UNEMPLOYMENT.

§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, to leave out "£156,423,000," and to insert instead thereof "£156,422,900."

After the event which we have just witnessed, namely, the very emphatic reply from Rotherham to the action of the Government with regard to the administration of the means test, this Debate ought to be of great interest to hon. Members opposite, and particularly to industrial Members who must recognise that they no longer represent the views of their divisions. In view of the statement which has been made that the Minister of Labour is to tell us about the work schemes which the Government have in hand, I am looking forward with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I regret very much that the Minister could not have preceded me. Several Debates have taken place upon the question of work finding and the problem of unemployment generally, and this Debate was intended to be one to deal exclusively with the question of administration. Nevertheless, we shall welcome the statement which we understand is to be forthcoming from the Minister, and in all probability the course of the Debate will change when the right hon. Gentleman has imparted his cheery optimism and has indicated what schemes the Prime Minister had in his mind when he spoke. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is his intention to make his speech upon schemes and pro- 576 posals which the Government have produced to find work for those who are disengaged? If that is the case I am sure that all of us will be interested, especially after the chorus of despair to which we had to listen a few weeks ago in this House.

I wish to deal with one or two questions which are exclusively points of administration for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible. His is a vast Department catering for approximately 12,000,000 people, and dealing with tens of thousands of Employment Exchanges, and questions ranging from unemployment grants to hours of labour, juvenile training, and the administration of the means test. It would not be out of place to have a general picture of the unemployment situation before our minds. The figures given by the right hon. Gentleman to-day indicate that we have 2,380,000 people wholly unemployed, and I would invite hon. Gentlemen to recognise that the number of wholly unemployed is constantly increasing, and the more rapidly since the present Government took office. There are partially unemployed approximately 520,000, making in all, with those who no longer sign on at the Employment Exchanges, approximately 400,000 more than when the present Government took office. That perhaps is not the worst side of the case. The right hon. Gentleman will observe that, month after month, the number of hard cases, of persons who have been unemployed for more than 12 months, has continually increased, so much so that instead of the 100,000 18 months ago, according to the figures of the Ministry of Labour, there are now 400,000 people who have been unemployed for a period of at least 12 months. That is a situation which we cannot view with equanimity, and, in view of certain statements made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the statement which the Minister is to make will be welcomed if it tends to reduce the abnormal number of people who have been out of work for 12 continuous months.

Then the number of transitional cases continues to increase. I notice that between January, 1932, and January, 1933, there is an increase in the number transferred from the Employment Exchanges to the Poor Law authorities of 577 no less than 268,000, or a total in transition of 1,174,000. The right hon. Gentleman will know without my wasting the time of the House how this problem is affecting certain districts. In Glamorgan, for instance, 42 per cent.; in Monmouthshire, 45.8 per cent.; in Durham, 44 per cent.; in Middlesbrough, 48 per cent.; and in Sheffield, 40 per cent. of the workpeople are unemployed. As a result of this vast increase in the army of unemployed, local authorities all over the country are groaning under burdens which many of them are unable to bear. Since the right hon. Gentleman and the Government took office we have been producing paupers at an alarming rate. I think that the Government have been chiefly successful in that they have produced paupers at a quicker rate than any other Government has ever produced them.

The question of Poor Law relief is an equally serious one, I repeat, for Poor Law authorities, and I want to point out that while the average number per 10,000 of the population all over the country persistently increases, it has increased at a more alarming rate since this Government came into office than at any time prior to that. In Lincoln, for instance—and the Government are to an extent responsible for these figures by their attitude to Russia—out of every 10,000 persons resident in that ancient city, 1,410 are in receipt of public assistance; that is, out of every 100, no fewer than 14 are paupers. At Liverpool the number is 901 out of every 10,000, in Sheffield 1,141, in Manchester 735, and in Barnsley 907. The point I want to emphasise is that the Government have a tremendous responsibility for dealing with the problem of unemployment, and for seeing that our large local authorities are not sent into a state of insolvency.

The first question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, is, What steps, if any, are the Government taking to assist local authorities when they are burdened with increased responsibilities by the administration of the means test? The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is a mere transfer from national funds to local funds, and he also knows that rate burdens are real burdens upon industry, because they have to be paid out of industry, while, at any rate, Income Tax is not paid 578 unless the income has actually been obtained. Will he tell us, therefore, when he comes to reply, just what assistance is going to be made available to places such as Liverpool, Manchester, Barnsley, Lincoln and the rest which are confronted with a Poor Law rate of anything from 6s. to 7s. or 8s. in the pound, while residential areas, where are the homes of the people who make the profits but never live in industrial areas, are approximately rated at 9d. or 10d.

The next thing to which I want to refer is the very cheery statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a fortnight ago. Although the Government were returned in order to restore industrial prosperity, indeed to resolve all the problems confronting the State and nearly all the world, the figures given us show that the situation to-day is infinitely worse than when the present Government took office. The Prime Minister talked about 2,000,000 men whom he termed "scrap," but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, if I may say so, much more honest than many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen when they are talking about this question of unemployment, for if the Chancellor visualises a perpetuation of this profit-making system, which has no relation to human needs or human desires, I agree with him that there will be no material reduction in the army of unemployed within 10 years. Indeed the Chancellor went on to state: If anybody expressed any hope that improvement was in sight or was about to set in that could only be set down to a sort of dogged optimism which refused to take into account ale evidence. Well, the Chancellor has got the evidence, and he gives little or no hope either to the unemployed or to those who may presently be unemployed. Again he said: There must be a transition period in which things will be very difficult and unemployment will be largely increased."—[OFFICIAL RRPORT 16th February, 1933; cols. 1216 and 123, Vol. 274.] He went on to suggest that four things were required—restoration of confidence, increase in wholesale prices, cheap money and international co-operation. If you increase the prices of commodities to be purchased by the unemployed, whose benefits you have reduced by 10 per cent., will you create confidence in the hearts and minds of the 3,000,000 unemployed? 579 The Chancellor states that we must have international co-operation. Having watched this Government very closely during the past 18 months, it seems to me that if they have been striving for anything at all, it has been nothing but international isolation. They have done their best to prevent any sort of movement in trade. Whenever an international movement in trade has been proposed for dealing even remotely with this colossal human problem, the Government have done their very best to prevent any progress being made. We have been told by Ministers that all these work schemes are hopeless failures. Export credits, unemployment grants, housing, drainage, roads and so forth are of no service in this problem. The Government have economised on wages, work schemes and the rest, and they have added approximately £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 in direct taxation on the consumers of the country, and to that extent have reduced the spending power of the poorest of the poor.

If, as the Chancellor truly states, there is no likelihood of any material reduction during the next 10 years in the army of unemployed, what are they going to do with the unemployed if they are unwilling to do anything for them? Twelive months or so ago the International Federation of Trade Unions raised at Geneva the question of the 40-hour week. It was at that time turned down by two votes. Italy resurrected the question later, and it found its way on the agenda of the Preparatory Conference for Technical Problems. A representative of the Government went to Geneva and represented the British Government's point of view. When we challenged the right hon. Gentleman by stating that his instructions must have been to oppose the 40-hour proposal by any and every means, the right hon. Gentleman engendered some heat and indeed, on occasion, some indignation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, a fortnight ago, read out the following quotation: The British Government delegate stated that his Government considered that the question of the compulsory limitation of the hours of work to 40 a week had not yet been sufficiently examined to warrant a definite conclusion being reached, and that therefore his Government were opposed to proceeding at the present time with the project of a draft convention. He pressed for a comprehensive inquiry into the whole question 580 before any definite action was taken."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1933; col. 1224, Vol. 274] When the Chancellor quoted that he appeared to think that it was conclusive and that the Government had not in fact opposed the 40-hour Convention. I will give another quotation. I will not select a sentence or two from the context, and I Apologise in advance for a long quotation, because I want to give the full statement made in "Industrial and Labour Information," published by the International Labour Office, League of Nations. This was the statement made by Mr. Norman, the Government representative, when intervening in the discussion. Mr. Norman said: At this stage he would deal only with that aspect of the problem which related to wages. Grave as was unemployment, it was necessary to bear in mind that the number of employed persons still exceeded the number of unemployed, and any proposal likely to result in lowering the standard of life of those now in employment ought to be subjected to the most critical examination. The British workers were in favour of a reduction of hours provided that it was not accompanied by a reduction of individual earnings. The generality of British employers, for a variety of reasons—technical, financial, economic, etc.—were opposed to the imposition of a 40-hour week by legislation; further, if legislation were imposed, they held that they would find it impossible to retain earnings at their present level, and would be compelled to reduce the individual earnings of the employed people. If in these circumstances the British Government did impose a limitation of hours to 40 per week, the result would be industrial strife over wages, the setting aside of collective agreements, confusion and controversy of a very dangerous kind. This being so, the lot of the unemployed would not be assisted in any degree. ' He concluded: It had been proved conclusively by Dr. Sitzler, in an article which appeared in the December issue of the International Labour Review that in present circumstances it would be hopeless to attempt by international convention or by national legislation to control wage rates so as to prevent earnings from being reduced coincidently with hours. Apart from technical, economic and other obstacles in the way of an acceptable 40-hour Convention at the present time, the wage difficulty was conclusive. The British Government therefore suggested that the Conference should look to other arid more helpful fields of inquiry and not waste time and energy in pursuing the phantom of a 40-hour Convention. I would ask whether that statement does not represent the point of view of Mr. Norman and, presumably, of the Minister of Labour and the whole of the Govern- 581 went. They are entirely opposed to a 40-hour week. While every other industrial State in the Conference voted for the second of the two resolutions at Geneva, the British Government, the most important one in Europe, was the only Government to oppose that second resolution. That is by no means a new standpoint for the Conservative party. When we listen to the Minister of Labour we always feel that he is the very essence of sincerity, but we cannot forget the attitude of the Conservative party when they were in office from 1918 onwards. We had the Eight Hours' Convention which was passed at Washington in 1919. Did the Conservative Government do anything to ratify that Convention at that time? No. We had also a Conservative Government in 1923. Did they take any action to examine the problem, or even to think about it? Dominated then, as they me to-day, by representatives of the employers, they did nothing. We had a Conservative Government from 1924 to 1929. What action did the Minister of Labour at that time take to initiate an inquiry so that the delicate agreements on wages and hours could be carefully examined and the problems smoothed out and the Government could ratify the Washington Convention? They did nothing. They never even felt that they ought to take any steps in that direction. They left office in 1929 with nothing done in regard to hours, because they had not in the Government a Minister of foresight or any person capable of visualising the problem.

§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND

As the hon. Member has referred to me, may I ask why, in those circumstances, the succeeding Socialist Minister of Labour first undertook to ratify and then in the course of two years did not do so?

§ Mr. WILLIAMS

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having raised that point and I will deal with it, but the point at the moment is this —[Laughter.] If hon. Members will contain their souls in patience for two or three seconds, I will turn to the right hon. Gentleman's question. Perhaps it would satisfy hon. Members and check their amusement if I deal with the point now. The moment that the Labour Government took office one of the first problems with which they tried to deal 582 was the problem of the Washington Convention. Sir William Jowitt spent a month with his coat off, so to speak, dealing with the problem. [Interruption.] Well, at all events, the Labour Government produced a Bill, and we said then, as we say to-day, that as near as it is humanly possible to obtain agreement on such a comprehensive Measure outside a Committee room of the House of Commons, agreement was obtained, and it only required numerical strength in the House of Commons to carry it.

§ Mr. MANDER

You had that, but you never gave it a Second Reading.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS

The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has pursued this question very tenaciously, and I am proud of his persistence, because I am equally persistent, but I would remind the hon. Member that in 1929–30 he did not control the Liberal party. He could never guarantee that the Government of that day had behind it sufficient Members of the Liberal party, with the Members of the Labour party, to make a majority and to carry the Bill. There was another reason why we did not carry the Bill, and that was that we were not aware at that time that we had so many Conservative Ministers in the Labour Government. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, he must bear that fact in mind. We have had to shed a good many of our misfortunes which prevented action on that occasion. Let me summarise the position. From 1918–1922 nothing was done in regard to ratifying the Convention. In 1923 nothing was done. From 1924 to 1929 nothing was done, and now in 1933, with 30,000,000 unemployed, for 3,000,000 of whom we are responsible, when a proposal is made for a 40 hours week, the right hon. Gentleman says that we cannot deal with that matter because we have not had time to consider it.

It appears that the Government are anxious to do as little for the unemployed as possible, if their actions are a true guide. Three or four weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman made a statement in the House that in the short space of time before July there is no hope of examining this problem and making a good job of it at Geneva in July. Is that to be the Government's attitude towards the Convention? Have they 583 made up their minds in advance that they are going to be as unhelpful as they possibly can? Germany and the other Governments are anxious for such a proposal. Their representatives spoke in support of it. Are we to be the only Government who have no desire to deal with the new social problems which have arisen, and which will have to be dealt with sooner or later?

I know the old argument. It will be equivalent to the argument that was raised when the hours were 10 per day. It was then said that the employer depended upon the last hour for his profit and that if we reduced the working day from 10 hours to nine we should rob the employer of his profit. The same statement was made when the hours were nine. We are now down to eight hours a day. Those reductions were made on ethical and humanitarian grounds, but future reductions will have to be made on social grounds. When one visualises the effect upon juveniles between the ages of 14 and 21, for whom no adequate arrangements can be made, it becomes a real social necessity for us to examine the advisability of an international convention on this subject. One of the four things which the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers to be necessary is international co-operation. Will the Minister of Labour take up the challenge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and make a convention in regard to a 40 hours' week the starting point for international co-operation? If it is possible to have international cartels, international restrictions and the ramifications of international financiers, it ought not be impossible to have an international convention for the purpose of dealing with working hours.

My third point is this: What is the Minister going to do with the victims of an economic system over which they have no control? Transitional benefit has been administered now for 18 months and we have had a good deal of experience of it. Until recently in the West Riding of Yorkshire we had few complaints, but the situation has been different since the Minister intervened. He sent Mr. Basham to Rotherham and he helped to bash the Government in the by-election there. The West Riding County Council have been told that unless they 584 administer transitional benefit more harshly—that was not the actual word used—or more in accordance with the Order in Council, the right hon. Gentleman will have no alternative but to supersede them. The West Riding County Council, dominated by Conservative and Liberal members, not wishing to undergo the indignity of super-session, responded to the threat of the right hon. Gentleman. They set up a sub-committee to consider the question and see what could be done. That subcommittee has made certain recommendations and there are two paragraphs in their report which finally and definitely demonstrate that transitional administration means a destitution test. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, it will be difficult for him to escape from the words in the sub-committee's report where they say: Your sub-committee deem it essential to remind the public assistance committee, and through them the several guardians' committees, that in the administration of relief there is no authority to do more than relieve destitution, and any allowance which may be more than sufficient for that purpose is illegal, and the scale suggested in the restrictions recommended has been formulated with due regard to the legal limitations imposed. In another paragraph the sub-committee say: Such restrictions, if imposed, would be directed primarily to applications for public assistance, but they would have equal effect upon applications for transitional payments. Therefore, it is a pure, unadulterated destitution test that is being applied, and we have had some early results of it in the West Riding. For approximately 15 months I do not think I have had occasion to write one letter to the Minister of Labour or his Department, or his officers, for whom I have very profound respect, complaining of the administration, but the moment the Minister insists upon the West Riding County Council going near to the letter of the Order in Council, we find that in the Don Valley area 25 per cent. of the total cases have been re-examined in the light of the recommendations of the sub-committee. If the remaining 75 per cent. of the cases for examination are dealt with similarly, the increase of determinations where the applicant receives nothing at all will be round about 14 or 15 per cent.

585 I want to give a few cases and to ask the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members whether they really think that these determinations should have called for the threat of supersession from the Minister of Labour. Here is a case of a miner working one week out of every two, through no fault of his own. It is an order of the management and presumably it is suitable to them. There is the man and wife and the gross earnings, according to the colliery wage return, have been £1 5s. 3d. per week. The deductions at the colliery for rent and other stoppages is 13s. 6d., leaving the man with only 11s. 9d. to take home each week. The public assistance committee therefore granted the man 10s. a week, or slightly less than the maximum benefit payable. He had, therefore, £1 1s. 9d. a week to keep himself and his wife, to provide clothing and to meet all the needs of the home. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that such a. person is not entitled to 10s. a week? I ask any hon. Member to put that question to himself. Now that the county council have devised a scheme what is that man's position? He works at the colliery for one week but is unable to work the next week through no fault of his own. His net receipts from the colliery are 11s. 9d. a week. Can the right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member say that men are going to continue working down the coal mines for 11s. a week. After having paid their weekly contributions, as they must by law, to be denied the right of receiving any sort of benefit, is the last word in aggravation and is calculated to produce an atmosphere that will reflect itself adversely, sooner or later.

Here is another case of a man who has a wife and two children. He works one week in two and his earnings average 30s. per week. The deductions for rent and other stoppages amount to 15s. 5d., leaving 14s. 7d. for the man, his wife and two children. The public assistance committee awarded 12s. transitional payment. Is that too much? It means 26s. 7d. per week to maintain four persons. The right hon. Gentleman and his Department think it is too much and have browbeaten the county council into taking it away. Here is a man and wife and two children who are to maintain themselves on 14s. 7d. per week. There is no reason, common sense or fair play, in an administration of that character. Here is 586 another case, a man and wife with three dependent children, two girls, one of 15 years and one of 17 years, and a boy 19 years. The man himself is unemployed, and the boy's earnings are £1 9s. 3d. per week. There are deductions amounting to 15s. 4d. for rent and other things, leaving the boy 14s. 6d. to take home each week. The public assistance committee have reduced this man's benefits, which ought to be 21 9s. 3d. per week, to 16s. per week. Therefore, a man and wife with three dependent children and two girls 15 and 17 and a boy of 19 working in the pit, eight persons in all, are now told that they must exist on 30s. 6d. per week.

That sort of thing will not bear scrutiny. I need hardly give further similar cases. If we are in the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests, that there is no hope for 3,000,000 people for 10 years and if this is the sort of treatment they are to expect from a National Government in their hour of direst need, I suggest that such conditions are calculated to create communism and rebellion, to which I am the last person to look forward with equanimity; but at the same time it does suggest to decent men that they may by force get better conditions than they do by decent conduct. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that this public assistance committee, this county council, or for that matter the Rotherham and Durham committees are doing their job as we would have them do it? Question and answer in this House have left hon. Members in a state of confusion. We do not know to whom we ought to appeal when we receive letters complaining of the methods of administration. Have we to write to the right hon. Gentleman or have we to write to the commissioner We have reached a terrible stage if hon. Members have to write to a Commissioner, the employé of the Minister, to ascertain whether or not such methods are justified. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he gave the commissioner no instructions, he had no power, but in the next sentence he told us that the commissioner was responsible to the Minister of Labour. We want to know exactly who is responsible for this deadly work of the commissioner and to whom we may appeal when we find ourselves confronted with individual problems.

587 I know that hon. Members are looking forward to hearing of the work schemes about which the Minister of Labour is to tell us and I will not, therefore, unduly prolong my speech. I should like to have made some observations with regard to juvenile training and educational facilities but I will conclude by asking the right hon. Gentleman to reply to three specific questions. Some local authorities have to budget for an annual expenditure and they do not know whether to estimate it at the rate of 4s. or 6s. If he can tell them, or give them a hint as to what the Government are going to do, whether the public assistance committee is to increase the rate up to 1s. and what assistance the Government is going to give; if he will enlighten them on that point then the chancellor of the exchequer of a local authority will be able to do his job more effectively. We also want to know whether Mr. Norman was speaking for the right hon. Gentleman, and that he has made up his mind that the Government are going to take no positive action to reduce the hours of labour in this country.

It is no longer an ethical or humanitarian problem, it is a great social problem. If you solve your problem of War Debts and Reparations, your currency problems, and many others, there is still the technocracy problem, the mechanical problem, which is producing unemployment daily and which must be dealt with in some way. You will have to consider how to reduce hours of work without reducing wages. You will have to share the work and increase the spending power of the working people. Instead of giving temporary educational facilities at juvenile centres we shall have to think of increasing the school leaving age. The Minister is responsible for hours of labour; and we want to know what his attitude is going to be. We want to know whether he considers the sort of administration now in progress in the West Riding justified, and if not whether he will tell the commissioner and the public assistance committee that they are too harsh with the people just as readily as he has told those people who he considered were too sympathetic towards poor miserable wretches who have been denied the right of earning their own livelihood.

§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton)

Let me congratulate the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on his speech and also thank him for putting down this Vote to-day. I do so for two reasons, one because I want to say something about the work of the Department and, secondly, because I am glad to have an opportunity of correcting some serious misapprehensions under which the hon. Member is labouring. If hon. Members will be good enough to listen to the answers I am going to give I think the Debate will serve a useful purpose. In regard to the work of the Department, the House will remember that when I was appointed some 18 months ago I expressed the view that the Ministry of Labour was too often regarded by the public as merely a bureau for paying benefit. I feel that the constructive work of the Department, about which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is just as proud as I am, is too little recognised and too little known. The Ministry of Labour is, in some respects, in a different position to any other Department. Sometimes, as a result of highly controversial legislation which is passed, it may fall to the lot of the Ministry to administer the Act, and when controversial questions arise the Minister of Labour is the proper person to bear the responsibility for such administration. In so far as I am concerned, I hope hon. Members do not think that I have ever tried to shirk that responsibility.

A good deal of the work of the Ministry is not political at all and, furthermore, a good deal of it would not be possible unless we had the help and cooperation 'of many people quite independent of any political considerations, who by their aid and assistance make our administration as helpful as it has been. The hon. Member for the Don Valley said one thing with which I agree. He referred, pointedly, to the sympathy of the officials of the Ministry of Labour in carrying out their duties. Having regard to the difficulties of their task, they carry out their duties with a sympathy which is universally recognised, particularly towards that section of the community which is most in need of it.

When the Ministry of Labour was formed some 14 years ago one of the 589 principal duties, perhaps the principal duty, of the Department, in the eyes of those who set it up, was the placing in work and the finding of jobs for those out of work. That I still regard as one of the principal duties which the Department perform, and I can assure the House that we have spared no effort to develop that side of our work. It has been the subject of a constant and sustained effort throughout the whole of the last 18 months, and I am glad to say that I do detect a growing appreciation of the value of the employment exchanges, a value which is becoming more and more obvious. In the last two years we have found places for nearly 2,000,000 cases in each year. That to me is gratifying evidence of the usefulness of the work which we are trying to do. I will give just one example of the versatility of the Ministry of Labour in placing work. Last summer we had a request from the potato growers in Jersey to find them labour with which to get in their crop. Formerly it had been done by Frenchmen. One of our officials took in hand the duty of recruiting for this work, and I saw a report of that work when it was completed; it was a most interesting document. The experiment was a complete success; the experience of all those who went to Jersey was satisfactory and out of the 3,000 who were found places very few failed to make good.

I want to say a few words about the juvenile placing. It is, of course, a truism to say that the most impressionable age in anyone's life is at the time of leaving school. I suppose that almost all Members of this House through the chance of circumstances were able to make their own choice of the calling that they proposed to follow; but there are many who are less fortunate, and it is those whom we want to help, if we can, in this juvenile placing work. Two things are obviously necessary if you are to help a boy or girl to get a job. First of all -we must know something of the character and capability of the boy or girl, and, secondly, we must know the industrial prospects of the district in which the boy or girl lives. Through the local committees for juvenile employment we have been able to do a work of very great value in assisting boys and girls, and in partnership with the local education authorities we have been able to 590 place a great many boys and girls in employment.

I would take this opportunity of paying a tribute to those public-spirited persons who have helped in this matter, and who have given much of their time to the work. In addition to the local committees for juvenile employment there is a committee in London, the London Juvenile Advisory Council, and there are special committees dealing with secondary school boys and girls, set up by the Ministry in co-operation with the two Associations of Headmasters and Headmistresses, both in London and in the provinces. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street will remember that in England and Scotland there are also two national Advisory Councils which during the last five years have made many reports on this matter, which have been of the very greatest use to the Ministry and some of which have been accepted.

I want to speak about the question of training. It will be seen in the Estimates, on page 5, that there is an increase for the training of young unemployed men, and an increase for the improved course of instruction for unemployed juveniles. With regard to both of these Estimates, clearly in these days of financial stress and difficulty it is essential that we should justify any increase of any estimate. The House will remember that the other day it was stated that the policy of the Government was to encourage works of an economic character. What work could be more economic in a period of unemployment than any effort to prevent the deterioration of those who are out of work, and particularly the deterioration of the young. Therefore I feel that that item of increased expenditure is justified to the full. It has been my endeavour to provide instructional centres in as many industrial areas as possible, and I am in a position to say that there are very few industrial areas now where such facilities have not been provided. It is estimated that during the last 12 months something like 150,000 juveniles have attended at these centres.

Another item relates to the scheme of training under the heads of "training centres" and "instructional centres." The object of the training centres is to improve the chances of employment of 591 unemployed men who, either because of their lack of skill and experience or because their skill has lost its marketable value, have little expectation of further regular employment. These training centres provide a training for six months, and from the point of view of training they have been successful. The numbers who will pass through the nine centres will be something like 4,000 in the year. In addition there are the 11 instructional centres, through which about 9,500 will pass in the year. With regard to the instructional centres the recruitment is on a voluntary basis amongst unemployed men in the depressed areas. The response of the volunteers has been extremely satisfactory. I have visited many of the centres myself and have found that they are really doing a useful work. Therefore, this increased grant is justified on every ground, both social and economic. With regard to the training centres our policy has been not to take more men than those for who we can reasonably expect to find jobs. A very large proportion indeed—I think it is something like 90 per cent.—of those who have passed through the training centres have been found jobs. With regard to the instructional centres, their work is regarded as reconditioning, without the practical certainty of a job being found.

§ Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN

Has any attempt at all been made to follow up the history of the lads who have been placed in these jobs? A figure can sometimes falsify the whole of the facts. Is it the case that the boys get into jobs and almost immediately are out again?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

We have in fact had samples taken, which show the subsequent history of those who have been through the training centres. I have not the detailed information here, but I know that these samples, speaking broadly, justify the view I have just expressed, that this work ought to be carried on, and that it is serving a useful purpose in the country. Therefore, I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

Will the Minister say whether it is the case that young men who refuse to go to these training centres are cut off from the Employment Exchanges?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

In one of the recent Acts, I think it is the Act of 1929, there is a provision which enables the Ministry to say that unless they go to these centres they will be cut off. It is a fact, so I am informed, that the volunteers are sufficient to fill the centres, and in practice that Act has been applied very little in this respect.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

Only in certain places.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

I am stating broadly what is the position.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

In the case of my young men, for instance, in Dumbarton and Clydebank, I want to know whether it is the case that those who have refused to go to the training centres have been cut off.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

I have told the hon. Gentleman what the law is. The law does give that power to the Minister. The numbers of those who have actually been so cut off I could not state without notice. Another question with which I want to deal is that of training for women. The amount of the Estimate is £81,000. The training for unemployed girls and women is carried on by the Central Committee for Women's Training and Employment, on behalf of and financed by grants from the Ministry of Labour. In the last 10 years or so something like 60,000 women have passed through these centres. The work of this central committee I personally have followed very closely. We have two types of centres, one residential and one nonresidential. There are 26 non-residential centres, and about 2,700 women are trained during the year. There are seven residential centres, and there are 1,700 trainees admitted annually. I have made inquiries in order to ascertain whether the expenditure is justified. I visited some of the centres and made personal inquiries. I am satisfied that this is a charge which I am justified in asking the House to meet. About 80 per cent. of those who have passed through the centres have been settled satisfactorily in their occupations.

One other item to which I must refer is the grant for assisting the voluntary provision of occupation for unemployed persons. I say quite definitely, with regard to this voluntary work that is 593 being done up and down the country, that I have not claimed, and do not intend to claim, the slightest political credit for it. I regard it as a work done by people who want to help their fellows and I do not suggest that it should be, or that it is being, regarded by me as a substitute for something which the Opposition think we ought to do, but which we have left undone. I wish to make it clear that the tremendous success of the voluntary effort is the result of work for which I, personally, at any rate, claim no political kudos. It is quite obvious to everybody who has been reading the papers and watching what has been going on throughout the country that there has been a very remarkable movement in the past year even in the past few months among a large number of people who are sincerely anxious to help if they can in some way or other those who are unfortunately unemployed.

I need not go into the activities of various bodies in this connection. They are well known to hon. Members of this House but work of some kind has been started in approximately 500 areas and that work covers at the present time about 150,000 persons. When there was an increase in this work it became clear that there was considerable need for a central body to collect information and generally to guide and assist voluntary effort. The Government accordingly decided to recognise the National Council of Social Service as the body which would most appropriately undertake this work and they have made a grant for this purpose to the National Council. The terms upon which that, grant is made may be described, roughly, as pound for pound within a limit, that is to say the amount given by the Government is added to, pound for pound, from the organisation.

§ Mr. BATEY

Will the Minister tell us why he proposes to make it £25,000 next year?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

About £7,000 or £8,000 of the £25,000 will be devoted to assisting the National Council of Social Service in what we may call its administrative work—in other words, in enabling it to assist voluntary organisations, as for instance by preventing mistakes made in one place from being repeated in another, and in enabling it to collect information and, in general as I have said 594 to guide and assist voluntary effort. It is proposed to grant £15,000 of that sum to enable the Council to provide assistance in promoting, in areas suffering from severe and prolonged unemployment, schemes of occupation for unemployed persons, either directly or through the organisation of national or regional bodies which they may invite to act on their behalf.

§ Mr. LAWSON

Are these the schemes that the Prime Minister said that the right hon. Gentleman was to describe?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

I have the Prime Minister's answer here. The right hon. Gentleman, I find, said: I have already explained the policy of the Government in regard to the provision of employment. What I am sure he had in mind there was the whole question of relief work which I certainly am not going to deal with to-day. Then he went on: As regards the alleviation of the condition of the unemployed, I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement which will be made. That is the statement to be made by me. What the right hon. Gentleman had in mind I have no doubt was the general work of training and placing which I am dealing with to-day.

§ Mr. LAWSON

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again but if he will look at the question which was put to the Prime Minister he will see that it asked the right hon. Gentleman to lay before the House a White Paper giving full details of the schemes for the alleviation of unemployment which the Government have now under consideration. The Prime Minister in reply said that the Minister of Labour was going to give us those schemes.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

I think the hon. Member has entirely misunderstood the Prime Minister's answer. At any rate I am not going to repeat in the Debate to-day what he and I have said on many other occasions, namely, that with regard to these relief schemes we think they would be worse than useless.

§ Mr. BATEY

I hope the Minister will excuse me for intervening again but this is an important matter. Several supplementary questions were put to the Prime Minister and, in answer to the supplementary questions, the Prime 595 Minister said very distinctly that if we waited we would hear the schemes of employment for the purpose of relieving distress announced by the Minister of Labour. I hope that the Minister is going to give us that information.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

The hon. Member knows as well as I do that what the Prime Minister had in mind and what he understood this Question to mean—[HON. MEMBERS: "No 1"]3—obviously was the question of relief schemes—a matter which has been discussed over and over again in this House and which I certainly am not going to discuss today, if for no other reason than that it would be out of order to do so because it would need legislation.

§ Mr. BATEY

Are we to understand then that the Minister of Labour is not going to carry out the promise of the Prime Minister to give us information about these schemes. In that case I think we are entitled to move the Adjournment of the House, and if you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will accept such a Motion, I am prepared to move, "That this House do now adjourn," in order to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of attending and telling the House what he did mean this afternoon.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert)

This is not the proper time to move that Motion. The hon. Member ought to have done so at the conclusion of Questions. I am afraid I could not accept that Motion now.

§ Mr. LAWSON

On a point of Order. I think it will he within the memory of hon. Members who were present at Question Time that this was a very explicit question addressed to the Prime Minister and placed on the Paper. It was not a mere general question. It asked for a White Paper giving, details of the schemes for the alleviation of unemployment which the Government have now under consideration. The Prime Minister did not give a general answer, but stated

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I was not quite sure what kind of Motion the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) had in mind when he raised the point. I thought he desired leave to move the Adjournment in order to discuss a particular matter under Standing Order 10. In that case the proper time to have asked for leave would have been at the conclusion of Questions. But it is open to any hon. Member to move, if the Chair accepts the Motion, either "That this House do now adjourn," or "That the Debate be now adjourned." That is a different matter altogether.

§ Mr. A. BEVAN

If the Motion has been moved I beg to second it—that is, if you Mr. Deputy-Speaker accept the Motion.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I have not accepted any Motion. At the moment no Motion has been put to me.

§ Mr. BEVAN

I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

§ Mr. LANSBURY

I want to ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As you are aware, a question has been raised concerning the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon in reply to Question No. 46, put by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), asking that a White Paper giving full details of the schemes for the alleviation of unemployment which the Government have now under consideration should be published. The Prime Minister made the quite definite reply that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour would put before the House this evening those schemes—that that would be part of his statement. We now know from the Minister that he has no such statement to make. The Prime Minister is not here, and I respectfully 'ask you, Sir, what steps the Opposition can take to bring the Prime Minister to his place here to explain the position. We think you will agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the word of the Prime Minister in these matters ought to be sacred and that there ought not to be any question as to misleading the House or anything of that kind. We are not wanting to make those charges, but what the Prime Minister said is within our recollection quite definitely, and we put it to you, as Deputy-Speaker, that you should, if possible, 'advise us what we can do in order to protect the rights of the minority in this House and also to give the Prime Minister the opportunity of defending his own honour in this matter.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

In my submission to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this 600 appeal made by the other side completely misinterprets both what the Prime Minister obviously meant and what he said—[HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Well, with the permission of the House, I will state what he did say:

§ " Mr. BATEY

Are we to understand from that reply that the Minister of Labour is going to tell us what schemes the Government are considering?

§ The PRIME MINISTER

I would ask my hon. Friend to wait and see."

§ Mr. LANSBURY

No, before that.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

I will continue:

§ " Mr. BATEY

May I not invite the Prime Minister to tell us what schemes the Government are considering for the purpose of alleviating unemployment?

§ The PRIME MINISTER

Yes. That will be most appropriate to the discussion which we are having to-day."

HON. MEMBERS

Hear, hear !

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

May I say, in answer to that, two things? The first is that that policy which I have already elaborated is the policy for alleviating unemployment and, secondly, that such schemes and such a policy as hon. and right hon. Members may have in mind would be in any case out of order in this discussion, because they would need legislation. Therefore, I am confining myself quite strictly to the answer which the Prime Minister gave, and in my submission it is perfectly clear that I am carrying out the answer which he gave. If, as hon. Members seem to think, this was to be the occasion for again re-discussing and re-debating the whole question of relief works, I can assure hon. Members that that was neither in the Prime Minister's mind, nor is it my intention.

§ Mr. LANSBURY

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of mis- 601 leading the House, but he has only given a portion of the reply, because he has not read the original answer. [Interruption.] The hon. Member opposite is very fond of interrupting, and it is quite unworthy of him or of any other Member of the House. I am putting a perfectly clear question to Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am asking that the answer to the original question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor should be given. The question put to the Prime Minister was: If ho will lay before this House a White Paper giving full details of the schemes for the alleviation of unemployment which the Government have now under consideration. He was referred to the right hon. Gentleman's statement to-night for an answer to that question, and it is really just getting round and begging the whole question to take up the attitude that the right hon. Gentleman has now taken. Everybody at Question Time took the Prime Minister's answer to mean that the Minister of Labour would tell us what schemes the Government were proposing.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked me, so far as I am concerned, what steps he could take to bring the Prime Minister here to answer certain questions which would be put to him. I think the right hon. Gentleman will know that I have no power to assist him in that matter. If he wishes to address a special question to the Prime Minister, or if he wishes the Prime Minister's presence in the House on any particular occasion, no doubt he will communicate that to the Prime Minister in the ordinary way, and I have no doubt it will be dealt with as far as possible. I do not see that any question arises now where the Chair can assist the Opposition. They have made their protest by moving the Adjournment of the Debate, and I do not think there is anything further that they can do.

§ Mr. LANSBURY

I am much obliged to you for your courtesy in considering the question, and we understand the difficulty. The point is that this is a case so exceptional, where the Prime Minister has promised the House—[HON. MEM- 602 BERS: "No!"] We are content to base our case on the Prime Minister's answer to the question and even on the answers that the right hon. Gentleman has read. The intention of the Prime Minister was that the right hon. Gentleman should answer the question. We, of course, cannot force the Prime Minister to act as a Prime Minister should, and defend his own action. We can only emphatically protest against this gross travesty of a Prime Minister's duty.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

After that interlude, I may perhaps be allowed to resume my speech. I want to come to the first point raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).

§ Mr. A. BEVAN

I want to raise a point of Order for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to the course of this Debate. The right hon. Gentleman has just left that portion of his speech in which he was dealing with a grant of money from public funds to various charitable organisations, and he intimated that he did not intend to accept responsibility for the administration of those organisations or any political kudos which might accrue from whatever they might do. May I ask you, Sir, in what way this House is to retain control over the expenditure of public money if the Vote from which the payment is being made is not to be the occasion upon which the administration is to be questioned We understand that last year the maximum amount was £10,000. This year it has been increased to £25,000. This is not a definite lump sum, for the amount which the Exchequer will give will be determined by the contribution made by private persons, so that it is indeterminate up to a maximum of £25,000. Are we entitled in this Debate to bring the administration of those societies which receive these grants of public money under review in this Debate, and, if not, on what Vote are we to have those discussions?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I do not think that there is anything in what the hon. Member says which calls for a Ruling from the Chair. It appears to me that all those matters which have been the subject of discussion in the last few minutes are matters of debate. It is not a matter on which I am called upon to give any particular Ruling.

§ Mr. BEVAN

Are we entitled to expand the scope of the Debate so as to bring under review the acts of omission or commission of the organisations receiving this money?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is a paint of Order which should be dealt with when it arises. If and so far as grants have been made to particular bodies simply as grants under arrangements which do not impose on the recipient the obligation to submit their methods of dealing with those grants to this House, it is not a matter which can be discussed here in the same way as a Vote.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

After that second interlude, which had no more in it than the first, I will resume my speech. The hon. Member for Don Valley raised the question of the Government's attitude with regard to the proceedings at Geneva in relation to the 40-hour week, and he criticised the Government on two grounds. The first was apparently that they did not agree to pass legislation before there had been an adequate examination of the subject. His second ground was that the Government had insisted on the necessity of proper examination of the facts before giving their support to the proposal for an immediate international convention. This question of a 40-hour week and the discussions on it are not new. The Trades Union Congress in 1931, and again in 1932, passed a resolution calling for a reduction of weekly hours of work to 40 without a reduction of earnings. The General Council set up a special committee to investigate the application of the principle of the 40-hour week in industry. The committee issued a questionnaire to all the affiliated unions asking for information regarding the method of applying the 40-hour week, the existing hours of labour, the probable effects of the 40-hour week upon wages and costs, and other relevant considerations. It is perfectly obvious that the General Council took a very wise and necessary course realising, as they do, that that information is necessary for their own guidance. It is curious, therefore, that the Government should be criticised for insisting on this information before they themselves frame a policy.

604 I ask, do hon. Members opposite want propaganda and politics, or do they want business? If this is going to be made merely a question of political propaganda, then, indeed, it will be pretty hopeless. I fully recognise that all means by which employment in industry can be increased requires the most careful consideration in association with responsible industrial organisations, and although this particular aspect of it has been isolated, the necessity for a proper examination still exists. I have therefore asked the Trades Union Congress and the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations to meet me in order to discuss this matter and the methods by which the absorption of workers into industry may be examined in a practical manner. To commit yourself to a convention without knowing beforehand what will be the inevitable reactions of such a, convention, and without knowing the consequences upon wage agreements and the like, would be absolute folly. So far the overseas countries have not been able to supply information to the International Labour Office. In view of the serious effect of the competition of Eastern countries on such industries as cotton, it is unthinkable that this country should be willing to agree to a form of international regulation which left those countries out of account. What I have just stated is entirely consistent with the attitude of my representative at Geneva. What he said was this, and I am going to repeat the statement which the hon. Gentleman has already read: The British Government delegate stated that his Government considered that the question of the compulsory limitation of the hours of work to 40 a week had not yet been sufficiently examined to warrant a definite conclusion being reached, and that therefore his Government were opposed to proceeding at the present time with the project of a draft convention. He pressed for a comprehensive inquiry into the whole question before any definite action was taken. I say again that to proceed on a matter of this enormous importance without making ourselves fully acquainted with what the consequences would be, and without knowing all the facts so far as we can ascertain them, would be the height of folly; and it would be doing exactly what the Trades Union Congress is wise enough not to do. I hope that. 605 those interested in the matter will meet me. The Trades Union Congress have accepted my invitation.

§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Are we to understand that at long last in 1933 the Government have made up their mind to examine this problem, and that they are really seriously trying to do something positive in place of the negative position they have taken up for so long?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

The hon. Gentleman must not use the word "negative." The policy of the Government is exactly what I have said. It is not to commit themselves to a convention until they know what that convention is and what its effect would be if it were ratified.

The next point to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the administration of the means test in the Don and Bother Valleys. His charge was that the county council of the West Riding had made regulations at my instigation and that what was going on in the Don and Bother Valleys was satisfactory. The position is this. There is a guardians committee of the county council in both the Don Valley and the Rother Valley. Both those committees were, prior to the incidents to which I have referred, exercising their duties in a manner inconsistent with the Order-in-Council. As I have said before in the House, that Order is an Act of Parliament for which the House is responsible. Hon. Members may not like it, but the position in which I am as Minister of Labour is that the responsibility of carrying out my duties is imposed on me clearly by that Order, and I should be false to my position and should not carry out the responsibility which has been thrown upon me unless T saw to it that the law passed by this House was carried out. Let me state how these two committees were carrying out their duties in a manner inconsistent with the Order-in-Council which was passed in this House. They disobeyed the Order because quite clearly they made a differentiation of treatment between those in receipt of relief and those in receipt of transitional payment. The House will remember what the Order-in-Council said: A committee or sub-committee in determining any question under the last preceding paragraph (paragraph 1 of the Order) shall make such inquiries and otherwise deal with the case as if they were estimating the 606 need of unemployed able-bodied persons who had applied for public assistance.

§ Mr. LANSBURY

Boards of guardians and public assistance committees had a very wide margin of discretion. The assistance given differed in various places, and the only person who interfered was the auditor of the accounts; but now the right hon. Gentleman interferes in the matter, and has really taken on himself to decide what is and what is not sufficient for an applicant. Under the Poor Law the guardians decided it, and the Minister of Health always said that he could not interfere, and the only person who had control, a very full control, was the Poor Law auditor. Now the Minister of Labour usurps that position —or he and the Minister of Health.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

Let us see how far that is so. Quite obviously that clause in the Order was inserted because the local authorities were spending Exchequer money and not money raised from their rates, and there had to be some check and safeguard in respect of the Exchequer money. On 3rd November reports were received from the general inspector of the Ministry of Health saying that in the Don and Rother Valleys effect was being given to determinations which could not be justified by reference to the authority's public assistance practice. I will give illustrations of the decisions made. I have a good many cases, but I do not wish to take up too much time in dealing with them. Here is the case of a single man with a father and mother and two brothers. The amount coming into the house was £6 0s. 10d. and he was allowed 13s. a, week by the committee. The right hon. Gentleman had a very long experience of administration by local authorities. May I remind him that in his own Government the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), when he was Minister of Health, felt so strongly on this question of the family income that he issued a Circular on 3rd January, 1930, in which he said that certain specific points had been called to his attention and that he desired to offer his observations for the guidance of boards of guardians.

§ Mr. LAWSON

What were the points?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

This is guidance which he offered to the boards of guardians.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this was issued confidentially to boards of guardians or was a public document? In view of the fact that it may raise urgent matters, will the right hon. Gentleman make it available to Members of the House? When a Minister quotes a document it is the general custom to make it available to the House.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

This document has nothing on it about its being confidential. It is Circular 1069, dated 3rd January, 1930, from the Minister of Health. There is nothing secret about it.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

I take it that it will be available for any Member who wishes to see it? In Scotland we do not always follow these Circulars, because we have a different Ministry there.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

I have no doubt at all that it is available for anybody. This is what the right hon. Gentleman says in that Circular: In assessing the amount of relief to be afforded the general principle is that income and means from every source available to the household must be taken into a