unsatisfactory in any respect they will be further considered.
Local Authorities (Loans)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a growing number of important municipalities are needing to float public loan issues; and will he use his good offices to facilitate all possible preference being given to them?
While the Treasury are not directly concerned with the arrangements to which the hon. Member refers, it is in accordance with the general policy of the Government that local authorities should receive every facility for enabling them to take advantage of the present cheapness of money to borrow for approved purposes. But the hon. Member will realise that these facilities cannot be allowed to deprive other borrowers such as the Crown Colonies, the Dominions and public utility undertakings of access to the markets.
Gold (Imports)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the declared value of the retained imports of gold bullion and coin in 1932 to 1935, inclusive, totalled £414,000,000, and that during the same period the gold reserve of the Bank of England had in creased by only £75,000,000; how much of the difference between these two figures arises from the fact that gold bullion is valued at the market price for gold; and what steps he is taking to ensure that that part of the imported gold which has not gone into the Bank of England is being used for the promotion of trade through the ordinary processes of banking?
The value at to-day's market price of the gold added to the reserve of the Bank of England in the last four years would be about £131,000,000. But it would be highly misleading to seek to relate the credit structure of this country to the figures of the net imports of gold as shown in the Customs returns which do not necessarily represent the transfer of gold to or from British ownership.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has happened to the missing £300,000,000?
I cannot.
Old Age Pensions
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered the resolution adopted by the council of the city of Newcastle-on-Tyne recommending that in the case of an old age pensioner who has to be admitted to and maintained in an institution provided out of public funds and thereby becomes disqualified from the receipt of the old age pension, the local authority responsible for the maintenance of the pensioner should be reimbursed to the extent of the amount of such pension and that the Old Age Pensions Acts should be so amended as to provide for the adoption of this course; and what action does he propose to take?
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the reason why local authorities maintaining in their institutions recipients of old age pensions are not reimbursed for their out lay, at all events to the extent of the old age pension which the said recipients normally receive when outside the institution?
The payment of old age pensions in the case of inmates of Poor Law institutions was considered by the Departmental Committee on Old Age Pensions in 1919 who were not in favour of payment of the pension in such cases to the local authority on the ground that the pension would become
"an additional and irregular grant in aid of local expenditure based on no fixed principle."
I cannot give any undertaking that the Government will introduce legislation on the subject.
Agriculture
Beet Sugar Factories (Amalgamation)
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the capital for the proposed capitalisation of British beet sugar factories is to be British capital?
A scheme for the voluntary amalgamation of the existing beet sugar manufacturing companies has been prepared by the Beet Sugar Factories Committee, and is at present being examined by the Interim Tribunal which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have appointed to advise us on this matter. Pending a report from the Tribunal, who are still engaged in conversations with representa- tives of the industry, I am not in a position to give any details as to the terms of the proposed amalgamation.
Will the right hon. Gentleman pay more attention to the tribunal than he did to the committee that he set up to deal with this question?
Milch Cows (Hire Purchase)
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the recent increase in the purchases of milch cows on the hire-purchase system; and whether he will consider whether this system should be allowed to develop without any limitation, in view of the difficulty of obtaining a remunerative price for milk at the present time in consequence of the excess of supply over demand?
I am aware that it has been stated that the practice of purchasing milch cows on the hire-purchase system is extending. The matter is not one, however, in which I have power to intervene in any way.
Livestock Industry
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now make any statement upon the announced long-term policy for the assistance of the livestock industry?
My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that I have not at present anything to add to the reply I gave on Tuesday last to questions by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), of which I am sending him a copy.
Farina and Dextrine
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any progress has yet been made in the establishment in this country of factories to produce farina and dextrine from potatoes?
So far as I am aware, no new proposals have been made for the establishment in this country of factories for the production of farina and dextrine from potatoes. My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware that there is a production in this country of dextrine from imported farina.
Trade and Commerce
Empire Shipping Services
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth of Australia, and New Zealand propose to take to aid the maintenance of Empire shipping services between Australia, New Zealand, San Francisco, and Vancouver?
As I informed my hon. Friend on 17th December, the understanding is that in view of their special interest in the subject, His Majesty's Governments in New Zealand and the Commonwealth of Australia are considering what action they can take to deal with the position. I have no information at present regarding their intentions.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to make some statement on this matter, and can he give an assurance that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will take the lead in this vital matter?
I do not know when action is likely to be taken by the Australian and New Zealand Governments, and therefore I can give no undertaking.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is of vital interest to this country to keep open communications through the Empire with Australia and Canada, and will he see that this country is represented at any conference that takes place in Australia or New Zealand?
I cannot make any promise in regard to any conference in Australia or New Zealand, but we are always prepared to discuss the matter here.
Argentina
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amounts of the duties on British bicycles entering the Argentine Republic?
Bicycles with wheels exceeding 61 centimetres in diameter are liable to a total duty of 20.16 gold pesos each on importation into Argentina. The duty on other sizes is 8.40 gold pesos.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these duties are in the neighbourhood of about 150 per cent. on the value of the bicycle, and will he make representations to the Argentine Government?
I cannot verify the hon. Member's calculations, as I do not know the value of the bicycles.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to give notice of the termination of the trade agreement with the Argentine Republic on or before 7th May of this year?
The question of the future of this Agreement is receiving the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is of vital importance to the agricultural industry of this country that this Agreement should be terminated at the earliest possible moment?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the House will have an early opportunity of discussing this very important question?
Fixed Trusts
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the report of the Stock Exchange committee on the subject of fixed trusts; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation dealing with this matter?
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the report by the committee of the Stock Exchange on 2nd January that full protection for the public in respect of fixed trusts can only be achieved by legislation, he will state whether it is proposed to act on the report, either by introducing legislation specifically applicable to fixed trusts or by bringing them within the provisions of the Companies Acts?
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the interim report of the sub-commitee of the committee of the Stock Exchange on fixed trusts, in which the sub-committee state as their conclusion that the full measure of protection to which the public is entitled can only be achieved by legislation which can be universally enforced; and whether he proposes to introduce a Bill to deal with this matter?
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether ho has considered the report of the Stock Exchange sub-committee relating to the regulation of fixed trusts, in which it is stated that full protection for the public can only be achieved by legislation; and whether he is proposing to take any action in the matter?
I have this matter under active consideration and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.
Third Party and Employers Liability Risks (Departmental Committee)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the legal obligation to insure against third party and employers liability risks, he will institute an inquiry into the law governing the carrying on of the business of such compulsory insurance?
Yes, Sir, I have decided to appoint a Departmental Committee with the following terms of reference:
"To consider and report whether any, and if so what, changes in the existing law relating to the carrying on of the business of insurance are desirable in the light of statutory provisions relating to compulsory insurance against third party risks and by employers against liability to their workmen."
I am circulating a list of the Members of the Committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Sir Felix Cassel, formerly a Member of this House and lately Judge Advocate-General to the Forces, has consented to be the chairman of the Committee.
Following are the members of the Committee referred to:
Sir Felix Cassel, Bart., K.C., Chairman.
Mr. S. J. Aubrey, late Chairman of Lloyd's.
Captain H. Balfour, M.C., Hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet.
Mr. F. H. E, Branson, LL.B.
Mr. E. Clement Davies, K.C., Hon. Member for Montgomery.
Mr. G. S. W. Epps, C.B., C.B.E., Deputy Government Actuary.
Mr. C. Hendry, Chairman of the British Insurance Association.
Sir Charles Hipwood, K.B.E., C.B., formerly Second Secretary to the Board of Trade.
Sir Percy MacKinnon, formerly Chairman of Lloyd's.
Mr. R. E. Margetts, General Manager of the Monmouthshire and South Wales Employers' Mutual Indemnity Association, Limited.
Mr. E. H. S. Marker, Comptroller, Companies Department, Board of Trade.
Lieut.-Colonel J. T. C. Moore-Brabazon, M.C., Hon. Member for Wallasey.
Mr. W. W. Otter-Barry, Deputy Chairman of the British Insurance Association.
Mr. A. Ralph Reed, Chairman and Managing Director of Albert E. Reed and Co., Ltd.
Mr. W. R. Smith, formerly Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.
Royal Air Force
Bombing Practice (Holy Island)
asked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether any decision has been taken on the proposal to demarcate places north, south, and west of Holy Island, Northumberland, as areas for bombing practice by night and day from the air?
asked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the widespread objection to the use of the area near Holy Island for the purpose of bombing practice; and whether he will find some other place that will satisfy his needs?
As my Noble Friend wishes at the earliest possible moment to put the House in possession of all the facts relating to the selection of a site for machine gunnery and bombing practice off the coast of Northumberland, I will, with the permission of the House, circulate a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My Noble Friend has invited representatives of the various interests concerned to meet him on the matter shortly.
Will the report also deal with other places on the East Coast where people recently almost lost their lives through this practice?
Perhaps the hon. Member will wait until he sees the statement.
Following is the statement:
The proposal for establishing a range for bombing and machine-gun practice in the neighbourhood of Holy Island forms part of a comprehensive scheme for providing the increased training facilities required for the expansion of the Royal Air Force. The practices for which it is necessary to arrange consist of bombing with live and dummy bombs and firing with machine-guns at towed targets in the air and fixed targets on the ground. For this purpose seven bombing and firing ranges are needed in addition to those already in existence, and at present, in spite of an exhaustive investigation, only three sites have been found, at Chesil Bank, near Weymouth, Hell's Mouth, Carnarvonshire, and Luce Bay, near Stranraer. The vital importance of these practice grounds to the Royal Air Force and the very great difficulty of obtaining sites, which fulfil the necessary Service conditions and at the same time do not cause serious loss or inconvenience to local and other interests, is I think generally appreciated.
The investigation of possible sites in the neighbourhood of Holy Island was undertaken as a result of difficulties which were encountered with regard to a site previously selected at Druridge Bay, about 30 miles to the south of Holy Island. The natural features of the former site are particularly well suited for training purposes and Druridge Bay is large enough to accommodate a range double the size of that contemplated at any site which has so far been found. When, however, the suggestion for a range in Druridge Bay was put forward in March, 1935, considerable objection was raised on behalf of the fishing interests. The matter was discussed with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and representatives of the local fishery authorities, and it was contended that the closing of a large part of the bay would entail hardship to the fishermen normally employed in this area. On behalf of the Air Ministry it was pointed out that the location of an aerodrome in the neighbourhood, at which some 500 men would be stationed, would bring employment to the district. Nevertheless, in order if possible to avoid interference with an established industry, it was decided to investigate in detail the bays to the north and south of Holy Island, which were suggested by the fishery representatives as more suitable from their point of view. This area was not so suitable for a range and it was recognised that in preparing a layout it would be necessary to avoid undue proximity to Holy Island and the Fame Islands.
Investigation has shown that it is only possible to provide the practices required by the combined use of three separate areas, to the north-west, south and southeast of Holy Island. Off Goswick Sands, to the north-west, a sea area would be required for machine-gun firing at towed targets in the air. To the south, at Fenham Flats, a small area would be used for dropping light practice bombs which only emit a small puff of smoke for marking purposes and contain no explosive charge. At Budle Bay, to the south-east, machine-gun firing would be carried out against targets on the ground and bombing at targets in the sea. In planning the range care has been taken to avoid proximity to the bird-sanctuary on the Fame Islands; no target would be located within 3½ miles of the nearest of these islands, the main group being considerably more distant.
Objections have been raised to the establishment of a range in this district, on account of the religious and historical associations attaching to Holy Island, and of the presence of a bird-sanctuary on the Fame Islands; it has also been urged that the proposal would interfere with fishing and would deprive the district of its advantages as a holiday resort.
In order that the exact nature of the proposals of the Air Ministry may be explained, and the alternative sites and relative advantages and disadvantages may be fully discussed, the Secretary of State for Air has invited representatives of the following bodies to a conference on 17th February:—
The National Trust.
The Council for the Preservation of Rural England.
The Natural History Society of Northumberland, Durham and New-castle-on-Tyne
The Society of Antiquaries of New-castle-on-Tyne.
The Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee.
The Coquet Fishery Board.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
The Lord Lieutenant of Northumberland, the Duke of Northumberland, the Bishop of Newcastle, and representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and of the riparian owners on the River Coquet will also attend.
Recruitment
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether there has been an increase or decrease in the number of recruits for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Air Force Reserve since the imposition of sanctions by the League of Nations?
Recruiting is controlled to keep pace with the training programme, and a comparison of numbers before and after any specific date would therefore be fallacious. I may, however, say that numbers are being well maintained at present and that there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions has had any effect upon the figures.
Territorial Army Officers (Transfers)
asked the Undersecretary of State for Air the conditions under which officers of the Territorial Army may transfer to squadrons of the auxiliary Air Force?
There are no special arrangements or conditions for such transfer.
Is it not a fact that these officers entirely lose their seniority on transfer, and therefore, if they are to be encouraged to enter these flying units is it not desirable that this should be stopped?
Aviation
"City of Khartoum."
asked the Under secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make with regard to the "City of Khartoum" flying-boat disaster; and is he satisfied that Imperial Airways' pilots, who are encouraged to carry the maximum weight in their machines, have sufficient petrol to meet unexpected contingencies?
The coroner's inquest and the Inspector of Accidents' investigation regarding the accident are not yet completed, and I cannot make any statement while the matter is thus sub judice. The conclusions of the Inspector of Accidents will, of course, be published later in accordance with normal practice. I should add with regard to the general question of adequacy of fuel supply that the Air Navigation Order (Schedule II, Paragraph 9) lays down that
"The person in charge of the aircraft shall satisfy himself before commencing any flight that sufficient fuel, oil and water are carried for the proposed flight."
While it would obviously be improper for me to deal with any matters which come within the scope of the present investigations, I think I ought to say that the standing instructions given by Imperial Airways to their pilots direct them to see that this Regulation is complied with.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are pilots on this route who definitely consider that they have not sufficient petrol to meet unexpected eventualities, such as a head wind or where they have to fly high?
Is it not wholly wrong that the responsibility of seeing that there is sufficient petrol on the machines should be placed on the pilots, especially in view of the fact, as was shown in connection with the "City of Khartoum" disaster, that the airships are very often overladen with food and drink?
"and drink."
I cannot say anything further about this accident while it is still the subject of judicial inquiry.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will give the full report when he receives it, even if the report is detrimental to Imperial Airways?
The House will be put in full possession of the conclusions.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that in renewing the subsidies of Imperial Airways he will bear this matter in mind?
As the presentation of the report may take some time yet, will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made in the meantime, to satisfy himself?
A court of inquiry is being held into the whole matter.
Australian Services
asked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether he has yet been advised of the policy of His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia with regard to the recent proposals for the development of imperial air services?
His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth have informed His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of certain features in the Empire air transport scheme over which they feel difficulties, and have made certain counter-proposals. These representations are now under consideration, and I shall not be in a position to make any statement until matters have been further elucidated with the Commonwealth authorities.
May we take it that there is still every hope that the Commonwealth authorities will yet come into the scheme which the Under-Secretary outlined to the House?
We all hope so.
South Africa (German Propaganda)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any steps are being taken to counteract the continual German Fascist propaganda which is being carried on in the Union of South Africa and the attempts to create anti-British feeling?
This matter is one entirely for His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa.
Is the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs aware that this is part of a deliberate policy in preparation for a re-division of the world?
Empire Settlement Board
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the names of the unofficial members of the Empire Settlement Board; and whether arrangements have been made for the meeting of this Board?
I am not yet in a position to give the information asked for, but I hope to be able to do so at an early date.
List of the Press Laws of the Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandated Territories. Colony, etc. Number and Year of Law, etc. Title. Antigua … … — See Leeward Islands Bahamas … … Cap. 275, Revised Edition, 1929. The Printing of Papers and Books Act. Barbados … … Act No 300, 1900 The Registration of Newspapers Act, 1900. British Guiana … Cap. 81, Revised Edition. 1930. The Newspapers Ordinance. British Honduras … Cap. 112, Revised Edition, 1924. The Newspapers Ordinance. Ceylon … … No. 5 of 1889 … The Printing and Publishing of Newspapers Regulation Ordinance, 1839 No. 16 of 1902 … The Printing Presses Regulation Ordinance, 1902. Cyprus … … No. 26 of 1934 … The Newspaper, Books and Printing Presses Law, 1934, and Amending Law, 1934. No. 49 of 1934 … Dominica … … — See Leeward Islands. Federated Malay States. No. 17 of 1915 … The Printing and Books Enactment, 1915, and Amending Enactment, 1924. No. 13 of 1924 … No. 14 of 1924 … The Printing Presses Enactment, 1924, and Amending Enactment, 1930. No. 26 of 1930 … Fiji … … … No. 1 of 1895 … The Newspaper Registration Ordinance, 1895, and Amending Ordinance, 1931. No. 2 of 1931 … Gibraltar … … No. 1 of 1869 … The Press Ordinance, 1869. Gold Coast … … Cap. 116, Revised Edition, 1928. The Newspaper Registration Ordinance. Hong Kong … … No. 25 of 1927 The Printers and Publishers Ordinance, 1927, and Amending Ordinances, 1930, 1933 and 1934. No. 1 of 1930 No. 3 of 1933 No. 28 of 1934 Jamaica … … No. 7 of 1908 … The Licences upon Trades and Business Law, 1908, Sec. 16. Johore … … — See Unfederated Malay States. Kedah … … — See Unfederated Malay States. Kelantan … … — See Unfederated Malay States. Kenya … … Cap. 74, Revised Edition, 1926. The Book and Newspaper Registration Ordinance. Leeward Islands, Antigua. No. 2 of 1883 The Newspaper Registration Act, 1883. Dominica … … No. 89 of 1848 … The Newspapers Act, 1848. No. 3 of 1909 The Newspaper Surety Ordinance, 1909. Montserrat … … No. 2 of 1909 … The Newspaper Surety Ordinance, 1909. St. Christopher and Nevis. No. 2 of 1877 … The Newspapers Act, 1877. No. 3 of 1909 … The Newspaper Surety Ordinance, 1909.
Press Laws (Colonies, Protectorates, Etc.)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the names of those parts of the British Empire under his Department's administration where press laws are in existence, distinguishing between them in each particular case?
As the reply is in the form, of a tabular statement, it is being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the statement:
Colony, etc. Number and Year of Law, etc. Title. Virgin Islands … No. 3 of 1909 … The Newspaper Surety Ordinance, 1909. Malta … … No. 5 of 1933 … The Press Law of 1933 and Amending Ordinances 1934 and 1935. No. 1 of 1934 … Nos. 32 and 37 of 1935. Mauritius … … No. 6 of 1837 … An Ordinance for the purpose…of Establishing the Formalities and Conditions to be complied with previously to the publication of every newspaper or periodical writing. Montserrat … … — See Leeward Islands. Nigeria … … Cap. 149, Revised Edition, 1923. The Newspaper Ordinance. No. 21 of 1933 … The Printing Presses Regulation Ordinance, 1933, and Amending Ordinance, 1933. No. 28 of 1934. … Palestine … … No. 3 of 1933 … The Press Ordinance, 1933. Perles … … — See Unfederated Malay States. St. Christopher and Nevis. — See Leeward Islands. St. Helens … … No. 2 of 1851 … The Newspapers Ordinance, 1851. St. Lucia … … No. 105, Revised Edition, 1916. The Newspapers Publication Ordinance. St. Vincent … … No. 23 of 1935 … The Newspapers Control Ordinance, 1935. Seychelles … … No. 20 of 1935 … The Newspaper Ordinance, 1935. Sierra Leone … Cap. 66, Revised Edition, 1925. The False Publications Ordinance. Cap. 136, Revised Edition, 1925. The Newspapers Ordinance. Straits Settlements … No. 1, Revised Edition, 1926, The Printing Presses Ordinance, and Amending Ordinance, 1930. No. 7 of 1930. No. 2, Revised Edition, 1930. The Printers and Publishers Ordinance. Tanganyika Territory Cap. 99, Revised Edition, 1928. The Newspaper Ordinance. Transjordan … … — The Press Law, 1928, and Amending Laws, 1933 and 1934 Trengganu … … — See Unfederated Malay States. Trinidad … … No. 4 of 1935 … The Newspapers Ordinance, 1935. Uganda Protectorate Cap. 123, Revised Edition, 1923. The Newspaper Surety Ordinance. Unfederated Malay States— Johore … … No. 7 of 1930 … The Printing Presses Enactment, 1930. No. 9 of 1931 … The Printing and Publication Enactment, 1931. Kedah … … No. 16 of 1348 … The Printing Presses Enactment, 1348, and Amending Enactment, 1350 No. 5 of 1350 … Kelantan … … No. 5 of 1931 … The Printing Presses and Seditious Publications Enactment, 1931. Perlis … … No. 12 of 1351 … The Printing Presses Enactment, 1351. Trengganu … No. 5 of 1352 … The Printing Presses and Seditious Publications Enactment, 1352.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the names of those parts of the British Empire under his Department's administration where newspapers are compelled to publish without charge and without question any communications issued by the Government of the day?
The laws of Cyprus, Palestine and the Seychelles include provision for the compulsory publication free of charge in newspapers of communications from the Government which are in the opinion of the Government, in the public interest.
Does the hon. and gallant Member not agree that this method of regulating the Press in the Colonies is rather too faithful a copy of the methods of Messrs. Hitler and Mussolini?
Contempt of Court
asked the Attorney-General how many persons have been punished by fine, imprisonment, or payment of costs each year for the past 10 years for contempt of court; and whether the Government will consider including such figures annually in future civil, judicial, or criminal statistics?
There are no available statistics. I will bring my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the fact that existing procedure in cases of alleged contempt of court makes no provision for defence, trial by jury, appeal, or pardon, and that there is no limit to the fine or sentence of imprisonment that may be imposed, he will refer to the Law Revision Committee the question of abolishing the offence or of modifying the procedure so as to bring it into line with ordinary methods of trial?
I am not clear as to the circumstances which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. In cases of contempt out of court the person charged is given a full opportunity of being heard himself or by counsel.
Kenya (Taxation)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the extent to which tax resistance exists amongst the Kikiyu, Kavirondo and coast areas of Kenya, and the cause of the revolt?
My right hon. Friend has seen nothing recently beyond statements in the Press, and he is unable to say how far there is any attempt at evading taxation. There is no justification for using the word "revolt." The Governor of Kenya has appointed a committee to examine the system of native taxation and my right hon. Friend proposes to await the result of its investigations.
Has the hon. and gallant Member any information as to when the report will be available?
I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.
Can the hon. and gallant Member say how many reports we have had upon taxation in Kenya during the last 10 years?
Not without notice.
Palestine (Traffic in Arms)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that secret arming is going on at a rapid rate in Palestine, both by Jews and Arabs; that Arab, Japanese, and Greek agents are helping to import cheap arms into the country, mainly through the north and east; and what action is being taken by the Government to stop it?
My right hon. Friend is aware of the existence of an illicit traffic in arms in Palestine. He can assure the hon. and gallant Member that all possible steps are being taken and will continue to be taken by the authorities to check this traffic.
Can the hon. and gallant Member say what is the object of these particular people arming?
Coal Industry
Gresford Colliery Explosion
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is issuing the report into the circumstances of the Gresford Colliery explosion; and whether a copy of the evidence given in the proceedings will be made available to Members, of Parliament?
The position is that the court of inquiry which is to make the report stands adjourned with the purpose of completing the hearing of evidence when the explosion area which is sealed off by stoppings can be re-entered and examined. The evidence already taken is very long, and it is not proposed to publish it, but if hon. Members wish I will arrange for a copy of the typescript to be available in the Library.
Is the Secretary for Mines aware that there was an arrangement with his predecessor that an interim report should be issued dealing with this very serious disaster?
I am afraid that I cannot answer offhand the arrangement made by my predecessor, but I will look into the matter.
China-Clay Industey (Employment)
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons employed in the china-clay industry in December, 1931, and December, 1935; and also the number registered as unemployed from the industry in the same period?
In December, 1931, the number of wage-earners employed at mines and quarries in the china-clay industry was 3,150. The corresponding figure for December, 1935, is not yet available. Particulars of unemployment in the china-clay industry are not separately available.
British Army
Recruiting
asked the Secretary of State for War whether there has been an increase or decrease in the number of recruits for the Army and Territorials since the imposition of sanctions by the League of Nations?
The recruiting figures for the last three months show some falling-off as compared with the corresponding period a year ago, but I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend would be justified in connecting this with the imposition of sanctions. There has, in fact, been a general falling-off in recruiting during the last 12 months.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has been the actual falling off in the recruiting for the Regular Army during the period in question?
I cannot give exact figures without notice.
Singapore Garrison
asked the Secretary of State for War what progress is being made with the provision of accommodation for the expanded garrison of Singapore?
Accommodation will be ready in time for the additional Royal Artillery and Royal Engineer personnel to be despatched next trooping season. As regards the two additional infantry battalions, barracks for one of these will be ready in April next, but those for the other will take a further year to complete.
British Broadcasting Corporation
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed to introduce legislation in the present Session altering and renewing the charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation?
No legislation would be required in the circumstances contemplated in the hon. Member's question.
Tibet (Me. Williamson's Death)
asked the Under secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the political officer in Sikkim died at Lhasa on 19th November, 1935; whether Mr. Williamson was on a diplomatic mission to Tibet at the time of his death; what was the object of his mission; and whether it is the intention of the Government of India to appoint representative to reside permanently at Lhasa?
Mr. Williamson's much regretted death occurred on 17th November last, while he was on a visit to Lhasa. During recent years such visits have been paid at intervals by the Political Officer in Sikkim at the invitation of the Tibetan authorities, with a view to maintaining the cordial relations which exist between the British and Tibetan Governments. The appointment of a representative to reside permanently at Lhasa is not under contemplation.
Is the Under-Secretary aware of the fact that the Japanese Press maintains that Great Britain is preparing to appoint a puppet Llama in Tibet in the same way as they have appointed a puppet Emperor in Manchuquo, and is he prepared to make a statement? Are the British Government preparing to bring a Llama into Tibet out of China?
I think the hon. Member need have no fears that these somewhat exaggerated rumours have the foundation which he believes.
Germany (Refugees)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen the report of the Refugees Commissioner, Mr. MacDonald; and whether the Government propose to take any action to bring the indictment in the report before the notice of the German Government?
As regards the first part of the question, I presume that the hon. Member refers to the letter addressed on 27th December last to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, by Mr. J. G. MacDonald resigning the High Commissionership for Refugees (Jewish and other) coming from Germany. A copy of the letter was subsequently forwarded to His Majesty's Government, as well as to the Governments of other League members, by the Secretary-General of the League. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
Are we to understand that the League proposes to take no action in the matter?
That is a matter for the League.
Can the Noble Lord say whether it is proposed that the Government should take steps to influence the League to take action in this matter?
As I say, it is entirely a matter for the League, and, in any case, I doubt very much whether representations such as the hon. Gentleman suggests would have any effect.
Is it possible for the Noble Lord to state on behalf of the Government what is the policy of the Government in relation to this matter?
I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice. It is a much larger question.
If a similar question is put down again in a week's time, shall we be able to get an answer from the Government as to what their policy is?
Egypt (Financial Assistance)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what funds are being provided from British sources to cover the expenditure for the exceptional measures of dredging Alexandria harbour and for the construction of a railway line from Fuka westwards to Matruh; whether this financial assistance has been requested by the Egyptian Government; how much the estimated expenditure amounts to and from what sources the money is being found; and whether Britain will acquire any control over the harbour or the railway line?
The answer to the first three parts of the question is as follows:
The estimated expenditure for the additional dredging of Alexandria Harbour is 20,000 Egyptian pounds and His Majesty's Government have spontaneously offered to contribute a sum not exceeding 10,000 Egyptian pounds. The estimated cost of the Fuka-Matruh Railway is 94,000 Egyptian pounds and His Majesty's Government have offered towards that expenditure a sum not exceeding 20,000 pounds sterling. The Egyptian Government are contributing the remainder. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
Is the Noble Lord aware that this question is causing very much discontent among the people of Egypt and contributing to the disturbances which are taking place just now?
Danzig
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement as to the negotiations between the League and the Government of Danzig; and, more particularly, what has been done to secure freedom of the Press and to stop confiscations?
I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend to a question put by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander), to which I have nothing to add.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what date a general election is next due in the free city of Danzig?
According to the Danzig Constitution, the Popular Assembly is elected for a period of four years but may in certain circumstances be dissolved before the end of that period. The last elections in Danzig were held in April, 1935, and fresh elections are thus not normally due till April, 1939.
Is it not a fact that the last elections were held to be irregular in certain respects?
That, I think, is a completely different question. It is not concerned, as I understand it, with the dissolution but with the invalidation of an election.
May not the irregularities of the last election accelerate the date of the next election?
Italy and Abyssinia
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress, if any, has been made in examining the efficacy and practicability of an embargo on the import of petroleum into the guilty State?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on this subject last Tuesday, to which I have nothing to add.
Can my Noble Friend state what is the effect of the attitude of the United States in this matter?
I think my hon. Friend had better await the report of the committee.
Manchuria (Oil Supplies)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has yet been reached as to the amount of compensation which he will seek to obtain for British interests which have suffered in consequence of the oil monopoly established by Japan in Manchukuo?
No decision has yet been reached in this matter. The question of compensation is under discussion between the British interests concerned and the Manchurian authorities; I understand that nothing concrete has as yet emerged from these discussions.
Royal Navy
Recruiting
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether there has been an increase or decrease in the number of recruits for the Royal Navy, Royal Naval Reserve, and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve since the imposition of sanctions by the League of Nations?
The number of new applicants to join the Royal Navy and the number of recruits entered have remained normal. The numbers entered in the Royal Naval Reserve during the months October, 1935, to January, 1936, show a decrease over the corresponding period for the previous year, but the higher figure is accounted for by a special recruiting drive and by less employment at that time in the Merchant Navy and the fishing industry. The numbers entered for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve show a slight increase during the months October, 1935, to January, 1936, as compared with the corresponding period in the previous year.
Can my Noble Friend say whether the League of Nations Union has yet commenced its recruiting campaign?
Aircraft Carriers
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether we have any more seaplane carriers being constructed; and will the laying down of any further ships of that sort be postponed pending the decision of Parliament and the proper consideration of the lessons of the last four months in the Mediterranean?
One aircraft carrier, the "Ark Royal," belonging to the 1934 programme is now under construction. When any such vessels are included in future programmes, an opportunity for discussion will, as usual, arise in the debate on Navy Estimates. The lessons to be learnt from current experience are always under close review.
Is the Noble Lord aware that these aircraft carriers are regarded as death-traps in view of aerial bombing?
That is not the general opinion.
Business of the House
May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take next week?
Monday: Second Reading of the Sugar Industry Reorganisation Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Tuesday: Committee stage of the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Money Resolution; Consideration of Import Duties Order No. 34, which relates to linseed oil, and other outstanding Orders.
Wednesday: Private Members' Motions.
Thursday: Second Reading of the Education Bill and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.
May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give only one day to the Second Reading of the Education Bill; and in view of the great interest in and the controversial nature of the Measure, should it not have more time?
I do not know that there is controversy as much about the Measure as about the details of it, and these naturally will be very largely Committee points. The House, in fact, will have more than one day on this matter, because on the Wednesday there is a Private Members' Motion on maintenance allowances which will bring with it a full discussion on that very important detail. There is also the Scottish Bill in the following week which will provide a further day on the whole subject of education. Therefore, I do not think that the time in which education can be discussed before the Bill goes to Committee is unduly curtailed. I would make this further observation, that, with much regret, the House cannot have it both ways. We have not attempted to interfere with Private Members' time, which is of great importance to the House, but, if Private Members have their full time, which at this period of the year means two days in each week, Wednesdays and Fridays, and if the necessary financial business is to be completed before Easter, it becomes impossible for the Government always to give as much time as it ought to give to these things if it were in full possession of the time of the House. I assure the House that we have given the utmost time that, in present circumstances, we can spare.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the Private Members' Motion to which he refers deals with that which is not in the Bill, and to deal with what is not in the Bill can hardly be considered to be an addition to the discussion of what is in the Bill. Further, I would ask whether it is intended to take the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House or to send it upstairs? If it is proposed to take the Committee stage upstairs, we are going to have only one day— apart from the day for the Scottish Bill which raises different issues—for the consideration of the important points of principle involved in the Measure.
With regard to the first question, it is not for me to say what might be debated in this House, but I cannot imagine a Bill of this nature being brought into the House without that point, which will be discussed on Wednesday, being raised on it.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ The Prime Minister. ]
The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 113.
Division No. 27. AYES. 4.0 p.m. Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Erskine Hill, A. G. Morgan, R. H. Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Everard, W. L. Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.) Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Findlay, Sir E. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Fraser, Capt. Sir I. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G Fremantle, Sir F. E. Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) Albery, I. J. Furness, S. N. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Ganzoni, Sir J. Munro, P. M. Anstruther-Gray, W. J. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. Apsley, Lord Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Aske, Sir R. W. Gledhill, G. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Assheton, R. Gluckstein, L. H. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Goodman, Col. A. W. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Owen, Major G. Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Granville, E. L. Palmer, G. E. H. Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Gridley, Sir A. B. Patrick, C. M. Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Peake, C. Bernays, R. H. Grigg, Sir E. W. M. Peat, C. U. Birchall, Sir J. D. Grimston, R. V. Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E. Bird, Sir R. B. Gunston, Capt. D. W. Perkins, W. R. D. Blair, Sir R. Guy, J. C. M. Peters, Dr. S. J. Blindell, Sir J. Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H. Petherick, M. Borodale, Viscount Hamilton, Sir G. C. Pilkington, R. Bossom, A. C Hanbury, Sir C. Plugge, L. F. Boulton, W. W. Hannah, I. C. Porritt, R. W. Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Pownall, Sir A. Assheton Braithwaite, Major A. N. Harbord, A. Radford, E. A. Brass, Sir W. Harris, Sir P. A. Raikes, H. V. A. M. Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Brocklebank, C. E. R. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Ramsbotham, H. Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Ramsden, Sir E. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Rankin, R. Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.) Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's,) Bull, B. B. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Burgin, Dr. E. L. Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey) Rayner, Major R. H. Butler, R. A. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Campbell, Sir E. T. Holdsworth, H. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Cartland, J. R. H. Holmes, J. S. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Carver, Major W. H. Hope, Captain Hon. A O. J. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Cary. R. A. Hopkinson, A. Ropner, Colonel L. Cautley, Sir H. S. Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Rothschild, J. A. de Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Hunter, T. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Channon, H. Hurd, Sir P. A. Runciman. Rt. Hon. W. Chorlton, A. E. L. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Russell, A. West (Tynemouth) Christie, J. A. Jackson, Sir H. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Jarvls, Sir J. J. Salt, E. W. Clarry, Sir R. G. Joel, D. J. B. Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham) Clydesdale, Marquess of Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney) Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P. Kerr. J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Sandys, E. D. Colman, N. C. D. Kimball, L. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P. Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Savery, Servington Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. Scott, Lord William Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak) Seely, Sir H. M. Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs) Leckle, J. A. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.) Leech, Dr. J. W. Shepperson, Sir E. W. Cranborne, Viscount Lees-Jones, J. Simmonds, O. E. Craven-Ellis, W. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. Critchley, A. Levy, T. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st), Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Liddall, W. S. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. Cross, R. H. Lindsay, K. M. Smith, L. W. (Hallam) Crossley, A. C Lloyd, G. W. Smithers, Sir W. Crowder, J. F. E. Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V. Somerset, T. Cruddas, Col. B. Loftus, P. C. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) Culverwell, C. T. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Somervllle, A. A. (Windsor) Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Lumley, Capt. L. R. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J. De Chair, S. S. Lyons, A. M. Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. De la Bere, R. MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G. Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H. Denman, Hon. R. D. M'Connell, Sir J Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) Denville, Alfred MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd) Dodd, J. S. McEwen, Capt. H. J. F. Storey, S. Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. McKie, J. H. Stourton, Hon. J. J. Dower, Capt. A. V. G. Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) Strickland, Captain W. F. Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Magnay, T. Sueter. Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. Dugdale, Major T. L. Mander, G. le M. Sutcliffe, H. Duggan, H. J. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Tasker, Sir R. I. Duncan, J. A. L. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Tate, Mavis C. Dunne, P. R. R. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Eckersley, P. T. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.) Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Ellis, Sir G. Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Touche, G. C. Eimley, Viscount Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Train, Sir J. Emmott, C. E. G. C. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Tree, A. R. L. F. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C. Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C. Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.) Womersley, Sir W. J. Turton, R. H. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley Wallace, Captain Euan Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin) Young, A. S. L. (Partick) Wayland, Sir W. A. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G. wells, S. R. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. Wise, A. R. Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.
NOES. Adams, D. (Consett) Groves, T. E. Parker, H. J. H. Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Parkinson, J. A. Adamson, W. M. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Hardle, G. D. Potts, J. Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Price, M. P. Banfield, J. W. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Quibell, J. D. Barnes, A. J. Hicks, E. G. Richards, R. (Wrexham) Barr, J. Holland, A. Riley, B. Batey, J. Hopkin, D. Ritson, J. Benson, G. Jagger, J. Rowson, G. Bevan, A. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Salter, Dr. A. Broad, F. A. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Sexton, T. M. Brooke, W. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Shinwell, E. Brown, C. (Mansfield) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Short, A. Buchanan, G. Kelly, W. T. Simpson, F. B. Burke, W. A. Kirby, B. V. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly) Cape, T. Lathan, G. Smith, T. (Normanton) Charleton, H. C. Lawson, J. J. Stephen, C. Cluse, W. S. Leach, W. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) Cocks, F. S. Lee, F. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) Cove, W. G. Logan, D. G. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Lunn, w. Thorne, W. Daggar, G. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Thurtle, E. Dalton, H. McGhee, H. G. Tinker, J. J. Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) McGovern, J. Viant, S. P. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) MacLaren, A. Watkins, F. C. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Maclean, N. Watson, W. McL. Day, H. MacNeill, Weir, L. Westwood, J. Dobble, W. Mainwaring, W. H. Wilkinson, Ellen Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Marklew, E. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.) Ede, J. C. Marshall, F. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Maxton, J. Williams, T. (Don Valley) Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Messer, F. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe) Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Milner. Major J. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury) Gallacher, W. Montague, F. Young, Sir R. (Newton) Gardner, B. W. Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Ha'kn'y, S.) Green, W. H. (Deptford) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES — Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Muff, G. Mr. Mathers and Mr. Whiteley. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth). Paling, W.
Ballot for Notices of Motions
Aerial Warfare and Civil Aviation
I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the need of the abolition of aerial warfare and the international control of civil aviation, and move a Resolution.
Civil Service (Equal Pay)
I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the desirability of equal pay for men and women in the Civil Service, and move a Resolution.
Territorial Army (Recruiting)
I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to recruiting for the Territorial Army, and move a Resolution.
Highways (Lighting)
I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the necessity for a national scheme for adequately lighting highways, and move a Resolution.
Royal Navy (Adequate Fleet)
I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the importance of an adequate Fleet, and move a Resolution.
Royal Air Force (Recruiting)
I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the recruiting needs of the Royal Air Force and auxiliary services, and move a Resolution.
House of Commons (Ventilation)
I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the ventilation of this House, and move a Resolution.
Civil Aviation
I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for encouraging the development of civil aviation, and move a Resolution.
Royal Navy (Fleet Air Arm)
I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for an adequate Fleet Air Arm, and move a Resolution.
British Army (Education)
I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to education in the Army, and move a Resolution.
Royal Navy (Recruitment of Officers.)
I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the system of recruitment of officers, and move a Resolution.
Royal Navy (Discharge of Workmen)
I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the discharge of workmen in the Royal Navy, and move a Resolution.
Selection (Standing Committees)
Standing Committee A
Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Captain Elliston; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Wells.
Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty-five Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Employment of Women and Young Persons Bill): Mr. Banfield, Mr. Bromfield, Sir Samuel Chapman, Mr. Chater, Sir Francis Fremantle, Miss Lloyd George, Mr. Granville, Mr. Hollins, Miss Horsbrugh, Dr. Howitt, Sir Ernest Graham-Little, Mr. Lloyd, Captain Loder, Mr. McGhee, Lieut.-Colonel Mayhew, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Pickthorn, Miss Rathbone, Sir John Simon, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Mrs. Tate, Mr. Charles Taylor, Sir Jonah Walker-Smith, Miss Wilkinson, and Sir John Withers.
Standing Committee B
Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Viscount Castlereagh, Mr. Holds worth, and Brigadier-General Spears; and had appointed in substitution Major Owen, Mr. Simmonds and Captain Strickland.
Standing Committee C
Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had appointed the following Members to serve on Standing Committee C: Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen, Sir Alan Anderson, Mr. Assheton, Duchess of Atholl, Lord Balniel, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Batey, Mr. Charles Brown, Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Mr. Bull, Mr. Cluse, Major Colfox, Mr. Colman, Mr. Crossley, Mr. De la Bère, Mr. A. Edwards, Sir Geoffrey Ellis, Sir Edmund Findlay, Mr. Gledhill, Sir John Haslam, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. A. Hills, Mr. Holdsworth, Mr. Lees-Jones, Mr. Levy, Brigadier-General Makins, Mr. Markham, Mr. Marklew, Mr. Parker, Dr. Peters, Mr. Petherick, Mr. Radford, Mr. Riley, Mr. Rowson, Mr. West Russell, Colonel Sir John Shute, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles, Mr. Stourton, Mr. Edward Strauss and Mr. Herbert Williams.
Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty-five Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill): Lieut.-Commander Agnew, Dr. Burgin, Mr. Burke, Mr. Chorlton, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Denman, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Entwistle, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Hamilton Kerr, Mr. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Leach, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Mainwaring, Mr. Marshall, Sir Joseph Nall, Captain Plugge, Sir Walter Preston, Major Procter, Sir Eugene Ramsden, Mr. Runciman, Mr. Silverman, the Solicitor-General and Mr. Sutcliffe.
Standing Committee D
Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had appointed the following Members to serve on Standing Committee D: Mr. David Morgan Adams, Mr. Ammon, Colonel Baldwin-Webb, Captain Balfour, Sir Alfred Beit, Mr. Bellenger, Mr. Broad, Colonel Clifton Brown, Captain Bullock, Lord Burghley, Mr. Christie, Mr. Thomas Cook, Mr. Craven-Ellis, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Mr. Day, Mr. Donner, Major Dorman-Smith, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Emrys-Evans, Mr. Everard, Mr. Garro-Jones, Mr. Gibbins, Mr. Walter Green, Mr. Crawford Greene, Mr. Griffiths, Mr. Joseph Henderson, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Major Hills, Sir Percy Hurd, Mr. Joel, Mr. Keeling, Mr. Kimball, Major Leighton, Mr. Maitland, Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller, Major Mills, Mr. Morgan, Sir Thomas Rosbotham, Mr. Ross Taylor and Mr. Graham White.
Reports to lie upon the Table.
Orders of the Day
Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Bill
4.12 p.m.
Order for Second Reading read.
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill deals with a subject which has been discussed over a long period in the countryside of the three countries. Despite the rapid spread of our large cities and towns, there are still rural, or as we say in Scotland, landward parts of the country where men and women live simple lives close to the soil. The Bill affects about 750,000 of such men and women. It will bring them into the Unemployment Insurance system, with a separate scheme of their own. It carries out a promise which was made in His Majesty's Gracious speech on 3rd December last, in the course of which it was stated that:
I shall not detain the House by going at length into the details of that slow but sure change of opinion. The details have been set out at length and with great clarity in the admirable report of the Statutory Committee on Unemployment Insurance, on whose conclusions this Bill is largely based. Nevertheless, in order to understand the Bill, it is necessary to understand the background and to look at a little of the history. I shall, therefore, detain the House for a short time in order to point out some of the outstanding features of this change of opinion. No one would expect Members from the far North, or the South, or the East or West, or from Wales or Scotland, to agree about everything on this subject. The conditions vary so much, not merely between Scotland, England and Wales, but even in the same locality. Nevertheless, Members of this House who come from parts of the country where the need is not so apparent on the surface as in other parts will have the history of this development in their minds and will have read it with the sympathy that all of us have for the primary workers on the land and the lives of men who, when in work, live lives of unending toil.
This change of opinion to which I have referred has been one of the most remarkable features of our post-War country life. The first stage at which we can judge it was in 1920, when a Committee appointed by the Agricultural Wages Board, under the Chairmanship of Sir Henry Rew, examined this subject. The terms of reference of that Committee were: in favour of a special scheme for agriculture; the minority held that there was no case for a scheme. Both reports agreed that Unemployment Insurance should not be applied to the agricultural industry in Scotland. The Government of the day decided that no case had been made out for an unemployment insurance scheme for agriculture and that decision was announced in the House.
In 1927 another Unemployment Insurance Committee reported that it had considered the previous report and was in favour of leaving things as they were. In succeeding years the matter was raised in the House a number of times. The next important stage was a Debate in the House on the 29th January, 1930, when the House proceeded to a Division on a Motion,
The next step was the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, under which the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee was set up. Its duties were to watch over and periodically report upon the finance of the unemployment insurance scheme, to examine draft regulations made for the purpose of the scheme, and to advise on any question in connection with the scheme which might be submitted to it. The Act specifically provided in Section 20 that the committee should make, as one of its duties, such proposals as might seem to them practicable for the insurance against unemployment of persons engaged in forestry. The committee recommended a scheme which it regarded as practicable of the scheme, and their Election Manifesto announced that a Bill would be introduced. This was foreshadowed, 1935. Since the first announcement all concerned have been working on the various problems which arose from the committee's Report and which arose from the inherent in the issues which have been debated at length in this House and the countryside for the last 15 years.
I would remind the House that the Statutory Committee had certain new factors to consider. It also possessed information which had not been previously available. I would like, in passing, to pay a tribute to the work of that committee under the chairmanship of Sir William Beveridge. The committee dealt with this, as with other problems, with great patience, thoroughness, sympathy and capacity. It found that in the past the main difficulties had been the absence of reliable information as to rural conditions; the variety of those conditions; the slow development of informed arrangements to meet the circumstances of rural life. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member says, "Hear, hear," but sometimes it is wise to have a slow development of opinion—much wiser than a too rapid development. Other difficulties were the danger of casualising agricultural labour; and the existence of certain special problems with which the committee dealt in detail. With regard to the extent of reliable information, the published results of the population census of 1931 altered the whole situation, because it threw fresh light upon the problem. Those filling up the census schedules were asked to state in respect of each person normally seeking employment whether on the day of the census he was out of work and to give the name and business of his last employer.
The broad result of a comparison made industry by industry is to show a striking agreement between the result of the census figures and the published reports of the Ministry of Labour as regards industries insured against unemployment. Of course, for uninsured agriculture no similar comparison could be made, but two comparisons were available. There was the comparison of the returns of agricultural unemployment in the censuses of England and Wales and of Scotland, respectively, about which I will only say at this moment that there was a striking agreement in the rates of unemployment in the three countries in each of the chief occupational groups into which those engaged in agriculture, horticulture and forestry are divided. A comparison was also made possible by an examination of the returns of approved societies operating in rural parts to obtain from the contribution records as to National Health Insurance the unemployment records of their members. The net result of this examination was to give for rural areas a percentage of unemployment very close to that which was derived for agriculture by an adjustment of the census figures.
Thus the committee found itself in an entirely different position from that of any of the previous investigators. It found that the new information disposed of the argument that insurance is not needed in agriculture because there is little unemployment. It took much evidence, and I have here in six or seven sentences the committee's chief conclusions. It was compelled to take 7.5 per cent. of unemployment as the basis of any insurance proposals. The census returns, added to the other information, gave them a better basis for actuarial calculations than was available for the Bill of my right hon. Friend in 1911 or for the Bill of 1920. The rate of unemployment was unexpectedly high, and therefore any effective scheme of insurance would be much more expensive than was usually thought. The committee found also that there had been a progressive change in opinion and in the attitude of those concerned since the matter was first discussed in 1921, and that this was no more clearly shown than in the memorandum put before the com- mittee by the Federation of Rural Approved Societies, and in the completely changed attitude of the Scottish Farm Servants' Organisation, They had previously been opposed to insurance, but had changed their mind and were now strongly in favour of it. The committee found, further, among the employers in England and Wales that, while a majority of the National Farmers' Union branches were still opposed to insurance, a substantial minority favoured it. As always in rural life, opinion had followed the facts.
In Scotland the situation was somewhat different. I do not propose to deal with it at length on the Second Heading, for I have no doubt the Scottish Members will make their voices heard in the course of the Debate. The committee found that there was a majority of farmers opposed to inclusion on various grounds, and it was recognised that these views were strongly and sincerely held. Hon. Members who have carefully read the committee's report, especially pages 11 to 14, will understand why the committee were unable to reconcile with their other evidence the main argument used in support of the views of those in Scotland who opposed the inclusion of agricultural workers, or, indeed, why they were unable to discover any marked distinction between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain in respect of agricultural unemployment. A number of new facts brought out in the course of the investigation made it impossible for the committee to exclude Scotland from the proposed scheme or to suggest inclusion with different terms.
The Government having carefully considered the report and the facts revealed as to the special circumstances of Scottish agriculture, came to the conclusion that the proper course was to set up one scheme for Great Britain as a whole, and that this would be in the best interests of Scottish agriculture. The committee, however, suggested that the question of long hirings—which is not confined to Scotland—should be dealt with by means of a rebate, and in the light of all the evidence it prepared a scheme for Great Britain which was self-contained and possessed adequate special provisions to meet the special cases of all our rural parts. I feel that the House will agree that the conclusions of this committee must carry great weight, and that they must only be departed from if there are really good grounds for it. Hon. Members who are desirous of making comparisons between the proposals of the committee and those in the Bill will find that on the whole we have followed the recommendations of the committee except in one or two particulars. The structure of the scheme has been designed so that while there will be one unemployment insurance fund there will be two separate accounts. The agricultural account will not be responsible for any of the obligations of the industrial account. The agricultural account is designed to be the treasure chest of the agricultural worker, and the provisions of the Bill are framed so that he alone may have the key of it when unemployed.
There is only one major difference between the report of the committee and this Bill. The Government came to the conclusion, having regard to all the circumstances, that an effort ought to be made, if possible, to give a rather higher rate of benefit than that recommended by the committee, which was 12s. for an adult man. After careful consideration, we decided that with a slightly higher contribution rate of one-halfpenny it would be possible to do this. The rates of contributions, and benefits are dealt with in the Second and Third Schedules. The weekly rate of contribution by employers and employed for men who have attained the age of 21 years is 4½d.; for women who have attained the age of 21, 4d.; young men between 18 and 21, 4d.; young women between 18 and 21, 3½d.; boys between 16 and 18, 2d.; girls between 16 and 18, l½d.; boys who have not attained the age of 16, 1½d.; girls who have not attained the age of 16, 1d. The Government will contribute at a rate equal to half the aggregate contributions of employers and employed. The weekly rates of benefit will be as follow: Men who have attained the age of 21, 14s.; women who have attained the age of 21, 12s. 6d.; young men between 18 and 21, 10s. 6d.; young women between 18 and 21, 9s. 6d.; boys between 17 and 18, 6s.; girls between 17 and 18, 5s.; boys who have not attained the age of 17, 4s.; girls who have not attained the age of 17, 3s. 6d. Clause 3 lays down the scale of adult dependants' and children's allowances. They are as follow: 7s. for an adult, 3s. for the first child, and 2s. 6d. for each other dependent child. The total benefit payable is limited to 30s. per week.
The House will, therefore, see that in order to meet the special needs of agriculture, there are special rates of contribution and benefit and special conditions for qualification. In addition there are special rules governing the period of benefit. They are mainly: the continuous period of unemployment is defined as in the general scheme, but there is a ratio rule which lays it down that there shall be 12 days benefit for the first 10 contributions and three days benefit for each succeeding contribution, so that a contributor having 20 contributions to his credit will be able to draw 42 days benefit. That is the general way in which the ratio rule would be applied. It is also provided that no more than 300 days benefit shall be given in a single year.
There are also two minor departures from the committee's recommendations. In order to be as sure as possible that the genuine land-worker, and he alone, shall benefit from this Measure, we have made the contribution rule 20 in respect of the two years immediately preceding the date on which a claim for agricultural benefit is made instead of 20 contributions at any time, as the committee recommended. The other departure from the committee's proposals is one of method only. The House will remember that the committee recommended that there should be a rebate for long hirings of 25 per cent. in the case of twelve-monthly hirings and 12½ per cent. for six-monthly hirings, but the arrangement was to be made at the beginning. After carefully considering the difficulties, particularly those of an administrative nature, in the way of this proposal, we have come to another conclusion, not as to the rebate, but as to the method. After the Debate, I think the House will agree that our arrangement is better for all concerned than that contained in the report. Clause 101 of the Bill contains the method to be adopted. Those concerned will put in a notice at the beginning of the period and both parties will claim at the end of the period. Notice will be given within 28 days and both employer and worker will get one-quarter refund for a year's hiring and one-eighth for six months. The Treasury contribution, of course, will not be paid in respect of any contribution refunded.
With regard to finance, the scheme of agricultural insurance will be financially self-contained. There is to be a separate account in the Unemployment Fund, and the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee will make separate financial reports on the agricultural account as they now make financial reports on the general fund. Further, the agricultural industry, which has had no share in piling up past debts, will have no responsibility for paying off the general debt of the Unemployment Fund. In connection with the problem of finance, may I give the House some idea of the size of the question? The financial provisions are based on three assumptions. The first is that the scheme will have within it about 750,000 workers, of whom 50,000 will be women and girls and 700,000 men and boys. The rate of unemployment has been taken at 7.5 per cent. and it is estimated that the number of those who will be entitled to the rebate on long hirings will be not more than 15 per cent. of the total.
If the House passes the Bill to-day and the committee accelerates its progress, we hope that the payment of contributions will begin on 4th May, 1936, and the payment of benefits on 5th November, 1936, and the amount paid in during the first period of 26 weeks will be £900,000. It is estimated that the cost of administration during that first six months will be £100,000, leaving at the end of the period a balance of £800,000. For the succeeding year, during which benefits are payable, it is calculated that the total proceeds will be £1,706,000, the total disbursements £1,462,000, cost of administration £213,000, a total of benefits and administration of £1,675,000. The House will therefore see that there will not be a big margin on the actual working. Taking the benefit year 5th November to 5th November, there will be at the end of the period an estimated surplus of £31,000; adding to this the £800,000 available at the end of the first six months, the House will see that at the end of the 78 weeks there will be a balance of £831,000. It is estimated that in the following five years the expenditure on benefits each year will be slightly higher, so that at the end of the five years during which benefits are first payable, the £831,000 will be reduced by one-half. There is one other financial matter to which I will refer. The committee will be asking what is to be the charge on the Exchequer. The answer is that it will be £600,000 a year.
Before leaving the financial provisions of the Bill, would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what will be the net cost to the Treasury?
It is estimated that £600,000 will be the total charge to the Exchequer and that sum covers £569,000 which will be payable on account of benefits and an additional sum, which cannot be precisely estimated but which will amount roughly to about £31,000, to be paid on behalf of Crown employés in one way or another.
I have been looking at the report of the Government Actuary, which usually gives the full facts of a case. In this report, however, information is not given to the House as to what will be the Treasury expenditure on the maintenance of persons who will be transferred from the National Board's Fund and persons who are now disqualified.
That is an entirely different question which does not arise here. We are dealing with the people who will come within the scope of the insurance scheme, and the report relates to the Bill. If the hon. Member wishes to raise those points during the Debate, I am sure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to give an answer. I will say immediately, however, that as regards unemployment assistance the situation is set out quite clearly in the Bill. What is happening is that there are certain persons—not only agricultural workers—who are entitled to come under the Board on the second appointed day. The situation is not changed by the Bill and this is made quite clear in Clause 15. I do not want to be led into controversies on such points at the moment, and I will do my best to make the matter as clear as possible.
I do not wish to overburden my speech with too many details, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with them when he makes his reply at the end of the Debate, but there are some important points which I ought to give to the House. For instance, the title of the Bill has the double purpose of including agriculture among insurable employments and of making the necessary modifications in the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. A simple analysis of the Bill is as between Clause 1 and the remainder of the Bill. By Clause 1 of the Bill the exception of agriculture is cancelled and agriculture is brought under the main scheme. The Clause, therefore, applies the general scheme to agriculture in every respect save where the remainder of the Bill makes exceptions to fit the special circumstances of the agricultural industry. There are certian exclusions and inclusions. Agriculture, horticulture and forestry are removed from the list of excepted employments under the 1935 Act and power is given to include by regulation workers who contract for service. Thatchers, hedgers, ditchers and all those who work at a contractual price would, in the ordinary way, not be insured under the insurance law, but Clause 1, sub-section (2) of the Bill gives power for the making of regulations to include them in insurance; otherwise, they would be outside the agricultural scheme.
Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to include these various grades?
We are taking powers to do that with the intention of doing it. The workers to whom I referred were given only as examples of those who work at contractual prices. On the other hand, the Bill excludes from the scope of the scheme the family farm, where the work is done by the farmer, his wife, and the members of the family—including adopted children—and their husbands and wives. There is no need to legislate in this Bill to give the Minister power to take out of the scope of this exclusion the insured agricultural worker who may marry into a family which has a family farm, since under the general law the Minister of Labour has power to deal with that subject under the present Act. The Bill also excludes private gardeners. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] The reason is stated quite clearly in the report. If hon. Members will look at the report, they will see that it deals in a very long and detailed manner with this matter. I would point out that it is estimated that there are 125,000 private gardeners. The committee itself was doubtful as to whether or not it had sufficient information to enable it to deal with the question, which, as hon. Members know, raises the whole question of private domestic service. I have received a number of communications from hon. Members on this matter and while I will state what the Bill does concerning it, I have asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to take a special note of what is said by hon. Members on the matter in order that he may deal with the precise questions put by hon. Members who are interested in this important subject. The Bill excludes private gardeners, that is to say, gardeners who are not employed in a trade or business carried on for gain, where the employer is not a public or local authority or a society or institution.
The only other important exclusion, or rather exemption, to which I need draw the attention of the House is that of persons who are not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. This provision, which will be found in the Fifth Schedule to the Bill, has been framed to deal with the very difficult question of Irish migratory labourers. They will not be insured and will not pay contributions, nor will they get benefits under the scheme, but in order that there should be no premium on their engagement those who employ them will be required to pay the ordinary employers' contributions in respect of them; that is to say, they are not excluded, but exempted, under the terms of the Act.
In Clauses 5 to 9 certain important conditions are outlined. They provide that contributors must have reached 16 years of age before drawing benefit, and they lay down that after a lapsed period of five consecutive years contributors who have not paid any contribution for five years will start again as though they were new entrants. As I have said, there is to be one insurance fund with a separate account for agriculture; that is to say, there will be one till with two accounts, and it is provided that interest shall be paid if at any time one account borrows from the other. Each account must balance separately. With regard to the apportionment of administration expenses, our present general practice is declared in the Bill, applied to agricultural insurance and the amount chargeable to the agricultural accounts is limited to not more than one-eighth of the net income. The method of reckoning the amount of benefit payable is carried out by keeping a running account for each individual. Contributions will be kept on one side and days of benefit on the other. On a new claim a balance will be struck which will show how many days of benefit the contributor can draw, subject to the maximum of 300 which I have already indicated. The account cancels exhausted contributions from the point of view of benefit, but not, of course, from the point of view of the qualifying test. The Bill does not alter the existing position, as I informed the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale just now, under which agricultural workers do not come within the unemployment assistance scheme until the second appointed day is fixed.
There is one other important point to which I need to call attention, namely, Clause 11 which deals with the complex problem of mixed contributions, namely, those of workers both in agriculture or industry. The Bill lays down the broad principle that mixed contributions are treated separately, so that a contributor can draw all the benefits to which he is entitled under both the general and the agricultural schemes. It takes a general power to adapt or to modify the provisions of the general Act in order to deal with mixed cases. It provides that there shall be no overlapping or curtailed benefit years, and that both agricultural and industrial benefits cannot be drawn at once. In other words, an applicant may draw successively industrial and agricultural benefit, but not concurrently.
Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with Clause 6 of the Bill, with the question of reckoning agricultural contributions, which seems to be a particularly difficult matter?
If my hon. Friend will put that point again in the course of the Debate the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with it. As I have said, I have been anxious not to overburden this speech with too much detail. I think I have indicated the main points to which the House ought to have its attention drawn, but in view of the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of hon. Members of the Independent Labour Party I would ven- ture to issue one word of warning. I wonder whether they have discussed this matter with their rural branches. If so, it will be interesting to see whether they go so far as to push this Amendment for the rejection of the Bill to a Division.
We shall. We do not want any directions from any renegade Liberal.
Then the House will be interested to hear the reasons given. I would say that the last thing I desire is to issue any instructions to the hon. Member. The House will understand quite well what is the policy of the hon. Member. It is a policy which we knew as small boys. Somebody thinks of a number and another boy says "Double it." But because of this Amendment on the Order Paper I do venture to add a word of warning to the whole House. We have had to devise a special scheme so that agriculture may get the benefit of its own lower rate of unemployment, as compared with the average rate under the general scheme. In considering this scheme for agricultural workers I would recommend hon. Members to read what the Statutory Committee have to say as to the comparison between the low rate of unemployment in agriculture and the low rate of unemployment in certain industries insured under the general scheme. There are industries there with a rate of unemployment as low as that in agriculture, which thus pay materially more in contributions than they draw in benefit, which is to the advantage of other industries in the general scheme. This, however, is not the case with the agricultural scheme. I hope we shall bear in mind in all our future discussions in Committee, if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, that this is a special scheme for a special industry with special terms, and special difficulties against the special background of country life.
No one with any experience of Unem-employment Insurance would venture to suggest that any Insurance Bill was a perfect and final scheme, but the experience of the general scheme over the last 20 years has thrown a good deal of light on what ought to be done in any scheme for agriculture or any other special scheme. But I hope any of those who feel an enthusiastic pressure to alter the rules governing benefit or the initial rule of qualification will think twice over any such proposals, because the margin on which we have to work is very small, and the cost of such alterations may not only involve alterations on the immediate points which they are arguing but have repercussions as well on the general structure of the scheme. If the House decides, as I hope and believe it will, to give the Bill a Second Reading, I think it will have taken a very great step forward for the advantage of the whole countryside. There will be plenty of time in future to suggest improvements, because the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee will regularly review this scheme, as they do the general scheme, and they have power to suggest any improvements which they think it desirable to make, as they have already done under Part I of the Act of 1934. I have no reason to doubt that if experience shows there is more money in hand than the scheme requires they will be the first to recommend improvements.
I do not want to indicate that I have a closed mind in regard to alterations in detail, but I am anxious that Members should not allow their sympathies or their enthusiasm to endanger the carefully-balanced structure on which the Bill rests. I regard the Bill as being good not only for the worker but for the industry as a whole. Many farmers and other employers in the countryside make every effort to keep on their men as long as possible, but there are times when they have to stand them off, and I am sure the great majority of employers will be glad to feel that at those times when their men must be stood off the men will be able to draw benefit as some compensation for their loss of wages. The introduction of unemployment insurance into agriculture will go a long way to ease the position between the town and country. The flow of population to the towns, which for years has been so much deplored, should receive a definite check, and industrial workers who are surplus to requirements in the towns should be more willing to assist in agriculture during the periods when additional workers are required. These are very definite advantages to the countryside as a whole.
The Bill is another indication that the passion for social well-being in our country at this time is very strong and that it overleaps all attempts to confine it between party boundaries. I may fitly end on that note. The Government have produced this Bill on behalf of those ordinary yet most important men to whom is given the perennial task of mastering life with their bare hands, those workers of whom a poet who loved the West Country sang in war time.
4.55 p.m.
I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the lucidity of the speech with which he has introduced this Bill, which I believe is his first main Measure since he has occupied his present important post. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was a model of clarity, and I am convinced that those hon. and right hon. Members who have not thought fit to read the Measure will now know quite a good deal about it, and will have a decent foundation for their speeches. It is usual to rejoice when any Government pledge is fulfilled, and it is so rare an event ire these days that I almost feel I ought to rejoice at the introduction of this Measure, but I am rather afraid the Minister will be slightly disappointed with the more or less restrained welcome we shall give to it. We do not intend to oppose it on Second Reading, but we shall wait to see the attitude of the Minister in Committee and on Report stage before we finally make up our minds about it. There is no doubt about the general desire for a scheme of this kind. With 11,500,000 insured workers it would be extraordinary were there not a genuine desire to rescue agricultural labourers from enforced pauperisation; but if it should be argued that the workers' representatives are ready and willing to accept almost any scheme with open arms, that scarcely justifies Parliament in differentiating between the benefits of a scheme for agricultural labourers and those for general industry. I want to say at the outset that this differentiation in benefit, which may become a guide for the Unemployment Assistance Board in differentiating-between allowances to urban workers and rural workers will not have the support of hon. Members on these benches.
At the very commencement we wish to dissociate ourselves, in any support, or implied support, we may give to this Measure from any suggestion that we are in favour of such a scale of benefits as would enable the Unemployment Assistance Board to declare subsequently that Members of the Labour party had expressed their willingness to accept the principle of differentiation in allowances when the appointed day under Part II of the Act of 1934 comes into operation. The policy of the Labour party is generally known in regard to that. The only thing that the right hon. Gentleman wished to say, when giving that historical review of all the incidents and accidents between 1923, I think, and 1935, was that the reports of Sir Henry Rew's Committees, dealing with a special scheme for agricultural workers, recommended that the benefits remain the same. That is the only thing I want to say now on that point, to which I shall return later.
Another important point to which one must make reference is that which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). I would not say that hon. Members on these Benches suspect this Measure or suspect the moment which the Government have chosen to introduce it. Many of my colleagues as well as myself have been in many agricultural areas in the country, from which an outstanding demand all the time has been for a scheme of insurance for agricultural workers. I know the reasons therefor, but it seems extraordinary that whatever the Government do always seems to turn up trumps. They have a nap hand all along the line. It does not matter whether it is something that concerns the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Agriculture or any other Minister; they seem to have a nap hand dealt out to them every time. They are now introducing a Measure which has been universally demanded for 10 or 15 years and which, they hope, will give entire satisfaction to the agricultural workers. All decent minded people want to see the same safeguards provided for agricultural workers as are arranged for persons in ordinary industry.
Curiously enough, in bringing forward this great scheme of social reform the Government are going to make an annual profit of about £1,200,000. That seems extraordinary. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why, when called upon to investigate this problem, the Actuary did not tell us exactly what the Treasury were likely to save as well as what the Treasury would have to pay in contributions to the Fund. According to the Actuary's report, or the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum on the front of the Bill, the Treasury payments will be £600,000 per year. The contribution payments of the employés will be £600,000 and that of the employers also £600,000 annually. If the appointed day had already been definite and every employed agricultural worker had access to the Unemployment Assistance Board, the Treasury would have had to find the whole £1,800,000 and not £600,000, as is the case as the result of the introduction of this Measure.
It is true that indirectly the Government provide the money through the agency of local Poor Law authorities. Had the Actuary desired, or had he received instructions to do so, he would have provided a balance sheet showing gains as well as losses. The Measure is calculated to save on the Actuary's estimate approximately £1,250,000 per annum. I have not seen any evidence of sympathy or of justice embodied in the Third Schedule to the Bill. The list of benefits read out by the right hon. Gentleman indicates that the Government, having produced, for reasons to which I shall refer in a moment, a special scheme, limit the Treasury's contributions to the lowest possible common denominator, which has apparently been determined by the miserably low wages of the agricultural worker.
Leaving that for a moment, I want to agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his declaration that a scheme of this description is necessary. The demand for some Measure without discriminatory benefits has been definite and continuous for a very long period, and the reasons for that are not far to seek. Since 1925 there has been a continued reduction in agricultural employment. Each year, with the exception of 1933, there has been a reduction in the number of persons engaged in agriculture. So rapid has been the decline that, between 1925 and 1935, no fewer than 131,000 agricultural labourers have lost their jobs. Unemployment has been very real, and the demand for insurance has been as determined as the reality of the unemployment.
Hon. Members should try to appreciate that these unfortunate mortals, deep in the heart of the English countryside, have no alternative income except through access to the Poor Law authorities, and that in many cases these authorities are dominated by farmers who are the employers. The position is so humiliating that in many cases agricultural labourers and their families will almost starve before they will resort to Poor Law relief. Therefore their demand for a Measure such as this has been very insistent. It is not to be wondered at that the agricultural workers' trade unions are willing to grasp at any scheme that gives any sort of relief or rescue from the Poor Law authorities. The insistent demand has been such that no section of the community could for long have denied some measure of justice to the agricultural workers of this country. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the only sections who have expressed opposition to the scheme are hon. Members below the Gangway and the National Farmers' Union, and those two sections find themselves for once in the same stable.
The National Farmers' Union, who are marvellous when playing at "take" and not "put," will take anything, but will give nothing to their own agricultural labourers. At their annual meeting I gather that, by 40 votes to 16, they opposed this scheme for their employés. As against those sections there are the National Council of Agriculture, many decent minded farmers, all the organised agricultural workers and all who know anything of the conditions of the countryside. All those would support some scheme that would protect agricultural labourers from pauperisation and give them a chance to live decently.
If we allow a Second Reading to this Measure, it will be for two reasons. The first is that we want to see agricultural labourers placed more or less in the same position as other industrial workers, and the second is that we shall wait with interest to see what the right hon. Gentleman is willing to do with regard to the finance of the scheme, and the benefits that he is prepared to confer upon the agricultural labourers. What does the right hon. Gentleman offer in term of finance? It is a special scheme, as he explained, presumably because of two or three different factors, of which the first is that the wages of the agricultural labourers are extremely low. That is a tragedy which might have been altered long since.
Hear, hear.
If the agricultural policy of the National Government were as successful as the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) makes his constituents believe it is, it could be altered to-morrow. The agricultural policy of the National Government, and the policy of every Government that preceded it for the last 50 or 60 years, have been failures. The wages of agricultural labourers are a disgrace to civilisation. Presumably the special scheme of the right hon. Gentleman has a definite relationship to those wages. The statutory committee say, in effect, that wages are so small and the contributions that the workers can afford are so small, that a special scheme would be necessary, and they will have to relate benefits to contributions, which I do not think necessarily follows. There is another factor in this special scheme. Unemployment in agriculture is supposed to be 7½ per cent., as against 16½ per cent. in general industry. If a special scheme be produced for agriculture where unemployment is known to be less than half what it is in normal industry, contributors can, for half the contributions, receive the same benefits as are paid to insured workers in other industries. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to examine the position from that point of view. He bases his Third Schedule upon his Second Schedule definitely; he bases benefits upon contributions, and contributions are based upon low wages. I do not think that that ought to be. The contributions of the workers are high enough, and equally obviously the benefits are too low. If the right hon. Gentleman would use half the money he is trying to save by the passing of this Measure, in order to increase the Government grant, benefits could be made exactly what they are in the general scheme of unemployment insurance in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman suggests that a man of 21 years of age should be entitled to 14s. per week and a dependent boy to 7s. a week. The right hon. Gentleman has definitely in mind the low wages of the agricultural workers, and he does not want to pay in benefits more than certain employés obtain for wages. It may be logical but it may not be fair. All persons over 21 working in agriculture are not married men. There are many men in agriculture of 21 or over who are not married and may be unemployed. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that a person of that sort can get board and lodging and all the rest of it for 14s. per week? Does it not imply that the person who is in that unfortunate position has to sponge on poverty-stricken homes? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the Government, who are saving money, ought to spend money? Has he forgotten that, while the weekly contribution of the Government to the industrial worker is 10d., it is 4½d. under this scheme. Why should the agricultural worker receive only 4½d. from the Government while the urban worker receives 10d.? If the right hon. Gentleman wants to discriminate within a special scheme which is unique in insurance in this country, let him do so by giving the agricultural insurance scheme a higher contribution which will enable the benefits of the scheme to be what they are in the general scheme.
The right hon. Gentleman is to allow a benefit of 10s. 6d. for young men between the ages of 18 and 21 when those young men are full of life and vigour and of all those poetic emotions of which the Minister spoke. Yet they are to exist upon 10s. 6d. when they fall out of work. Young men between the ages of 17 and 18 will have to carry on upon 6s. per week. The right hon. Gentleman knows what those figures mean, and what the benefits mean. I hope that the scale will not commend itself to hon. Members. I recall the time when the right hon. Gentleman allowed somebody else to think of a number and he doubled it, and when he sat below the Gangway and carried no responsibility. When the Labour Government were in office they had put a few millions of pounds extra at the disposal of the unemployed families in this country. The right hon. Gentleman got up and was not satisfied, and he marched into the Lobby in favour of 5s. per week for each child. The right hon. Gentleman knew that his Motion would not be carried or, of course, he would not have voted for it, but in any case he did, on that occasion, vote for 5s. for each child, and not 3s. for the second child, 2s. for the third and nothing for the fourth. I want to remind him of that to-day.
There is another point of which I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman. He has referred to the surplus of £831,000 that is expected at the end of 18 months. The Actuary in this case, as, indeed, in any case, is bound to estimate, and assume, and speculate. There are no definite figures available; there never have been when any such scheme has been introduced, and this scheme is not dissimilar from the schemes of the past. Experience alone will be the guiding factor. All these financial calculations are based upon the figures of unemployment in 1931—not a good year, as I have heard hon. and right hon. Gentlemen say many times; and, as the number of agricultural workers has declined by 131,000 during the last 10 years, is it fair to assume that unemployment in agriculture has now reached rock bottom? Is it not fair to assume that the percentage will be rather less than 7.51 In that case, with £831,000 to start with, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has something to work upon.
I hope that, between now and the further stages of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to ascertain the unanimous opinion in this House. Agricultural labourers have been divorced from much of our social life in the past, but to-day, with mechanisation and with other developments that are taking place, a real revolution is going on in our countryside, and it seems to me that there ought to be less rather than more differentiation between the income of the agricultural labourer and that of the town worker. They are coming nearer together, and they ought not to be divided in perpetuity because the Government refuse to put up the appropriate amount of money. Contributions are to commence in May; benefits are to commence in November. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman is really satisfied that the contributions for the first six months will be a full safeguard for unemployed workers during the whole of the first winter? I rather fear that they will not, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have badgered the Treasury much more than he has done, so as to make doubly sure that in all circumstances during the first winter of insurance no agricultural labourer will be denied benefit.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to long hirings. I am rather surprised that he has allowed himself to be persuaded by either Scottish or English farmers to restore the rebate, a system which has no relation to insurance benefit at all. Rebates used to be allowed until 1926, where persons had not been unemployed for long periods. They were abolished in 1926 because they were regarded as being inconsistent with the principle of insurance. Will not the restoration of the rebates encourage employers in other industries where there is continuity of employment also to ask for rebates? It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have re-instituted this policy of rebates. Even if an agricultural labourer is engaged for 12 months or for six months, and a rebate is claimed by the employer at the conclusion of that period, if that same agricultural labourer falls out of work he may be out of work for six months. For this reason, and because these rebates conflict with the principle of insurance, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to reconsider Clause 10, and leave every employer to take the same share of responsibility.
Clause 11, the right hon. Gentleman explained, allows an interchange between the one system of insurance and the other, and I think that regulations are the only means whereby difficult situations can be regularised. But we shall watch these regulations very carefully, for, unless I am mistaken in my reading of Clause 11, it will be possible for a person to be half in one insurance and half in the other, and to be entitled to benefit out of neither. The right hon. Gentleman ought to re-examine this matter. A good deal will depend upon the regulations, and I repeat that we shall have to watch them very carefully. I only want to make one observation on the question of exclusion. According to the report, there are about 160,000 gardeners and so on, of whom 126,000 are exempt from the terms of the Bill. It seems to me that the time has come when a decision ought to be taken on the question of domestic servants. To pass a Measure such as this, including, as it has been said to include, something like 750,000 persons, but excluding 126,000, is really not making very rapid progress, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to lose no time, through the agency of the Statutory Committee, in bringing them into one scheme or the other, so that, if we are to have insurance at all, it will be universal.
We are in full agreement with any scheme, whether special or uniform, that provides equalised benefits for all. The right hon. Gentleman, having made up his mind to introduce the Measure, and knowing that the contribution per person to the big scheme is 10d. while the suggested contribution to this scheme is only 4½d., ought to be a wee bit more charitable towards the agricultural labourer than he has been so far. He ought to consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture knows how to deal with the farmer, and, if the Minister of Labour will be as generous to the agricultural labourer as the Minister of Agriculture has been to the farmer, no one on this side of the House will complain. We hope that this Bill, when it has been amended as it ought to be, when it has been transformed into a really decent Measure, will help the agricultural labourers of this country to restore their status, and, if that is done, the right hon. Gentleman himself will not be more happy than we on these benches will be.
5.25 p.m.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has told the House that in his view there has been a long-sustained demand for a Measure to provide unemployment insurance for agricultural workers. The Minister, in introducing the Bill, did not, perhaps lay quite so much emphasis on that aspect. The report of the Statutory Committee goes very fully into the actual extent of the demand. It is perfectly clear that such agricultural trade unions as there are have for some time past made this request, and it is clear, too, that the rural approved societies, so far as they can claim to represent a section of agricultural workers, have also come to the same opinion; but I do not think it is possible to claim, as the hon. Member does, that there has been a universal demand for a Bill of this nature from the workers in the industry of agriculture. It may be true that there has been an inarticulate demand, and that there has been no ready channel through which expression might be given to that demand, but we have heard nothing, so far, with reference to the claim which has been made in favour of a Bill of this kind based on the desire of the agricultural worker to put his status as a worker on a par with that of the workers in other industries.
It seems to me that that is a rather curious argument in favour of applying unemployment insurance to agriculture. Surely the exact opposite is the case. A worker in an industry which has a low rate of unemployment must surely be rather proud of the fact that his industry is able to give regular work, and that no large percentage of his work-fellows are constantly being thrown on to unemployment insurance. I do not, however, think that that point is worth pursuing very far. But, while there may not have been, and I do not think there is, a very clear-cut demand for the application of a Bill of this nature to agricultural workers, I am bound to say that I do not think there is any very great opposition to it from any quarter, as far as I am able to judge. The hon. Member for Don Valley alluded to the fact that the Farmers' Union had by a majority decided against it in principle some time ago, but, as far as I am now aware, though I have no qualification to speak for the Farmers' Union, I do not believe that the introduction of this Bill is viewed with any great hostility by them. If there has been no great demand for the Bill, one is driven to the supposition that the Government have, on their own judgment and in their wisdom, decided that a need exists for the application of unemployment insurance to the agricultural worker, and it is as to whether or not that need exists, or rather, perhaps, as to why a need exists, that I would venture to address a few remarks to the House.
The Statutory Committee have given 7.5 per cent. as the figure, of unemployment in agriculture, and they state that that is a materially lower figure than in the insured industries as a whole. In passing I would like to say that that is the justification for a special scheme— the fact that in agriculture there is materially less unemployment than in other industries as a whole. Let us assume that the Statutory Committee's estimate of 7.5 per cent. is correct. I come now to the question why there should be any unemployment in agriculture at all. We have in this country 45,000,000 mouths to feed every day throughout the year, and yet, in spite of that fact, we have only some 750,000 of our population engaged in producing the necessary food for the 45,000,000. Surely that is an almost negligible number. Out of that 750,000 who are engaged in producing food we are told that 7.5 per cent. are unemployed.
When we consider that 50 or 60 years ago there were 1,750,000 employed in agriculture at a time, when the total population was far less than to-day, why is there any excuse for unemployment? The answer is two-fold. The first reason is that, instead of growing the maximum amount of foodstuffs, we are importing far too great an amount. The second reason is that we are trying to operate agriculture on an entirely lop-sided basis. We are trying to establish prosperity for the industry when the costs of production are weighted against any possibility of the industry maintaining itself without outside assistance. We have, for instance, a statutory wage. It is not based upon any economic figure at all. It is purely on a social basis. No one quarrels with a statutory wage nor with the fact that it is on a social and not on an economic basis, but, if you are going to weight one side of the account with a social and not an economic figure, you are forced to do something on the other side of the account to equalise that or your industry must go down and down. Agriculture to-day is not on an economic basis and has no hope of being so while this disequilibrium exists. You must somehow maintain a price level for the products of the industry to counterbalance this weighted outgo on the other side of the account. In the two years before the War the industry in the main was holding its own, but that is not true to-day.
It is a recognition of this very fact that led the National Government to come to its assistance with the various measures which it has put on the Statute Book since 1931. If we refer to the index figure of wholesale agricultural prices for December with the average of the three Decembers of 1911, 1912 and 1913, we find that it is only 14 points over that which obtained in those three pre-war years.
If we add the benefits of the Cattle Industry Act and the Wheat Act, even then the 14 points are only raised to 21 points. On the other side of the scale we find an increase in labour costs of 144 per cent. That is what I mean when I say that the whole of the industry is in disequilibrium and nothing can prevent this drain continuing, nothing will prevent a certain degree of unemployment, until the matter can be rectified. If you take the classification in the report of shepherds, stockmen, horsemen, agricultural labourers and farm servants leaving out all family workers, bailiffs, foremen, etc., the number is about 500,000. That number would have received in wages in 1913 just over £18,000,000, whereas that same number would have received in 1935 just over £50,000,000. That is the point that we have to face up to—that we have this great weight operating on one side of the scale, and steps must be taken to put the balance right on the other side of the account. It is clear that a situation in such disequilibrium cannot continue ad infinitum. It is true that since 1931 the Government have taken measures to bridge the gap, but all the measures put together, great as they are, amount only to some half of the disparity between the economic and the social wages in the industry.
The Minister of Agriculture gave a written answer on 9th December in which he gave a summary, in terms of money, of the assistance that was being afforded to agriculture. It amounted to something over £16,500,000 a year, but that goes only half way to meet the great disparity to which I am alluding, and the remaining half has to be found somewhere. It is demonstrably clear that the whole of the assistance that the National Government has given since 1931 has gone directly in part payment of wages. That, in my view, is as it should be. It always baffles me why Members of the Liberal and Socialist oppositions have opposed every Measure that the National Government has brought in for the assistance of the industry in view of the fact that every penny of the assistance has gone as a subvention to agricultural wages. There is a tendency among both opposition parties, and perhaps in the mind of a great many other people as well, to think far too much in terms of unemployment and far too little in terms of employment. After all, it is employment that is the only true cure for unemployment. Had the State done its duty in the past to the greatest employment-giving industry of all, we should not to-day be discussing the necessity for an Unemployment Insurance Bill. At least half the present urban unemployment problem arises from the drift that has taken place from the countryside during the last 60 or 70 years. If we had maintained on the farms and fields of England the million who, we know, have left the countryside to crowd into the cities and towns your 2,000,000 unemployed would be cut in halves. It is no easy matter, of course, to get them back to the countryside. What is the use of uttering the shibboleth "Back to the land" when people who are on it at this moment cannot be supported by it? We must have a policy for agriculture which will not only support its own people but will be able to draw people back from the congestion of the towns to the more open life of the countryside. If we are to do that, we have to resume control of our own food markets. We have little control over the markets to which we export, but we have complete control over our own home market if only we choose to exercise it.
On a point of Order. A good deal of latitude is accorded on Second Reading, but I have listened to the hon. Member for 20 minutes and all that time he has been speaking on a subject which is not remotely allied to the Bill.
I thought myself that the hon. Member was getting some way from the question.
I was only developing my argument that the cure for unemployment is employment and that it is only by certain lines of policy that we shall be able to provide a real cure for unemployment by giving employment. If I have transgressed, I apologise. I would merely say that we shall have an opportunity this year of recapturing a large proportion of our home market, and I will not pursue that matter any further at the moment. I would like to say in relation to the details of the Bill, that it is satisfactory to note that benefit will be able to be brought into operation in the coming autumn. That, I feel sure, must be a matter of satisfaction in all quarters of the House, and further I think that the House may well feel, in spite of what the hon. Member for Don Valley has said, that the scale of benefits in relation to the contribution is rather more than it had possibly hoped for. They are somewhat better than those which were outlined in the report of the Statutory Committee, and to that extent we may feel that the benefits are probably as great as it is possible to afford in view of the scale of contributions. The fact that the scheme is a separate scheme for agriculture, and has not been put with the wider scheme will also be a matter of satisfaction to the agricultural worker, and the justification for that I alluded to in my earlier remarks.
There is one further point about which I must say a word. I think that the coming into operation of this Bill must have some tendency at least to increase the casualisation of labour in the agricultural industry. I am afraid that that is inevitable. The Statutory Committee in their Report visualised that there would probably be some increase in casualisation, and that undoubtedly is to be regretted. I cannot see how it can altogether be avoided, but that should not of itself be a criticism which should be pressed too far in view of the good features of the Bill, which are obvious and outstanding. The difficulty of casualisation, just as the need for any unemployment insurance at all, will vanish if the National Government take the opportunity presented at this time of getting in this country a largely increased number of people back to the land.
5.48 p.m.
I have to ask for the indulgence which this House always grants to a new Member, and particularly as I can assure the House that I want to talk only about the Bill and to explain why, on the one hand, I and my hon. and right hon. Friends here welcome the Bill and will vote for its Second Reading, but cannot quite join with the Minister in feeling that it is perhaps one of the greatest pieces of beneficial legislation which has ever been granted by a benevolent Government to one of the lowest-paid sections of the community. What is this Bill? It may be described from the workers' point of view as a Measure whereby the worker and the employer share with the State the burden of providing rates of benefit only miscroscopically larger than the assistance which the worker when unemployed would have received if he had asked for it from the public assistance committee. That was the picture which the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) painted, and it was on that basis that he asked for Government generosity.
I am not sure that the picture of the Bill which he painted was not a little overdrawn, and it is on different grounds that I ask for some generosity for this industry from the Government. The country has in this respect been taking advantage of the agricultural industry in three ways, first, for 25 years agriculturists, whenever they have paid taxation, have been paying a part of the contribution of the State to insurance schemes from which agricultural workers have never drawn a penny. Secondly, agricultural employers have kept their men at work when there was not really remunerative work for them to do because there was no relief for them if they had been stood off; and, thirdly— and this is where, I think, the hon. Member for Don Valley made his mistake —there is a very great reluctance on the part of the men to go to the public assistance committees for relief, and they will often prefer to live in privation, or to rely upon that very wonderful thing, the generosity of workmen in the country, one to another. I think that the hon. Member for Don Valley, when he spoke about the saving of £1,800,000 to the Government, is entirely under-estimating that fact. It is on account of these three points that the industry of agriculture is entitled to ask for more generosity of treatment, and, arising out of the last two of these, I want to make another point that it has been the best employers who have kept their men in employment even in slack times, and it has been the best men who have not asked for relief. Therefore, we welcome this Bill largely because it will give to all men when they become unemployed the right to ask for benefit towards which they will have contributed.
We appreciate fully the point which has been made by the Minister that the Bill will be a contribution towards, arresting the drift from the land, and on that account also we welcome the Bill, if it can be worked. But I am not sure that the Bill will work as it is drafted, and I hope that the Minister will not throughout the Committee keep up his iron front of refusing to accept any structural alterations whatever. The difficulty which has been recognised in the report, and which is fundamental in agriculture, is that not only is the rate of unemployment in agriculture as a whole low—phenomenally low—but lower than the rate of unemployment of any other industry of anything like the same size and well under half the average rate. That is not the difficulty. That justifies a separate scheme, but the real difficulty is that the rate is not homogeneous throughout all branches of the industry. It will be in the experience of almost all Members representing agricultural constituencies, except in a very few areas, that if you take the regular form of agriculture in the popular and perhaps the narrow sense of the word, the rate of unemployment among ordinary farm workers is remarkably low. Among those who are occupied with cattle and with horses, as shown in the census return, it is as low as 2 per cent., but side by side with that you find men who must be described as regular seasonal workers, not casual workers, not men who are looking to some other industry to offer them their main livelihood—but regular seasonal workers working very often in market gardens or on smallholdings or in horticulture with regular work for six or nine months in the year and the rest of the time they exist somehow without work. There are the two classes—the regular and the seasonal worker and you are to bring them into one scheme. The latter class is going to benefit, and it is from the former class that you will hear an outcry throughout the agricultural industry of the country, and the Bill which we welcome to-day will become anathema in a few years' time if we do not make an alteration.
Before suggesting a solution to this difficulty, I want to raise a few small points. Perhaps the House may think they should not be raised at this time, but I would like the Minister to have them in mind. First of all, there is a new scheme linked to an old scheme. Can we have an assurance from the Minister that we shall not be told in a week or two that the Minister would like to have one or two years in order to see how the scheme works out before we get the second appointed day? Is there any risk of that? I would call the attention of the Minister to those parts of the report which recommend travelling officers for the administration of the scheme. There may be a tendency when there is a ring of villages around a town for the officer of the Employment Exchange to make the workers of those villages come into the town for the administration of the scheme. I beg of the Minister, by the use of the travelling officer and payment by post, to prevent that from being the case.
I would refer to Clause 11 which I have had some difficulty in mastering. I may have got it wrong even now, but it seems to me that it will be possible under the general scheme to have two men. with 29 stamps on their cards, and if one man gets one week's work under the general scheme he will be entitled to benefit, and if the other man gets 19 weeks in agriculture he will be disqualified. I hope that the Minister will put that matter right for, as he knows, a sense of injustice spreads a great deal further than to the man or the family affected. I suggest that, within limits as to numbers, there should be a regulation that one general stamp should count as the equivalent of two agricultural stamps, and vice versa. The cost to the schemes of this proposal would not be great. To come back to the real fundamental problem of the regular as against the seasonal worker, Clause 10 recognises the difficulty in principle but I think the recognition is dim and that the principle is wrongly applied. After all, 12 months is not long service. I met a man in North Devon who had uninterruptedly employed five men on his farm for a total of 123 years. That is the long service for which we are asking consideration and generosity.
A superficial view of the situation in Scotland might suggest that the habit of 12 months hiring in Scotland contributes to lower unemployment, but that is not so. The slightly lower rate of unemployment in Scotland is due to the greater proportion of cowmen and herdsmen who have the lowest rates of unemployment of all. If Scottish workers are to get any special consideration, let it be given in an open way. And let us not have a proposal which purports to apply generally to Great Britain but which in fact confers a benefit on the North of England.
The differences between the rate of unemployment in Scotland and in England and Wales as a whole are far less than the differences which would be found to exist between different areas inside the three countries if a detailed census were taken. If there is to be special treatment for the north of England, I shall make very strong claims in the Committee for special treatment in the north of Devon. It is, after all, not the legal form of the contract which deserves consideration, but the actual fact of continuous, long employment. I suggest that the Minister should try to find the means whereby after two, three or, it may be, four years, the contributions of the man and the employer can be brought down to 3d. I cannot suggest decreases in contributions without suggesting where the money is to come from. At this point I say that I cannot form a very high opinion of the Amendment which is to be moved. I have some hesitation in offering advice on the wording of Amendments to men of such high Parliamentary experience as hon. Members who sit in front of me, but if I had had the drafting of the Amendment I would have put it in this way: way out of the industry will not come in the scheme at all and will have no chance of getting in, and as agriculture appears to be a little on the upgrade again, the rate of unemployment will not be found to be as high as is suggested in the Actuary's report. Rather than see the contribution not go down to 3d. after three or four years I prefer to see, if necessary, the contribution raised to 6d. during the first six months of any employment. I would ask the Minister to see if something cannot be done along those lines.
I believe that in making this proposal I am actually speaking for the seasonal workers. At any rate, I hope that they will think so, because I have large numbers of them in my constituency. On pages 43 and 45 of the report there are passages which suggest that this scheme could be improved and altered in the light of experience. I suggest that experience will prove that we shall get an outcry from the long employed agricultural workers against the seasonal workers and the benefits they draw. If we adopted the suggestion that the contribution should be 6d. during the first six months of any employment and should drop to 4½d. as soon as possible, and then after two, three or four years continuous employment should go down to 3d., I believe that we should give a far greater guarantee to the seasonal workers that they would not be brought into the scheme by Act of Parliament in 1936 and then be regulated out of it again in 1937 or 1938.
Moreover the suggestion which I am making would materially contribute to the financial security of the scheme. I believe that the committee has gravely under-estimated the extent to which farmers keep their men on in slack time and the extent to which they will turn them off in slack time if the Bill goes through. I had a meeting of the farmers in my constituency, and I hope the House will not think that I am attaching too much importance to it, but at that meeting, at which 60 men were present, one half of them definitely said that they kept their men on when they would otherwise have turned them off because there was no scheme, and one half said that they would turn them off in slack time if we had a scheme. The suggestion of the contribution going down to 3d. after an uninterrupted series of employment over a period of years would counteract the temptation to the farmer to turn his men off. In the interests of the security of the scheme and of justice and to prevent the outcry which I believe will take place otherwise, I beg the Minister to give this matter careful consideration, to see what can be done on these lines and whether he cannot reduce the burden of this scheme to the long-term worker. It is a burden. It is £l a year coming out of wages which are lower than those paid to coal miners; and the farm worker is in many respects a more skilled worker. Some of us sitting on these benches have done a good deal of work alongside the Minister of Labour in his more enlightened days, and we hope that the light that burned within him then has not quite gone out. I hope he will give sympathetic consideration to my proposal.
6.6. p.m.
I do not know whether it is usual for a new boy to congratulate another new boy on his maiden speech, but I am going to crave the indulgence of the House as a maiden speech maker and to congratulate the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland), to say how much I envy his having got through with his speech, and how much I have enjoyed listening to it. I hope I may have the indulgence of the House, that my floundering will not be too much for their patience, and that I shall not swim too far in forbidden waters. I rise to support the Bill, not because I like it altogether or because I think it meets with the unqualified approval either of the employers or the employed, but because I think the agricultural workers have undoubtedly made out a very good and a very just claim to be given an equivalent degree of security, or as near an equivalent as possible, to that given to other workers.
I do not pretend to like the type of security which the Bill offers to them, because I believe that the industry is capable of offering a very much better type of security. I only hope that hon. Members on the other side of the House will in the near future co-operate with those who are trying to work along quite defined lines to give the agricultural workers that only security which is really worth while, namely, the chance to work continuously at the highest wages that the industry can possibly offer. That, surely, as the hon. Member for Maldon (Sir E. Euggles-Brise) said, is the only real way to deal with this problem. One can look upon this Bill as rather a quaint one; because every hon. Member must have made up his mind that if there is one Bill that we want to see never put into operation it is this one. I look upon it as but an overture to a very much bigger policy, which will enable us to get back that measure of expansion which will restore our agricultural industry once again into an employment-giving industry rather than one in which we have to think of unemployment.
It has been said that the employers— the National Farmers' Union has been mentioned—have been against this Bill or, at any rate, not entirely friendly to it. I have a certain amount of experience of the National Farmers' Union, and I can say that a few years ago it would have been perfectly true to state that they were not friendly to this Measure. Farmers are, of course, an odd set of people. While they reserve to themselves the right to make an occasional complaint about the condition of things—I think the Minister of Agriculture will bear me out that it is only an occasional complaint—they are the most optimistic set of people that we have. Beyond being optimistic they are undoubtedly a very proud set of people. For many years and up to a few years ago they were still hoping that they would be able to carry their own burden of unemployment as they have done in the past, thereby, incidentally, saving this country a tremendous amount of money, but, unfortunately, economic factors have been against them. Now, there is a change of heart, at any rate amongst those who belong to the National Farmers' Union.
At this moment I do not think that there are more than three or four counties actually against the Bill as such, and there is not one against the motive of the Bill, which is to give security to our agricultural workers. This change of heart has come about, and now the Bill is accepted particularly by two sets of people, first, that class of farmer who recognises in the Bill a means of giving to his workers the guarantee of security which he himself no longer can guarantee, and, secondly, by those employers who see that now they will, more or less, have the right to turn off men where before they were able to carry out their duty and keep them on in slack times. I deplore the tendency, which will probably come about, of turning men off. I am afraid, however, that it is inevitable in this type of legislation. Nevertheless, it is deplorable. But it can be checked, and that is the resolve this House has to make. It can and will be checked by the Government's agricultural policy. The whole of the farming community is waiting with some anxiety for the Government's long-term agricultural policy, and I am confident that when that policy is unfolded, as unfolded it must be very soon, it will envisage such a degree of expansion that will make it quite impossible for the industry to think in terms of unemployment.
There is no doubt whatever of the capacity of our land to increase its production, and there is no doubt of its capacity to increase its function of employment-giving. At the present time there are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of acres waiting to be drained. We know of one catchment board which could deal straight-away with something like 40,000 acres, and that would give much employment; but they simply dare not do it because they do not know how they could use the land profitably. We need not doubt the capacity and the ability of the industry not only to increase its employment but to pay reasonable wages. Hon. Members on the other side can believe it or not, but I think they really know it, that if the farmers could put up the wages they would do it as quickly as they could. The ability to do that depends entirely upon the will of this House.
The Minister of Agriculture has told us that this House will have to make many decisions dealing with agriculture very shortly. Perhaps it is a bit unfortunate that the first Measure is one contemplating unemployment, but I am convinced that the House will see in agriculture a means and probably the only means in the immediate future of solving some of the problems which are facing them. I do not honestly think that it is quite so important to deal in shillings, as to be determined that we shall not need the Bill, and to do what we can to get that security which it gives, and try to attract people back to the land, so that we can get on with our expansion. On those lines I accept the Bill, but it must be a bit disturbing to hon. Members on this side when they realise that it has been contemplated that just about the time when we are likely to go to the country, unemployment— this is estimated by the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee—will have risen from about the 15 per cent. at which it now stands to something like 21 per cent. That is only an estimate on past experience. Nevertheless, it must disturb some of us who are wondering what the future is going to be. If the potentialities of the countryside are neglected I rather tremble for what may happen to some of us in country constituencies.
As to the details of the Bill, I hope that every encouragement will be given to the long-term hirings, because that is the right sort of security. The man then knows that for a year at least he will have employment. In order to protect these men from being swamped by seasonal workers I hope that it will be possible to raise the number of weeks necessary to come into the benefits of the scheme, and that an amendment will be made on these lines to give them that protection. I believe it is the will of this House to assist the Government in making this industry once more capable of giving a vast amount of employment. We have lost 200,000 workers since 1921. We can get them back, along those departments of agriculture which mechanisation cannot touch. I am certain that we can do it, although this is not the time to go fully into that matter. I hope the Bill will be accepted not as the best means of dealing with agricultural unemployment but as a preliminary to those long-term measures which will restore prosperity not only to the farmer, but give to the workers a much better share.
6.17 p.m.
Let me commence by congratulating the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Major Dorman-Smith) on the interesting speech he has just delivered. He and I happen to be members of the National Farmers' Union and have met on other occasions. I should like to congratulate him not only as a member of the National Farmers' Union, but as a somewhat older Member of this House, and I hope that we shall hear him speak on agricultural questions on many future occasions. I find myself in agreement with very much that the hon. and gallant Member said. He mentioned, as did also the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland), to whose speech I listened with great interest, the casualisation of agricultural labour as a result of the operation of this Bill. It is quite likely that some farmers may take adantage of the Bill and put off men who otherwise they would employ throughout the dead season, but that is a possibility which I think can be exaggerated. As an employer of agricultural labour I know the extreme value of having permanent hands wherever you can. Apart from the point of view of technical efficiency, you get a much better type of man and much better work if he is permanently employed than if he is put off for a portion of the year. All good farmers know that, and are prepared to go a long way in order to keep their men on.
On the other hand, I must point out that there has been a very definite tendency in recent years towards the casualisation of agricultural labour, due to the present state of the industry. This has been particularly the case in arable farming. In East Anglia, where wheat and the fattening of live stock in the winter form the normal method of husbandry, the breakdown of the normal method of farming due to the fall in beef prices and in wheat, until the wheat quota came in, has meant a very definite tendency towards casualisation. East Anglia is now dependent on two main crops, wheat and sugar beet, and sugar beet is a branch which increases casual labour. A large amount of labour is required during the hoeing time in the spring and the pulling time in the autumn; and nothing at all at other times. When wheat and sugar beet are the main basis of the system, and the fattening of store stock in the winter also tends to go down, you get an increase of casual labour. That has been going on in all districts where arable farming is the principal and perhaps the only method of cultivation. But in the grass countries in the West, which I know better, the tendency has also been going on. When dairying became a very large part of farming operations it tended for a time to help the position, but there came a gradual fall of milk prices over a period of years, and as a result of the difficulties arising from it farmers had to meet a new position. Not until the coming of the Milk Board, which somewhat helped to improve the position, has there been any tendency in the opposite direction. Farmers had to economise by increasing the number of men they employed for a portion of the year. In the villages in my own constituency, which I have watched for some years, there has been an increase in the number of persons employed only part-time, put on piece work for hedging and ditching, and taken on in the hay-making season and then put off again. Every village shows an increase in that type of labour, and even if there is an increase in this direction as a result of the Bill it will be nothing new. That is my point; it is nothing new.
The best argument for the Bill is that it is the only way to meet the casualisation of labour in the villages. Men in this position have only the Poor Law to fall back upon. In some parts of the country the public assistance committee have insisted upon some form of test work. I have many cases in my constituency of men who have to apply for Poor Law benefit because they are not in an insurable occupation or have lost benefit and they have to travel 10, 15 and 20 miles to do test work in the workhouse. Very often it costs more to bring them there than the benefit which the State or local authority receives from the test work. Anything which will tend to prevent this and bring the agricultural labourer off that kind of relief, and give him the justice to which he is entitled if he is an insured person, must be for the benefit of the community as a whole. We on the Labour benches cannot be satisfied with the Bill as it is. The fear we have is that it is going to keep down the level of agricultural wages, it is not going to be, as it should be, an incentive to an improvement. In the Third Schedule to the Bill are the scales of relief. We consider that they are far too low. In many districts in the West agriculture industry and mining are found side by side. This is what will happen. Public assistance committees give relief to agricultural workers on the same level as to industrial workers, and the position is now as satisfactory as it can be in the circumstances.
If the Bill comes into operation, the agricultural worker will be on a much lower level; he will be worse off than he is under the present administration of the public assistance committee. The only way in which that can be prevented is by a more generous scale of benefits. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) mentioned a suspicion that the Exchequer is going to benefit by the Bill. When Part II of the Unemployment Insurance Act comes into operation savings will be brought about, and if this Bill comes into operation those savings will not be utilised. The effect will be that the agricultural labourer will not get the benefits he ought to get. We fear that the Exchequer will save at least £1,250,000 or £1,500,000 by this Bill, whereas they are only contributing something like £600,000 to the scheme. The argument which will probably be brought against us is that if we level up the scale of benefits to those of industrial workers they will be almost equal to the wages of agricultural labourers to-day.
That is an argument for improving the level of the agricultural labourers' wages but it is not altogether true. Those who are engaged as stock-men, dairymen and carters and so forth have an average level of wages which is somewhere between 36s. and 39s. a week. I know of some districts where the wages in those categories are 39s. a week. The benefit to a man on that wage in case of unemployment will amount to 26s. 6d. a week, if he has a wife and two children. A miner or industrial worker with a wife and two children would get 35s. a week which would still be 4s. below the wage of an agricultural worker in the category to which I refer. I admit that the case of the general labourer getting 32s. or 33s. a week is different and that the rate of benefit which is paid to the industrial worker would be 2s. or 3s. more than the average wages paid to the general agricultural worker. I maintain that there is a very strong argument in favour of utilising this Bill for the purpose of raising the wages level of the lower-paid categories of agricultural workers.
It is no good saying that because the wages of the general workers are what they are now, we must have a Bill introduced into this House which aims at economising and a cutting down and which fails to do what it ought to do for all classes of agricultural workers. Therefore, although my hon. Friends and I welcome this Bill and feel that it is an advance upon existing conditions and that it is better than nothing, we feel very strongly that it is most unsatisfactory and that better conditions ought to have been provided for in it. We reserve to ourselves the right of moving Amendments in Committee to meet the points we have in mind and we shall then see what attitude we shall adopt towards the Bill when it comes before the House in its final stages.
6.32 p.m.
May I say, as one who is making his first appearance in this House, that it is very pleasing indeed to me to find that all parties are in agreement about doing justice to our agricultural workers. The agricultural question in Scotland is somewhat different from that in England. I am glad to think that the agricultural industry in England has such an excellent representative as the hon. Member who spoke as one of the leaders of the Farmers' Union in England. Our experience is that the Farmers' Union in Scotland is, apparently, opposed to this Measure, as an organisation, but when we meet farmers as individuals we find that they are just as sympathetic towards the farm-workers as any other class in the community. In Scotland farm servants are engaged mostly on periods of six months or 12 months and the Scottish farmer attaches great importance to the family spirit which prevails among the employés on his farm. He does not regard them merely as employés To him each one is Jock or Jim or whatever his familiar name may be, and I can say that Scottish farmers are just as much concerned about the welfare of the men as they are about their own industry.
I have the honour of representing a constituency which is half agricultural and half industrial. I have had many opportunities, on the one hand, of meeting with farmers and on the other hand as a Lord Provost of the city of Perth, I have had frequent opportunities of seeing how this question affects urban life. As a rule, there is, apparently, comparatively little unemployment among agricultural workers in the county of Perth. That absence of unemployment is apparent but it is not real. When it happens that the work is very far advanced and the term finishes in November and the farmers no longer require the hands, they do not re-engage the men, perhaps for a month or two months following the November term. The result is that many of our most skilled agricultural workers are driven into the city. There is a strong feeing of resentment on the part of the average agricultural worker against having to seek public assistance but as a rule when he comes into the city he is compelled to do so. I know that in November, 1934, for instance, a number of families were driven from the country into the city in that way and it cost the city a halfpenny in the pound to maintain them.
The great danger is that these agricultural workers having been driven into the city will never go back to the country. At once they enter into competition with city workers for various kinds of labouring jobs. That is the serious aspect of the question to-day as far as the city is concerned and there is also to be considered the demoralisation of the agricultural workers who are thus taken away from the form of employment which they are best able to perform. Thus the reason why there is apparently no unemployment among the agricultural workers is because those workers are gradually drifting into the city. It may be said, quite truly, that at the moment there is no agricultural unemployment but that is because the number of workers in the country is gradually being reduced and when a busy time comes workers cannot be obtained. If they get jobs in the city they are not likely to go back to the country.
My real purpose in rising is to stress one point which I sincerely hope the Minister will seriously consider. That is with reference to the position of private gardeners. I cannot understand why private gardeners should be excluded from the benefits of the Measure. I understand that if they are wage-earners employed by private persons such as the owners of estates they are to be excluded. I think that is a great mistake. In many parts of the county of Perth and I am sure elsewhere throughout the land, owners of property are turning their estates into private limited companies. My interpretation of the Bill is that such companies would be compelled to bring their workers within its operation. I cannot see the difference between a company and a private owner in this respect.
The gardeners are wage-earners and the Bill is supposed to help wage-earners. Then, in the outskirts of cites, there are many private gardeners who are employed in this way. There is one principal gardener who is the employer of others and they go round giving a day or two days or a week here and there. If these are also to be excluded, there again the Bill will deny to wage-earners in this very important horticultural branch of the industry, that benefit to which they are entitled. If the Minister gives serious consideration to that question I feel that he will see that he can do a great deal of good to these private gardeners by including them in the Bill. I understand they have already approached him on the subject and have asked why they should not be regarded as working men and wage-earners.
There is another point which is, I hope, relevant to the discussion of this question. We have immediately round the city of Perth a number of smallholdings which are being successfully worked by one of the finest bodies of people with which I have been brought into contact for a long time. They have to work very hard. It is not a question of an eight hours day with them. They are up with the rising of the sun and are engaged at their work long after the sun has gone down. Some of them have been remarkably successful. I know the case of a lady and gentleman who have worked a smallholding of little more than five acres. They have worked so hard and have done so well out of that holding that they have been able to give one of their daughters a university education and send their son into a profession. It has involved hard work and they told me themselves that they would not like to do it again. All honour to those people who have made sacrifices and have striven in order that their families should get the finest heritage that it is possible to get from any father or mother, namely, a sound, good education.
I suggest that there should be a voluntary element as well as a, compulsory element in this Measure. Certain proposals are to be made by the Government in connection with another Measure by which people may voluntarily come into benefit. Several of these smallholders have spoken to me about the possibility of being driven out of their smallholdings should times become bad. The information they give me is that, taking one year with another, they have generally one really good year out of every five and that during the other four years they find difficulty in doing more than paying their way. One can conceive their desire to secure themselves against the possibility of bad times. They would like to be allowed to enter voluntarily into this scheme so that if a time came when they needed help they would not be driven to public assistance which is abhorrent to them. They would like to be able to feel that they had paid for insurance against unemployment. I hope the Minister will consider that point. While it is true that in my constituency many farmers have indicated that they do not like this Bill I am certain that at the bottom of their hearts they approve of it. I believe it can be improved. I notice that the Minister is smiling and I feel sure that he has something up his sleeve.
indicated dissent.
I think the right hon. Gentleman showed us the worst of the Bill to-day, and that it will be possible to make improvements in it later. I must congratulate him on the clarity with which he presented it to the House. It is sometimes difficult for those who are entering politics for the first time to grasp what is being said by Ministers and by other Members of the House but I thoroughly understood the right hon. Gentleman in his presentation of the case for this Bill to-day. If in Committee he gives consideration to the points which I have raised I feel that he will confer a great blessing on a great community.
6.45 p.m.
May I first of all congratulate the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) on his excellent maiden speech? I have spent years trying in some way to help the agricultural labourer, who has always been sacrificed to the interests of the town and urban populations of this country. I hope the Minister has something up his sleeve, or in his heart, and that in either case he will hand it on to the Minister who is to reply to this Debate to-night, so that we may get it printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Most of us on this side think this Bill could be considerably improved, and we do not agree entirely with some of those who have spoken. I refer particularly to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise), which was not altogether of a very cheerful character, and it seems to me that his attitude with regard to everything which this House has done for the agricultural community might be expressed in the saying, "What is the good of doing anything? Why, nothing." His attitude was that the farmer could not afford this small expense per week in order that the agricultural labourer should have unemployment insurance. Indeed, I think he joined with the rest of the farmers, or most of them in this country who grumble no matter what happens.
That attitude is very well illustrated by an experience of a friend of mine who went into the Isle of Axholme out of my division on a visit to another farmer friend. They went out in a horse and cart and came to a field of wheat. My friend said, "My word, George, that is a fine field of wheat you have there." He replied, "Aye, but it is light in the middle." They went a little further and came to a field of turnips, when my friend said, "My word, that will be a fine bit of feed for the hogs when you take them from the ewes." He replied, "Aye, but wool's makin' nowt." They drove further, and my friend said "Isn't it a wonderful morning?" He replied, "Aye, but it will rain to-morrow." I rather think we shall have to appoint my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Maldon division as the representative of that kind of farmer.
I have for the past 15 or 20 years agitated in favour of unemployment insurance for agricultural labourers, and I think many hon. Members may miss what I consider to be the important point in favour of a Bill like this. I believe it will create in the labourers a spirit of independence. At the present time when a man in a country village drops out of work, where has he to go to? In parts of my division he has to cycle to test work, to clean out drains, say, eight or 10 miles there and back, four days in the week, and he gets the magnificent sum of 15s. a week for doing it. I commend that to some of those hon. Members who live in urban districts and think the agricultural labourer should be left without unemployment insurance. In my own county of Lincolnshire there are 200 branches of the Agricultural Labourers' Union which in 1920, as has been truly stated, were not in favour of unemployment insurance, but the continual increase in unemployment and the amount of casual labour that has been created by the growth of sugar beet, etc., has caused them to take a different view of this problem. Those 200 branches are now in favour of insurance, and conferences have been held at Spalding, at Lincoln, and at Grimsby which have carried support of a Bill for unemployment insurance for agricultural labourers unanimously in the past two months.
I have favoured insurance, and I think I have spoken for it in this House between five and six years ago. I am in this position, which is a very difficult position to be in, that I will fight in order that we might improve this Bill where we think it can be improved. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be a little more generous towards the countryside. I have complained previously that the labourers have received little or no advantage from the subsidies that have been granted to agriculture and that these subsidies have gone into the pockets of the farmers. I say that in reply to some statements which I have heard with regard to what this Bill will do to farmers. I could give proof of cases where they employ four or five men where at one time they employed a dozen. To say that a half-crown a week will, make all the difference between success and poverty, and that it will put the farmer into the bankruptcy court, is pure nonsense, as if a mere 6d. contribution to this unemployment insurance for agricultural labourers will have a bad effect so far as the general farmers are concerned. I believe the best of the farmers are as anxious as are some of us that the agricultural labourers shall be brought within some scheme of insurance. You have casual labour now, and it is said this might increase it, but my view is that it will be of immense advantage to the farmer, in that it will keep the more highly skilled men on the countryside, men who are being driven to the great towns under existing circumstances. I hope and trust that either to-night, or in Committee, or on the Report stage we shall use our best endeavours on all sides to improve this Bill and that those of us who believe in it will finally be able to sustain our opinions by voting for the Measure.
6.53 p.m.
I congratulate the Government on having brought this Bill forward, but I only wish it had been possible to bring it forward in the last Parliament, because the problem of unemployment in the countryside is getting far more serious than many people suppose. This Bill will meet with general approval in the country, and it will meet with particular approval in East Anglia. Indeed, since the report of the Beveridge Committee was published, I have not met anybody who was against the principles behind this Bill, and that is no doubt because that report did show how it was possible to insure the agricultural worker against unemployment, about which, previously, there had been all kinds of doubts. An agricultural worker is now being given the same sort of insurance right as the majority of industrial workers enjoy, and I think it is right, from every point of view, that this should be the case. Actually, the agricultural worker is going to score a little bit, because he is only to be asked to make just over two-fifths of the contribution which the industrial worker has to make, but he will get in benefit four-fifths of what the industrial worker gets, and, as has been said, the terms of the Bill are in some respects better even than the proposals in the report of the Beveridge Committee.
As I have said, I do not think the public realises how very serious this problem in the countryside is. Various causes have been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for the Maldon Division (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) and by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price), but there is one other cause which I would like to add to those mentioned by them, and that is the rapid increase in mechanisation which is taking place in agriculture all over the country. One does not have to go very far into the country to see that. Just now in East Anglia is a very bad time for unemployment. Between January and May, in round figures, 3,000 agricultural workers will be out of work, and with their dependants that must come to something like 6,000 people scattered over a very wide area. All those people will be getting at present public assistance in one form or another, and in future years, therefore, this Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, will help them through a very difficult time.
There is a specific point which I would like to put to the Minister, in connection with Clause 11. I listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and I understood him to say, with regard to this difficult question of workers who are for part of the year industrial and for another part of the year agricultural workers, that both types of benefit could be drawn successively, but not concurrently. I take that to mean that one type of benefit can be drawn one week, and another type another week, but that both benefits cannot be drawn at one and the same time. I share the fear expressed by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), that men of this type might somehow fall between two stools and find themselves getting no benefit at all. I would put the type of case of which I have had some experience. Under Clause 11, I take it, the Minister has power to make regulations about these men even though they do not appear in the Bill at the present time, but I would like to say this to my right hon. Friend, that in East Anglia there is a large number of people who might be called two-job men. They work for four months of the year, September to January, in beet sugar factories and are agricultural workers for the rest of the year. In one factory which I know quite intimately 800 men are employed, and as there are at least half a dozen of these factories in East Anglia, the number of these men who may be affected by Clause 11 is considerable. They are agricultural workers between January and September, and many of them, if they are unemployed, are able to get unemployment insurance benefit, having paid contributions at the rate of 10d. per week.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, to be good enough to expound the position of these men under Clause 11 a little bit further, because I would not like any injustice to be done to anybody under the Clause, and there is a certain fear at the present time that some injustice may be done unless the committee which considers the. Bill is very vigilent indeed. Subject to a favourable reply upon this point, I would like to wish the Bill every possible success, and, in conclusion, to express the hope that the next Bill of this type which the Minister brings forward will be one to extend this kind of assistance to all fishermen.
6.59 p.m.
I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has members of the Farmers' Union in his own party. May I ask him this question? If his party were granted the freedom of human beings instead of rabbits would there not be some members of it opposing this Bill to-night? Is it not his standing orders which are keeping men from opposing this. Of course it is, and everyone knows it. Everyone knows, by his interruptions, that one of the Members for the Welsh divisions is as violently opposed to this Bill as I am. A far as I can gather, on the Third Beading of this Bill, unless certain guarantees are given, the Labour party are likely to oppose it— that unless the benefits are increased to something like those of the urban dweller the Labour party are likely to oppose the Bill. That position to me is a ridiculous one. When you allow this Bill and the Financial Resolution to go forward, in effect you are seconding the conditions of benefit, because the only way you can increase the benefits after you have passed the Financial Resolution and the Second Reading is by increasing the worker's contribution or the employer's contribution, or both. You cannot increase the State's contribution. Only the Government can increase that. If you are going to increase benefits between now and Third Reading, it can be done only at the expense of the farm worker and the employer.
We were sneered at by a new Member on the Liberal benches for not putting down a proper Amendment as to the scheme being actuarially unsound. If we did that we should only be proving the same as has been done with every other Unemployment Insurance Bill, that it was actuarially unsound. I remember the Blanesburgh Committee telling us how they could build up a permanent scheme, and within three years the scheme, which was drafted with great care and introduced as the salvation of unemployment insurance, was upset and smashed. Similarly with other efforts.
What is the main objection that we find here? Everybody assures us that there ought to be some difference between the agricultural worker and his brother, the industrial worker. Once you accept that argument it is inevitable that the same argument applies in the industrial towns between one industrial worker and another. I listened to a closely reasoned speech by the new Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) on the cotton situation. The burden of it was that cotton workers were earning in some cases only 33s. a week—less than an agricultural labourer's wage. Why should they have a different scheme, different rates of benefits? Once you accept it for agricultural workers you can gather in every town men who are earning such low wages. I could produce people in my own division who earn £l. At Dixons colliery the men break iron at 30s. a week.
Why not a special scheme and special rates for them? Take a building trade worker and his average over a period of 52 weeks, with broken weather, frost; very often he earns considerably less than unemployment benefit, which he is not eligible to receive, because of the way his work is spread out. There is this idea in Germany already. They have six different schemes at work there now, grading according to this idea that there is some essential difference between one worker and another. Actually more and more the town worker and the country worker must come together. I am backed up in that by the late Labour Minister of Labour in her words on a Motion by Lady Buxton. She stresses the kinship between one worker and another. And if the Labour party's proposals are accepted for the stretching out of the land as the solution of unemployment, it means inevitably that the two come together. Every public parks employé in Britain is an agricultural worker under this Act. The whole of the Glasgow park workers and everyone employed by Suttons, the seed people, or Dobbie in Edinburgh, are agricultural workers under this Act. The motor car and the omnibus, and the rapid exchange between town and town, have made less difference to-day between the country worker and the town worker than there often is between town workers.
A man with five children, under the ordinary scheme, gets £2 1s. Under this scheme, if he is a farm labourer, he will get 30s.—11s. less. I have been long enough in Parliament to know that if I allowed this Measure to go through unchallenged to-night without a vote, within 12 months—nay, within six months —I would be told from that Box that I had agreed to certain people living on 30s. with five children, and that if they could do it so could mine. Under this Bill you are actually agreeing that certain children should get nothing. I am amazed at the House of Commons. We ventured, with great indignation, to increase the amount from 2s. to 3s., and to-night we are saying that certain children should have nothing. A man with three children will get 29s., but if he has six children he will get only 30s. That is to say, under this scheme a man will get only 1s. on which to keep three extra children. Some hon. Members are alarmed about the seasonal workers. The number of people who are alarmed about a worker getting an extra shilling or two always amazes me. Under this Bill seasonal workers will go out. They will get nothing. As a town dweller I take objection to the assumption that it is only agricultural workers who do not like to go to the Poor Law. Nobody likes to do it too well. There is no monopoly in that respect on the part of the agricultural worker. Indeed, under Part II of the Unemployment Insurance Act the necessity of going to the Poor Law is taken away because it makes the employment exchange the medium for the payment of benefit. That kind of argument has, therefore, gone.
We are told that the Government are giving something under the Bill, but the most lamentable thing of all is that business of giving 12½ per cent. if farmers keep their men for six months and 25 per cent. if they keep them for a year. That means that if a man has eight hands he will get 10s. if he keeps them for six months, and £l if he keeps them for a year. I do not know who propounded this scheme, but we are told that the Scottish farmers want it. You should pay the Scottish farmers a little more respect that that. I know their difficulties and foolishnesses, but I pay them more respect than to think that they want that. The Labour party ought to vote against the Bill to-night and not wait for the Third Reading, because what they do to-night determines what they will do afterwards. I know that the Government will say they have given better scales than those for which the Trades Union Congress asked. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is ready to tell us at the close of the Debate that they are giving more than the unions asked for. I can almost see him writing it down on his notes now. He was trained by the Minister of Agriculture in that art; he is a master at it.
The Labour party are moving away from their original sound policy. I have read the evidence of the Trades Union Congress given before the Blanesburgh Commission by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and two others. The whole of their evidence was that there should be one scheme and no differentiation, a non-contributory scheme which would raise the standards even above the present ordinary scheme. They recommended 5s. for a child and £l for a man. The committee that reported in 1926 took that view, and nobody more so than the workers' representatives on the committee. To-day the Labour party are departing from that policy; they are getting away from it. Once they get away from it I warn them that it will have serious consequences on the standards of benefits. I have read evidence in the Blanesburgh Commission's report urging differentiation between the town worker and the agricultural worker. One witness asked why a man with £5 a week who has to keep up the style of £5 should get the same as the man who earns only £2 a week. That is the basis of this Bill. I may be told that I am preventing the agricultural worker from getting something by my opposition and that this Bill is merely an instalment. If I am doing that I am sorry; if I am hindering any social improvement I regret it, but I have to look to the interests of 13,000,000 working people.
The Labour movement has with others some credit for having fought to raise the standards. If they agree to this Bill going through unchallenged they will endanger every man inside the normal scheme. To me that is a grave step, for I can never allow a scale of benefit going through which I think is disgraceful. I would that the agricultural worker came into the general working-class movement and lent his aid for producing a new Government so that a Bill could be produced which would have neither the risks nor the dangers which this Measure has. We in this party disagree fundamentally from the point of view represented by this Bill. It may be that we have not consulted the agricultural workers. Sneers of that kind come very ill from the right hon. Gentleman, who sends his ex-Prime Minister, with all his past, to a Scottish University. If he can do that he can afford to sneer very little at anybody. To us this Bill represents reaction and lower scales of benefit. If agricultural wages are as low as we are told they are, that is all the more reason for sticking to the scales of benefit of other workers. The lower the wage a man has, the more he should fight for higher benefits. We will have no regrets in dividing the House on this Bill. Our numbers may be very small, but, as long as we are allowed representation in this House, we will fight every time to protect our constituents and the workers in general against a Measure which, we think, will endanger the well-being of the great mass of the unemployed.
7.21 p.m.
I beg to second the Amendment.
An hon Member referred to it as being actuarially unsound, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has said, if that were so, it would be in line with many Unemployment Insurance Acts that have gone before. They have all been actuarially unsound and their depleted finances have been made good out of the public purse. Our proposal is that instead of meeting the debts after they have been incurred, we should place the fund on the national Exchequer from the beginning. Implicit in our proposal for higher rates for agricultural workers is not that higher charges should be placed upon either the worker or the farmer, but that the scheme should be a non-contributory one, the whole charge to be borne by the State. I feel with my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals that in beginning this differentiation, this classification under the Unemployment Insurance Fund of industrial workers and agricultural workers, we are doing something more to make the agricultural worker a class apart. This is being proposed at a time when the Government say they are aiming at making agriculture one of the recognised industries of the country. At a time, too, when we are proposing to raise the status of agriculture in order to make it something else than a step-child among industries, it is proposed that the agricultural worker shall be made a step-child so far as Unemployment Insurance is concerned.
The present scales of benefit paid to the industrial worker are the least that are defensible for the bare maintenance of life. In order to justify an agricultural worker getting less than that it is no use saying that he is living on a cheaper level and that his wants are smaller. In Scotland the agricultural worker often has a house in connection with his job. I do not know how far that prevails in England. If he becomes unemployed, he not only loses his wage, but he loses his house. He has then to look, not for a rural house at a correspondingly low rent, but for a house in the nearest big township. He has to look forward during his period of unemployment to paying a higher rent than he would pay when he was employed. He has to look forward to paying for all the commodities that he requires at the same prices as the town worker. You are asking him to do that with 5s. a week less. You are asking him to pay the same rent, the same costs for clothing, for foodstuffs, for transport and for his children, on 5s. less than what is admitted to be too little for the industrial worker.
Therefore, I would not for a minute stand here and have it upon my shoulders that I voted in this House, or allowed to go by default an expression of opinion by this House, that 12s. a week is sufficient in this year 1936 to maintain a full-grown adult in all the necessities of life. I will not do it under whatever guise. I will not give a vote for asking a man to maintain himself on 12s. a week, still less will I give a vote to ask him to maintain his child on nothing a week. It is innate in this scheme that agricultural workers during their period of unemployment are asked to maintain certain members of their family without any money whatever. These reasons alone are enough to justify our hostility to the Measure, and I shall have great pleasure in accompanying my hon. Friend in the Lobby.
7.30 p.m.
We have just heard an argument with which this House is rather familiar. It is always a delight to listen to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), but I would remind the House that he used the same argument when the Widow's Pension Bill was introduced in 1925. He said that if the Act was passed, widows would have to live on 10s. a week. What happened was that the Act became law and very shortly afterwards the Labour party brought forward an amending Act for the purpose of making more widows live on 10s. a week. Nobody ever suggested that 10s. a week was sufficient, and no one suggests to-day that the benefits to be paid to agricultural workers are sufficient, but we do say that the workers will get something which they have not had before. Surely the hon. Member for Bridgeton wants them to get some benefits. I should have thought that from the tactical point of view the best thing was to go step by step and to increase benefits as time goes on, and not to take the advice of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan)—who said that we should reject this Bill altogether—and wait for an impossible time until hon. Members opposite may get into power. The hon. Member for Bridgeton said that by this Bill we are separating agricultural workers from the workers in other industries, and the hon. Member for Gorbals quoted from a speech made by the right hon. Lady who was Minister of Labour. I think that if hon. Members will look at the speech from which he quoted they will see that it does not bear out his interpretation. The right hon. Lady said:
"I said before, and I repeat it to-night, that one of my main reasons for wishing to see agricultural workers brought within the insurance scheme is because I am convinced we must try to break down the wall of separation between workers in industry and workers in agriculture."
She went on, at the end of the paragraph, to say:
"I am hoping that negotiations will enable us to get something near an agreed scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th June, 1930; cols. 539–540; Vol. 240.]
The hon. and gallant Member has omitted from the quotation words which, as a matter of fact, would completely refute the interpretation he puts upon the right hon. Lady's speech.
I do not dispute that I left out words, but let me complete my argument. What I gather from the last part of the right hon. Lady's speech is that she would have liked to have seen an agreed scheme to include all workers. I do not think that was possible, but I do say that, even if we have different schemes, we are getting nearer to bringing the agricultural workers and the workers in the towns together simply by having a scheme for agricultural workers, although it may not be a general one. I do not believe it would be possible to get a general scheme, because I think that both workers and employers might feel that they would have to pay something towards keeping the workers in the rest of the country, especially when unemployment in agriculture is lower. Therefore, I believe that agricultural workers welcome this Bill, not because it will give them all that they would like, but because it will give them as much as they can hope for, having regard to the smallness of their contributions.
I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour say that the change of opinion with regard to bringing agricultural workers under Unemployment Insurance has been very slow. I think it has been very rapid, particularly when I remember that in the Debate on this subject in 1929, although hon. Members on the whole were in favour, it was felt that the time was not yet ripe. Naturally, the right hon. Gentleman's idea with regard to the rapidity of a change in opinion may be different from mine, but I would remind him that it took him many years to change his views on the fiscal question.
Undoubtedly there will be difficulties. The effects of this Bill may not be exactly what we intend, and I think casual unemployment may be increased. Many farmers have kept their men at work when they did not need them because the men had no unemployment assistance, but it should not be forgotten that when Part II comes into operation, they may still keep their men at work. Therefore, I do not think that as many men will be turned off as may be imagined. Moreover, if a farmer turns off his men because he knows they will have unemployment assistance, it may be that the money he saves by not keeping them at work when he does not need them will go towards employing more men at times of the year when labour is more necessary. Consequently, I do not fear that, on the whole, the Bill will work to the detriment of the industry in this respect. I particularly welcome Clause 11, which one might describe as the transference Clause, because in that the right hon. Gentleman is doing what hon. Members opposite want to see done, that is to say, workers being treated alike. This Clause makes it much easier for a man to be employed in the agricultural industry and to get his insurance when he goes to the town, and vice versa.
One of the reasons why workers have left the countryside is that the young men are dissatisfied because they do not get Unemployment Insurance. The hon. Baronet the Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) seems to think that there is not very much in that point, and he said that as things are men ought to be proud to be in the agricultural industry because unemployment is less there than in other industries. I think he missed a very important argument. The agricultural worker feels that Unemployment Insurance is a recognition of a man being a skilled worker, and he feels that because he is not insured he is looked upon as being unskilled, although we all know that the agricultural worker is one of the most skilled of all workers.
I do ask the Minister to give further consideration to the question of exempting family farms. Under the first Schedule the son or son-in-law working on a family farm will be excluded from insurance. I am not sure that that is wise. It was done in Germany, and what happened was that the members of one family walked across the way and worked for the farmer opposite, and vice versa. In this way they obtained insurance, but their work was probably not done so efficiently. I think very careful consideration will have to be given to the question as to whether this Clause should stand.
I would like particularly to raise the question of private gardeners. When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking and an hon. Member asked why private gardeners should be left out, he referred us to the report, but I do not think the report is very convincing in the reasons it gives for excluding private gardeners working for private people. The report suggests that if private gardeners are insured it will raise the whole question whether domestic servants should be insured. I do not wish to express an opinion on that matter now, but the time will come when it will have to be dealt with. Nevertheless, it is an extraordinary argument that a request for insuring private gardeners cannot be considered because it raises the other question. What is the reason that is given? It is that if gardeners were insured the position would be impossible because chauffeurs would not be insured. But does not the right hon. Gentleman know that in the country to-day quite a number of men who work on farms in the summer are given jobs as grooms in the winter? Does he realise that under this Act these men will be insured, and that consequently there will be an anomaly in that the groom who works on the farm in the summer will carry over his insurance and will be insured, whereas the gardener will not? I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to look at the matter from a different point of view. Why can we not look at it from the point of view of occupation? If a man is a gardener let him be insured, but if he is a domestic servant let him not be insured. Can we not look at the matter from the point of view of the work, and not group together as domestic servants everybody who is employed by a private person? In that way it would be possible to get a fair scheme.
I believe that to-day we are setting out on a great task, a task which will give an enormous amount of security to the agricultural workers of this country, and although hon. Members opposite do not like this Bill and say it would have been a much better one if they had been in power—that is what an opposition always has to say—nevertheless they will unwillingly have to support the Measure. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having brought forward this Measure on which we have now got agreement. It has long been wanted and it will strengthen the good feelings which already exist between employers and employed. I believe it will stop, or at any rate is intended to stop, migration from the country to the towns.
7.43 p.m.
May I first of all be allowed to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour for the manner in which he has introduced his Bill? He dealt clearly with all the points, with the exception of one. In the few remarks which I shall make I would ask the House to bear in mind the fact that I make them as the son of a farm labourer, who, at the very best earned no more than 12s. a week, a sum which at that time, however, was worth very much more indeed to those of us who were brought up in the country than the 30s. a week which the same farm labourers earn now in the town in which I was born. At the same time I address the House as representing a county which has, it is said, about 14,000 farm workers in it, and when this Bill passes, as I hope it will, as quickly as possible, 5,000 extra names will be added to the Employment Exchange in Carmarthen Town. The right hon. Gentleman must indeed be a proud man as he introduces a Bill which the majority of the Members of the House must regard as being a Simple matter of justice to the farm worker. If he will allow me to say so without offence, from his very origin he himself knows of the hardships and the difficulties that the farm worker has to suffer. But I must confess that when the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) addressed the House, I felt perhaps a temporary twinge of conscience concerning the possibility of these sectional schemes coming into existence as the hon. Member mentioned has been done in Germany. I hope the Minister will say categorically that that will be impossible.
The very structure of the Bill shows it. The whole Bill is based on the assumption that, apart from the necessary modifications for agriculture, the structure is that of the main scheme.
The hon. Member for Gorbals addressed an argument to us which I know is most attractive on the surface, and it seems to me that I, as a member of this party, am brought up against this proposition: If I vote against this Bill to-night, and if a majority of Members take the same action, we shall be depriving 750,000 workers in this country of possible amelioration at once. For me it is simply a question of whether this temporary Measure—
There is a simple answer to that question. The hon. Member voted against widows' pensions, and so did I. The simple answer is that he did not deprive the widows of their pensions. By voting against this Bill we should defeat the Government and give the country a new Government—we should get a new Government which would be even better.
That situation is only partly covered, because it seems perfectly clear to me that I have to make the choice of whether the farm labourer shall have this measure of benefit now or shall have to wait for it for a term of years, the end of which cannot possibly be known. I have taken the trouble to get to know from the farmers and farm workers in my constituency what they think of the Bill, and I find that almost without exception they support the principle of it. Whilst some of the farmers are apprehensive that it will be misused, the same apprehension is felt and has been expressed by the farm workers. I think that apprehension has been very well expressed on page 31 of the statutory committee's report. The words there exactly represent the apprehension felt by my farmer friends in Carmarthen:
One point about the structure of the Bill which I regret is that it is legislation by reference. I would have preferred a new and complete Bill. Let us take as an example the First Schedule, on page 12. Anyone reading that would think that the farmer himself and his wife are not exempted; but the farmer and his wife are exempted under the original Bill. Because the Bill is legislation by reference no farm labourer who reads it can make head or tail of it unless he has the original Act by his side. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible to translate Clauses 5 and 6 into such language as the farm labourer can understand. I confess that I had to read them half-a-dozen times before I could even begin to understand what they were driving at, and I had to read the report of the Statutory Committee to understand the intention and meaning of Clause 6. It is important that the farm worker should know what his rights are. It is more important, if he should be on benefit, that he should know himself, from his reading of the Bill, that he is getting his rights. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some simple explanation—and perhaps he will be so kind as to use figures—of how this Clause will work in practice, because I think he will agree that it introduces a new principle which is not in the main Act. Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 appears to be exceedingly harsh. It says: or at least an addition to, Section 3 of the main Act, adding the words:
7.59 p.m.
I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr, Hopkin) on the eminently common-sense view he has taken of this Bill. He recognises that it will give an improved status and greater security to the agricultural worker, and, therefore, though perhaps not satisfied with all that it does, he is going to accept it, and he rejects what seems to me, if I may say so, the rather irresponsible though very eloquently offered advice of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Then I should like to endorse the plea that has been so well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) and the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston) that private gardeners should be included in the scope of the Bill. I recognise that under Clause 1 the Minister retains the power to include them later, by regulation, in cases where the employers are in trade, but there are indications that the Minister will have it in his power to except certain areas and to impose certain conditions. I find it difficult to understand why any additional condition or disability should be put upon one class of gardener as compared with another.
We have no idea what will rank as a garden which is run for gain. If a definite proportion of garden produce must be sold in order that the garden may qualify for that definition, I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will tell us what the proportion is to be. I should like to remind him that there are, in these days, very few owners of gardens, be these large or small, who are not glad to be able to dispose in the market of any produce which they do not wish to use for their own tables. In the case of gardens which are far distant from markets, it may be difficult for them to dispose of a large proportion of their produce, and it may also be difficult for the owners to find labour if there is not a town near. If a definite proportion of sales is held to be necessary in order to qualify for the definition, I hope that that proportion will not be high.
I would ask my hon. Friend also to bear in mind something which the report of the committee did not sufficiently emphasise, and that is how desirable it is that as many people as possible should have the joy of possessing a garden. I am certain that all hon. Members will agree in wishing that people should have the joy of owning a garden to work in, if their strength or their other work permits. As many as possible of the unemployed or of the workers in towns should have the joy of doing this kind of healthful work, even if it be only in the evening. No work is more healthy or soothing to the nerves, which is an important element in national wellbeing, as opposed, for instance, to the noise of a factory. What is more delightful than to be able to go in the evening into a small garden and to work in it?
This is a type of hobby—if I may so call it—which is being increasingly adopted by people towards the close of their working lives, but digging is work which must be done by those who are young or vigorous. Comparatively few, therefore, who own gardens are in a position to do all the work of the garden by themselves. They must have the help at least of part-time gardeners and it would be most unfortunate if it were made difficult for such people to get the assistance necessary. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury alluded to the point that some gardeners may be ranked as domestic workers. There may be a minority of gardeners who do domestic work, but it should be easy for the Minister to fix the proportion of work which must be done in the garden in order to qualify for insurance. If an employer tried to keep the worker too much in the house, the latter could ensure that he was kept out of doors for the requisite proportion of time by giving in his notice.
Another objection I have heard raised is that, if the private garden comes under the scheme, the employer may stand the man off in winter when work becomes slack. But if any employer were likely to do that it would be the local authority rather than the private owner, because a very much greater variety of produce is grown in private gardens than in public gardens, which are in use practically only in the summer. The private garden has vegetables and fruit-tree pruning to employ men in winter, but the public garden has not, and therefore the temptation ought to be smaller in the case of the private employer than in the case of the public authority, which is automatically included in the Bill. I hope that we shall be given a definition of a garden kept for gain, and that it will be made possible to include the private owners who try to make their gardens not merely objects of beauty but subjects of utility to themselves and to others.
I wish to say with what disappointment I have found that the Bill does not include another class of rural worker, the gamekeeper. I find no mention of gamekeepers in the Bill, although anybody who has lived much in the country, and particularly in Scotland, will know how important they are in keeping down vermin and game which are harmful to the work of other rural workers. It is only the keepers who are left out, and they may find it very difficult to understand this omission. Some hon. Members may regard gamekeepers as ministering only to pleasure. There no doubt is game which is artificially kept and which is added to for that specific purpose, but I would remind hon. Members that game makes an addition to the food supply of the country, indeed is an important item in that supply. It is extremely valuable for invalids and children, while the sport is a tremendous help to the Highlands of Scotland, as it has for years been attracting both those who are rich and those of moderate means. The keepers are the workers in this industry, and they render a very important service to what is the poorest part of Great Britain.
The gamekeeper performs another important function, which is to safeguard other producers in the rural parish. I have never forgotten how that was brought home to me in the spring of 1917. April, 1917, was one of the worst periods of the War. A keeper said to me, when I asked him if he was getting on with the heather burning: "Heather burning? If we were not out every night looking for the foxes and the cubs"— I daresay that that causes a shiver to some hon. Members, but I must give a conversation which lit up the situation for me in a flash—"there would not be a lamb left in the district." That indicates the service which the keepers perform in the wild areas of the Highlands all through the winter. They are the protectors of the garden, farm and woodland from vermin as well as from the deer who sometimes stray down from those places which are wrongly called forests but are really wildernesses in which the deer manage to exist.
But the financial crisis of recent years has seriously affected sporting estates, and many owners of these estates to their very great distress are unable to employ the gamekeepers and the gardeners they formerly did. If the private gardener is not included under the Bill, he can, if the worst comes to the worst, go to the market gardener, who, I am happy to believe, is increasing in numbers on account of the protection given by the Government to agricultural produce, but if the gamekeeper loses his employment there is no suitable industry to absorb him. If he loses his employment on one estate he is not likely to find another estate adding to the number of its keepers. He has to learn a new job.
I most earnestly plead with the Government to do what they can to bring such workers within the scope of this Measure. Gamekeepers are among the most loyal and patriotic of our people. They are healthy, hard-working men, who are among those types which are best fitted to be the fathers of the future generation.
8.12 p.m.
It has been very encouraging to observe the unanimity which exists in regard to the necessity for this Bill and, in spite of the opposition of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), it is obvious that the House welcomes the Bill as an initial step in giving justice to the agricultural labourer in this country. May I remind hon. Members that the House of Commons has a long way to go before it can re-establish the agricultural labourer in the position which he occupied some years ago? It is not very creditable to the history of this House that during some 80 years no fewer than 2,700 Acts of Parliament have been passed for the sole result of disinheriting the agricultural labourer. Previous speakers have referred to the fact that in the last century or so the agricultural labourer has been driven to the towns and has, in recent years, increased the problem of unemployment there. I would again remind hon. Members that the responsibility rests very largely upon this House.
Before that time, the agricultural labourer had a stake in the countryside. On this side of the House we look forward to the disinherited once more inheriting the earth, so far as this country is concerned. This Measure is a step forward and I rejoice very much that the agricultural labourer is to be included in the comity of insured workers. So far as I can see, there is no obvious reason why he should have remained outside so long. Two reasons have been advanced and have been disposed of adequately by the report of the statutory committee and the suggestions made in the Bill. We have always been told that there is no unemployment in agriculture. That was the favourite cry of the farmers. By that they mean, I presume, that there is always something to do on a farm. It is staggering to learn from the figures given here that the percentage of unemployment in agriculture—where there is no unemployment at all, according to some farmers and some representatives of farmers—is just half of what it is in industry generally. We are bemoaning the fact that there is such great unemployment in industry generally, and in agriculture the percentage is just half what it is in the other industries. That was a staggering discovery. The fact is, of course, that agriculture not only has this floating casual labour which is regarded, I presume, for the purposes of this Bill, as being unemployed, but agriculture has for a long period been gradually squeezing the labourers out of the industry altogether. I should like to know from the Minister whether, in calculating the figure of 7½ per cent., any cognisance was taken of the fact that men are still leaving the countryside and leaving agriculture, or whether we are to take it that the 7½ per cent. refers merely to the casual labour in the industry, without taking into account the fact that since 1920 over 200,000 people have left agriculture altogether.
The other objection which I believe was generally made was that the industry could not afford it. We have estimates of what it is going to cost the industry, and the estimate, if I am right, works out at about £600,000 a year. That is what we are going to ask the industry to do in order to assist the labourer. Surely it is not too much to ask from an industry that has always presented a case to this House for subventions in some form or other. It has been calculated, very carefully I believe, that agriculture is getting between £35,000,000 and £40,000,000 a year out of the British Treasury.
At least.
At least, as my hon. Friend says. These figures were discussed at the meeting of the British Association at Norwich by a very distinguished agricultural economist, and I do not think they have been disputed. An industry that comes here and obtains from £35,000,000 to £40,000,000 a year can surely afford to give £600,000 a year for this very laudable object. It is, as I have said, very encouraging to find that there is unanimity about the Bill. We on these benches welcome it because the agricultural labourer desires it. It is not all that we desire, but it is a beginning, and we hope that in Committee the Minister will have regard to some of the Amendments which will be proposed from this side, and which, I am sure, will have for their purpose, not in any way to make the Bill less effective, but to improve it and make it a real contribution towards the re-establishment of the life of our countryside.
8.20 p.m.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill has every reason to be satisfied with the reception that has been accorded to it. The argument put forward by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), in moving the rejection of the Bill, were very characteristic arguments, and were perfectly logical from the hon. Members' point of view. They were effectively disposed of by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston), and I do not think it is necessary for me to pursue them any further. I shall detain the House for only a very few minutes, but this Bill is one of vital concern to many of my constituents, and for that reason I should like to make some brief observations upon it. The case for the introduction of the Bill rests, as the Minister said, upon the evidence that was put forward in the Report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee, and I think that on the whole the arguments set out in that report must be accepted as convincing. Nevertheless I must confess that I do not share the enthusiasm which has been displayed by some other speakers, and I must confess to having still certain misgivings on some aspects of the Bill.
In the first place, I personally have found it rather hard to determine, in the part of the country which I represent, exactly how strong the demand really is among the agricultural workers for inclusion in a scheme of this kind. The reason, I think, is not very far to seek. There is, relatively, a very low rate of unemployment among the agricultural workers in that part of the country. I think, however, it is worth while to examine the type of unemployment that exists in the agricultural industry. From the figures that were given by the Statutory Committee, it is clear that the rate o unemployment varies very considerably as between different sections of the industry. In the livestock section of the industry it is no more than about 2 per cent., whereas outside that category the average is considerably over 10 per cent.; and we have to remember that the dairy and livestock sections of the industry are concentrated in certain definite parts of the country. It is difficult to get any very accurate figures regarding the unemployment that exists in different counties, but, from the figures that I have been able to see, unemployment of a more or less permanent nature seems to exist in certain definite counties. It follows that in counties like that which I represent, where livestock is the principal agricultural activity, the workers, although they may be afforded some measure of security, will nevertheless be paying permanently into the Fund a great deal more than they are ever likely to draw out in benefit. Of course I am well aware that to condemn the scheme on this ground would be to condemn it merely from the point of view of sectional interest; any insurance scheme must rest upon a spread of risks; but I feel that there may be a weakness in the scheme in so far as the risks will be too closely concentrated.
In the second place, whatever advantages may attach to this scheme—and I think they are very considerable—the fact remains that the scheme is going to place a very substantial burden upon the agricultural industry. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. R. Richards) estimated that the burden would be about £600,000 a year, but that is not the case at all. Actually the agricultural industry will have to find two-thirds of the cost of the scheme, which will amount to about £1,200,000 a year. That is a very substantial sum indeed when we consider the great difficulties that still confront the industry, and the struggle that is still being carried on in many parts of the country to make agriculture pay its way. When we consider the total cost of the general insurance scheme, we have to remember that, however necessary and desirable it may be, it constitutes an enormous annual burden upon the industry of the country. We do not know exactly how far that burden may be a contributory cause of the very malady which it seeks to remedy, and I cannot help feeling that, by placing this additional burden on the agricultural industry, we may be running a similar risk of aggravating and increasing the unemployment that exists in the industry at the present time.
Nevertheless, when all these objections have been stated and considered, there is one argument in favour of the Bill which I believe to be incontrovertible and to outweigh every other in importance. The exclusion of the agricultural industry throughout all these years from the insurance system has meant that industrial employment has offered a definite premium over employment in the agricultural industry. Generally speaking, industrial employment holds out the prospect of higher wages and certainly greater safeguards in the case of unemployment, and that fact has undoubtedly established a gulf between the two which it has been very difficult to bridge. When we make all allowance for the mechanisation that has taken place in the last 10 years, and when we allow for the depression in the industry, there can be no doubt that that fact has aggravated the drift from the country to the towns and has been a contributory factor in the great decrease in the numbers employed on the land. This Bill goes far to minimise the disadvantages which have attached to agricultural employment. I believe that is a consideration of the most vital importance. It will certainly give to the workers in the industry a measure of security to which they are justly entitled and I believe that that is the real justification for introducing the Bill. It is certainly for that reason ultimately that I shall give it my support.
8.27 p.m.
We have had represented the views of the President of the Farmers' Union and of representatives of many other bodies, and I think that the opinion of landowners, who are as much interested in matters of the countryside as any other part of the industry, should at least be put before the House. I am glad to say that we agree with other sections of the industry in welcoming the Bill at this stage as only just to the agricultural worker. As a matter of fact, agricultural owners are the chief employers of labour. A farmer employs fewer men per acre than an estate run by an agricultural owner. Although we have some Amendments which we hope to move in Committee, we have a very real interest in believing that it will be for the general good of the industry and of the agricultural worker if this Measure, as a first instalment, is carried out. It will give confidence and, if it achieves what is the object of all parties, to get agricultural workers back from the towns to the land, or at all events to keep those on the land who are now there, it will be to the advantage of every section of the industry and of the country as a whole.
The first point that we want to put before the Minister is that the agricultural labourer is familiar with health insurance and is accustomed to go to the local post office. Under the Bill, as I see it, he will have to go to the Employment Exchange, which may be in a town eight or nine miles away, to see about his insurance and to draw his benefit if he is out of work. I think that some system on the lines of the health insurance scheme would be more adapted to country needs. There is another point which I think wants to be carefully looked into. Most agricultural labourers belong to approved societies, whose administration is simple and easily understood. The Federation of Rural Approved Societies is more representative of the agricultural labourer than any other body. Under the Ministry of Labour rules they may have to be represented by someone with whom they have not been in touch. At all events, in all cases of appeal I think an approved society should have the right of representing its members.
I think there is a great deal to be said from the agricultural owners' point of view, though this is not necessarily the opinion of all members of the Central Landowners' Association, for the inclusion of gardeners, keepers, chauffeurs, grooms, and others. In the War time all indispensable agricultural workers were left at home, but something like 1,500,000 men in private employment did go and fight for the country. Probably 500,000 were inside workers and the other 1,000,000 were grooms, keepers, chauffeurs, gardeners, and outside employés on private estates. Those men are left without any insurance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, very wrongly, I think, every year collects 15s. for every private employé, gardener or keeper. Surely it would be very much better and fairer if he abolished that tax on employment and made the owners pay the 17s., 18s. or 20s. which it would mean to insure them. If it is not possible to include all the categories of which the Noble Lady has been speaking, I would put in a plea that gardeners at least should be included. On a big estate, when men get too old for heavy jobs, they are often put on to quiet jobs in the garden. They can dig solely in their own time, and yet, though they may have been employed on a farm, the conditions in regard to unemployment do not apply to them directly they go on to gardening work. It is the same with regard to many chauffeurs who are getting on in years and who are losing their jobs because the cars are washed at local garages which do other necessary work.
The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) asked what were the regulations which would constitute a fellow half a gardener and half an agricultural worker, or half an agricultural labourer and half a chauffeur eligible for insurance benefit as an agricultural labourer. I saw the answer of the Minister given to the Land Agents Society which was to the effect that if a man did one-third of his work in the week on the land he could count himself as insurable under this Bill. We should like to know definitely whether that is so, and whether these part-time occupations come under insurable occupations. I hope, if possible, that the provision will be extended so as to include these old private servants, many of them on half-time agricultural work, and all of them, even private gardeners, employed in producing food which somebody must eat whether it is sold or not; they are all doing useful work. Many of these people are affected because of the reduction in the incomes of big estates, and so forth. I will give an instance. A well-known Noble Lord in the North was faced with this difficulty and in consequence 40 gardeners were affected. They would not be insurable under the Bill. There is more need for the insurance of these men than there is for the best class of agricultural labourers, the skilled men. Many of these men say, "All we are doing is that we axe paying for the incompetent agricultural labourer." All the good have to pay for the bad in this world in whatever class they are, and if we could get these deserving people insured under the provisions of the Bill it would be a great improvement. I therefore hope the Minister will be able to do something along these lines.
8.38 p.m.
I support the principles of the Bill which will give to the agricultural labourer the same advantages of Unemployment Insurance as have been enjoyed by the workers in other industries for many years. We have up to the present denied those advantages to the agricultural labourer because of the almost insurmountable difficulties of the application of an insurance scheme. Realising those difficulties, we are in a position in this House to commend and to congratulate the Government upon their attempt to surmount them by the introduction of this Bill. I do not wish the Government in any way to think that my congratulations are less sincere if I suggest that possibly they have not completely surmounted the difficulties which they set out to do. They have undoubtedly, by bringing forward a separate scheme to be applied to agriculture, overcome the difficulty of giving fair treatment to agriculture in regard to insurance, but I have some misgiving as to whether the treatment is equitable and just under the Bill to those who are actually engaged in the industry.
It has been pointed out to-night in a very excellent maiden speech by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) that agricultural workers can be divided into two distinct classes. In the first class you have the key man, the man who is employed as a stockman or horse-keeper; he lives in a cottage on the farm and is permanently employed. If he is efficient he never becomes unemployed, and he does not leave his employment unless it is to better himself elsewhere. As he is permanently employed he receives the ordinary agricultural wages that are paid in the district. The second class is the casual agricultural labourer who lives in the village and who supplies the surplus labour required on the farm when there is work such as harvesting, potato planting or digging, sugar-beet lifting and threshing. He is not regularly employed by one farmer but undertakes work for one and then for another. That man, who supplies the surplus labour when labour is in demand always receives a higher wage than the permanently employed man. He is unemployed for a considerable time, but when at work he receives a higher wage. My misgivings in regard to the Bill are whether the lower-paid permanent agricultural worker is to subsidise, by reason of the provisions of the Bill, the higher-paid casual worker. I respectively suggest to the Government that the permanent employé, the key man, should, if possible, be allowed to contract out of the Bill altogether, but I doubt the possibility of that being done. I know that his circumstances are met to a certain extent in Clause 10, but I should like a more generous treatment to be given to him. A more generous treatment was suggested by the hon. Member for Barnstaple and I would press the Minister to give during the Committee stage more generous treatment to the permanently employed man even if it becomes necessary for the casual labourer, who receives the bulk of the benefit, to pay a little more.
I wish to appeal to the Government in another direction. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), with whom I find myself so often in agreement, said, in his speech, that in the Financial Memorandum accompanying the Bill we were informed that the cost of the Bill to the Exchequer would amount to £600,000 a year. It has been announced in the daily newspapers that that will be the cost to the Exchequer, and the assumption is that this Measure is a gift to British agriculture on that account. I suggest that that is not the true interpretation of the Bill, because the agricultural labourers come under Part II of the 1934 Act and are entitled to be paid by the Unemployment Assistance Board a sum of money per week, which, I believe, is nearly equivalent to the amount mentioned in connection with this Bill. That amount would be paid by the Unemployment Assistance Board, and the Board would obtain the money either from the National Exchequer or the county councils. It is immaterial from which source the money was obtained, because it would come from the State. Therefore, the contributions of 4½d. to be paid by the workman and 4½d. by the employer represent an additional sum which the State is taking, and instead of the Bill costing the State £600,000 a year the State, as the hon. Member for the Don Valley suggests, will benefit to the extent of double that amount.
I am persuaded to take that line of argument in order to supplement the appeal that I am going to make to the Minister, and that is that since the total result of the Measure will be that the State will have the advantage of receiving this amount of money, it should be more generous in the State contribution. The contributions are to be 4½d. for the employer, 4½d. for the employé, and 4½d. provided by the State. I take the actuarial figure that that sum is necessary for the benefits to be paid. May I respectfully suggest to the Government that since they are going to gain, they should be more generous in the State contribution. The figures that I would suggest are 3d. to be paid by the man, 3d. by the employer and 7½d. by the State. I doubt whether I shall get consent to that proposal. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that we should be prevented from doing that by the terms of the Financial Resolution, but I have read the Financial Resolution and I do not see any figure mentioned in it. Therefore, if we pass the Financial Resolution I think the Government would still have the power to alter the figures. I would ask them to increase the State contribution and to decrease the contributions to be paid by the employer and employé, and I would appeal to them to be more generous to the permanently employed agricultural labourer. These are only Committee points, and if the Government can meet them I am confident that the Bill will be a great boon to the agricultural workers.
8.50 p.m.
In listening to the speeches in support of and in welcome to this Bill I am filled with slight disquiet when I realise to how many hon. Members the bringing of agricultural labourers into the field of unemployment insurance is considered to be a raising in the status which they will enjoy. If that is really the opinion of the House it must reflect the opinion of the workers of the country, and in that case it is inevitable that in the course of time all the workers in the country will be brought into the field of unemployment insurance. If that is going to be so, the point which has been made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will inevitably be realised, and we shall have to bring into unemployment insurance domestic servants, black-coated workers and all other workers. What will happen then? Are we going to have separate schemes for all these workers or are those who come in going to be put in the same scheme with agricultural workers?
I realise the immense difficulties which the Government have had. We know the tremendous debt which has accumulated under the first fund and of the sense of injustice which agricultural workers might feel if they were called upon to help to pay off that debt; but I am very much afraid that in forming these two separate funds we are escaping difficulties to-day but risk building up far greater difficulties to-morrow. It appears to me that in the course of time it will be increasingly unsatisfactory to have two different funds, and that it will do what we are anxious it should not do, and that is to increase the difference between the agricultural worker and the industrial worker. I believe that the day is coming when it will be imperative in the interests of industry in this country that there should only be one scheme and that there should be a lower contribution and lower benefit for the man who is drawing a lower wage, and a higher contribution and higher benefit for the man who is drawing a higher wage. It is a well-known fact that to-day there is already a shortage of skilled labour in the country and in time we shall only be able to contend with that difficulty in the shortage of skilled labour if we have a difference in the contributions paid and the benefits drawn in the different groups of salaries and the different types of labour.
I welcome the bringing of agricultural workers into insurance because I believe that it is the wish of the agricultural workers as a whole, but I very much deplore that it should have been allowed to become necessary for this question to be brought before us. We had no right to allow our great and vital agricultural industry to fall into a condition where any considerable unemployment in it could arise. As we are bringing agricultural workers into unemployment insurance and as it is in some measure a question of status I should like particularly to stress the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston) and the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) as to the desirability of bringing in gardeners. The Unemployment Statutory Committee said with regard to gardeners: greater generosity should be given to the men in long-term employment. I welcome the Bill because I believe that it reflects the wishes of the agricultural industry as a whole, and I congratulate the Government on having brought it forward. I realise the tremendous difficulties they have had to overcome, but I still say that in passing this scheme and setting up two separate funds we are possibly creating greater difficulties in the future than we realise.
8.58 p.m.
I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I have listened to the Debate with great interest and have heard nothing in the way of an answer to the arguments put forward by him. In my view the Bill is going to create very many difficulties. The introduction of a different scale of benefits will have an adverse effect upon the rates of benefit paid under the general scheme. If, in the future, there comes a period when economy is demanded we shall be faced with the argument that the agricultural labourer is able to maintain himself on the rates of benefit payable under this scheme. If he goes into the town and is able to maintain himself on this scale, the tendency will be, as it always has been, that the scales of benefits will sink to a lower level. The tendency is not to increase benefits to the level of the payments to those who are on the higher scale, but to decrease them. It is always a downward tendency under the capitalist economic system. Therefore, I believe there is a great danger to the general scheme if the proposed scheme in the Bill is adopted.
An hon. Member above the Gangway felt a little pricking of conscience as he listened to the hon. Member for Gorbals, but he said that if he did not support this scheme it would mean that no provision would be made for the unemployed agricultural worker and that in default of another scheme he was prepared to support the Government. I cannot understand the reasoning of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin). As I understand, the party above the Gangway do not intend to support the Bill; they have definitely come to the decision not to go into the Lobby in support of it, but that if the scales of benefit are not increased in Committee stage they will vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. Yet the hon. Member for Carmarthen says that we must support the Bill, evidently thinking that half a loaf is better than none at all. But he is not going into the Division Lobby. I cannot understand that position at all.
Under the Bill the figure of unemployment assistance must not be a figure which might make that assistance more than is being paid to the agricultural workers. There is a 30s. a week maximum. I confess that it fills me with astonishment that the Labour party is prepared even to adopt a position of neutrality towards a Bill which is framed in that way. What is going to be the effect of it? It will have a depressing effect upon wages, and for the Labour party to pander to that sort of thing fills me with real sorrow. If my argument is right, that the tendency under this scheme will be downwards and that the benefit rights of other workers will tend to decrease, I ask hon. Members above the Gangway to realise that it will also have an adverse effect on the way in which the Unemployment Assistance Board will come to their determinations. I plead with hon. Members above the Gangway to come out in opposition to this Bill now. It is a bad Bill and there is everything to be gained by fighting the Government on it at this stage.
I notice that unemployment in the agricultural industry is estimated at 7½ per cent. I think there is a tendency to under-estimate the amount of unemployment in that industry because, when agricultural workers find themselves out of employment, with no unemployment assistance, possibly with very poor public assistance, the tendency is for them to go into the towns and add to the volume of unemployment in the towns. While they are really part of the unemployed of the agricultural industry, statistically they are reckoned as part of the unemployed among the town labourers, who are supposed to have nothing to do with agriculture. In my own division and in every industrial district that I have visited, I have come in contact with unemployed people who have come in from the country and are swelling the roll of the town unemployed.
If this Bill operates you will have this position: An unemployed agricultural worker may be living next door to an unemployed joiner or other tradesman or even an ordinary labourer who is unemployed, and one will be receiving a much higher scale of benefit than the other. I think that is absolutely indefensible, and that the effect on the general scheme will be bad in the extreme. There have been other cases of the sectional treatment of workers. We had the cases of the insurance workers and bank workers in connection with the Unemployment Insurance scheme. But in those cases it was laid down, as regards insurance workers and bank workers, that the rates of benefit paid under those special schemes should not be less than the rate paid under the general scheme. They could be more but not less, and that is the only sound basis for such an arrangement.
As far as the Bill proves workable I have grave doubts with regard to the effect of all the restrictions that are being imposed. I think that part of the Government's zeal for this Bill is due to the fact that they intend, by means of it, to save in respect of their liability under the 1934 Act. If the 1934 Act came into operation, the maintenance of many of these people would become a State charge and, facing the question of State liability for these workers under the unemployment assistance provisions of the 1934 Act, the Government now propose to take contributions from the agricultural workers and also from the farmers. I am surprised that the farmers are allowing them to get away with it. It is obvious, however, that the Government hope to save by the operation of this Bill in relation to their contingent liabilities under the 1934 Act.
I put it to the Minister of Labour that the one way of getting this Measure to work properly is to put the agricultural workers on the same basis as the other workers in the country. They need food and clothing just as other workers do and they have to pay as much for food and clothing as the workers in the towns. Why not, then, make your provision for them, a provision in accordance with their need? I hope that hon. Members above the Gangway will come with us into the Division Lobby to-night and take part in a fight on this Bill from the beginning in order to secure for the people in the agricultural districts, who have been treated so badly in the past, the same decency of treatment as has been accorded to the workers in the industrial centres. The people in the agricultural districts require a decent life as much as the people in the industrial districts. This Bill is an insult to the agricultural community because it puts the agricultural worker into a menial position by placing him on lower rates of benefit than other workers.
9.11 p.m.
I wish to put three points to the Minister but, before doing so, may I say that I am a wholehearted supporter of the Bill, not because I think it an ideal Bill, but because I think it will go a very long way towards stopping the drift from the countryside into the town. My first question to the Minister is: What will be the effect of the Bill on unemployment in rural districts? As the House knows, there are certain times of the year when there is not a great deal for an agricultural labourer to do on a farm. There are slack seasons. Hitherto the farmer, partly out of sympathy for his employés and partly because he feels a moral obligation to keep them going, has kept his men on during such periods. Now that they are to be insured I suggest it may well happen that in many cases farmers will forget that sympathy and that moral obligation and will "stand off" men for a short time during those slack seasons. In my constituency the average number employed on a farm is about five which means that a farmer there would be paying into the fund approximately £5 a year. There will be a great temptation to such a farmer to recoup himself by "standing off" say one of the men and only one, just for one month in the year. A farmer who does that will not be out of pocket as a result of the scheme. I suggest that one result of the scheme will be a substantial increase in rural unemployment.
My second question is what is going to be the position of outdoor domestic servants, particularly chauffeurs, gardeners and gamekeepers under the Bill? Hon. Members know full well that, at this moment, as far as indoor domestic servants are concerned, there is no unemployment. Unfortunately that is not true of outdoor domestic servants. There is at this moment unemployment among gardeners, chauffeurs and gamekeepers. I can visualise that in many years to come, perhaps in 50 or 60 years, or it may be in 100 years, this country may be unfortunate enough to be burdened with a Socialist Government. Should such a calamity arrive, one of the first things that Government will do will be to make a substantial increase in the Income Tax and the first effect of that increase will be increased unemployment among outdoor domestic servants. I suggest to the Minister that in view of this possible calamity which may occur, in many years' time, it would be a wise move for him if he could open up this scheme and allow all outdoor domestic servants, gardeners, chauffeurs, and so on, to come into the scheme as voluntary contributors.
The third point that I want to suggest to the Minister is this: There are bound to be many anomalies under the Bill, and we all realise that there will be many cases of hardship. I will give only one illustration, of two gardeners digging in the same garden, working under the same conditions, digging the same potatoes, taking the same risks, using the same implements. One half of the produce of that garden goes into the local market; the other half goes into the local big house. One of those men is covered by this Bill; the other man is not covered. It is possible to visualise many instances of that kind where there will be genuine hardship as a result of the Bill, and I suggest that if the Bill is to be a success, it must be made as elastic as possible. The Minister must have the maximum amount of discretion, and, whatever happens, he must at all costs accept some Amendments during the Committee stage to include all gardeners, because unless that is done the scheme will break down within 12 months.
9.17 p.m.
I do not intend to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down as to what might arise in the future, except to say that if the next Labour Government put on a stiff Income Tax, that will show that somebody is getting some income, and I have always understood from the Tory party that when we get a Socialist Government in, red ruin will follow. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] We will wait and see with regard to that. I do not intend to throw any bouquets to the Minister with regard to this Bill, because I do not think he deserves any. For a number of years, and particularly during the life of the last Government, Members on these benches, including myself, repeatedly asked the Government when they were going to bring in a Bill to deal with unemployment in agriculture, and we were disappointed that there was so much delay in the matter. They accepted the principle in the middle of last year. They have now brought in the Bill, but I am not satisfied with it.
I want agriculturists on the opposite side of the House to appreciate the point which I shall try to make. Agriculture is one of the most important industries in the country, and it has been one of the most neglected from the point of view of wages and conditions. So long as agriculturists are prepared to accept an inferior position, so long will they have to wait for better conditions. This Bill in at least one respect does put the agricultural worker who is out of work in a position inferior to that of anybody else in the country. I believe the scales in this Bill could easily have been made higher than they are, without increasing the contributions of the employés. We must also remember that if the Government had not been so mean with their regulations last January, and if the second appointed day had been brought into operation, the unemployed man in agriculture would have been drawing assistance. It would have cost the Treasury a good deal of money, and by putting back the second appointed day they have saved considerable sums which they would have had to pay out in agriculture if the second appointed day had been in operation.
With regard to unemployment in agriculture, I think the way in which the agricultural worker is being treated is scandalous. In some districts relief was given by the public assistance committees only on condition that task work was done, and, as one who has been at least a decade in poor law administration, I know of nothing more degrading than task work for able-bodied people. Why should the agricultural worker be the only able-bodied man in the country who is made to suffer that indignity? I cannot understand why the Government have not increased the scale of benefits under the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was very lucid in his explanations, but, if I may say so, he did not argue his case very well, and he did not justify certain of the things that are in the Bill. For instance, there is a 30s. per week maximum, for the first time in the history of unemployment insurance, I believe. I may be wrong, but I think I am right. What is the idea underlying that maximum of 30s.? The idea is one that has been expressed from the other side of the House whenever there has been social reform legislation. It is that if you give an unemployed man more when he is out of work than when he is working, you will take away his incentive to get a job. But, as a matter of fact, that principle does not follow in the Poor Law.
Under the Poor Law if a man's wages are 38s. a week and he has a family which it costs 45s. or 50s. a week to treat adequately, the public assistance committees, just as the old boards of guardians used to do, give more than the wages; and in dealing with a maximum of 30s. a week, you must remember that there are men working in agriculture who are earning more than 30s. a week. The average at present is, I believe, 31s. 8d., and this proposed maximum only penalises the man who has a large number of children. That is the worst feature of it. A man and wife who have no children are to receive 21s. a week; a man, wife, and one child, 24s.; but the moment you get beyond the amount of 30s. a week, it means there is to be nothing for the children. Take the right hon. Gentleman's own statement the last time he stood at that Box to introduce some regulations. He stood there before the election and boasted that they were raising the unemployment insurance benefit to children from 2s. to 3s. a week, and that there was to be no maximum at all. He stood there and read out a list of what a man would get who had a. wife and 10 children. The agricultural worker under this Bill who has four, five, or six children, and who is expected to keep them on 30s. a week, is being expected to do something that other classes in the community have not to do.
I want the right hon. Gentleman not to be content with telling the House that in Committee we can delete this or amend that, but to be big enough to say from that Box, or to allow his Parliamentary Secretary to say, that the 30s. maximum will be deleted. I believe it would meet with the general wish of the House. After all, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, what does it matter if a mere 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week more is paid to a man who is out of work with children to maintain than he gets when he is working? If wages in agriculture were adequate, the agricultural workers would get far higher rates than they are getting to-day. A good deal of nonsense is talked by some hon. Members about agricultural conditions. You hear it said that the agricultural worker has a low-rented cottage to live in.
It is true.
It is in some cases, but not generally; and are hon. Members going to be content with allowing agricultural workers to live in the kind of cottage that they are living in to-day? We have heard a good deal about the need for rural housing. Apart from tied houses, they are entitled to better houses than they are living in at the present time.
Is the hon. Member aware that not only does the agricultural worker live in a lower-rented cottage, but that he also has a garden and grows his potatoes and vegetables, which it is impossible for a labourer in a town to do?
That does not disprove my statement that the tendency is to give agricultural workers a better type of house. If that is not so, why is there so much talk about rural housing? The rents for some of the new houses that have been built for agricultural workers are almost double what used to be paid for the old cottages. And what cottages they were; you could see the sky through the roofs. The agricultural worker has a right to live in a decent type of house, and to be treated decently when he is out of work. I am sorry that better scales of benefit have not been given. Would it not have been possible for the Government to come forward with a bigger grant? Under the existing law the Exchequer grant to the ordinary man is 10d. The Government will be subsidising the employers' contributions to this scheme by virtue of the subsidies that are given to agriculture. It would have been far better if the contribution of the State under this Bill had been higher than 4½d.
What is the position from the point of view of the Agricultural Workers' Union? Conditions in the countryside are better to-day than they were a few years ago because the agricultural worker is organised. The Agricultural Workers' Union has done remarkable work in difficult conditions. It has improved wages and has got better conditions as a result of its activities on the agricultural wages boards. The union is in this position, that it accepts this Bill and hopes to get some improvements. It is not satisfied with it. Its members are being treated shamefully, and they are prepared to accept the Bill on the principle that if they cannot get all they want they will get as much as they can. I do not want the House to imagine that we on this side are satisfied with it. I regret that there has been put into it 3s. for one child and then 2s. 6d.; there should at least have been 3s. for all children. I did not intend to throw bouquets at the right hon. Gentleman, because I do not think that he deserves them, and I do not think that the Bill deserves our unqualified support.
We shall do our best to amend it, and we hope that we shall not find on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the same attitude that we found before in another connection. He has the reputation of being what is known as a sticker. It is not always wise. I remember a Bill that he brought in on which he rather prided himself on the fact that he had given nothing away. That is not always good policy. What is the object of a Committee stage except to examine a Bill and amend it? I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to adopt a different attitude, and that when the Bill gets into Committee he will be big enough to remove what we believe to be some of the weaknesses of this Bill. If the Bill comes back for its Third Beading without substantial amendment many Members on this side will have to consider their attitude towards it. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman and Members who support him will be big enough to accept certain Amendments in Committee, and to make this Bill better than it is.
9.31 p.m.
I think that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary when they survey this Debate must do so with some satisfaction. With one small exception there is nobody who is really opposing this Bill. As to that exception, the hon. Gentleman below me who spoke last from that part of the House argued that we should have the same basis for agricultural workers as for other workers. If he and his friends had induced the Government to bring forward a proposal of that sort it would have been scouted by the agricultural workers. If the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were accepted there would be no scheme. Looking generally at the attitude of the House towards this Measure, it may be said that the Bill has been accepted with appreciation in some quarters and with general toleration, with that one exception of which I have spoken.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) have laid great stress on the low wages of agricultural workers. We share with them the desire to see agriculture put into such a position that it will be possible to raise these wages. In my constituency during the last election a leaflet was put out from the Liberal Publications Department which set out a fanciful figure of what the farmer had received, regardless of the fact that what the farmer had received has filtered through into wages almost entirely, and that unemployment would have been a vast figure had it not been for those subsidies, and there was a picture of an agricultural worker, beneath which was one penny, and it was represented to my constituents that 1d. was all that the worker had obtained while the farmer had obtained this fanciful sum. In my county there had been a lift in wages of 1s. per week, and at that very time there was a further increase being made of another 1s. 6d., making half-a-crown, and not a penny. That leaflet has never been withdrawn or explained, and it was one of the features of the last election which one does one's best to forget.
The figure is precisely right. The average increase during the time the last Government was in power was one penny.
My Liberal opponent said, "Do not vote for this man, because while the farmer has received his huge sum you have only received one penny per week." That was absolutely untrue as applied to my constituency or my county, and I am ashamed to think that in politics we should have tricks of that sort.
Would the hon. Member mind telling the House what the workers are paid at present?
I have said that wages have gone up 1s. a week. May I say how glad I was to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. R. Acland) and how pleased I am that he is able to support the Minister? The point that he raised in regard to the trouble that might arise among the men who are seldom if ever out of employment is well worth the attention of the Minister. It is worth while considering whether it is possible to scale down contributions in the case of those who are more or less in continuous employment. Under the Bill there is a proposal for a rebate in respect to long-term hiring, and I am hopeful that one effect of that Measure will be to encourage long-term hiring so that we may have it more generally adopted in the south, and in that way bring some relief to this problem.
There are members of my own party who accept the Bill with some reservations. They say that if the Government carried out more speedily the full agricultural policy which they have in mind, there would be no unemployment, and, therefore, no need for a Measure of this kind. I think my hon. Friends forget that for three generations we have been running a policy in this country on a more or less international basis. We are now trying to bring it into a new range; we are trying to make it a policy of home agriculture first, the Empire second, and foreign countries as by agreement. We cannot expect to shift over from one system to another without a good deal of patience and careful arrangement. I am persuaded that the long-term policy of the Government for agriculture will bring the industry into a paying condition, and will enable wages to rise under the county wages committee system. We have to deal with facts as they are; and the fact to-day is that there is a general demand for some Measure of this kind. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Major Dorman-Smith) made a maiden speech to which the House listened with great interest. As president of the National Farmers' Union he represents a great body of producers in this country, and his presence in the House cannot fail to be a great advantage.
My hon. Friends from Lincoln and Norfolk welcome the Measure; it is natural that they should, because the benefits of the Bill will largely accrue to them. In my own county of Wiltshire employment is more or less continuous and there is little or no unemployment among good workers. The difficulty in many villages is to get good workers. The fact is that under this Bill my county will pay in far more than it will get out. Nevertheless, there is a desire in the county for the Measure. I will tell the House why, because something has been said in derogation of the argument that the Bill was intended to raise the status of agricultural workers. I will ask the House to contemplate two cottages in a village. One is occupied by a man working in Swindon who goes on his motor bicycle to and fro. If he should have the bad luck to fall out of employment, he would get the benefit. Next door to him is an agricultural worker, an equally good man, equally skilled, and an equally good citizen. If he should have the bad luck to fall on a patch of unemployment, he would get nothing. There is a differentiation between them, and those hon. Members who know village life will know how one instance of that sort will sour the life of a village.
I am glad to think that by this Measure the House is doing something to remove that inequality of status in village life. I believe that the Measure will have the tendency to improve the level of efficiency in the agricultural industry. There will be more and more on the part of the workers a desire to range themselves among the good-class workers whom a farmer will be ill-disposed to get rid of in slack times. It will, furthermore, tend to check the drift into the towns. Nothing is more distressing in village life than to see the fine young fellows simply rambling away after school days to Swindon and other centres. There ought to be in the villages a fine opening for them on the land, and a future worthy of their expectations. I welcome the Bill, although I hope it will receive amendment in some respects, because I think it is a useful and helpful part of the policy which will give agriculture a real chance in this country.
9.42 p.m.
The Minister of Labour must be embarrassed by the diversity of the praise and the diversity of the criticism which he has received. The official Opposition have adopted the attitude of restrained welcome to this Bill, and, like the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), can be described as having given it restrained praise. The hon. Member waxed very indignant over the maximum and said what a monstrous thing it was to give this 30s. maximum. Why, he asked, could there be no maximum as the workers demanded. The scheme that the National Union of Agricultural Workers put forward was for a maximum of 29s. They asked for 15s. for a married adult male, 6s. for his wife, and 2s. for each child. I do not quite understand the basis on which the hon. Member for Normanton waxes so indignant against the Government. He said the Government had behaved badly because of the delay. I happened to be in the House in the 1929 Parliament. The Socialist party went to the country promising Unemployment Insurance for agricultural labourers. They came back and there were one or two members of the party who were anxious to get the Bill, but those Members did not sit on the Front Bench. The Socialist Government refused to give Unemployment Insurance to agricultural workers, and the reason for the restrained welcome to-day has been described by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The Socialist party forming the official Opposition are rent from top to bottom by divisions as to whether you should thrust agricultural workers as good lives into a bankrupt insurance scheme, or whether you should give them a special scheme. The restraint which the hon. Members for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and Normanton have shown today is due not to any bad feeling against the Government, but to a sense of discomfort among themselves as to the possibility that what they say may displease some of the Members of their party while pleasing others.
We have heard criticism from the smallest party in this House, which wants this Bill to be rejected on the grounds stated in the Amendment they have moved. It is a curious thing that a party of four is itself divided. So far I have listened to three members of that party, and two have asked for one thing and one for another. The hon. Member for Gorbals and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephens) have asked—I hope they will correct me if I am wrong—that agricultural workers should be placed under the general scheme and should have their contributions increased from 4½d. to 10d., while getting the same benefit. [ Interruption. ] An hon. Member tells me to read the Amendment. I listened to the speeches of the hon. Members for Gorbals and Camlachie and they appeared to be different from the Amendment. If they will take back what they said in their speeches and return to their Leader, the hon. Member for Bridgeton—who, when he got up, had quite clearly read the Amendment—I would remind them that the hon. Member for Bridgeton said he wanted to do away with the whole insurance scheme and to have a non-contributory insurance scheme. The hon. Member for Bridgeton is one of those good Tory politicians who wants to have no change at all. Under Part II of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1935 the agricultural worker will get his benefit from the State on a non-contributory basis. Surely if the hon. Member for Bridgeton had adopted that view seriously and had convinced his three supporters regarding a non-contributory scheme, the Amendment ought to have been different. We should go back to the existing state of the law when the appointed day comes, the agricultural workers would be kept out of the insurance scheme and the whole of their sustenance would come from the State.
May I say, as one who represents both employers and employed in the industry, that the workers do not like being put on the means test or on the State? A short time ago I saw in the local newspaper that a branch of the Independent Labour Party was being formed in my constituency and I look forward with eagerness to being able to welcome the hon. Member for Bridgeton if he comes to talk to my constituents on rural subjects, but I am afraid that he has done a great disservice to his cause by suggesting that agricultural workers should be put upon a State organised means test. They do not want that.
I did not mention the means test.
Whatever the agricultural worker gets, he will get it from the State. It is a curious fact that in Yorkshire people have more pride than the people in Scotland. We do not like being put on the State and we would rather be under a contributory insurance scheme.
The employer puts the workers on the State.
No, the employer does not. We would far rather that you gave good prices for your food and we gave you good food. We hate subsidies which make you batten on foreign food. At the same time the agricultural workers do not want to be in a general insurance scheme because under this scheme they will have a lower rate of contributions. What is the rate of unemployment in agriculture? I think the right hon. Gentleman was going too far when, in introducing the subject, he said that the agricultural worker lives a life of unending toil. If that were the case, there would be no need for this Bill.
I said "when at work."
I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman did say, however, that the rate of unemployment had been changed as a result of the census, which he said had altered the whole problem. It has altered the effects to the extent that in 1926 the contribution we were talking about was 1½d. a week; in 1934 it was 3d. a week; in 1935 it was 4d. a week; and now, in 1936, it has gone up to 4½d. a week. Is that increase necessary? It is due to the census. The census was taken on a certain Sunday in April, 1931. I should have thought that on that Sunday in April there would have been hardly anybody except cattlemen employed in agriculture; but I find that on that particular Sunday 18 out of 36 pea and fruit pickers were employed. It is no good saying that they were working on the Saturday, because not many peas or fruits are gathered on a Saturday in the latter part of April. I am profoundly dissatisfied with the fixing of unemployment ratios on a population census basis. I think we cannot be satisfied with this high rate of unemployment in agriculture, and certainly in my part of the country the rate is nothing like 7½ per cent.
We are perfectly ready to come into an Unemployment Insurance scheme provided it is a fair one, but we do not like the idea that certain people should be invited and encouraged by this scheme to stand off their men when work is difficult on the farm in order that they may live on the contributions they pay during the remainder of the year. For instance, during the last six weeks it has been impossible to do any work on farms— those Members of the House who know anything about agriculture will agree with me—yet in my part of the country the workers have been kept on and have been given ditching and hedging and every other conceivable job that could be done in order that they should not be stood off. What would happen if this Bill, as at present drafted, came into operation? I am afraid that nearly all those men would have been stood off and that only the shepherds and the cattlemen would have been kept on. The men who would otherwise have been finishing the ploughing would have been given no work at all.
I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to do something to remedy that gap in the Bill. In the last Unemployment Insurance Act the Government paved the way for bonuses in Section 31 (2). The right hon. Gentleman has gone farther by giving a bonus on long-term hiring. I want him to go still further—rather on the lines of the excellent maiden speech from the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. R. Acland)—and to say that if a man is kept on by the same employer for two years he shall at the end of that period have the same rebate as is given in the case of long-term hiring. I do not think that would be too great a concession, because, after all, long-term hiring is only for one year, whereas this concession would be given for two years. It would make the Bill watertight and would, I think, result in there not being 7½ per cent. of unemployment.
There is one group of workers who have not been dealt with in this Debate. In my part of England there are many men who are resident smallholders, men who have done well as agricultural labourers and have hopes of becoming tenant farmers later on. I am sure that all Members of this House would desire to see agricultural labourers working their way up and becoming tenant farmers. Most of the year the resident smalholder works for a farmer, and when he is not in work he occupies himself on his own smallholding. That man has little or no risk of unemployment. That was recognised by the Beveridge Committee, which paid great weight to his claim, and I ask that that man should be allowed to contract out of this scheme if he wishes to do so. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter), who made a very clear maiden speech, talked about the smallholder who is not employed, and I see difficulties about that man getting round the statutory conditions; but I am dealing with the case of a man who is employed and who is, by his employment and by his tenancy, safeguarded against unemployment. Why should that man pay for a risk which does not exist? I do not believe it is fair. There is one other small detail which I was asked to bring forward. It is said that under Health Insurance and under Unemployment Insurance there will be a disinclination among farmers to employ casual workers on a Monday, the farmer asking, "Why should I have to pay for the stamp and not the other farmer?" I remember that when I was young there was a rhyme about washing, and though I do not remember all of it the end of it ran:
I am not going to say that I give a restrained welcome to the Bill. I think that we on this side of the House can congratulate ourselves that we have tackled, or are trying to tackle, a very big problem, a problem which the Socialist Governments in 1925 and 1930 looked at time and time again and jibbed at, and that we are doing it because we believe the agricultural worker is the finest worker in this country and that he deserves a square deal.
9.58 p.m.
It has been my lot to sit through the whole of this Debate, except for a very few minutes, and perhaps I may be allowed to say that I have never had the pleasure of listening to a Debate in which there were so many very cogent and concise speeches from all parts of the House. Among them have been several contributions from those who have not spoken before in this Chamber, and I am quite sure that I am expressing not the perfunctory view but the considered view of Members who listened to those speeches when I say that in the care with which their arguments were put together, and the clear advocacy with which they were expressed, they showed that we have men who are capable of sustaining the high traditions of this House and who, I am sure, when they meet with later speeches in which they have to take the rough-and-tumble, of debate, will be quite capable of giving a good account of themselves.
In some ways the occasion of this Bill is a memorable one, because it marks the proposal to bring agricultural labourers into insurance for the first time. The Minister of Labour, in introducing this Bill, reminded us of the change which has been taking place in opinion on this subject in the last few years, first of all in the opinion of the agricultural labourers themselves, secondly, in the opinion of farmers, and, thirdly, in the public opinion of those who are not themselves directly interested in the business. I want to take that point one step further and ask what is really the reason for that change, and the answer that I would give—and I believe that hon. Members will be forced to agree with me—is that there is passing away from the countryside the feudal attitude which has prevailed for many centuries in this country. There may be some people, represented, very possibly, by hon. Members opposite, who will very much regret the passing of the feudal idea. They speak with pleasant recollections of the relations which existed between employer and employed in the countryside in years gone by, but when I recall the conditions of the men and women who were engaged in this arduous and necessary occupation of husbandry and contrast the devotion and high degree of skill which they put into their work against the reward which they got for their labours, I feel there can be few who will not hide their heads in shame at the recollection of what was done for this splendid body of men and women. A little over 100 years ago Lovelace and his comrades in Tolpuddle were martyred because, as Lovelace himself said, he was not prepared to see himself and his family going down into utter degradation. In contrast with conditions then, the position of the agricultural labourer to-day and the status which he has and the benefits which he is going to get under this Bill in case of unemployment represent an enormous advance.
But if we do not look merely into the past, but attempt to envisage the future, I think the time will come, in very much less than 100 years, even less than 50 years, when we shall look back upon the conditions of life of the agricultural labourer to-day and the status which he has and the provisions which are offered for his benefit by this Bill as being pitiful conditions, unworthy of men and women who, after all, form a great part of the backbone of the country. In considering our attitude towards this Bill we are bound to take into account not only the past and our outlook on the future but also to set this Bill against the background of the conditions prevailing in the other parts of the industrial life of the country. Therefore, while we welcome the principle behind this Bill, as bringing the agricultural labourer into a common plane, to a certain extent, with the industrial worker in so far as he is brought into insurance at all, we cannot help observing that there are principles embodied in this Bill which we must regard with the very gravest apprehension. The first point is that it places the agricultural labourer in a position of definite inferiority as compared with the workers in other industries. I was interested to note that the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) called special attention to that point in an interesting speech. Not only does it place the agricultural labourer in an inferior position, but it sets a lower standard of benefit which, from the point of view of ourselves on these benches, is bound to have a prejudicial effect upon the whole question of benefit for the workers of this country.
These two defects which, unfortunately, stand out in the Bill, are permanent, in the sense, as the hon. Lady the Member for Frome remarked, that it will be exceedingly difficult to alter or eradicate them if the Bill is allowed to pass into law substantially as it is at present. It has been suggested by some speakers today that if the Bill passes its Second Reading it will not be capable of change in Committee, so far as its financial provisions are concerned. I believe that interpretation to be quite incorrect, and if I am wrong no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me. The fact that the benefits laid down in the Bill are not paid directly out of the Exchequer, but are paid out of a fund to which the Exchequer makes a definite contribution, enables us to move Amendments in Committee, and those Amendments will not, I understand, be out of order.
As I am the Member who made the statement referred to, perhaps the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting him. May I correct the statement that we shall not be able to move Amendments in Committee in regard to the benefits? You cannot increase the Government grant, which is 4½d. per member. Any increased benefits granted must come out of the worker and the employer.
If the hon. Member had waited a little while he would have heard what I had to say on the point which he puts forward. I understand that Amendments can be moved and will not be out of order, and that it will be open to the Minister in charge of the Bill to accept them or reject them as he thinks fit. If the Bill goes forward and passes its Second Reading, my colleagues on these benches will certainly seek to amend it in some important particulars. Leaving out the main financial position, and questions of benefit to which I shall refer more in detail in a little while, I will mention some of the points which my hon. Friends will seek to amend.
There is, first of all, Clause 5. One of the defects of that Clause relates to the first winter—next winter—after the Bill comes into operation. I think it is correct to say that even though a man has been fully employed during all the summer months from the date of the commencement of the Bill, not having missed a week through illness or anything of that kind, if he falls into unemployment very early in the winter, the contributions which he will have made will not see him through a winter of unemployment. We suggest that the Minister should consider, between now and the Committee stage, any Amendments that may be put down to enable the Measure to see through the first winter persons who have been fully contributing up to the time that winter begins.
Secondly, there is Clause 10, whioh deals with the rebate for period hiring. I am reminded of the remarks of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland), with some part of which I agree. There is confusion of thought on what is called a long hiring. If the period were several years, I could understand that there would be some reason for this Clause, but when the period is put at 12 months, and still more when it is put at six months, the Clause seems to be entirely unsuitable. A man may be employed for the six summer months and may be unemployed for the six winter months. I cannot conceive any advantage that ought to be given to a man who employs an agricultural labourer for six summer months and proceeds to turn him off when those six months are over. Even if you fix the period at a year, the period of employment may be long but the period of unemployment may also be long. The Minister has been present during most of the Debate, and will have heard how hon. Members are seeking to enlarge the scope of what he proposes. It has already been admitted that the Clause is leading to a great many demands for enlargement which he will not wish to give. On these benches we hope that, far from enlarging this Clause, the Minister will seriously consider cutting it out altogether. We regard the Clause as a retrograde step which ought not to form part of a historic Bill. Then there is Clause 11. I do not propose to go at any length into this question. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the Clause is a difficult one. Questions of the transference of labour from agriculture to industry and vice versa, under this peculiar double scheme and double benefit, are liable to very great confusion and abuse. I hope that the Minister will look into this Clause with very great care and that he will see that regulations made under it are very carefully drafted.
That brings me to the large question of the benefits. I trust that the Minister will not keep a stiff upper lip towards all proposals to increase them. I understand that the report of the Actuary suggests that there will be a margin more than sufficient to meet the demands on the Fund at the present time. The Minister will, therefore, have a certain amount to play with in increasing the advantages given under this scheme. But I cannot disguise from myself the fact that the Amendments that we shall seek to put into the Bill are not compatible with the framework of the Bill and the Money Resolution. Therefore, the alterations that we consider will alone make the Bill a suitable Bill can only be made if the Minister is prepared to modify the framework of the Bill itself, and it is on that point that I propose to say a few concluding words. I do not think the Minister was present when the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) spoke, but the hon. Member for Leominster re-echoed the point put for-word by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). He pointed out that, while the Government are taking credit, and while the Treasury are considered to have been generous in producing this amount of some £600,000 a year, they are in fact, by the pattern of the Bill, going to save a very considerable sum. How much it may be may be a matter of opinion, and there may be different opinions in different parts of the House, but the fact is that, if this Bill were not carried, the Treasury would have to find a great deal more money. I see an hon. Member shaking his head, but the fact is that the Government are responsible under Part II of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and, even if the appointed day is postponed, they are, if I am not mistaken, already having to find money for the local authorities in order to meet their requirements; and the agricultural labourer will be entitled, though he may not always avail himself of it, to come under that provision. Therefore, the Treasury, instead of having to find extra money if this Bill is carried, is actually reducing its liabilities in this matter.
That is one reason why the Treasury might be expected to be somewhat more forthcoming than they are.
Then there is the reason put forward by the hon. Member for Barnstaple, which I thought was a good one. He said that those in the agricultural industry, both farmers and workmen, have, ever since the principle of industrial insurance came into existence, been paying through taxation for the benefits of other workers while getting none themselves. It is not, therefore, unreasonable that the Treasury should do a little more for the insurance of agricultural workers than they are doing to-day for the insurance of industrial workers. In fact, however, so far from doing more, they are proposing, under this scheme, to do very much less. Whereas for every industrial worker the Treasury is providing 10d., for every agricultural worker the State proposes only to produce 4½d., and it does not seem to me that the fact that the agricultural industry as a whole shows less unemployment, and is able to swallow its own difficulties in that way, should necessarily mean that the Treasury should produce a smaller amount.
I appeal to the Minister not to allow himself to be tied to the framework of the Bill. If he sees that a reasonable arrangement could be made, which would bring the benefit of the agricultural labourer up to the same level as that of the industrial worker, and thereby get rid of a great deal of the difficulty which, as I have pointed out, is found on his own benches as well as on these, I hope he will seriously consider whether he can do it. Although, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, we cannot make this change, I do not believe it is impossible for the Minister, if he thought fit, so to alter the framework of the Bill as to enable it to be made. That is our case on this point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has already pointed out, my colleagues on these benches feel that, although we welcome the entrance of agricultural labourers into insurance, and, therefore, do not feel disposed to vote against the Second Heading of the Bill, the defects of the Bill are so serious in principle— not merely in detail—that we cannot share the responsibility of the Government by actually voting in favour of the Second Reading.
10.20 p.m.
I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Debate has been, a very full one, not only in point of time but in point of arguments of a diversified character. Two questions came out very early. In fact they were raised by the first two speeches. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) asked why an unemployment insurance scheme for agriculture had not been brought in before. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) asked what was the necessity for a scheme being brought in now. I think my right hon. Friend really answered those two questions, but I should like to say a few concluding words myself. Even now we are divided in the House as to whether we really desire a scheme of this sort or not, although there has been a scramble to try to get additional people included. But I am certain, whatever our views may be now, and whatever they may have been through the long history of the working out of the scheme, what has really predominated in the mind of everyone has been the desire to benefit agricultural workers as a whole, and not in any sense to try to deprive them of some advantage to which they are justly entitled. It has been the one desire, I am certain, of all Members of the House to get quite clear on this point whether the introduction of a scheme was going to benefit agricultural labourers as a whole.
The difficult point to decide has been the liability to or the immunity from unemployment of the agricultural industry. There has been doubt about it. Agricultural unemployment has been very difficult to measure. It is true that the agricultural unemployed could register at the Employment Exchange if they wished to, but I think the extent of that registration has provided a comparatively poor measure of the extent of unemployment. Secondly, agricultural unemployment, so far as it existed, has not been as visible as in the case of other industries. We have been in a vicious circle. A certain amount of visible unemployment appeared to be necessary in order to substantiate the case for a measure of unemployment insurance, and yet the fact that there was not a system of unemploy- ment insurance tended to obscure the unemployment which did in a sense exist. To illustrate what I mean, take the year 1926, when a committee sat on the subject and, except for the casting vote of the chairman, was quite equally divided as to the desirability of having a scheme. Take the position in the following year. You find that between 1921 and 1927 100,000 people hal left the agricultural industry. If those 100,000 people had been definite agricultural unemployed standing uninsured in the streets of the villages they would have constituted a noticeable body. But, in point of fact, they did not for the most part stand in the streets of villages as unemployed, and they were not so regarded. Why was that? It was because, as many hon. Members have indicated this evening, they had left not only agriculture but the agricultural districts.
The decline in agricultural employment which has been going on since the war has been due to a variety of reasons. Owing to change in economic and scientific conditions the agricultural industry has apparently wanted fewer people. In that respect it has not been dissimilar to a great many other industries, but the decline of agricultural unemployment has partly been because people, particularly perhaps young people, have not really wanted to enter the agricultural industry. I am not going to minimise the other factors, which have led to the drifting of agricultural workers to the towns and into suburban industries. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Duckworth) made the point with regard to the higher cash wages. I also join the hon. Member in feeling convinced that the absence of a system of unemployment insurance for agricultural workers has played a very considerable part in the drift of agricultural workers to other occupations. It was not so much that the workers feared great intensity of unemployment in agriculture. I think that it is safe to say that skilled agricultural workers have, even through these difficult years, managed to maintain very regular employment, but there was a feeling at the back of their minds that, if anything happened and they became unemployed, they would have nothing to fall back upon such as was possessed by people in other industries and occupations. It was partly a psychological factor.
There was another psychological factor —the question of status which has been alluded to a good many times in the course of the present Debate. The status question was emphasised and stressed a good deal before the Statutory Committee. The hon. Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) drew, as he was entitled to do, a vivid picture of what life in the country villages is like now, with the dovetailing of the agricultural population and the population engaged in other occupations. It is true that you now increasingly get in the same household and in the same factory agricultural workers who are not insured and other people who are. By word and by actual example, agricultural labourers, day in and day out, are having impressed upon them the fact that they are being denied something which is obtainable by their brothers. It is interesting to me that it is not merely agricultural workers themselves who are anxious for Unemployment Insurance. There is a very great feeling among village communities generally, among people who are not engaged in agriculture but are in close contact with the agricultural worker, in favour of the agricultural worker having unemployment insurance. Therefore, we had that constant influence at work on the agricultural labourer to leave the employment of agriculture and go elsewhere. It is quite possible that in going elsewhere he became unemployed quicker, but he was not one of the visible agricultural unemployed. He had only gone, as hon. Members have said, to swell the industrial, and, in a great many cases, the urban unemployed. That is what I meant by saying that the true extent of agricultural unemployment has for the past 15 years been largely obscured.
We have now a considerable change in the situation. Undoubtedly during the recent years of acute agricultural depression actual agricultural unemployment has become more definitely visible. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) emphasised that point. There were the census figures of 1931, but our calculations are not based on the census figures of 1931, wholly. Those figures were supplemented by information from bodies such as the Agricultural Workers' Union and the rural approved societies. In addition, the Statutory Committee in its report actually scaled down the census figures of 1931 because they felt that in that year unemployment was perhaps unduly excessive. They came down to the figure of 7½ per cent. One of the changes in the situation has been the great change in the attitude which has taken place towards the question of status. There has been a definite desire to remove any slur on the status of those workers and to try to remove one of the causes which many people think has brought about the drift from the countryside to the towns.
A great number of points have been raised in the Debate and I find it difficult to make a selection. Whether or not I shall be able to answer all the points, I am not certain. The hon. Member for the Don Valley started with a question as to the saving to the Treasury. Some people seem more concerned as to whether the Treasury will save money than as to whether the agricultural worker is going to benefit. The way in which we should consider the Bill is to see whether or not it is fundamentally a Measure that will benefit the agricultural workers. When you bring in any scheme of contributory insurance like this there is always a great likelihood that there may be a saving to the Treasury, not necessarily an actual saving but possibly, and that was the argument of many hon. Members, a potential saving. Even if that may be going to happen by some process of argument, there is nothing to apologise for. The fundamental thing is that this scheme is of definite benefit to the agricultural worker, and it is on that point that my right hon. Friend and I and those who support us take our stand.
Now I come to the question whether or not the benefits are adequate. In that respect I am going to mention the scheme which was proposed by the Agricultural Workers' Union. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) talked a good deal about my education. Whether I have been educated by the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) or the right hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) or both of them, I am certain of one thing, and that is that they never taught me, when I thought that I had a perfectly good point to make, to allow myself to be shied off by someone saying in advance that he knew I was going to make it. The hon. Member for Don Valley, in regard to the National Union of Agricultural Workers' scheme, said that the Statutory Committee appeared to grasp at anything which came along; according to him, they said here is a scheme and they clutched at it as a drowning man clutches at a straw. Other hon. Members have said the same thing. But the point is that it was not a question of clutching at anything; it was a question of actual proposals which the Agricultural Workers' Union made themselves to the Statutory Committee before any scheme was put forward, let alone this Bill. Hon. Members know that there are differences between our rates and their rates. They are not considerable. In some cases they go one way and in other cases another way. The hon. Member for Don Valley said, "look at the miserable 14s. for a single man. It means that he will be struggling and sponging on the poverty-stricken home." After all, the scheme suggested to the Statutory Committee by the Agricultural Workers' Union only suggested 15s. and whether 1s. makes all the difference between sponging or not I do not know.
There is, however, a difference in the other direction. The Agricultural Workers' Union scheme suggested 2s. per child instead of 3s. for the first child and 2s. 6d. for other children, as in the Bill. They suggested 6s. for dependants as against our 7s. And in regard to a man and wife and three children the amount we are providing under the Bill is more than the amount actually suggested by the Agricultural Workers' Union to the Statutory Committee. And this lower scale of remuneration for a family is actually to be obtained under the condition so much advocated by hon. Members opposite, namely, of a higher State contribution. The hon. Member for the Don Valley also brought forward the case of the person who pays a certain amount of contributions to both schemes and is not qualified under either. That is a perfectly legitimate criticism to make at first sight. That situation may arise, and I can assure the hon. Member that no question has caused greater difficulty and more thought than the relation of one scheme to the other. Some people may say that to give benefit under one scheme and then at the end of his benefit to allow the insured to go on to the second scheme would be too generous. On the one side you have too much generosity and on the other side you may have a situation such as the hon. Member for Don Valley has pointed out. We had to come down to something which is fundamentally fair, though it may involve a certain apparent anomaly. To try to amalgamate the contribution under one scheme with the contributions under another would raise difficulties which seem almost insuperable.
The main point of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) whose maiden speech earned so much justifiable praise was to stress the value of long-term employment in agriculture. There I entirely agree with him as I think most hon. Members would. But he is wrong in thinking that special treatment is to be meted out to Scotland and the North of England. Certain definite rules are laid down with regard to long hiring contracts of which anybody can take advantage if they wish. The suggestion of a differential contribution although at first sight it seems attractive, will, I think be found to present administrative difficulties so great that it would eventually be impracticable. I think probably the Bill goes a considerable way towards fixing a figure which will not discourage long hiring arrangements between the employer and the employee.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Hunter) raised a question which was also raised by subsequent speakers as to the inclusion of gardeners. The Statutory Committee considered the question and decided on the whole that gardeners had better not be included initially. My right hon. Friend the Minister gave the matter careful consideration and came to the same conclusion, but he has been very much impressed by the cogency and number of the arguments advanced this evening and he will certainly undertake to consider the question of their inclusion before the subsequent stages of the Bill. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross also suggested that smallholders working for themselves should become voluntary contributors. He will realise the difficulty of a man who is working for himself becoming a voluntary contributor in an unemployment insurance scheme. In point of fact the policy of voluntary contributors has not been adopted in the whole history of unemployment insurance.
The hon. Member for Gorbals complained a good deal about having a special scheme for agriculture, but I could not quite make out whether he complained about it because it was bad for agriculture or because it was bad for the other workers. I think I am not unfair in saying that his argument and that of his hon. Friends amounts to this, that they do not believe in insurance and that we do. When you have a gulf as wide as that I think little points of detail here -and there as to whether one hon. Member's speech agrees with another and whether all or any of their speeches agree with an actual Amendment are not worth going into. I was rather astonished at the flippant way in which he dealt with the question of £l or 10s. in respect of the long hirings. I am sure if I dealt with the question of £l or 10s. in a matter affecting his constituents as if it was of no account like silver in the days or Solomon he would be the first man to jump down my throat. I can assure him that whatever happens in Gorbals, the question of £l or 10s. is one not to be scoffed at in the agricultural districts of England.
A point was raised by the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Viscount Elmley) as to what would happen to people who have mixed employment, partly in agriculture and partly in some other insurable occupation. Briefly, what happens is this, that anybody who is qualified under either of the schemes can start in on a benefit year in accordance with the benefit of that scheme, and finish the benefit he is entitled to under that scheme. If, during that benefit year, he runs out of benefit under the one scheme and is qualified under the other scheme, he can go on and get consecutively, though not at the same time, the benefits under the other scheme; and at any time an insured person is entitled to get the higher benefit under whatever scheme he may be qualified for at the moment. That is, broadly speaking, what happens to people who are engaged in mixed occupations.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) made, I thought, one of the most interesting contributions to the Debate. He was rather frightened that the scheme would be got at by what he called "hangers-on." He was there voicing a feeling which it is perfectly certain is voiced by the great mass of general agricultural labourers throughout the country, and it is exactly on that point that we did decide to make the qualifications for benefit a good deal stricter than were recommended by the statutory committee, namely, 20 contributions in two years instead of 20 contributions without that limit. It was done exactly to meet that point. I therefore thought it was rather hard that he should have complained of the fact that we are saying that where no contributions have been paid for five years, if a person comes into insurance again, any contribution before that period of five years should not be counted, but he should start off, so to speak, de novo. There always may be cases, I agree, where that might operate hardly, but, broadly speaking, that provision again was inserted in order to try to meet exactly the point that the hon. Member spoke about, namely, the fear that, to use his own phrase "hangers-on" might get undue advantage out of this scheme to the detriment of the genuine agricultural worker.
He found Clause 6 very difficult to understand, and he asked if I would give him an instance and put it in actual figures. Let me accede to his request. He realises that for the first ten contributions a man may get 12 day's benefit, and he may get three further days' benefit for each further contribution. A man has 25 contributions, of which 20 were paid in the last two years, and, therefore, he is qualified. He is entitled to 57 days' benefit, but it so happens perhaps that he only draws 49 days' benefit. What is his remaining credit? It is 2⅔ contributions, calculated thus: The first 12 days consume 10 contributions, namely, at the rate of five-sixths of the contribution for each day; the remaining 37 days consuming 12⅓ contributions, at the rate of a third of a contribution for each day. The total, therefore —you can take my word for it, unless the House has added up as I have gone along—is 22⅓ contributions consumed, which leaves out of 25, 2⅔ contributions unconsumed or standing to his credit.
Let me deal with his other point. The principal Act was dealing not with a mixture of general and agricultural insurance, but with a mixture of insurance and non-insurance. It was laid down that when there was a mixture of insurable and non-insurable work then with the consent of the employer, the full contribution of 10d. might be paid. There was, therefore, a provision by which the contribution might go up from nil to 10d., and this is following the same method. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) voiced the question of local administration, and it was referred to also by other hon. Members. That is a question for the Committee stage, and I can assure the House that questions which will arise over administration and geographical matters are being fully considered. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) drew a lurid picture, which I remember was drawn at the time of the introduction of National Health Insurance, about nobody being inclined to give employment on Monday—or any other day—because of the fear of having to pay the contribution. He lives in Yorkshire, and I live further south. If he could see the scramble in my part of the country to get threshing tackled in any circumstances, I think he would agree that the people in the south are not likely to be deterred by the prospect of 4½d.
It is not a question of 4½d., but of the combined National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance, which will be a great deal more this year.
I do not think they will be deterred by that. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh said this was placing the agricultural labourer in a position of inferiority. At all events it is placing him in a position of superiority to what he has experienced for many years, including two periods of Socialist Government. When he realises that the agricultural money is going to be kept in its own box, that the scheme is going to be financially self-contained, that the contributors are going to have their own show, I do not think that the agricultural labourer will think he is going to be placed in a position of inferiority.
I am not able to say what is in order on a Financial Resolution, or what is not.
A great many Members raised the question of the increased casualisation which would result from this scheme. They said that the absence of a scheme of unemployment insurance, coupled with that particular personal relationship between employer and employed in the countryside, has led in the past, and is leading now, to many employers maintaining their employés throughout the year when, on purely material lines, they might be able to dispense with their services for a few weeks or a few months. They argue that the effect of a system of unemployment insurance will be to increase unemployment on the one hand, and tend to destroy that particular personal relationship on the other. I doubt whether there is very much probability of increased casualisation in the agricultural industry. I do not say there is none, but I do think that the very difficult years through which we have passed in agriculture have very much lessened the chance of there being much room for increased casualisation. But still, it is a thing that has to he faced. In point of fact, the Statutory Committee in its conclusions did make an allowance for what is called "attraction." A material increase in unemployment which may result from the introduction of unemployment insurance is, I think, only one aspect about which they are afraid. What they are afraid of more than anything is the effect on that personal relationship which has become woven into the whole life of the countryside.
That the rural structure and the urban structure, if I may generalise to that extent, are different in many respects, is, I think, undeniable. It is not for me to argue here whether the method of life in the one is better than the method of life in the other. I think it is quite possible that the methods of life are in each case best suited to their particular environments. I am bound to say, however, that I should be very sorry if by this or any other legislation we reversed any of those desirable features in country life as we know it.
The hon. Member for East Edinburgh calls them feudalism. I am not prepared to say where feudalism begins or ends, or what he meant by that particular term, but I should be sorry if by this piece of legislation we did not maintain what is a pleasing feature of the countryside. That is the note on which I wish to end. It will be an ill thing if either employers or employed seek to interpret this Measure in narrowly selfish terms; if the employed, on the one hand, become less willing or less accommodating, or if the employer, on the other hand, simply seeks how he can get back his contributions, and a little more besides, by cheeseparing economies in the employment of labour. If that be the result of the Bill it will have missed its object. Its object fundamentally is to make agricultural employment more attractive, to provide that background of status and security which exists in other industries and is at present denied to agriculture, and to remove those feelings of uncertainty which have led these people, particularly young people living in the countryside, to leave agricultural employment and to go elsewhere.
The whole object of this Unemployment Insurance Bill is to reinforce the present system of agricultural employment and not to devise an inferior alternative. I am perfectly certain that greater attractiveness of agricultural employment will be to the advantage both of employers and employés, and it would be a very great pity if by an alteration in their conduct either or both of them took away in any sense that advantage of attractiveness which the Bill we are discussing to-day seeks to provide.
In a few minutes we shall be considering whether we pass this Bill through an important stage in its career. If it becomes law, let those two great partners in the agricultural industry, the employer and the employé, show, by a continuance of their relationship in the future as in the past, that legislation is the servant of personal good feelings and not the master.
Might I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he would be kind enough to give the House some indication as to whether gamekeepers could be included under the Bill?
I think it would be impossible to do that. There must be some relationship with agricultural workers. Speaking offhand, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to place gamekeepers within the scope of the Bill.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 2.
Division No. 28.] AYES. [11.2 p.m. Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Craven-Ellis, W. Goldie, N. B. Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Goodman, Col. A. W. Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Cross, R. H. Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Crowder, J. F. E. Granville, E. L. Agnew, Lieut. Comdr. P. G. Cruddas, Col. B. Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Albery, I. J. Culverwell, C. T. Gridley, Sir A. B. Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Davies, C. (Montgomery) Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Apsley, Lord Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Grimston, R. V. Aske, Sir R. W. De Chair, S. S. Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) Assheton, R. Dodd, J. S. Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover) Donner, P. W. Gunston, Capt. D. W. Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Guy, J. C. M. Atholl, Duchess of Dower, Capt. A. V. G. Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) Hamilton, Sir G. C. Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Hanbury, Sir C. Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Dugdale, Major T. L. Harris, Sir P. A. Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Duggan, H. J. Harvey, G. Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Duncan, J. A. L. Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Bernays, R. H. Dunne, P. R. R. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Blindell, Sir J. Eckersley, P. T. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Borodale, Viscount Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Bossom, A. C. Elliston, G. S. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Eimley, Viscount Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey) Boyce, H. Leslie Emmott, C. E. G. C. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Emrys-Evans, P. V. Holmes, J. S. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Errington, E. Hopkin, D. Bull, B. B. Erskine Hill, A. G. Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. Burghley, Lord Everard, W. L. Howitt, Dr. A. B. Burton, Col. H. W. Fildes, Sir H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Butler, R. A. Foot, D. M. Hulbert, N. J. Campbell, Sir E. T. Fraser, Capt. Sir I. Hunter, T. Cartland, J. R. H. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Hurd, Sir P. A. Cary, R. A. Furness, S. N. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Channon, H. Fyfe, D. P. M. Jarvis, Sir J. J. Christie, J. A. Ganzbni, Sir J. Joel, D. J. B. Clydesdale, Marquess of George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Colman, N. C. D. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Kimball, L. Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Gledhill, G. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Cooper. Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.) Gluckstein, L. H. Latham, Sir P. Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. Leach, W. Leckie, J. A. Perkins, W. R. D. Simmonds, O. E. Leech, Dr. J. W. Peters, Dr. S. J. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Petherick, M. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st) Levy, T. Plugge, L. F. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. Liddall, W. S. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe) Loftus, P. C. Porritt, R. W. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J. MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G. Price, M. P. Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. McCorquodale, M. S. Procter, Major H. A. Spens, W. P. McEwen, Capt. H. J. F. Quibell, J. D. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) McKie, J. H. Radford, E. A. Stourton, Hon. J. J. Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. Raikes, H. V. A. M. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) Magnay, T. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Strickland, Captain W. F. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Ramsbotham, H. Tasker, Sir R. I. Maxwell, S. A. Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.) Tate, Mavis C. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.) Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Rayner, Major R. H. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Titchfield, Marquess of Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Remer, J. R. Tree, A. R. L. F. Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C. Richards, R. (Wrexham) Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C. Moreing, A. C. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Turton, R. H. Morgan, R. H. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Walker-Smith, Sir J. Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) Ropner, Colonel L. Wallace, Captain Euan Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. Rothschild, J. A. de Wells, S. R. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) Runciman. Rt. Hon. W. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.) Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Munro, P. M. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin) Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. Salmon, Sir I. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Salt, E. W. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Orr-Ewing, I. L. Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney) Wise, A. R. Owen, Major G. Sandys, E. D. Womersley, Sir W. J. Palmer, G. E. H. Scott, Lord William Wragg, H. Patrick, C. M. Seely, Sir H. M. Young, A. S. L. (Partick) Peat, C. U. Shakespeare, G. H. Penny, Sir G. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E. Shepperson, Sir E. W. Mr. James Stuart and Captain Hope.
NOES. Maxton, J. Stephen, C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. McGovern and Mr. Buchanan.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) [Money]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
Resolved,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to include employment in agriculture among the employments which are insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1936, and to make modifications in the provisions of that Act in their application to such employment and other consequential modifications in those provisions, it is expedient to make provision for any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by virtue of sections twenty-one, ninety-four, and ninety-five of the said Act of 1935."—( King's Recommendation signified ).—[ Mr. Ernest Brown. ]
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Supply
REPORT [4TH FEBRUARY].
Resolutions reported,
Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimate, 1935
Class V
Grants to Public Assistance Authorities (England and Wales)
1. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,900,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Grants to Public Assistance Authorities in England and Wales."
Grants to Public Assistance Authorities (Scotland)
2. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £840,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Grants to Public Assistance Authorities in Scotland."
Resolutions agreed to.
Cotton Spinning Industry [Money]
Resolution reported,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the elimination of redundant spinning machinery in cotton mills in Great Britain by means of a Board having power to acquire property and to borrow and levy money, for the making of certain payments to the said Board out of the Consolidated Fund or moneys provided by Parliament and the making of certain payments by the said Board to the Exchequer, for regulating the use of cotton-spinning machinery, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient:
Resolution agreed to.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Adjournment
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Captain Margesson. ]
Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.