MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

§ Mr. LAWSON

Before the Minister of Labour proceeds to open the Debate, may I ask for your Ruling, Sir Dennis, as to the scope of the Debate? On the Supplementary Estimates, we sometimes find that the Debate is very narrow, but as this is a very large sum, £18,000,000, it would seem desirable that there should be a very wide Debate. May I also point out that within the experience of the House for the last two or three years there have been on such occasions almost full-dress Debates, particularly when large sums have been asked for? May I ask for your guidance?

§ The CHAIRMAN

It is a well-established rule of procedure in this House on Supplementary Estimates that the discussion is strictly confined to the purposes for which the Supplementary Estimate is required, but there is some slight exception and elasticity about that rule where the sum is very large in proportion to the original Estimate. In this case, Subheads F. 2 and F. 3, which really work together as one for the purpose of the Debate, result in a very large increase 770 upon the original Estimate. Therefore, so far as those are concerned, I propose to allow practically as wide a Debate as could take place under those particular headings on the Vote for the original Estimate. Hon. Members will, of course, recollect that they cannot discuss matters requiring legislation, that they cannot discuss matters which would come under another Minister's Vote, and that they cannot discuss matters which would come under some other heading of the Ministry of Labour Vote. There is a third heading M.M. which is for a new Service entirely. That will be open to discussion in the ordinary way as a new Service, within the limits of the particular circumstances for which the Vote is asked.

§ Mr. THORNE

In regard to paragraph 1, on page 6, a number of subjects are mentioned. Am I to understand that we are not entitled to discuss any of the headings of that particular paragraph?

§ The CHAIRMAN

Those headings are the headings of the entire Vote. The Debate cannot be spread over those headings. It must be limited to the particular subhead under which a Supplementary Estimate for these moneys is required.

§ Mr. THORNE

Paragraph 1 refers to money that is to be granted to the International Labour Office. If so, surely we are entitled to go into that matter.

§ The CHAIRMAN

No. The hon. Member is mistaken. It is a Supplementary Estimate for the amount required by the Ministry of Labour. The matters mentioned in paragraph 1 at the top cover the whole of the Estimates of the Ministry of Labour. Those Estimates have been dealt with already. This is only a Supplementary Estimate because the amount of the original Vote was not sufficient. The Debate on this Supplementary Estimate must be confined to the particular matter which has made the Supplementary Estimate necessary.

§ Mr. LAWSON

May I thank you for your Ruling in the matter. We realise that we cannot discuss matters affecting legislation. There is, however, one point on which I should like your guidance. Recently we had a Debate lasting three days in which all the parties pooled their ideas on the question of unemployment. Would it be possible under your Ruling to ask for an explanation from the 771 Government as to what they propose to do about those proposals and what decision they have arrived at?

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member was good enough to intimate to me a moment or two ago that I might be asked for information on that point. I have taken the opportunity, as far as I could, of refreshing my memory in regard to that Debate, and I think it is quite clear that, speaking generally, the whole of the various proposals made during that Debate were proposals which could not possibly be discussed on this particular Supplementary Estimate because legislation would be required.

§ Mr. T. GRIFFITHS

You have stated that we cannot discuss matters requiring legislation. There are some industries, the iron and steel industry and the tinplate industry, for instance, that are ready to adopt the six-hour day. I know that that would require the intervention of the Minister with the Whitley Council in regard to proposals for getting the unemployment benefit that is now paid to workmen, if they are to work four instead of three shifts. I want to make certain what proposals the Minister is prepared to take into consideration. I recognise that this matter would require legislation, but I hope that there may be an opportunity of bringing it before the Minister.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has definitely ruled himself out by saying that it will require legislation.

§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton)

As you, Sir Dennis, have pointed out, this Estimate is for a very large sum, £18,010,000, and you have been good enough to intimate the scope within which this Debate must be confined. I need hardly say that I will do my best to adhere strictly to your ruling. The three items which make up this large sum of £18,010,000 are, first of all, an additional sum of £12,600,000, which is required for transitional payments; secondly, a sum of £6,400,000, which is required to make up the Deficiency Grant to the Unemployment Fund; and, thirdly, a small, but, I think the Committee will agree by the time this discussion is ended, an extremely interesting sum of £10,000, which is to be devoted to grants for 772 assisting the voluntary provision of occupation for unemployed persons. Then, at the end of the White Paper it will be seen that there is a set-off of £1,000,000, which goes in remission of the larger sum which would otherwise be required. I will deal quite shortly with these various items in that order.

The original Estimate for transitional payments was the sum of £41,750,000. That with the additional sum now required makes up the sum of £54,350,000. The Committee will, of course, ask at once, and be entitled to ask, and I am forced to give an answer, why this large addition sum is now asked? The answer is a. perfectly simple one. We estimated, perhaps too optimistically if you like, on an average live register of something between 2,400,000 and 2,500,000 persons in the present financial year, and we estimated that of that number something like 800,090 would be in receipt of transitional payments. The average live register for the eight months from April last to November exceeded the figure, and, in fact averaged something like 2,777,000. As a consequence, the number of 800,000 which we had estimated as the figure of those likely to be in receipt of transitional payments on the average, reached in fact a number of over 950,000.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

Does that figure include those in transitional benefit, but who are not actually receiving transitional payment? Does it include those who have been turned down?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

The actual number receiving payment. The result of the higher live register has been two-fold. More persons, as a result, have remained in the transitional class, and more have dropped out of benefit and claimed transitional payments. The second large item of £6,400,000 is the item under the head of Deficiency Grant. The original Estimate for the Deficiency Grant was £3,100,000, and the total now required is £9,500,000. The Committee will remember that the Deficiency Grant is the amount which is necessary to balance the Insurance Fund itself, and it is the difference between the amount paid out for insurance benefit, administration, and the amount of the interest on the debt on the one hand, and the amount received in contributions on the other hand, that is, of course, the contributions received from the three 773 parties to the tri-partite agreement—the employers, the employed and the Exchequer. These two sums of £12,600,000 and £6,400,000 to which I have referred make up a sum of £19,000,000, but, as I stated a moment ago, there is a set-off of £1,000,000, and the reason why there is this set-off is because unemployment has been greater than we anticipated, and, therefore, the amount paid in contributions by the State has been less than we thought and indeed hoped, that it would be.

The Committee will, of course, remember that the amount of contribution by the State is one-half of the joint contributions of the employers and employed. It was estimated that the joint contributions of the employers and employed would be £40,300,000, and that the contribution of the State, therefore, would be £20,150,000, but it is now estimated that, owing to the fact that unemployment is more than we hoped it would be, the joint contribution will not be £40,300,000 but £38,300,000, or £2,000,000 less. It follows, therefore, that the amount of contribution by the State will be £1,000,000 less than was estimated, and that explains the £1,000,000 to which I have referred as a set-off. That leaves, of course, the very formidable figure of £18,000,000, and the reason why we have to find this Supplementary Estimate is perfectly simple. It is beyond question that the progressive deterioration of world conditions which we hoped would be arrested, and of which we saw signs of being arrested at the time the Estimates were made, has gone on, and the improvement has not materialised. How serious that deterioration in world conditions has been I will show in a moment. That we could entirely escape the influence of it was, of course, impossible, and that we should, to some extent, come in for the backwash was quite inevitable. On the other hand, that we as a country have escaped its worst effects is equally undeniable, and I say, without any hesitation, that this result has been due to our own efforts and to our own sacrifices. For this, both the country and the Government are entitled to take the fullest credit.

The second reason why this large sum is required is because we have definitely and deliberately abandoned the policy of borrowing. There is not the least doubt, 774 I think, and it will probably be agreed in all quarters of the Committee, that one of the reasons for the crisis with which we were confronted 15 months ago was the fact that it had become obvious that we had for years past been spending out of revenue something that was really capital, and, under the guise of borrowing, we had obscured the position in which we were. I will first give a rather interesting illustration of the statement I have just made. On the figures I have before me, I find that, prior to the year 1929–30, that is, only two or three years ago, the total charge on the Exchequer was something like £12,000,000 a year. On this Estimate, combined with the main Estimate, the charge this year will be £83,000,000. During that period, it is true, the live register has increased to rather more than double, but it has not increased to anything like the extent as would be suggested by the difference between £12,000,000 and £83,000,000. Whereas the contribution of the employers and employed persons has been increased by one-third, borrowing has been stopped, and the Exchequer has, of course, been called upon to bear the whole cost of the transitional payments. When we are sometimes told that the charge for unemployment should be a national charge, I think it is too often forgotten how vast is the proportion of the cost of unemployment which is, in fact, at this moment being borne nationally, and by the national Exchequer.

I have said how serious has been the deterioration in world conditions which has taken place since these Estimates were prepared, because, as everybody knows, Estimates are always, and must always be, prepared some time before they are presented. Taking the figures in this country alone—and I would like to make a present of the 170,000 with which I shall be confronted in a moment —if you take the actual live register, that is, the last figure, and compare it with what it was near its peak at some date in September, 1931, the live register in this country shows a slight drop. I make no point of the fact that it is a slight drop, any more than I would make any point of the fact had there been a slight rise, because when you are dealing with figures of this magnitude, it really means nothing if there is rather less or rather more in any given month. But what I do say is that these figures show that, on 775 the whole, we are holding our own, and things are not worse.

If you consider the position in Germany, and compare the figures with the corresponding figures in this country, you will find that the figures of unemployment—and they are kept very accurately in Germany—have increased by about 1,000,000. In the United States of America, where the figures are not kept so accurately and carefully as far as I know, and where we must rely upon estimates which may or may not be correct, it is estimated that at the present time there are in the United States about 10,000,000 persons unemployed, whilst the index of employment, which is perhaps a more dependable criterion, has gone down from 70.9 to 59.9, taking the figure of 100 for the year 1926. If you take another test you will find that the value of the exports of this country, in the last 11 months, compared with the same period last year, has gone down by 6.9 per cent., in the United States by 35.7 per cent., in Germany by 41.1 per cent., in France by 37.3 per cent. and in Italy by 33.3 per cent. If you look at the volume of exports from this country during the first nine months of 1932 you will find that they are slightly greater than they were for the corresponding period of 1931. What is very relevant to this Estimate is that this country has held its own while there has been a progressive and serious deterioration in every other country in the world; I am not talking of our own Dominions, but of the countries of Europe and America.

The second reason why we want this large sum is, of course, that we have abandoned borrowing. If we had gone on borrowing on the conditions as they were about 18 months ago instead of taking this £9,500,000 out of revenue we should by this time have borrowed another£67,000,000, and the debt at this moment would have been the prodigious total of £182,000,000. The Committee will see what would have been the result if we had not faced the financial realities of the situation last year and done our best to meet current expenditure out of revenue. In spite of the necessity for this Estimate we have, as compared with September, 1931, made savings in outgoings of something like £30,000,000 a year. It will be 776 remembered that at the time when we finally stopped borrowing we were borrowing at about the rate of £1,000,000 a week. If I may summarise what I have endeavoured to put before the Committee I would say that this large sum is necessary because unemployment has not gone down, as we hoped it would. In view of the experience of the rest of the world we are entitled to find legitimate satisfaction in the fact that we alone amongst the nations of the world are maintaining our position in face of the most formidable economic situation with which this country has ever been confronted. I want to say one word on the last item in the Estimates.

§ Mr. LOGAN

Before the Minister of Labour leaves that point may I ask for an explanation with regard to the grants to the Unemployment Fund for transitional payments and the relative cost of administration, which is put at £12,600,000 additional I should imagine that any further costs of administration have been provided for, and I want to know whether this £12,000,000 is an additional Estimate or is it included in the costs of the administration and, if so, what part of the Estimate of £54,000,000 is for unemployment grants and what proportion is for administration expenses?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

I think it will he more convenient if detailed questions like that put by the hon. Member were answered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the end of the Debate. The last item in the Estimate is for £10,000, and I imagine that it is an item about which there will be no dispute in any part of the Committee. It has been obvious to everyone for some time that there has been a most remarkable growth throughout the country during the last few months of a desire to assist unemployed people, a desire, a growing desire, to find them some occupation which will preserve their morale and possibly contribute something to their own well-being. On this point I agree with every word written by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in a foreword to a pamphlet entitled "Unemployment and Opportunity," published by the National Council of Social Service. This is what the right hon. Gentleman wrote: I am glad to write this foreword of appreciation of the human effort being made 777 by men and women of all parties, creeds and churches, on behalf of the victims of the cruel, pitiless unemployment which curses our land. Later on the right hon. Gentleman says— and I want to emphasise the point— There is no competition with ordinary employment. The mending of clothes and boots is done for themselves and would go undone but for the organised effort to provide the opportunity. Neither is there any question of sending out partially trained men to undercut trained men in the labour market. I entirely agree with those statements. The right hon. Gentleman was a little suspicious the other day that in some way we proposed to ride off from our responsibilities under the cloak of this movement. Nothing is further from my desires or intentions. Nothing will persuade me to attempt to make any kind of political capital out of what we are doing, and nothing will persuade me to attempt to avoid our responsibilities in other directions. I say that quite frankly because the right hon. Gentleman raised the point the other day, and I want to make it as clear as I can that as far as I am concerned there is no intention of using this for political purposes, or for attempting to avoid our responsibilities. But it has been made clear to us that the various attempts which are being made would be greatly increased in value if they could get some guidance from some central body. We were anxious to do all we could to encourage this movement, and at the same time preserve its essential voluntary character. We wanted to find some central body which would collect and distribute information, which would stimulate and guide these voluntary efforts on behalf of the unemployed. The Committee will realise that where you have these large number of efforts being made all over the country the same mistakes might be avoided if there was a central organisation to give guidance to them. Therefore, we had to consider, if this was a useful plan, and I think it is, what we ought to do.

There were two alternatives before the Government. One was to set up an ad hoc Committee for the purpose, and, the other, to make use of some existing organisation. After the most careful and anxious consideration I came to the conclusion that it was better to utilise an existing voluntary organisation, because if we set up an ad hoc committee for 778 the purpose it would be said at once that it was merely the creature and agent of the Government, and we might go far to lose that voluntary spirit which we all want to encourage. Therefore I have asked, and I am glad to say they have accepted, the National Council of Social Service to undertake this work. I am satisfied that they do fulfil the requirements which are necessary, and for this purpose they will be the central national body. The National Council do not regard it as part of their functions to initiate schemes of work or occupation. They are there to help localities in setting schemes on foot and, therefore, it is clear that they will need a staff to help them in this work. As they are doing this at the suggestion of the Government it is only fair that we should contribute to the cost, and that is the explanation of the sum of £10,000. Let me emphasise what was emphasised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in the pamphlet, that the workshops which these men are starting, and which may be started in future, are valuable as a means of occupation, and should be encouraged, but those who run them should be careful to see that they do not compete with ordinary trade activities. The sale of any articles manufactured under these conditions which interfere with regular employment may arouse apprehensions in quarters which in themselves are not in the least hostile to the efforts of unemployed men to find some employment.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

Is it the intention of the Government, by regulation or decree or in any way, to make that a condition of receiving either transitional benefit or standard benefit, that is to say, is serving on any of these jobs under these schemes to become in any way a condition for receipt of unemployment benefit?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

I am glad to say that the answer to that question quite definitely is in the negative.

§ Mr. DAVID MASON

With regard to the sum of £10,000 mentioned, what exactly are the duties to be performed for expediting these schemes?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

I can deal with that question at some length if the Committee are interested. The object of this grant is to enable the National Council 779 of Social Service to assist these people to help themselves in the various schemes that have already been started. They may assist in several ways. The sending down of a representative might go a long way to help particular localities to avoid mistakes that have been made by other localities. It may enable those in a locality to start a scheme which otherwise would not be started at all. I can give the hon. Gentleman three or four examples of the schemes which have been started. In some places there have been established clubs, with recreation rooms, where unemployed men and women can meet and play games and so forth. In other places, and sometimes in the same place, there are small workshops started, where men can repair their own or their families' boots or clothes or furniture, and can make small objects in wood or metal for their own or others' use. In other places the form which the activity has taken has been the laying out of playing-fields or recreation-grounds. In other places there are schemes for conducting physical training classes, and for the organisation of games and sports. Associated with this effort and affiliated to it is the scheme for the encouragement of allotments, which is so honourably associated with the Society of Friends. These are examples of the sort of thing that is going on all over the country, and the sort of thing we want to help in every possible way.

§ Mr. LOGAN

Do I understand that the sum of £10,000 is to be handed over to the National Council of Social Service so that they can tell others who find the money how to administer that money in the different localities?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

I have answered that question previously.

§ Mr. LOGAN

I am merely asking for information. Do I understand that the £10,000 is to be given to this body to be administered in guiding local bodies who are doing this work?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

Yes, that is so. I hope I have explained why this very large sum of over £18,000,000 is asked for. It is obvious that until the causes which make for universal economic disturbance and consequently world-wide depression, are removed, there must be a continued terrific strain on the financial 780 resources of this country; but in spite of all the criticism made upon it, I believe that our system of insurance has proved of real strength to this country at this time, and has enabled us to alleviate the lot of the unemployed in a manner which would not have been found possible without it, and has not been found possible in any other country.

§ Mr. LAWSON

I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100. In spite of the right hon. Gentleman's extremely disarming manner I think that on this occasion even those behind him must feel that this is a very bitter pill for them to take, as it certainly is for the Committee as a whole. In view of the earlier statements that were made, and the prophecies based upon figures which were given by the right hon. Gentleman and supported with exhilaration in the earlier days of this Government, one would naturally have expected that we were rid of this kind of thing. The right hon. gentleman has informed the House that we have done away with borrowing. Yes, but he is going to the Treasury and saying, "Give me £18,000,000." He has informed the House that the figure upon which his original estimate was based was 2,400,000 unemployed monthly, but the actual average has been over 2,700,000. That is the total of those receiving payment.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

That is the Register.

§ Mr. LAWSON

We take it just as the Register. This figure is a 370,000 average above the Government's own estimate. It shows that at any rate things have not gone exactly as the Government anticipated or in accordance with their claims in the early days of office. The saddest thing of all is that the figures month by month are worsening, not merely in the general average on the Register, but in an alarming way in the permanent unemployment section. Month by month the figures of the permanently unemployed go up. The worst feature of all has appeared only this month. The numbers of these men, what are known as the standing army, are increasing by leaps and bounds. Until 1931 we were in a position to say—I was in a position to say at Geneva on behalf of the then Government and I think the 781 right hon. Gentleman's own colleague said—"It is true that there are 2,000,000 unemployed, or 2,500,000 unemployed, but it is also true that they are a continually changing element and there are never more than about 100,000 who have been unemployed for 12 months or more." That was true until 1931. The last analysis that was made in that year showed that the number who had been unemployed for 12 months or more was 120,000. Only a week ago the Parliamentary Secretary informed this House that the total of 120,000 had leaped up to 480,000, men and boys mainly, who had been unemployed for 12 months and more.

That is the most menacing fact that has appeared since this terrible unemployment problem appeared in this country. It is a fact that requires very close consideration to-day. Those of us who live in the areas of the heavy and basic industries know that the bulk of that increase in the standing army of unemployed is in those areas. In face of that fact the Government and the Rouse ought to be considering much graver and more drastic remedies than merely giving £10,000 to the National Council of Social Service. I agree with all that the right hon. Gentleman has said about the estimable work that many of these people are doing. I have seen some of the work that has been done by such organisations as the Friends in different parts of the country, and, as has been said, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has written a foreword to a pamphlet on the subject. We certainly did give our warmest support to the work that these organisations did. But we warn the Government that if the Government think they are going to shove their responsibilities for remedial work on to these voluntary bodies, the Government will have our hostility.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

That is exactly what I said we did not intend to do.

§ Mr. LAWSON

I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I have something else to say on that point. directly these voluntary bodies may be in danger of being involved in a backwash if there is a tendency on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to shove their problems on to these voluntary bodies. We are not 782 the only people who suspect the danger of the Government pushing their problems on to voluntary bodies. The Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance even in the Majority Report showed much concern on this question of voluntary bodies, for they state on page 336: For all classes of workers and especially for the younger, we think that something may be hoped for from the co-operation of voluntary societies…but the situation is too serious to permit of reliance upon voluntary effort alone. We think it is most strongly desirable that, in relation especially to young persons up to say 21 or even 25 years of age, the Minister of Labour should be under a statutory obligation, either independently or in co-operation with local authorities, to provide suitable courses of instruction such as now obtain in relation to applicants under 18 years of age. They go on to say that they think the Minister ought to co-operate actively with education authorities throughout the country for that purpose. I think it is also relevant to the subject under discussion to refer to what the Commission say about allotments. I think the Government made a very grave mistake there and the Royal Commission say that the Government made a mistake. Not only have they made a mistake in regard to the allotments themselves but they have made a far greater mistake in not following up that method of dealing with the problem once they had got some little amount towards doing so. The Royal. Commission say: In 1931 the Ministry of Agriculture by a net expenditure of about £26,000 including administrative costs were able to aid about 64,000 unemployed, or partly employed allotment holders in England and Wales to obtain seeds, tools and fertilizers. The grant allocated for 1931–2 was withdrawn as a measure of economy"— I ask the Committee to note this passage in the report— The Society of Friends, however, stepped into the breach, raised voluntary subscriptions and by a net expenditure of about £18,000…were able to aid about 62,500 men. This admirable service retrieved the situation created by what we are bound to regard as a shortsighted and unfortunate retreat by the central Government. They go on to say: We are informed that there is a large potential unsatisfied demand, checked in many areas by lack of land. They express the strong opinion that, not voluntary bodies, but the Government ought to be responsible for the development of the allotment side. I should say 783 that one of the most serious mistakes made by the Government when they began their economy campaign was to take away that nominal sum. When they did so they not only took from some thousands of men the opportunities of getting seeds and other requisites but they stopped what promised to be a great movement at its outset and damped the enthusiasm for it at the very beginning.

The biggest factor, however, which we have to consider in this Estimate is the additional £12,500,000 for transitional payments. The standing army of unemployed of which I have spoken, numbering some 500,000, are people who have been out of work for 12 months and more. To it I understand from the right hon. Gentleman we have to add something like another 500,000 in order to get the total number of those receiving transitional payments. The Government first took from these people 10 per cent. of their benefit which amounted to £12,500,000. Then, calculating on saving another £10,000,000 or £22,500,000 in all, they submitted these people to the inquiry into means or what is known as the means test. The Government of course from the very outset of the administration of transitional payments professed that they wanted to deal with these people generously and justly, but we saw at one stage what the country felt about that administration. Masses of people felt not merely that the administration of the means test was imposing great hardships but that its fundamental principle was wrong.

Whether it be right or wrong, great masses of the public held that view and many who held that view were in no way connected with the advanced movement and could not be said to be associated with the Labour or Socialist movement. They were sometimes people of very moderate views; people in the churches and people belonging to all sections of society. In some cases they were people who were very remote from the actual lives of those who are subjected to the means test, but throughout the length and breadth of the land these people gravitated together to make their protest against the means test. It is true that for the moment there is a kind of silence but I warn the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee against taking that as an indication of the spirit which prevails 784 among the people or of the attitude which is taken throughout the country towards the operation of the means test.

The real view of the Government I suggest was indicated in their suppression of the public assistance committees in one area where I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit—although he differed from two or three of the local committees on a matter of interpretation—the administration, at least, was efficient. That was in the county of Durham. Generally, all over that county, I think the administration was efficient and I certainly never heard it challenged. The most that the right hon. Gentleman himself has done in the House of Commons, or I understand in his meetings with representatives of the Durham public assistance committees, has been to charge them with making, in two or three local areas, their own interpretations which did not agree with his interpretation. The fact remains that one of the few areas in this country which was quiet, where there was satisfaction, at any rate where there was no uproar and no public criticism, was that county and it is the very place to which the right hon. Gentleman has sent his commissioners. I ask the Committee to note this fact, because it is going to be material in the future to Durham, and I assure the Committee that in the long run it is going to have [...] found effect upon general sentiment throughout the country. There were 360 people there doing this work for nothing and giving their time freely to it. The right hon. Gentleman sent in a commissioner and two sub-commissioners who immediately appointed about 10 chief officials in various areas and sub-areas.

§ Mr. J. JONES

Who are they?

§ Mr. LAWSON

I do not know any of them, but I know that the commissioner himself is to have £1,200 a year.

§ Mr. JONES

And pension?

§ Mr. LAWSON

His two colleagues are to have something like £700 a year each.

§ Mr. JONES

And pensions, too?

§ Mr. LAWSON

Then, of course, they have what is called cost-of-living bonus in addition to those salaries. There are 10 area officers with salaries ranging from £200 to £500 a year and, as I stated the other day, rumour has it that the cost of the administration of that area by the 785 commissioners will be about £20,000 a year. I have been told since that I am wrong and that that is quite a moderate estimate. Whether it is or not, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry in answering supplementary questions has stated that no matter what it costs, the cost will be offset by the savings— savings which, of course, are going to come out of the people concerned. What kind of people are these savings to come from? The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know the conditions under which these people are. Whether he can do anything or not remains to be seen.

I received a letter on Saturday which indicates the state of affairs in that area. It is, I would remind the Committee, an area like South Wales and parts of Scot- land and other areas which are known as depressed areas. It is an area which both materially and socially has been sapped for the last ten years. Indeed it is amazing that the results which I am about to mention have not been seen before now. If anyone make inquiries there now they will be amazed at the lamentable conditions to which things have come. I do not like to have to plead the existence of conditions of this kind every time I stand here, but I find it necessary to impress the facts upon hon. Members as well as I can, because it seems to me that, outside of these areas, the real position is scarcely known even to public men. You can go to-day to the churches and elsewhere and see the people who formerly would have made any sacrifice in order to pay their way. They are not doing it to-day. There is a stringency such as I have never known. Take the case of treats and all kinds of little social functions that are carried on for various classes of people. It is quite clear that the coppers which once went to make those activities possible are not available now. That 2s., represented by the 10 per cent. on the unemployment benefit, carried right through to the transitional payments, has had a marked and a dreadful effect upon the people concerned.

Here is a man who writes to me and asks me to bring his case under consideration in the House of Commons. He says that he has been receiving£ 11s. 3d. transitional payment. He has himself, a 786 housekeeper and four children for whom to provide. He has been receiving the full amount of transitional payments. He was receiving 16s. for a disabled soldier's pension, in respect of wounds and shell-shock. The Commissioner has now reduced his transitional payment from £1 11s. 3d. to £1, and he has the 16s. for his pension, so that the man has actually had more than half his pension taken away. But let the Committee listen to this sum that the man puts in his own pathetic way. He says he has a rent of 8s. 3d.; he pays his housekeeper 7s. 6d.; he pays 3s. insurances; boots and clothing, 2s.—and this is with four children—local, 3s.;butcher, 2s. 6d.; groceries, 14s.—that is, for six of them for the week—and gas, 6d. That brings his outgoings to £2 0s. 9d., and he is left, after the Commissioner's award, with an income of only £1 16s. I happen to know that that kind of thing is only an indication of the policy which is being pursued. The Commissioner has to get at least £20,000 a year. The hon. Gentlemen says that he has to offset his expenses, and he has to get them out of people who have lived soberly and pursued a doleful, penurious kind of life, so patient and so fine. If that is an indication of the Government's policy, I should really like a record of what is going on in this country in remote places where labour has not much representation. It would be interesting.

The Minister of Labour is a very great asset to the Government. As a matter of fact, that courteous, imperturbable temper of his, which enables him to get through where other Ministers would have a lot of trouble, would be a very useful asset, I have sometimes thought, in dealing with the American Debt. He always makes us think he is giving us something instead of taking something from us. He has done the same thing with regard to the means test. He says that he is desirous of being generous and does not want to see anybody hurt. Yet he has installed commissioners in Durham, and they are to take their costs out of the people, who are sadly burdened and suffering tremendously, as they have been doing for years already. They are doing that not alone, but in common with other areas of that kind. There are some 80,000 unemployed in Durham, and on Mersey- 787 side, including Liverpool, I believe, there are about 168,000 of them.

I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman, who is going to allow commissioners to operate in this way, ever takes it into his head to inquire into what is happening in those places where there are no Labour representatives. It would be a story worth hearing, and it certainly is an explanation of that spurt and upheaval that took place just about the time when the House assembled. Let not anybody run away with the idea, whatever this Government may do, that that outburst was merely manufactured by Communists. They played upon what was there already. As a matter of fact, I sometimes think that, because their object is so obvious, they rather tend to act as a brake upon those who feel very strongly on this matter. As one who does riot like to see trouble, I warn the right hon. Gentleman that there is a spirit abroad in the country, where the means test is being operated, that sometimes makes me fear a spontaneous converging of forces throughout this country; and if those people begin to march, they will not be dealt with so easily as were the last lot, when they were organised by the Communists.

What are the Government going to do, apart from the means test? Are they simply going to fold their arms and say, "We are waiting till something turns up," or, as someone said the other day, till they are turned down? They have no policy at all. I remember that the Conservatives boosted migration, and we were so eager to try anything worth trying that we helped them. It failed. Then they tried transference, but that is now done or just about done. The Government are now trying tariffs. Will anyone dare to say, in face of this request for £18,000,000 to-day, that tariffs are going to do anything worth while for this country? It would appear, at any rate, as though the last 15 months have been a fairly good test of that policy. It may make some slight improvement, but the fact remains that there are bigger and much more fundamental things at work than that, which the Government of the day must face ultimately—great, deep-seated changes, rushing men out of factory and workshop and field on to the roads increasingly, so that, as I say, we 788 now have these 500,000 who have been idle for 12 months or more.

The Government really must get a policy to deal with this situation. Recently there was a three days' Debate in this House, and it was in some respects very encouraging. Members of all parties made their proposals and put them into what was called a pool. There was a time when I thought there was going to be a kind of Pool of Siloam, where, they say, people were healed, but apparently it has turned out to be a Dead Sea. The Government have no answer, and so they sit, without any policy, without any proposals, practically shutting down the Unemployment Grants Committee, giving no encouragement at all, not prepared to help the local authorities, bringing a restrictive spirit to bear upon people who are and have been unemployed for a considerable time; and so they carry on, hoping that something will turn up, with no policy at all.

When we sat over there, we were challenged almost every week with what we were doing or not doing. At any rate, we could plead that we did what we could as far as public works were concerned. We were a mere handful compared with the present Government, who have a majority of almost 500, with their own way and their own policy, and we are told that they are a combination of geniuses. I believe the Prime Minister thought, or at any rate the general impression was given, that it was a kind of team of all the talents. I ask the right lion. Gentleman if, in all his long experience of this House, he has ever seen the House so depressed, so lacking in hope, as it is at the present time.

It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said—and he is entitled to use the argument—that, compared with many other countries, we are comparatively prosperous. I sometimes get a kind of gloomy satisfaction out of the sayings and doings of some of those people whom I used to hear at Geneva. I never forget that a great English newspaper opened its columns to a French professor to attack the Labour Government. He wrote article after article, and they were afterwards turned out in book form and appeared upon the bookstalls in almost every country in Europe, entitled "Britain's Crisis"; and statements have appeared in the "Times," too. That professor who 789 wrote upon Britain's crisis is now open to have a very enjoyable time writing upon France's crisis; and I am not unaware of the position of America. But let not this House be blind to the fact that the Government have no policy to meet the very grave situation that exists in this country, a situation which is getting worse, in that the permanently unemployed section is growing by leaps and bounds, while that standing army which is mainly composed of boys who are out of industry almost once and for all, is also growing.

The Government must do something in the face of a situation of that kind. I hope they will continue and develop their remedial work. I know that here and there the Ministry of Labour are doing first-class cork. If any hon. Members were to go to some of the training centres that are operating in different parts of this country under the Ministry of Labour, I think they would be very much surprised at what they would see there. Those who are pessimists might visit some of those centres to find some little inspiration. I do not believe that any voluntary organisation can do half as well the class of work that the Ministry are doing, say, at Bishop Auckland and places of that description. We, as the party of the working-class forces throughout the country, will not be content with the granting of £10,000 to assist the voluntary organisations, and we shall certainly be hostile to the Government if they do not give effect to what the right hon. Gentleman said to-day and carry out his promise of developing their own work.

§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND

The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has appealed to me to say whether I have ever seen this House in so depressed a state of mind with regard to unemployment and the state of affairs generally. I am sure that he himself this afternoon was a prophet of pessimism. I can only say to him that he is in good company. If he looks through the records of English history, he will find that as long ago as the early 1800's William Pitt said There is scarcely anything around us but ruin and despair. The hon. Member talked in the same vein as William Pitt. Shortly after that, Wilberforce said: 790 I dare not marry, the future is so dark a and unsettled. I think that the hon. Gentleman has already entered that state, or he might have refrained from it like Wilberforce. Lord Grey, in 1819, said that he believed that everything was tending to a convulsion. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is thinking to-day. Disraeli, with rather less than his usual foresight, said in 1849: In industry, commerce and agriculture there is no hope. Lastly, the Duke of Wellington, almost on the eve of his death, thanked God that he would be spared from seeing the consummation of ruin that is gathering around us. The hon. Member is therefore in good company with his pessimism, but events in their cases disproved that there was any real need for pessimism to that extent. I think that there is good reason to believe that our future will not be quite so dark as the hon. Member imagines.

I am very surprised at the comparatively scant justice that he has done to the organisations of voluntary effort. I am familiar, as he is, with much of the excellent work that is being done by organisations actually under the Ministry, but it is inconceivable that it cannot be supplemented by voluntary effort of the kind that is being organised at the present moment. I had my own experience of it last Saturday in my constituency. In the largest town in the division there is a representative of the Ministry who does his work very admirably and at the same time shows a real sympathy with the unemployed. He organised efforts to start playing fields, and then obtained the cooperation of a public-spirited individual who is manager of one of the banks. Between them they set to work, and in the end got the co-operation of the town council. Last Saturday I was asked to open a self-help institute which they had organised. It might have been the one to which the Minister referred. A house was put at the disposal of the organisation by the Education Committee, and there men can pass their time in mending their boots and clothes and in making articles of wood, and there is a general room in which they can gather as a club. Attached to the house is a piece of ground. In that work, the organisation 791 has the help and the friendly co-operation of other citizens of the town. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that it is not only a lack of money, but the feeling on the part of unemployed men that the country and society have no longer any real use for them that helps to depress and, indeed, to demoralise them. It is just that kind of centre, together with similar voluntary associations, which will, I believe, be of immense value to all those who have a chance of making use of them. I do not believe for a moment that that kind of effort should supersede the responsibility of the Ministry and the Government for dealing with the problem generally, but in this as in other respects there is certain work that can be done by the co-operation of volunteers, without diminishing the responsibility of the Government, to keep up the morale and the condition of those who are unemployed.

I would like to pass, within the limits of this Vote, to some of the broader aspects of the problem with which we are concerned, and to make some remarks about certain of them which I think have either not been mentioned hitherto or not had sufficient attention drawn to them. The Minister of Labour drew attention to the fact that the position in this country had deteriorated less than in other countries. He might have put the position a great deal stronger. There has been a general deepening of the whole trade depression throughout the world, but it has been much less marked in this country than it has been in other countries besides those that were mentioned by the Lord President of the Council a few weeks ago. I believe that he mentioned Germany and the United States. I think that I may say without fear of contradiction that no country in Europe has stood the strain of the last year of deepening depression in the way that this country has done. The ordinary statistics of unemployment vary so much in different countries that they cannot be compared, but, if the figures in the same country now and 15 months ago are taken, it can be shown how in each of the great nations of Europe outside this country the position has deteriorated much more than it has done here.

There are figures which are more properly comparable. I do not propose 792 to weary the Committee with details of them, but I will take the figure of production, which in itself is a test of trade, and look at the statistics of the fall of production since 1928. Taking the figure of 1928 as 100, the production in Germany has fallen to 53, Austria to 62, Belgium 62, Canada 61, United States 59, France 74, Poland 53 and the United Kingdom 89. In other words, the fall has been infinitely less here. I say at once, and I challenge denial, that some meed of thanks for that has certainly to be given to the Government for, in the first place, balancing the Budget, and in the second place, safeguarding the home market. I cannot but believe that if the home market had been left entirely unprotected when all the other manufacturing countries were looking for somewhere to shoot their surplus production, the position here would have deteriorated far more than it has done.

On the other hand, may I point out one fact which has not been sufficiently recognised. Our comparative well-being, while it is due in some measure to the Government, is due predominantly to our Edwardian fathers and our Victorian grandfathers, whom people are generally inclined to look upon with half-amused condescension. I am referring to the income which we are getting from the foreign investments that were largely made in those days. At the present moment, our income from foreign investments is much less in money than it was before the slump began, but I am told that we are still getting £150,000,000 a year from that source, and, of course, the volume has not fallen nearly so much as the actual amount as measured in money. I would ask the Committee, and I would beg the Government, because it has a very important bearing on the future, to note the inference that can be drawn from that. An immense amount of food and raw material represented by the income from these investments is coming into the country, as, so to speak, a free tribute from the other countries of the earth—Dominions and foreign countries alike. The receipt of that tribute has kept up the standard of living in this country and has given employment without which the unemployment figures would have been infinitely worse. It is difficult to calculate how much employment is given by £1,000,000 793 worth of goods, but, broadly, I should say —though it must be something of a guess —that our unemployment figure might well have been 1,000,000 greater than it is if it were not for the receipt of the income from our foreign investments.

Again, I would beg attention to the inference from that. This income has helped us in our time of need, but what is going to happen if and when the world depression as a whole is lifted? There is an essential duality in this problem. Attention was drawn to it by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and I do not think that it has been sufficiently realised. We have two unemployment problems. There is the extraordinary unemployment from which we are suffering at this moment together with practically all the other manufacturing nations of the world. We have also the problem of the future. If and when the depression rises, as there are signs that it is likely to rise, unless folly prevents it, during the next 12 months, to what are we going to return? Shall we have done anything to remove the hard core of unemployment from which we suffered during the nine years before the big depression began? It is by this that the success or the failure both of this country and of the Government will ultimately be measured. We can be thankful that we are suffering less than other countries. At the same time, when we look to the future we have to realise that we received that income from foreign investments during the years before the slump began, and unless we take special pains to prepare for the future, as well as take measures for the present, we shall go back to the same state of affairs in which we were before 1929.

In view of that, may I briefly deal with one or two special questions? One is the question of economy. It is a delicate subject, in some ways, with which to deal. I always feel that it is almost better to be convicted of petty larceny that not to admit the universal validity of economy in every case. Therefore, I am not certain if what I shall say will be popular. I am sure of one thing; there is a true economy and there is a false economy, and a greater amount of nonsense has been talked in the sacred name of economy 794 than on almost any other subject. I would ask that at some time or another, not necessarily to-day, the Government should tell the people of the country exactly what should be done in the matter of spending and of economy, because it affects the question of unemployment here and now as well as in the future. Take, first, the case of spending by individuals. I believe it is the public duty of any individuals who have some money left to them after meeting the demands of taxation or who have some employment to spend it with confidence. The more useful the object on which they spend it the better, no doubt, but, broadly speaking, if people have money they should spend it and spend freely. If anyone doubts that let them consider the converse of the case. Suppose that everybody who had any money buttoned up his pockets the more closely and was the more careful of it. That would mean that trade and employment, which go limping along as it is, would stop altogether. If the view I have put forward is the right one, I beg of the Government to say so, and to appeal to those people who can put repairs in hand, who can put any useful work in band, who, indeed, can spend money at all, to take confidence and do it now.

Next there is the case of Government spending. Here the situation is different, because the problem is largely psychological. A period of depression like this is different from ordinary times, and for that one reason, if for no other, it would seem to be necessary that the Budget should balance, because of the general doubts and misgivings which otherwise are spread abroad and which in themselves cause trade to become worse. On the other hand, if the Budget is balanced, what is the proper test of what the Government expenditure should be? The question of imposing fresh taxation should be judged by whether the expenditure by the Government would be greater than the expenditure by the private individual. I think the contrary would prove to be the case. There ought to be economy to avoid fresh taxation, because under such a discouragement the expenditure by private individuals would be less than would be represented by the sum taken from them in taxation; but when it comes to economy in existing ex- 795 penditure the position amounts to this: "Would you, the individual, spend more if the Government cut the national services down?" That is the test by which it should really be judged. That is the test by which we ought to act in a time of depression. It would be a benefit to the country as a whole if we could be given a clear lead as to what the duty alike of public authorities and of individuals ought to be.

We ought also to prepare for the future when the world slump lifts, as I think it will in the course of the next year. I have never thought it would be a short slump. I have always thought it would last four years. There are signs, however, that it ought to lift now, if we take joint action with other countries and unless there is folly on the part of the Governments concerned. Our Government ought to keep an eye on what our position will be when we come out of the slump. What, for example, ought to be done as regards the raising of prices. We are all convinced, I think it is a commonplace now, that the general level of prices should be raised, and action is being taken with other countries, including the United States and Germany, to get it raised. The raising of prices should not, however, be a unilateral action by this country. In that respect the position resembles the disarmament problem. Members on this side of the House have been willing to forward the cause of disarmament, but have always quite rightly asked that other countries should go forward with us at the same time. In the same way, in the matter of raising prices, we should ask other countries to move with us.

I noticed the other day a statement by a member of the Government that the doctrine of cheapness in this country had been finally abandoned. I hope to goodness it has not. It would be a vast mistake. Of course, there are some kinds of mistaken cheapness. Take a simplified instance like the following. An unemployed man receives about £50 a year in unemployment benefit, and therefore 20 unemployed men would receive about £1,000 a year. It would be a mistaken view of cheapness if the Government were to place abroad an order for some article which it would 796 take 20 men a, year to make, in order to secure a saving of £200 only over what it could be made for in this country, because they would leave 20 men here out of work for a year. No doubt it was that kind of cheapness which the person who denounced the policy of cheapness had in mind; but, from the point of view of the future, it would be a gross misconception to allow prices to rise in this country alone, overlooking what it may mean to us if we forsake the doctrine of cheapness. That great core of unemployment before the War—running to between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 persons—was due primarily and predominantly to the fact that there was a falling off in our foreign trade. The reason for that was due to one thing and one thing only, that we did not manufacture at a price which, article for article, would enable us to compete with our rivals in foreign markets.

I aim heartily glad of the arrangements with the Dominions which will develop trade relations between us and them—I have always stood for that policy all my life—and yet I am quite sure that the man who thinks we can conceivably live on trade with the Dominions only, however much we may develop it, is letting his zeal run away with his discretion and his enthusiasm run away with his judgment. We cannot afford to neglect the question of costs of manufacture, and therefore we must consider the future together with the present at a time like this, and the preparations for the two should go on together. It is no good having great Debates in this House on the question of whether we are to have a, tariff or not to have a tariff. We must ascertain what is the best level of a tariff, because clearly there is a tariff level above which it will hurt us to go, whereas if we fall below it the tariff will not be adequate. We must consider what the proper level should be; otherwise, we shall find we are raising the level of prices in this country, and in that way injuring our capacity to compete with other countries.

There was an event some time ago, to my mind of quite first-class importance, which I believe was not generally known at the time. It raises a question of policy, namely: what should this country do supposing proposals are made to us by other countries 797 to have what I may call a low-tariff ring? I am informed on what I believe is absolutely true authority that some 15 or 16 months ago there was a readiness on the part of Germany and of Italy to join us in a low-tariff ring, of which one condition was that there should not be a tariff exceeding 10 per cent. between any members of the ring, that other nations should be invited to join, and that we should be able to give preferences to our Dominions within that limit. I do not know how far and in what particular respect that would not fit in with some of the recent Agreements with the Dominions. Subject to that consideration I would ask the House to say whether we should be prepared to say "Yes" or "No" if such a proposal were made again. As an old Tariff Reformer I would say "Yes," without any hesitation whatsoever, because I have an innate belief that our people can compete with those of any other nation under Heaven if they have a fair chance of competing.

We must prepare, and I think that preparing means that a new view of the situation must be taken by industry, and by all the parties to industry. As was said by the right hon. Member for one of the divisions of Glasgow, industries need to put their house in order. I think there should be intermediate credits, something between a bank overdraft and a debenture. I have actual instances in my mind where these have succeeded. If industries could be encouraged to put their house in order by such measures the placing of orders for new machinery would in itself bring help to the heavy industries, which most need it at this moment. We should also require art infinitely freer production on the part of the unions. If we had that, it is my belief that we could face the future with confidence, because I feel that even with the higher rates of wages in this country our productive capacity would enable us to compete with any other country under Heaven. I believe this particular depression will lift within the next year, but, unless we look to the future as well as to the present, we shall find ourselves back in the old groove we were in for those eight long years. If, however, we only take ourselves in hand, we shall have the prosperity for which we hope and which we have not had since the War.

§ Mr. R. T. EVANS

We have listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), who is an acknowledged authority on economic problems, but, while he was-citing the observations of distinguished statesmen of the past, I could not help, thinking that conditions have changed a good deal since their day. Many of the crises during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were rather easy to overcome. We were then very largely the world's workshop. We had the monopoly in a large number of markets. Circumstances arose whereby those markets were temporarily closed to us, perhaps from governmental policy or because of a temporary loss of purchasing power. but those markets were still available. It is fairly easy to analyse the methods whereby we emerged from those financial crises. I imagine that most of us, in the grip as we are to-day of exactly the same conditions, would rather pooh-pooh the doleful prophecies of those statesmen. Circumstances to-day have changed very considerably. We are no longer the world's workshop, and we no longer have control over markets, except perhaps to a limited extent within the Empire. Industrialisation has become widespread. I suppose that the background to the study of our present industrial depression would be a consideration of facts such as these: From 1913 to 1925, the world's population increased by about 5 per cent. and the world's production of foodstuffs increased twice as rapidly, by 10 per cent. The world's production of raw materials increased five times as rapidly, 25 per cent. From 1925 to 1929, there was the same tendency, although in a less pronounced measure. The world's population increased in that period by 4 per cent., foodstuffs increased by 5 per cent. and raw materials by 20 per cent.

That is the world situation. The production of finished goods has been rather greater than the production of raw materials. The production of foodstuffs has increased much more rapidly than population; the production of raw materials has increased still more rapidly than population. On the side of finished goods, the production has been very much greater. The conditions of recovery are not what they were when those pronouncements were made. It is very gratifying—I say this very sincerely—to find 799 that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth has hopes for an immediate recovery. Frankly, I would say, without impugning the authority, for which I have a very high respect, of the right hon. Gentleman, that I seem to remember the annual statements of general managers of great banks and financial corporations: "we have touched bottom," "the tide turns," "before another year dawns recovery will have come." I sincerely hope that the prophet of this afternoon is a true prophet in contradistinction to those prophets who have made their annual pronouncements at bank gatherings.

I want to emphasise a point that was made by the right hon. Gentleman, one which, as he rightly said, has been made more than once by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). We have two unemployment problems. There is the unemployment which has ensued from the world conditions which I have tried to describe and from the disproportionate increase in the production of foodstuffs and raw materials. Then there is our own unemployment problem. May I cite the case of South Wales, the district which I know best? In the last 10 years, something like 242,000, or over a quarter of a million people—I will not press the accuracy of my figures—have left South Wales and have migrated to other industrial centres. Even if you could have a recovery of the industries in South Wales to the 1929 level, you would still have something like 70,000 unemployed, representing the surplus industrial population. It may be that world conditions will improve. On its physical side, civilisation has solved the problem of production, and civilisation on its physical side is the creation of new wants. On those two sides we have solved our problem, but the monetary machine has broken down. The first task of civilisation, unless it is to collapse completely, is either to repair the old machine or to make a new one.

There you have the crux of the situation on a world scale. I still think that even if you solved that problem, because of the vast increase in producing capacity we should still have in this country a residuum of 1,500,000 people unemployed. Coal will never see 800 prosperity in the old form to which we have been accustomed. There are many other industries which cannot recover because of the very nature of the world situation. I want to stress the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made that we must plan ahead. I find, upon looking at the Estimates, that we are voting a sum of £18,010,000 on account of unemployment. The £10,000 is a contribution to the finding of work. Has it not been the saddest commentary upon our statesmanship that, throughout all these years, we have been doling out millions in respect of unemployment and so little in respect of employment?

The Minister this afternoon, in his very lucid and disarming statement, in asking the Committee for this Vote, enumerated some of the causes for the revised. Estimate. He seemed to me to enumerate all the causes except the correct one, so far as this country is concerned. One of the reasons why we are being asked for £18,000,000 is, I suggest, that there has been a serious contraction of expenditure upon public works. I might cite the case of my own constituency, that is represented in a more personal way by another hon. Member. Next Thursday, I shall he going there to assist in the opening of a community house. A public-spirited gentleman has given us a house. We are going to gather there the unemployed from the little town of Carmarthen, where we have nearly 1,000 unemployed. We have collected over a hundred pounds, and we shall probably give some sort of training to those people, in boot-making and so forth. At the same time, some 200 yards away from the house, there is a bridge. I asked a question about that bridge in this House the other day. It is a bridge that provides a vital link on a great trunk road between east and west Wales. It was destroyed, more or less, by floods. The Ministry of Transport in their munificence gave us money to provide a temporary bridge. The local people pressed for a two-way bridge and Messrs. Dorman Long submitted a tender for a two-way bridge, but we should have had to spend another £800, and, instead of £3,000, our bridge would cost £3,800. "Ah," said the Ministry of Transport, "these are days of financial stringency"—

§ The CHAIRMAN

May I call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he is now trespassing upon the Department of another Minister, namely, the Minis- try of Transport? The Vote that we are discussing is a matter only for the Ministry of Labour. I must ask him to confine his remarks to the crux of the question.

§ Mr. EVANS

With great submission the crux of the matter is not so much the Ministry of Transport as the possibility of providing employment for these people. I do not wish to trespass—

§ The CHAIRMAN

It is a matter entirely for the Ministry of Labour.

§ Mr. EVANS

I apologise. The point I wished to snake is that for another £800 a two-way bridge could have been provided, but that owing to the restrictions of a certain Minister whom I shall not mention, the £800 was not forth- coming. Already £1,200 has been spent in controlling the traffic. It would give the Committee a considerable amount of pleasure this afternoon if, instead of voting £18,000,000 for unemployment, we voted at least £10,000,000 of that sum to provide the people with work.

Your Ruling, Mr. Chairman. has rather cramped my argument. We had a three days' Debate upon unemployment, and some of the contributions, I suggest, were of very great value. Before we vote £18,000,000, I would very much like to know whether the Minister of Labour proposes to act upon any of the suggestions that were made. Are we going on, year after year, voting doles for unemployment? Are we going to pursue this policy? Maybe the depression will lift, but only to a, partial extent, and we shall still be faced with a problem of providing for the needs of a million and a half people. Is that the limit of the Government's statesmanship? Are the Government, year after year, going to ask, either in the Budget, in the first Estimate or in a Supplementary Estimate, for millions of pounds to subsidise unemployment, or are they going to undertake the big task of statesmanship? Are the Government going to plan? Are they going to provide people with employment? In South Wales there are 70,000 people who will probably never find themselves back in their old vocations. What are we going to do? The spending of 802 money in developing and in planning industry is money well spent.

In the tinplate industry, in my constituency, there is a temporary improvement., which is not going to last very long. To explain the position fully I should have to go beyond the boundaries of this Debate, although if I have your permission, Sir Dennis, I am quite prepared to do so. Much of the improvement of which I speak is essentially of a temporary character. The kind of thing that has been happening is that the tinplate industry was linked up with the iron and steel works. The banks have brought pressure on the steel works to reduce their overdrafts. The tinplate works hitherto were kept going on foreign steel. I am not citing fanciful things. These are actual things about which I am quite prepared to give the Parliamentary Secretary data. The manager of the steelworks said to the banks, "We cannot carry on. We cannot meet your demand for a reduction in the overdrafts because the tinplate works buy foreign steel." The banks said, "How can you expect us to help you if your own tinplate works keep going on foreign steel? Why do you not compel them not to use foreign steel?" They are doing it temporarily. If I were a betting man, I should be prepared to enter into a mild gamble with the Parliamentary Secretary that quite a number of the works which are now opening will only open for a short period. I hope he is right, but, with the pool system that is operating to-day, if the tinplate industry is to be rationalised, a large number of the inefficient works will have to close down. At the moment they are being rationed to the extent of 60 or 70 per cent.

If there are to be—and this is the judgment of those who undertook the industrial survey—70,000 people in South Wales who, however much trade may improve, will never find themselves back in their old form of employment, what is to be done? Are they to be allowed to become demoralised? The Lord President of the Council the other day made a moving appeal. He spoke of youth, and said that youth had to save civilisation. He said that there was a menace from the air, and that we had to create in youth a conscience—that youth was to make up its mind that it would never use these lethal weapons and thereby 803 destroy civilisation. There are hundreds of thousands of youths in this country who have never done a day's work, who have been frustrated in their hopes, thwarted in all their aspirations. What is being done for youth? We listened a few days ago to a discussion in the House about what happened 10 years ago, but, frankly, I do not think that youth is much concerned about the yesterdays of 10 or 12 years ago; youth is concerned with to-day and to-morrow; and youth, frustrated in its hopes, has a right to ask that it shall be given a chance—the discipline of work, the chance of self-realisation. Youth has a right to fling back in the teeth of the old men this answer: "If you want us to save civilisation, give us a civilisation that is worth saving."

Nothing is more tragic than the treatment of youth. It is proposed that we should vote £10,000 for the Council of Social Service. I would gladly vote £10,000,000 to organise work for youth. Every lad who is unemployed, every lad who is thwarted in his ambitions, becomes a potential enemy of society. How can he be prepared to do his best for civilisation when civilisation treats him so shabbily, when it denies him the right of self-development? If this Vote is pressed to a Division, we shall vote for the Government, but we shall vote this £18,000,000 with no great pleasure. We would not withhold a single halfpenny from the funds to provide the unemployed with amenities, but we should rejoice very greatly if the Government asked us to vote many millions more for the purpose of organising work. The policy of Protection which has been launched in this country—whether wisely or unwisely does not matter—carries with it a natural corollary. If you are going to protect the home market, if you are going to jeopardise your overseas sales, you ought to develop your own resources. That seems to me to be the logical sequence of a policy of Protection. What is being done with agriculture? What is being done with the development of our native resources? I should like to see something more than an allotment scheme. It is not nearly enough to have a smallholdings policy; you must also have a means whereby those whom you settle on the land have marketing facili- 804 ties. I should like to see the Government guaranteeing capital for canning factories, and assisting in the settlement of people on the land, not merely by buying the land —

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

If that subject arises in Supply at all, it appears to me that it would arise on the Ministry of Agriculture Vote.

§ Mr. EVANS

There was a time when the Unemployment Grants Committee was administered by the Ministry of Labour, and subsidised schemes of a certain character, and I would suggest that, instead of a voluntary body like the Council of Social Service undertaking this work—

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson)

The Unemployment Grants Committee has lapsed, and, therefore, I take it, cannot now be discussed.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I think that that is so. I do not know if the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans) was here at the beginning of the Debate, but the Chairman then ruled as to the limits of the items covered by the Supplementary Estimate. I have given the hon. Member a good deal of latitude, and he is now getting beyond the limits.

§ Mr. EVANS

I am very much obliged to you, Captain Bourne, for that latitude, and I will not transgress further. The point that I had in mind was that the £10,000 to which I have referred might be very considerably enlarged, and might be administered, not by a voluntary body, but by a central ad hocgovernment body. That. was the point that I was trying to make, but I will not press it in view of your Ruling.

§ Mr. LANSBURY

On a point of Order. Should we not be entitled to argue that, instead of £10,000, the amount ought to be, say, £100,000, and should he administered by the local authorities and not by this voluntary body, the Council of Social Service? Surely we can argue as to how the money which is asked for should be spent?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right. It was not that part of the hon. Member's argument to which I was calling attention, but the part in which he began to 805 deal with the administration of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act. That is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, and not for the Ministry of Labour. To argue as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, provided that it did not involve legislation, would be perfectly in order.

§ Mr. EVANS

I submit to your Ruling, and will conclude by appealing to the Government not to be content merely with subsidising unemployment, but to utilise their resources in order to provide people with work. In view of the world situation, and the likelihood that a very large number of our population will never again find employment in their old vocations, I say that we should plan ahead, that we should develop our own resources, and should follow a policy which is the natural corollary of the Protectionist policy which we have adopted. That is the appeal that I make to the Government—that they should not be content merely with voting £18,000,000 for unemployment, but that they should plan ahead in order to develop our resources and restore to youth and to others who have grown old in unemployment, something of their self-respect, and to check the degradation which seems to be creeping over our population.

§ Mr. TINKER

I always admire the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans), on account of the fervour that he is able to put into his speeches. In putting the case of South Wales, he has put the point that I have in mind, for Lancashire is as hard hit as South Wales. We have a surplus population of unemployed, and, even if we get back to the conditions of 1929, we shall still be left with 150,000 who will never get work. We ask the Government, what are they preparad to do in such circumstances? Although this is a Supplementary Estimate, I listened to the speech of the Minister to hear what plans the Government have for helping us out of this difficulty; but the right hon. Gentleman only reiterated what he said in his speech on the 4th November. He then said that we had done remarkably well as regards balancing the Budget, and that we were doing better than other countries, but the only suggestion he could make was that we should wait for something to turn up. He did tell us that we might look to charity of 806 some kind for help in the future. I wondered whether he had forgotten what he said on the 4th November—that we had had 12 years of this problem, and had tried 17 methods, which he enumerated.

Have the Government lost hope in their own policy to such an extent that they intend to turn to private charity? I wonder whether the Minister meant that or not. To my mind it shows that the Government, after 18 months of trial, can offer no solution for the unemployment problem, and are beginning to feel that they have failed. If the only thing that they can suggest is to leave the matter to private resources, that suggests to my mind abject failure. It is too tragic for Members on this side to have to listen to that kind of thing from the Government. We expected something more tangible. I do not depreciate the value of private help; I want it to continue; and I should not have objected if the Government had offered a larger sum than they have, though I might have felt some objection to the method. I do not know what the putting of this body in charge of the funds really means. I am told that one of the men in charge of it is a member of the other House, and certainly not a friend of ours. I shall be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to reply, would explain more fully what this body is, who is in charge of it, and what its position in relation to the Government will be when it has dealt with this £10,000. Will it be responsible to the Government for the method by which it has dealt with this money? I had a letter the other week from another charitable institution—the Salvation Army: I dare say other Members have had similar letters—telling of the extremely good work that it is doing, and I was wondering whether the Government had given any consideration to the question of enlisting the help of the Salvation Army, which, as I think, everybody will admit, is doing spendid work in all parts of the world, at the cost of great sacrifices both of time and of labour.

When we were dealing some time ago with the Transitional Payments Bill, I brought to the notice of the Minister the question of family means, and cited cases in my own constituency in which young men, and in some cases young women, left their homes in order that by doing so they might get transitional payments. 807 I do not know whether it was owing to my speech on that occasion, or whether the Ministry already had it in mind, but since then certain action has been taken. I have here a statement issued by the Lancashire County Council to the area of Leigh, which I represent in the House. In that statement they instruct the public assistance committee to pay close attention to these young men and women who have left their homes. They are laying it down, under the instructions of the Ministry of Labour, that these people are not to have transitional benefit if they were not entitled to it before they left home. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to let us know whether instructions have gone out from his Department to deal with this point. If so, I criticise their action very strongly. When they speak in the name of charity, as they have done to-day, where is the charity in the mind of the Government? They try to take from the household or from the individual the means of sustenance. These men and women have not left home without some regard to their position. They have done it because they did not want to live on their people. They set out to strike a course in life on their own,