CLAUSE 62.—(Statutory Conditions for receipt of Unemployment Benefit). (Hansard, 24 November 1911)

HC Deb 24 November 1911 vol 31 cc1703-28 1703

§ The statutory conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit by any workman are—

(1) that he proves that he has, since the commencement of this Act, been employed in an insured trade during each of not less than twenty-six separate calendar weeks;
(2) That he has made application for unemployment benefit in the prescribed manner, and proves that since the date of the application he has been continuously unemployed;
(3) that he is capable of work but unable to obtain suitable employment;
(4) that he has not exhausted his right to unemployment benefit under this Part of this Act:

§ Provided that a workman shall not be deemed to have failed to fufil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined an offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a trade dispute involving a strike or lock-out, or an offer of employment at a rate of wage lower than the rate which he habitually 1704 earns when in employment, or, in the case of an offer of employment, in a district other than that in which he resides, at a rate of wage lower than the rate current in the district in which the employment is offered.

Mr. BUXTON
I beg to move to leave out from the word "declined" ["that he has declined an offer"] to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the following:—

(1) An offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute; or

(2) An offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those which he habitually obtained when in employment, or would have obtained had he continued to be employed; or

(3) An offer of employment in any other district at a rate of wage lower or on conditions less favourable than those generally observed in such district by agreement between associations of employers and of workmen, or, failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in such districts by good employers.

It may be for the convenience of the Committee before we get on to the actual Amendment, that I should make a statement in reference to this matter. What the Committee has to decide is the case of a man who is out of employment and is receiving unemployed benefits, and is offered a job. The question is, in what circumstances should such a man be entitled to refuse that particular job without forfeiting his benefit? The offer of work is the safeguard which the fund has against the man out of employment, and the offer of work is a test whether the man is genuinely unemployed, or whether he is entitled to continue in benefit? On the other hand, the man himself is clearly entitled to be in the position of not having offered to him work which in the nature of things is unsuitable, and he is entitled to the protection of the Bill against the pressure which might be brought to bear on him or the threat that might be held over him of withdrawal of benefit if he did not accept a particular form of work. The words which originally appeared in the Bill were not altogether clear, and the object of my Amendment is to adapt to a certain extent what was in the Bill before, but also to a large extent to make it clear.
1705 There are three branches to this subject. The first is the case in which a trade dispute is proceeding, and the question is whether the Fund is entitled to say to a man, when obviously there would be an opening for employment where a strike is taking place, "If you do not take that employment you will not receive benefit in future." I do not think there is any difference of opinion among Members of the Committee that in such circumstances the man is entitled to refuse work. That is to say, the Fund is not entitled to force him, practically, to take part in a trade dispute by the threat of taking away his benefit. Therefore, as regards that part, I do not think I need dwell upon it. The next two questions are, in the first place, the question of the district in which the man has been habitually at work, and in which he is continuing to work, and the other is a fresh district in which he has formerly worked. I lay down here a proposition or two which it appears to me govern the conclusion at which the Committee may come in reference to this matter. The first is that all the three parties, the workman and employers on the one hand, and the State on the other, contribute to this Fund. It is quite clear that the Fund itself should not be used, either in this part of the Bill or any other for the alteration of the existing conditions of service which may prevail, and that the State, through the Fund, should in this matter preserve impartiality and hold the balance between the two parties, that is to say, that the Fund should neither be utilised for raising wages in the particular district in question, nor still less for reducing the rate in the particular district or the other district.
That can be best brought about by putting the workman in the same position, when he receives employment, as he was in before he went out of that employment. He is entitled to stand out for what he was earning before, and he is not entitled, I think, to stand out for better conditions than those under which he was before. What we are trying to meet is the general proposition which I think ought to govern the plan at which the Committee arrive in this matter. Take first the particular district, which governs 90 per cent. of all the cases in question. What we want is a very simple method of judgment on the part of the insurance officer, so that those cases will solve themselves simply by matters of fact, and not by matters of opinion. The proposal we make in regard to the particular district in which the man has been working and proposes to continue 1706 his work, is that we should take the rate of wage as proposed in Sub-section (2) of the Clause. That will be the rate which he "habitually obtains when in employment or would have obtained had he continued to be employed." Those last few words I think are only fair. There are cases in which a man out of employment has been in employment in a higher position and receiving a higher rate of wage, and he is entitled, I think, in those circumstances, to say that he should go back on the terms he would have been receiving if he had remained throughout in employment. Then this question arises: In the interval between a man having been out of work and his receiving employment in the particular class of work in which he has been engaged, there may have been a rise of wages, and therefore it is clear that if he has been receiving the ordinary wage before, he is entitled to assume that he will receive the new rate which has come into force since the time he was out of work. Otherwise, with slight exception, the proposal in the particular district is that the man should be able to stand out for the rate of wages which he had habitually earned before. This is practically an individual test, that is to say, the man will go back substantially to the same position that he had when he became out of employment. This proposal has several advantages. It protects, in the first place, the trade unionist, or the man who will only work at the prevailing and recognised rate. It protects him because, presumably, he has been working at that rate before, and he can stand out for that rate again. It will at the same time, I think, protect the fund against the incompetent man who has never earned the particular rate, and is not entitled to remain on the fund indefinitely until he receive a rate which is higher than that which he could previously earn. That has the great advantage, from the point of view of the machinery and administration of the Bill, of dealing simply with questions arising in each individual case or what is or is not in the particular district the prevailing rate. As far as the wage fund generally is concerned it will be in exactly the same position at the end of the transaction as it was at the beginning. The point was raised to me by one of those deputations to which reference was made—the deputation of the engineering employers. I do not think they objected at all to the principle of the Clause, but they said, take the case of a man who is earning in a 1707 particular case the sum of 38s. per week by reason of his being an especially good workman, and therefore receiving a special rate of wage. He may lose his employment and he may go to some other employer to work. The employer probably, in that case, would offer him, to begin with, 36s. a week, the prevailing and recognised rate. But the man himself has been earning 38s. a week, and they asked whether, under those circumstances, he would be entitled to stand out for the 38s. instead of accepting the 36s. I said that under those circumstances I certainly thought the man was entitled to stand out, if he chose, for the personal rate which he had been habitually earning. But I pointed out to them that I really did not think the question was a serious one from the point of view of this Clause, because obviously if a man is a very good workman, and in no sense a malingerer, he would not stand out for the extra 2s. over the recognised rate of 36s., seeing that the only benefit he would get is 7s. a week. I said that really the question would solve itself.
Let me point out, with reference to this matter, that I think there is some misunderstanding in some of the remarks made, and also some misconception as to what we propose, as though we were saying a man was not to accept any other rate. The only position the fund takes up is that, under certain conditions, they offer a man employment. If he does not take it he loses his benefit. In the particular district, therefore, the wage which a man has been habitually earning personally is the fair rate. But when we come to the district outside, the matter is rather different. There I think the best basis is the collective rate as compared with individual rate. By collective rate I mean the rate generally prevailing, the standing and recognised rate paid by the employers. In accordance with that it will arise that a particular man receiving 25s. a week, the habitual rate, might be offered work in a district in which the recognised rate is 28s., and I think it is quite obvious, when that arises, that the man should not be forced to go into a district at a rate lower than the recognised rate, because obviously that would tend to reduce the prevailing rate in that district; and, similarly, the man should not be able to stand out for an individual rate which is over the recognised standard rate in another distrct, though it might be lower than he had been receiving in his particular 1708 district. I hope the Committee, in considering this proposal, will look at it from the point of view that we are desirous as far as possible to avoid any interference with the standard rate of wages. We desire to have a simple test in each individual case, and we desire, as we have under the Fair Wages Resolution, to take the basis of the recognised rate.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3).
I think by moving the omission of those two paragraphs I will raise very conclusively the point I desire to bring before the Committee, and which, to my mind, is a most important one, and is really the crux of this entire measure. The President of the Board of Trade is going to suggest certain safeguards by which men shall not be bound to work on certain terms when they are unemployed but it seems to be generally admitted that no man is bound to take a place that is vacant during a trade dispute. That, I may say, is universal in foreign systems of unemployment benefit; but with regard to the other two conditions, they are most strongly opposed by, I think I may say every employer, certainly with whom I have come in contact, by the London Chamber of Commerce, the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, and the Associated Chambers of Commerce, because they feel that the retention of these Amendments making it possible for men to refuse either in his own district or in any other, a rate of wages less than that which they have been receiving is in effect by a side wind an attempt to establish a standard rate of wages in this country. I for one, am very strongly in favour of increases in wages, but I agree with the Solicitor-General that those things are better left to the play of economic forces than to attempt to do so by Act of Parliament. I do not want to say anything harsh against the workmen. I quite agree with the President of the Board of Trade as to those men who earn 38s. and who would accept 36s. —

§ The CHAIRMAN
I put the Question in a somewhat limited form, but I would apprehend from the observations made by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) that the Committee would like a general discussion, so that the form in which I shall put the Question is as follows:— That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause. 1709 Then upon the Motion of the Amendment any detailed Amendments to the Amendment can be proposed.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I assume, then, I am in order in initiating a general discussion?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is in order when I put the Question in the way I now suggest.

Mr. BUXTON
I think it would be to the convenience of the Committee to have a general discussion, but I take it, that we will not discuss the same points on the various Amendments.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Oh, no. The rule against repetition provides for that.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
My proposition is that this Clause which it is now sought to amend will undoubtedly be an inducement to an unemployed workman to draw unemployed pay for a maximum period rather than accept, as he would do, and as he does to-day under existing circumstances, temporary employment in another trade under less favourable conditions. Let us take the example of the building trade. There you have labourers and you have also excavators or navvies, very closely allied to the work of the labourers. The labourer at present has a slightly higher rate of wage than the navvy. When the labourer for some cause is thrown out of employment, he very often accepts work as a navvy, and a navvy's rate of pay.
Under the provisions of this Bill, there would be a distinct inducement to that man to say, "No, I will not accept work, I will go on the unemployed benefit as long as it lasts, and until I have got a five or six or seven weeks' holiday at the expense of the fund, I will not accept work on any less basis than that." I suggested a moment ago that this was really an attempt in another form to raise under this Bill a standard rate of wages, and I am justified in thinking that by the remarks which were made on the opposite side of the House below the Gangway, particularly by two hon. Members whom I see present, when this Bill was downstairs upon its First and Second Reading. I want to call the very special attention of the Committee to this. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) in dealing, I think, with the First Reading of the Bill, said:— Just one final word of a general character with reference to unemployment. The proposal that we 1710 once made about maintenance in connection with the Right to Work Bill can undoubtedly be met to a large extent by insurance, and so far we accept it, but I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will impose certain conditions upon these unemployment benefits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1911, col. 657, Vol. XXV.] I am bound to say I should like to see the hon. Member move those conditions. The hon. Member for Blackfriars went a little further. He said, dealing with this Unemployment Bill:— We stand for a perfectly easily understandable principle when we say we are banded together to maintain a standard rate of wages. We say that as workmen we are just as much entitled to a standard rate of wages as a Cabinet Minister or anybody who find their way on that Front Bench, and we are not going to assent to any Bill or anything which will endanger the maintenance of that standard rate of wages"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1911, col. 313, Vol. XXVI.] And the result is, pressure is brought to bear on the Government to put these conditions in the Bill, in order that the standard rate of wages, as it is generally understood, may be maintained in regard to any workmen who may be thrown out of employment and seek benefit under the Bill. It is admitted that this Bill is experimental; its provisions are experimental. I suggested here last week, and I asked the Government whether they had made inquiries as to the experiments which had been made on the Continent in reference to unemployed benefit. They were bound to confess that there had been no compulsory scheme, except one small one, which had been a failure, but there had been a considerable number of voluntary schemes. I did my best in this matter to find out exactly how trade unions working in conjunction with employers' associations had dealt with this question of what I may call, and it is so, the standard rate of wages to be adopted for all men out of employment. I find, so far as I can ascertain, that there is not at present any society or organisation on the continent of Europe dealing with the unemployed which has anything like so stringent a condition for the establishment of a standard rate of wages as is proposed to be placed in the provisions of this Bill.
Under the scheme at Ghent the workman is bound to accept any suitable work that may be offered to him through a Labour Exchange. I should be prepared to accept an Amendment on those lines, if any suitable work is offered through a Labour Exchange. In Denmark the provisions go so far as to encourage the workmen to accept any kind of work they can 1711 get rather than throw themselves on the funds. A man who throws himself on the funds rather than accept work at a less rate of wages is really doing harm to the State. He is not using to the best possible advantage his labour which should be an asset to the State. He is wasting a certain amount of productivity. In Denmark, if a man gets temporary work at less than his usual rate of wage, the provisions there are that the Fund may pay the man the difference up to the amount of the unemployed benefits. That strikes me as an exceedingly fair proposal. With regard to the man who would accept the 36s., that man would be entitled to get his 12s. out of the Fund. In the Strasburg scheme, agreed upon at a Conference between employers and trade unions, it was decided that persons who are no longer able to get skilled employment, must accept any unskilled work for which they are suitable. Under the provisions of this Bill, as proposed to be amended by the President of the Board of Trade, any man who is on the border-land between skilled and unskilled labour, is still entitled to say, "While I am unemployed, I will not work at a less than the skilled rate. I shall insist on standing out, and I shall take my unemployed benefit." I quite agree that a man is perfectly entitled to stand out for any rate of wages he likes.
Under the play of economic practice, to which the Solicitor-General referred last week, a man is quite entitled to stand out and say he will not work, but in this case, the man is receiving money not from his own fund, to which he has paid in, not from the Employers' fund, who might be considered to have made the burden, but from the General fund of the State. In other words, you are taking, under the provisions of this Bill, a tax from the earnings of the agricultural labourer earning 15s. or 16s. per week in order to provide that the skilled artisan, when he is out of employment, shall not take anything less than the rate of wages to which he has been originally accustomed. If it were not for the taxes, I quite agree that you would be entitled to do it, but I submit to the Committee that you have no right to make taxpayers—the poorest in the land—contribute to a fund to keep the skilled artisan and trade unionist employed at the standard rate of wages. Under those circumstances I do submit to the Committee that the proper course is to omit Sub-sections (2) and (3), leaving 1712 Sub-section (1), with regard to which we are all agreed. I do not know whether this would be the right time to move the omission of those paragraphs.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
I believe the Amendment moved by the President of the Board of Trade to be unworkable, in the first place, and an undue burden on the fund in the second. I prefer the Clause as it originally stood. The Amendment neglects the facts of trade, and the facts of human nature. The facts of trade are that you are taking specially as the subject of this Bill, a trade, which trade, to use the words of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, consists of a succession of jobs. I do not see how, having regard to the conditions of the building trade in particular, it is possible for the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade to work. The Royal Commission on the Poor Law said that a great cause of unemployment in the building trade was the minute sub-division into different departments which were not really severed, and yet with different rates you are going to prevent a man in unemployment from passing from one branch to the other branch, and you are doing it, of course, as my hon. Friend who has just sat down said, in defiance of foreign examples. You are treating labour as if it were a constant thing. A man takes a job and grows old, and because he falls into unemployment he is no longer, by reason of age, entitled to earn the wage he was accustomed to earn before, and you prevent him from earning any other. That, it seems to me, is an absurdity. You are also legislating—and this will be a heavy burden on the fund—to prevent the man who has been found to be a three-cornered man in a square hole, taking another job for which he is fit, and he has to plead as an excuse for not taking employment that he was in a particular job doing a particular class of labour, for which he received the standard rate in the district in which he was employed. Of course these theories do not fit in with the facts of trade, and they do not fit in with the facts of human nature, and therefore, I think it would have been far better to take the definition of the current wage as it was proposed.
I now go on to point out that the term "good employer" is an absurdity in an Act of Parliament. A man may be a good employer who does not pay the standard wage because he may provide other benefits for his men which the trade unions refuse to accept as a substitute, 1713 yet according to the average opinion, that man may be a good employer. I know some employers who are looked upon as good employers, although they may not be upon the best of terms with the trade unions. I therefore object to this Amendment, and I think that the President of the Board of Trade would much sooner, if he had not had pressure brought to bear upon him, have had the Clause as it originally stood.

§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

§ Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN
Are you putting the whole Amendment now?

§ The CHAIRMAN
No, I am only putting that the words from "declined" onwards, be left out.

§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put and negatived.

Mr. BUXTON
I beg to move to leave out all the words after the word "declined" ["declined an offer of employment"] and to add instead thereof the words:—

(1) An offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute; or

(2) An offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those which he habitually obtained when in employment or would have obtained had he continued to be employed; or

(3) An offer of employment in any other district at a rate of wage lower or on conditions less favourable than those generally observed in such district by agreement between associations of employers and of workmen, or, failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in such districts by good employers.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Mr. Joynson-Hicks has an Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I move formally to omit Sub-sections (2) and (3). May I ask, on a point of Order, whether if I move that it will shut out the rest of the Amendments?

1714

§ The CHAIRMAN
I will take care to put the question so that they are not shut out.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
Then without further words I move to leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3), and that will raise the discussion.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
Is it not in order to discuss generally the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I must see now. That is the question. If there were no other Amendments on the Paper the general discussion might now continue.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I have moved an Amendment to omit those two paragraphs, and surely it was in order for my friends and myself to support it or for my friends to object?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have put the Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brentford, but I wish to put the question in such a way as to save certain Amendments to the Amendments which follow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brentford. The hon. Member for Devizes has an Amendment.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
On the point of Order. If you only put a few words of my hon. Friend's Amendment it would be open to us to discuss the whole of his Amendment and still to say that the Amendment to his Amendment follows later. I suggest that you should only put the first few words, and that would enable us to raise the discussion.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon Member for Dudley, I think, puts the situation quite correctly, and therefore I have simply read the Amendment which the hon. Member for Brentford proposes. In order to save the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes, I propose to put the question down to the words "an offer of employment" of the Amendment. The question I have to put, therefore, is that the words "an offer of employment in the district," stand part of the Amendment.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I take it we are at liberty to discuss the whole of the Amendment, as proposed by my hon. Friend. I only want to make one or two remarks. The first is that I cannot for myself support his Amendment to leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3). I think there can be no doubt that what we want 1715 to do in this Bill is to hold the scales perfectly fair between the masters and the men. We ought not to seek either to raise wages by means of the Unemployment Fund, or to depreciate them, and I certainly think that if we left out Sub-sections (2) and (3) the effect would be to depreciate wages by putting pressure on the men to take a lower rate of wage than they were accustomed to, or a lower rate than obtained in particular districts. The hon. Member far Mile End seemed to think that the Clause would not work. Is it not a fact that this Clause is only to be interpreted by the insurance officers? It has to come before the Court of Referees and an umpire, and is it not a fact that the umpire who decides this matter will be the person who will ascertain whether these conditions will apply or not? I do not think, therefore, that the difficulties will really arise in the practical working that my hon. Friend suggests. He also seemed to think that in the case of an old man who was no longer capable of earning the same amount of wages that he earned before, that man would be prevented from earning any wages at all. I want to deal with this matter quite fairly. I do not think that is the fact. The man can take the lower wages, or else he will only get 7s. a week.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
Not an old man; I was thinking of a man who was ageing.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
That is precisely the same case. Take a man who has been earning 32s. a week, and, owing to the fact that he is ageing, he only gets an offer, say, of 28s. a week. He is not prevented by this from taking 28s. On the contrary, he has the choice of taking the 28s., or of only having the 7s. a week for five weeks. I think, therefore, that that difficulty will not arise. I raise the point now because I do not want to have two discussions with regard to it. It is rather a substantial one. I have an Amendment, which I have handed in, and I call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to what it is. In his Amendment I propose to insert after the word "in" the words "his usual." The Amendment will then run, "or on conditions less favourable than those which he habitually obtained when in his usual employment," and before the word "employed" to insert the word "so." Perhaps I may just mention what the 1716 point is, and we can raise it specifically later. There may be a man engaged in some special temporary work, and he is getting for a short period, higher wages than he usually gets. What we want to prevent is that he should be able in such a case to refuse work at a lower rate than what he receives in that special job, but which is equal to what he ordinarily gets in his usual employment. I will not press the matter further at this stage if my right hon. Friend thinks it had better be raised when I move the Amendment.

Mr. BUXTON
Yes.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
But I hope that the particular case of a man earning more than his usual wages in consequence of being in a special temporary job will be taken into consideration.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. It is perfectly true, as both he and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. H. Lawson) have pointed out, that the Insurance Bill, so far as it goes, does tend to produce the evils which they wish to prevent; but I think the answer given by the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) is a sufficient one, namely, that it does not go far enough to have that effect. At all events, I could not support the Amendment, and I hope my hon. Friend will allow it to drop.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
In response to the appeal made to me, although I should have liked the matter to be further discussed, particularly by the Labour Members, I will ask leave to withdraw.

§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. HOARE
I beg to move, in Subsection (2) of the proposed Amendment, after the word "employment" ["an offer of employment"] to insert the words "in the same situation or." I have in mind the case of a man who for no less than thirteen years was earning 25s. a week in the employment of a firm of some standing. During the last few weeks he has been informed that he cannot continue in this job unless he is prepared to accept 23s. a week. I want to know if that case is covered by the proposed Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade, so that if such a man, through no fault of his own, is asked to receive a lower rate of wages, he will be able to receive unemployment benefit. If it is covered, there will be no need to press my proposed Amendment.

1717

Mr. BUXTON
I understand the point to be this: an employer says to a man who has been receiving 25s. a week, "Unless you will take 23s. a week I will dismiss you." The question is whether, if such a man is dismissed, he will come on the unemployment fund. There is no question about it. That man would be protected and would receive unemployment benent during the time he was unemployed. That would be met by Clause 63 (2). At any rate it is fully intended to be met, and if the hon. Member can show that the case is not covered, we will have words inserted.

§ Mr. HOARE
I was aware of that Sub-section, but it seemed to me that "just cause" was rather vague. If, however, I am assured that such a case as I have mentioned is covered, I will withdraw my Amendment.

Mr. BUXTON
Of course this is outside the trade dispute Clause.

§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) of the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "lower, or on conditions less favourable than those which he habitually obtained when in employment or would have obtained had he continued to be employed," and insert instead thereof the words, "which is habitually earned in that employment by men of equal efficiency." The object of my Amendment is to define more closely the conditions under which a workman shall have the right to refuse any employment offered him. The words "habitually obtained" are, in my opinion, altogether too wide. If you adopt the proposal as it stands you will really be stereotyping the wage of a man at his best, and you will not allow for failing physical conditions.
I have been trying to look into the future to see what effect it would have on the conditions of employment, and there appears to me to be considerable risk in insisting that a man should have the right to refuse good employment on the ground that the wage offered is not that which he has been habitually receiving. Take the case of a man who has been in steady employment for thirty-five or forty years, during which time his wages have been gradually increased to a point higher even than the standard rate. But as the actuaries have told us over and over again, as a man increases in age the more liable he is to sickness and the greater liability there is 1718 to physical degeneration. That being so, if you enable that man when he loses his employment to say, "I will refuse a job unless it is at the same wage that I have been habitually receiving," you will encourage the false hope that you are going to find employment for him at that wage. Does anyone here suggest that if a man who has reached a certain age loses his employment you will find employment for him at the rate of wages he has been habitually receiving? If that is the case, you will simply be creating a fund for the reception of this class of man who refuses employment on the ground that the wages offered is not that which he has habitually received, and you will very likely exhaust the fund which was intended for a totally different purpose. If the Fund is absorbed by men on account of physical deficiency or physical deterioration through age, you will be making a wrong use of the Fund. I think it is necessary that workmen should be protected in this direction, and my suggestion is that a Court of Referees should be set up, composed solely of working men, who should fix a maximum rate of wage which a workman should be within his right in refusing. If such a Court were established consisting of workmen whose interests it is to see that the fund remains solvent, the interests of the workmen would be sufficiently protected. I think it is to the interest of a workman that he should not refuse good work if the wage offered is in keeping with his efficiency at the particular time at which the employment is offered. For these reasons I move the Amendment.

§ Mr. WATT
On a point of Order. Is that Amendment, as worked, in order?

§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
Make the words "other than which."

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon)
Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to read to us Sub-section (2) as amended in accordance with his desire?

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
That the workman has declined an offer of employment at a rate of wage "lower than that" which is habitually earned in that employment by a man of equal efficiency.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
May I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you will put the words down to the word "when"; that is the word I wish to omit in my Amendment.

1719

§ The CHAIRMAN
I need not read all the words over again, but I will put the question down to the words "habitually obtained" ["or on conditions less favourable than those which habitually obtained"].

§ Sir J. SIMON
The hon. Gentleman's proposal really, as I follow the speech which he has just made, raises this point; as my right hon. Friend's Amendment now stands the test as to whether or not a man who claims unemployment benefit is to be refused it because he has failed to take a job offered to him in the same district is an individual test. It is a test as to whether the job offered to him is a job offered at the rate of wage lower than that which is habitually earned. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment would have the effect: it would substitute for that individual test the normal general average to be arrived at by inquiry as to what is the earning capacity of persons of equal efficiency with the applicant in question. The Committee will, of course, see that whatever be the theoretic advantage of that alteration it plainly makes a complication. You have to deal with the workman who presents himself at the office and says to the insurance officer, "I claim the 7s.," and the insurance officer has to decide, and to decide promptly, whether or not the man is right or wrong in his claim.
It is a comparatively easy thing to find out whether a job which a Labour Exchange offers a man is a job at a rate of wage lower than that which the man has in the past earned. It may be a very difficult thing to find out whether it is a job at a rate of wage lower than that habitually earned by men of equal efficiency, because it plainly involves the inquiry as to what the man's efficiency is. No doubt the man, when questioned, will assert the maximum efficiency. I suggest, therefore, that is one reason why it is not desirable to make the change. There is a second reason. The Hon. Member supported his proposal by putting a hard case which he thought was not met. I think I can show the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that it is really met. He was putting this case. He said, "Is it reasonable that a man who in his best years has been able to earn a certain rate of wages should be entitled to refuse a job that is offered to him merely because the job is at a slightly lower rate, the change being due to the man's decreasing efficiency and decreasing physical powers" That is an 1720 important point. I may point out, however, that it is a point which arises in both directions. You may take the case of the young workman who is earning a small wage, and who is going forward in the ordinary course, and will expect to get a higher wage. We believe we have provided for both cases, and that we have provided for these cases in this way. We have suggested as a proper test this: Is the wage which is offered in connection with the new job such a big wage as the man would earn if he had continued in employment and having in view the changed conditions of the man? The last words of Sub-section (2) in the Clause say that a man who applies for the 7s. is not to be refused because he declines to take an offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wages lower or conditions less favourable than he up to that time had habitually obtained, or would have obtained had he continued to be employed. Let me put the two cases. If you have a man who is losing his physical powers and who is no longer able to earn the full rate, even if he had continued to be employed, that would become evident, and he would have to drop to a lower rate. Take the reverse case of a young workman gradually rising to full efficiency; if he had continued to be employed he would be claiming a higher rate. Our intention is to meet both these cases, and we believe that the words at the end of Sub-section (2) form that adjustment which the hon. Gentleman very properly says it is desirable to provide. I ask the Committee to leave it to the Insurance Officer to apply simple individual tests as to what is the wage that this man has earned, and to relieve him from the very difficult task of making inquiry as to what is the average earnings of persons in the man's walk of life, having regard to their respective individual efficiency, which I venture to think is a problem which no Insurance Officer would very much like to decide offhand.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I agree in the main with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General has said, but I think he has practically admitted that the Insurance Officer would have to do what he says it is impossible for him to do. The whole point of my hon. Friend's Amendment—and I consider it is really a very important one—is that he wants to prevent the effect of this Bill tending to 1721 drive old men out of employment because they cannot get the rate of wages of the younger men. His idea is that a man shall not be entitled to go to the unemployed fund because he cannot get as good a wage as he got last week, and his test is that the insurance officer is to judge whether or not he is offered a wage as good as his efficiency as a workman entitles him to receive. Now the Solicitor-General tells us that that is exactly what the Bill does; that it meets precisely this case of the man who is getting old, and that the words in Sub-section (2) are meant to imply that the insurance officer would take into account the failing health and lower wage, and that he has to deal with it.

§ Sir JOHN SIMON
I do not want to quarrel with the way the right hon. Gentleman is putting it, but the difference is this: our proposal would at any rate in the ordinary case, apply an individual test, and it is only in the rare case where the man is not a man of full efficiency that any complicated or difficult question would arise. The hon. Member proposes to substitute in every case, for every workman, however normal the test as to what a man of equal efficiency would earn. Our suggestion was that it was perhaps simpler to take the individual test in all cases where it would fairly apply, and reserve this much more difficult inquiry to apply to cases which the hon. Member desires.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
Evidently from the hon. Gentleman's speech he meant precisely what the learned Solicitor-General says.

§ Sir J. SIMON
Well, his Amendment does not achieve it.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
My hon. Friend's object is precisely the same as that of the Solicitor-General, and the only question is whether the words in the Amendment of the Government or the suggestion of my hon. Friend are the better.

§ Sir J. SIMON
The hon. Member wants to make the test habitual.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
That was not his intention. Judging from the speech of my hon. Friend I am right, I think, in saying that that was not what was in his mind. I had already considered the point in my own mind and the effect of these words at the end of the Clause, "or would have obtained had he continued to be employed." I thought these words were intended to meet the cases the 1722 Solicitor-General has explained. So far as I can judge I think the Government's is a more practical way of dealing with the difficulty than that suggested by my hon. Friend's Amendment, and one more easily worked out. I think in practice it will be found to be more effective than the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

Mr. PEEL
I agree as to the point made as to the difficulty in this particular matter. It seems to me the same difficulty will arise in the case of the old man as in the case of the young man in some future time, but I am not very much troubled by this particular difficulty, as it seems to me the general answer is that the amount of benefit is very low. Take an old man earning 30s. a week. It will be a very difficult thing to explain to him that he is not as efficient as he was.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
We all realise that.

Mr. PEEL
It need not be represented to him that he is not as efficient as he was, but that for some reason or other he is not going to earn more than 26s. a week, and that in the alternative he can only get 7s. a week of employment benefit. Unless he is a Scotchman or something of that sort—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh," and "Withdraw."]—he will accept the lesser wages. I am bound to say I was going to have used the name of another nationality, but I will not do so. I think that is the general answer. At the same time I do not think it fair to say only 7s. a week is obtained in the case of a man belonging to a trade union. He will get unemployment benefit at the same time. The trade unions will give them benefit in the case that they are offered lower wages than before and refuse, and therefore we will have to add what they get from the trade unions to the 7s. a week. But even so, I believe people will take a lower wage instead of insisting on the higher.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I should like to ask the learned Solicitor-General the same question as was put to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I agree it is not much matter what Ministers say if they seem to say the same thing. Supposing a man is getting 38s. a week in an employment in which he is a favourite, but that for some reason or another he is dismissed, and that in a neighbouring shop he is offered 36s. a week. Is he to refuse to accept the 36s? That is what the President of the Board of Trade said.

1723

Mr. BUXTON
I said the very reverse.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
Then I am sorry to say the mistake is mine, and that both Ministers have agreed.

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) in saying that as a matter of practice a man will sooner take lower wages than accept 7s., as the case may be. I say when you introduce legislation you should make sure that it should apply not to the general but to the exceptional case. I think we can show many instances under this National Scheme where it may suit a person to say, "I will take the unemployment benefit; my wife has a small shop and she will help, and it suits my convenience to go on the Unemployment Fund rather than accept the lower wages." The learned Solicitor-General tried to make a strong case, but he has not met this particular point, and I say it is a mistake to try and encourage a man to hold out against taking a job except at a particular wage. The Clause does not make provision for such cases as I have indicated. I am looking at this matter from the actuarial and financial side, and I think it is a very dangerous thing not to meet the case I put, I am not going to press the Amendment, but I do think the Government ought to accept it.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
The defence of the Clause by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton really amounts to this, that it does not matter in the least how unworkable your legislation is, for no one is likely to attempt to work it. That seems a rather disheartening basis of argument. Of the two proposals, the Government proposal is the less unworkable. It does seem to me to be a most amazing power to put in the hands of the unhappy insurance officer to make him the judge as to whether an individual has become less efficient or more efficient. By what process of medical examination or of industrial research is he to do this? I expect he will always say a man is within the terms of the Bill. The Clause is put in for some purpose. If this Clause is really necessary to prevent people coming upon the Unemployment Fund, and the Fund becomes insolvent, it is perfectly plain that the purpose of the Clause will fail. Everyone will come upon the Fund of whom there is any doubt.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade if he is not aware, as 1724 a London Member, that in the relief works in London hundreds of men are employed who do not want to work more than two days a week?

Mr. BUXTON
Questions of that kind would depend upon contributions. I do not see that this point touches this particular Amendment.

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I beg to move to leave out the word "when" ["he habitually obtained when in employment"], and after the word "in" to insert the words "his usual."
This is simply to carry out the point already mentioned in the case of a man doing a temporary job at a high rate of wages, so that he should not be allowed to stand out for this high rate, but only for his usual rate, and that if he does so stand out he should not be entitled to get the unemployment benefit, I am advised these words would strengthen the Clause considerably without altering what I believe to be the intention of the Government.

Mr. BUXTON
We think the word "habitual" would cover the point. The intention was in regard to work at which he was habitually employed, and not upon some special job which would enable him to stand out for a special rate of wages. Although these words make the matter quite clear we do not think them necessary, but we will accept them.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
How many weeks' work would make it "habitual?"

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ The CHAIRMAN
A good many manuscript Amendments have been handed in. The course of handing in manuscript Amendments is extremely inconvenient, and it is very difficult to keep a proper record of them at the table. It is a caution that often has to be given in this Committee. Before I can put the consequential Amendment of the hon. Member for Dudley, I must put an Amendment in the name of Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.

§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
I must apologise to the Committee for not giving notice, but I only move this Amendment with a desire to help the Government. I 1725 am suggesting that in order to make the Clause clear, we should insert after the word "employment" the words "in that district."

§ The CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member move?

§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
Yes; I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment in Sub-section (2) after the word "employment" ["when in employment"] to insert the words "in that district."

Mr. BUXTON
I will accept that Amendment, subject, of course, to reconsideration.

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

§ Further Amendment made to the proposed Amendment: In Sub-section (2) after the word "be" ["to be employed"] insert the word "so."

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I wish to raise a point of Order. We have decided that a man is not to be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit by reason of his refusing an offer of employment at wages lower than that which he habitually obtained when in employment in his district, or which he would have obtained had he continued to be employed. That, I take it, is perfectly clear. If the man refuses a job at less wages than that amount, he is not debarred from unemployment benefit. Then we go on to say in the next paragraph that in an adjoining district, or any other district, the man must accept an offer of wages at what may be called the current rate of wages, or the rate "generally observed in such district by agreement between associations of employers and of workmen or, failing any such agreement than those generally recognised in such districts by good employers." I have an Amendment on the paper to insert after the word "employment" the words, "in the district where he was last ordinarily employed." Under the proposal of the Bill, the man is a favoured worker, and he gets something above the ordinary rate of wages in the district. For some reason that employment goes. Now I suggest that there is no reason why he should not accept what is offered. We are going to make him accept in an adjoining district, or an offer in Somerset or Dorset, work at the current rate of wages. I suggest if the man cannot get employment 1726 in his own district, the same conditions ought to apply to his own district as would apply to the outside district. This workman is not to have unemployment benefit if he declines employment in his own district, provided he is offered the current rate of wages such as is paid by associations of employers and of workmen, or failing any such agreement, those wages generally recognised by good employers. Under the provisions of Sub-section (3) the man has got to accept those wages. Why should you make him accept those wages in Dorset and not in Lancashire? I submit this Amendment raises a slightly different point to that which was raised in the second Sub-section, that a man is not merely entitled to refuse to go to his own work at less than the wages he has already had, but he has to decline benefit unless he accepts the current rate of wages in that district or any other district.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Amendment is in order.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in Sub-section (3), after the word "employment" ["an offer of employment"], to insert the words "in the district where he was last ordinarily employed."

§ Sir J. SIMON
I really think the Committee has some reason to complain of the hon. Member, and I will point out why. In his first speech he said he objected to our proposals because they were calculated to set up a standard rate of wages. He then made a speech in which he proposed to leave out Sub-section (2), which deals with an offer of employment in the district where the man had previously worked, and consequentially to insert in Sub-section (3) words which would make it apply to the man's native district and outside district. Now the hon. Member makes a speech as if his consequential suggestion was an independent proposal, and he proceeds to support his argument by saying that we ought to set up a standard rate of wages. If I may say so, that does not show the usual acuteness he generally exhibits in the contributions he makes to our Debates. I ask the hon. Member to consider whether it is quite reasonable, first to argue against the standard rate of wages, and secondly to propose that you are going to use Sub-section (3) as the sole test, and leave out Sub-section (2), and then propose this 1727 consequential Amendment, as though it stood on its own bottom. The result is that he has in fact provided by the present Amendment that every man who has not hitherto had the trade union rate of wages might refuse the job provided for him. The proposal of the hon. Member is entirely contrary to everything which has been said by him and his friends.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member press his Amendment?

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
Certainly I do, because I object to the whole thing. Surely a Member of Parliament because he is beaten upon the whole thing is not prevented from trying to make the whole thing better. I think the Solicitor-General has been a little hard upon me, and I venture to suggest that he has not answered my point. My proposal is not consequential, and it does not set up the standard rate of wages. I do not strike out Sub-section (2), but I do say that the man before he gets his benefits has to go through two processes. First of all, if he is offered a rate of wages which he has already had, he cannot have unemployment benefit. In the second place, if he is not offered that, but is offered a standard rate of wages in the district and refuses, he cannot have unemployment benefit. If the Solicitor-General will look at these two points, he will see my Amendment is not inconsistent with the retention of Sub-section (2). I see no reason why I should not press my Amendment.

§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
I beg to move in Sub-section (3) to leave out the words "or on conditions less favourable."
What I wish to ascertain is whether this provision does not cover a wider case. Supposing a foreman loses his employment, and work is offered to that foreman at the same rate of wages he has been receiving before; he is no longer in the position of a foreman if his status is changed. In that condition, is he entitled to refuse employment. I cannot contemplate that the status should affect the position. I should like to have an explanation of that point.

Mr. BUXTON
Our attention was drawn to this point. It is not always a question of wages, because there are conditions of labour working hours, methods 1728 of work, and so on, and they ought to be taken into account. That is the sole object of putting these words in. With regard to the particular case mentioned by the hon. Member, foremen do not come under the Act, but if there is a dispute in reference to what are the conditions and whether they are similar or otherwise in the district and the outside district, there is an appeal from the insurance officer to the referees, and they can again appeal to the umpire. On both sides, employers and workmen are fully protected, and it is quite clear that you cannot take wages solely as the test, and you must take the conditions as well.

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
After that explanation, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Proposed Amendment, as amended: Leave out from the word "declined" ["declined an offer of employment"] and insert—

(1) An offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute; or
(2) an offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those which he habitually obtained in his usual employment in that district or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed; or
(3) an offer of employment in any other district at a rate of wage lower or on conditions less favourable than those generally observed in such district by agreement between associations of employers and of workmen, or, failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in such districts by good employers.—[Mr. Buxton.]

§ Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

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