§ (1) A workman who loses employment by reason of a trade dispute involving a strike or lock-out by which he is directly affected shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit so long as the strike or lock-out continues.
§ (2) A workman who loses employment through misconduct or who voluntarily 1729 leaves his employment without just cause shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit for a period of six weeks from the date when he so lost employment.
§ (3) A workman who has been convicted of an offence and ordered to be imprisoned without the option of a fine or to suffer any greater punishment shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit for a period of six weeks after his release from prison.
§ (4) A workman shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit whilst he is an inmate of any workhouse or other institution supported wholly or partly out of public funds, and whilst he is resident temporarily or permanently outside the United Kingdom.
§ Sir J. SIMONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "A trade dispute involving a strike or lockout by which he is directly affected," and to insert instead thereof the words "a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed."
This is an Amendment which we think will render more easy and certain the application of the principle that a workman becomes entitled to unemployment benefit if he falls out of employment owing to fluctuations of trade, but that he does not become entitled to unemployment benefit if he falls out of employment in connection with a strike or lock-out, or the like. The principle that the Fund should be safeguarded to provide for the man who finds himself out of work owing to fluctuation of trade as distinguished from being a fund which will support either one side or the other in industrial warfare, is a principle, I think, which everybody on the Committee will accept, and the question, therefore, is not whether that is the right principle. I am sure that that principle is accepted by those who are here directly representing labour as well as by the others. The question is, what is the best way to embody that principle in the Bill. The first Sub-section of Clause 63 at present reads:—
A workman who loses employment by reason of a trade dispute involving a strike or lock-out by which he is directly affected shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit so long as the strike or lock-out continues.The words in the middle of that Sub-section, "by which he is directly 1730 affected," bring the minds of the Committee to the central point in this important matter. It appears to us, and I think the Members of the Committee will generally share our view, very desirable, that we should have a test which is capable of being clearly and swiftly applied. After all, the question is a very practical one for the man who applies for the 7s. per week. He does not want to have a lengthy involved inquiry; he wants to have the thing decided quickly, and if it is decided wrongly to have the opportunity of challenging it by an appeal. It appears to us if we say that his disqualification depends upon whether he loses his employment by reason of a trade dispute by which he is directly affected, that that is likely to give rise to endless disputes as to whether he is directly or indirectly affected, and a whole series of most difficult questions, which, if the Committee will take it from me, I well remember in courts of law require not the summary decision of a gentleman sitting behind a desk dealing out 7s. per week, but the elaborate consideration of judges and juries sometimes for weeks on end. In order, therefore, to have an understood and easy test, we propose that the Sub-section shall read as follows:—A workman who loses employment by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed, shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit.The advantage of our suggestion where there is a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute is first of all, of course, that it provides a perfectly simple test. In order that it may be carefully followed by the Committee, let me point out the not uncommon case where there is, in the first instance, some dispute at Factory "A," and in consequence of it, there is either a lock-out ordered or a strike, which involves the stoppage of work in factories "B," "C," "D," and "E." All those factories are workshops and places where a trade dispute exists, and causes a stoppage of work. It does not make any difference whether it is the place where the dispute originated or the place where the dispute has spread to, so that the sympathetic strike is covered.On the other hand, we think we provide not only a clear limitation but a reasonable limitation. It is impossible, as it seems to us, to pursue ultimate consequences and causes, and it is neither possible nor fair 1731 to deprive a man of a benefit because, though himself not employed at any place where there is a trade dispute, either original or derived, he finds himself in consequence of other people having a trade dispute out of a job. That in modern industry not infrequently happens. Those people, therefore, would be entitled to benefit. We think the test whether there is or is not a trade dispute at the place where he works is a test not only easy to apply, but on the whole fair. It may be said it will produce hardship on one side or the other. The truth is no rule which we can hope to lay down would entirely avoid possible hard cases on one side or the other, and we have got to see we have a fair and clear rule. And this in justification for its fairness: every workman who finds himself out owing to a trade dispute where he works at any rate has this connection with the dispute, that he is working at the same place, is employed by the same employer, and that he and those who are the immediate cause of the trade dispute are fellow workers. While that does not unduly favour one side or the other, it is much to be preferred as a test to the extreme vagueness of the words at present in the Bill. I therefore ask the Committee to accept this Amendment as one really designed to produce clear and fair working. It is one which I hope the Committee will generally feel is not designed to benefit one set of people against another set, but to draw, it may be a rough, but at any rate a clear and fair line.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI think that the Amendment which the Solicitor-General has just moved is a very substantial improvement on the original wording of the Clause. As he says, we are all in agreement with what we want to do; we do not want to subsidise those who are on strike or locked out from this fund; they must look after themselves and get what they can from their trade union fund or from other funds available. There is no dispute on that point at all. We feel, and I think the whole Committee will agree with us, that the Clause, as it was originally drafted, might have been very oppressive; it was so vague, and it might have applied to persons whom we did not desire to bring under it at all. I should like to suggest to the Committee one point upon which the draft is not quite clear—not quite so water-tight as we should like it to be. Supposing a dispute arose say 1732 between the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and some employer. Suppose that the labourers who had nothing whatever to do with that dispute, although they are employed by the same employer and at the same factory or on the same premises, are, in consequence of it, locked out of employment. If the dispute is successful so far as the engineers are concerned, the labourers get nothing at all. In no way, and in no sense are they the gainers; yet they are brought into the dispute, and under the wording of the Amendment they will be unable to get any benefit from this Unemployed Insurance Fund.
The point I should like to suggest to my hon. and learned Friend is that surely he could differentiate a little bit more as between the effective factory and the general trade. The effective factory is to be sliced up, as it were, on horizontal lines, and where the dispute takes place in a watertight department amongst engineers the victims of the dispute—the men thrown out on account of the dislocation of industries in that particular factory, although they are not involved and are not going to be benefited by any result—these men I suggest ought to be beneficially treated under this Clause. That is the point we want to raise. We have no Amendment down, but we think it very likely the Committee would desire to come to some sort of agreement on this point in an amicable way.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI agree in principle with what has been said both by the last speaker and by the Solicitor-General. I am not quite sure that this Amendment does really meet the case of men who are thrown out by a sympathetic strike. One of my hon. Friends has an Amendment which he thinks will make it clear that, as we are all agreed, the ordinary sympathetic striker should not come on the fund. But we are also equally agreed that it is a very hard case which has been suggested by the last speaker. I frankly admit I do not see how the difficulty is to be overcome, and therefore I hope we may be allowed to discuss the point on the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI should like to say we had an Amendment down before the Government brought theirs in, and I understood the object of the Government Amendment was to cover the various suggestions which had been made on this point, but they have not covered these particular suggestions which I have raised, 1733 and we certainly shall move our Amendment if necessary.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI think there is a real hardship, and if I can see any way in which it can be met I shall be glad to support any such proposal. If the hon. Gentleman will put his suggestion into words I shall be very glad to consider them.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONAlthough I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that there is great hardship in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester, I think the Committee should be very slow to limit the area which is covered by this exception. Of course there is great damage and dislocation caused by a strike, and we do not want to make strikes easier by legislation. We do not want to relieve the men of the consequences of their action should it involve damage being done to other bodies of men unaffected by the dispute but employed in the same mill or factory. That one fact, I think, constitutes a real reason tending to diminish the number and frequency of strikes. It is a reason which is weighed by those who either promote strikes or take action by way of locking out their men. Although the cases of such men are hard and deserving of sympathy I think it would be a great mistake for the Committee to take any action to limit the full efficacy of the words proposed by the Government that the strike area must be excepted. I therefore hope the Government will stick to its Amendment.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI hope that when the hon. Member for Leicester takes his particular point into consideration he will also bear in mind another point, and that is the very hard case of the man who is prevented from continuing his employment by reason of the raw material which is necessary for his trade being cut off from his work. There may be a strike, not at the factory but at some other place—it may be a transport strike—which prevents the raw material necessary for the employment of a whole group of labourers arriving at the factory at which they are employed, and if, through no fault of their own, if, through no cause over which they have any control, they are put out of work, it seems to be very hard that they should not be allowed under this Clause to come on to the funds. I hope the Solicitor-General will bear that point in mind. It seems to me that no provision is at present made for men thrown out of work 1734 under such circumstances, and that they would come within the disqualification Clause, as their unemployment would be due to a stoppage of work owing to a trade dispute—a stoppage, it may be indirectly due to such a dispute. I think their case should be considered in connection with this Clause.
§ Sir J. SIMONThe hon. Gentleman opposite has made an important point. I may indicate how it strikes us. If the hon. Gentleman is dealing with a case where the raw material is produced at one factory and in the ordinary course of trade is sent from that place to another factory where it is worked up, if that is the case, I venture to think the workmen who are indirectly dispossessed of work because the ordinary flow of raw material ceases will, under our Clause, be entitled to benefit, although it may be quite true that they are out of employment owing to a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute, for it is not at the factory where they are employed. [An HON. MEMBER: "It might be abroad."] If the raw material comes from abroad to a factory in this country and, in consequence of some trade warfare, the supply ceases, there will be no difficulty. But where two branches of an industry, though not normally found in a factory, happen to be in one factory, it seems to us it is desirable to consider how far we can deal with an undoubted difficulty of that kind. As the Committee is generally disposed to think that the Government suggestion is preferable to the words contained in the text of the Bill, I would suggest that it might be embodied in the Bill, with an undertaking that we will consider if anything further can be done to meet the difficulty, and we invite the co-operation of hon. Gentlemen to see whether we can provide any further limitation which is fair.
May I point out two difficulties that have presented themselves to the minds of some of us, and both of which have to be faced? The first is, it is all very well to say, "Is it not rather hard that a skilled workman who strikes should thereby throw out of employment a labourer who does not strike, but who is, in consequence, to be denied the benefit of this Clause." It is hard, but what is going to happen in a case where you have a single grade of workmen, some of whom belong to a trade union which calls for a strike, while others do not belong to the union, and do not strike. It may be said, 1735 indeed it has been suggested by the Labour party, that they stand by to take advantage of the strike, although they cannot themselves be described as persons who are striking or are being locked out. Is it the desire of the Committee that we should put these non-unionists on the Fund, while trade unionists do not come on it? I am sure that that is not the desire of anybody. There is a second difficulty which we have to face. If you provide, to use the language of my hon. Friend, for these horizontal divisions, classifying one grade of workman from another inside the same factory, are you not putting it in the power of an employer, who is thinking of carrying the industrial warfare to an extreme, to serve lock-out notices on the whole body of workmen instead of upon merely the section which is raising the dispute, with the result that the labourers may be thrown out accordingly as the employer chooses to give lock-out notices to all grades or only to one grade of men.
§ Sir J. SIMONI am pointing out the very considerable difficulty which lies in the track of anybody who approaches the consideration of this Clause. If a Clause can be designed which does not throw it into the power either of an employer or of a trade union aptly to frame notices which should either enlarge or diminish at leisure the list of people to whom they apply we shall be glad to consider it. If a Clause can be designed which does not deal unfairly as between the combatants in a dispute and non-combatants in the same grade then, I think, we might perhaps be able to come to an agreement. I merely throw out these observations as it is obvious that hon. Members on both sides are earnestly desirous that this problem should be completely and satisfactorily solved.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDIn order that the matter may be clearly before the Committee, may I state the intention that we had in framing our Amendment before the Government put their Amendment on the Paper, our object would be met if we moved to add after the word "premises," the words "in the branch or grade of trade or calling at which he was employed." That gives the horizontal differentiation. So far as I am concerned, I think the case 1736 of the non-unionist is met simply in this way: that where you have a strike or lock-out, you have frankly to confess that you have a general dispute affecting the whole grade of that employment. Everybody has to share, and the non-unionist gets the benefit if the unionist is successful. It is the ordinary rough and ready way of adjusting these industrial disputes that the sweets have to be mixed with the bitters in experience, and, in the long run, things come out fairly well. The other point made by the Solicitor-General was that an employer may have, if he likes, a kind of fraudulent lock-out: he wants to lock out his engineers, and, in order to prevent the labourers from getting any benefits under this Act, he does not merely post notices locking out his engineers, but he also posts notices locking out the labourers. I do not think an employer would do that sort of thing unless there was a dispute. If there is a dispute with the labourers, of course they ought to be locked out if there is to be a lock-out. The employer would simply lock out the engineers and the labourers because he had a dispute with both. Nobody will object to that. But to assume that an employer who has a dispute with his engineers will, out of spite for his labourers, post lock-out notices affecting his labourers, so that they may not get the benefit of this Act, I do not think that that is an objection of which the Committee need take very much account. But if the Committee desire I am perfectly prepared, when the time comes, to move; but we thought that the Committee would probably desire, in view of the phrasing of the Government Amendment, to think the whole matter over, and that is why we did not put anything fresh on the Paper.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENThe difficulty seems to be that we are dealing with two distinct sets of people who may be indirectly affected. There is, first of all, the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester, where one class of men in a works strike and thereby throw out another class. The hon. Member's suggested words would very likely deal with that point. But there is also a different case altogether, where, in the same class of employment, the union men strike and the non-union men do not. The words suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester would not meet the case at all. But I think the hon. Member will admit that that is a very hard case. You may have a factory where, in a particular class, say, the 1737 riveters, half the men are unionists and half are non-unionists; the union men strike, and cause a stoppage, thereby inflicting this penalty on the non-union men. What we want to do is to find a form of words which would meet both these cases. This matter is of very great importance, and I really think this Committee ought to settle it. I do not quite know whether the Government will be willing to consider it and see later on if they can suggest a form of words to meet the case, but if we are any good at all in this Committee, this is just the kind of point we ought to try to settle. Of course, we know the conditions under which we are discussing these Amendments—
§ Sir J. SIMONThis particular one was on the paper from the beginning.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENWell, there have been matters of this sort, and new points are very naturally raised as we are discussing them.
§ Sir J. SIMONWhere do you suggest to alter the words?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI suggest after the word "dispute" to insert the words "to which he himself was a party." I do not know whether the Government are prepared to consider these words.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI think there is a good deal in what the hon. Member for Dudley has suggested. I feel that it is very difficult to hustle the Government or the Committee in this matter. But I was going to suggest to the Government and Committee whether it would not be well to postpone this Sub-section until after we have considered the other three Sub-sections of the Clause, so that we, at all events, should have the night to think over the matter, and be able to begin this Sub-section to-morrow. May I incidentally call the attention of the Solicitor-General to the fact that I do not think the phrasing of even his Amendment is beyond the resources of legal ingenuity to find some difficulty in the interpretation of. If he and the Committee will notice, it is possible to read the phrasing of this Amendment in two different ways. I will read it in the first way, and then in the second. Firstly: "A stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed." That is one way. The 1738 other way is this: "A stoppage of work, due to a trade dispute, at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed."
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONOh, no; there is quite a difference. It depends where the commas are placed. The one means a stoppage of work at a factory, workshop, or premises, where the man is, and the other means a stoppage of work due to a general trade dispute. These are two quite different things, and I am perfectly certain that the resources of the lawyers would at once pounce on that flaw in the wording of the Amendment. I have been trying to re-draft it for the last few minutes, but I have not been able to find a form of words that I think will entirely meet the case. Would it be out of order if I were to move the postponement of this Sub-section until after we have taken the other three Sub-sections of the Clause? Perhaps, on second thoughts, it would not be the wish of the Committee. I will not put that Motion forward, but I threw out the suggestion, as it seemed to me a good one.
Mr. BUXTONIn regard to the particular Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dudley, it really raises difficulties which we have had in mind all the time. What we want is that the Insurance Officer at the time of dispute, when the question arises, shall have no doubt as to the decision which he shall give. Nothing will be worse, in our opinion—and I am sure the Committee will agree—at the time of a trade dispute that it should be a question as to what decision the Insurance Officer should then arrive at. It is then a moment of excitement or bitterness between the two sides, and we are very anxious—and I am sure the Committee also desires—in such a matter that the Insurance Officer shall be said by neither parties to be partisan. Therefore, it is very essential before the dispute arises that some definite conclusion should be arrived at in reference to this matter.
Why we dropped our former words and suggested these was, to make the thing definite, as the former words would make a question one of doubt. The question of premises is a definite and geographical fact which can be decided beforehand, and therefore decided at the time. We have looked carefully into the matter. I think the Committee are agreed as to what they desire. We will certainly consider 1739 the matter not only again ourselves—we have considered it on more than one occasion—to see what words suggested could meet the view of the hon. Member for Leicester and others—and we will welcome also the assistance of every hon. Member. But I would appeal to the Committee to allow these words now to be inserted in the Clause. There will be plenty of time between now and Report to consider the matter, and for Amendments to be put down to meet the point. The real point—I would impress this upon the Committee, that the decision we come to ought to be a conclusion of the form the Bill in this respect should take—is so to instruct the insurance officer before the time of a dispute, and not leave any discretion to him at that time; not because he is not able to take discretion, but that is just the moment when he ought not to be asked to do so. I would appeal to the Committee to allow these words to go in, and we shall only be too glad if we can arrive by general consent at some words to meet the point.
§ Mr. BARNESI suggest a small point which I think might be covered now, and I agree we might leave the other point for further consideration, because I do not think that by making hurried suggestions we can cover it. There is a point in the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade which I think might be dealt with now. I quite see the object is to limit the application of the disqualification in a geographical sense, but it is not clear. You speak of the stoppage of work by a trade dispute at a factory or workshop, but there may be a stoppage of work at a factory due to a dispute not arising in that factory. I suggest the words "arising out of any dispute."
§ Sir J. SIMONThe same thing would be secured if it were to run "stoppage of work which is due to a trade dispute at the factory."
§ Mr. BARNESThat is the object I have in view.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONI understand the President of the Board of Trade assumes that the Committee is of opinion that all these branches of the trade not directly affected should be excluded from the operations of this Amendment. I do not know that this is so. And these informal understandings, on which no vote is taken, are apt to be rather dangerous, 1740 and I would point out to my hon. Friends on this side that this is directly subsidising strikes by setting free particular funds that would otherwise be absorbed and voting them to strikes.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIn order to assist the right hon. Gentleman, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you should put at once the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," and then my hon. Friend below me has an Amendment which deals with the exact point.
§ Questions, "That the words 'a trade dispute involving a strike or lock-out by which he is directly affected' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Sir J. SIMONI am anxious to meet the difficulty pointed out, and I think it would be met if you substitute the words, "a stoppage of work which is due to a trade dispute at a factory or workshop or other premises." You would thus make it quite plain that the qualifying words go with "trade dispute" and not "stoppage of work."
§ Question, "That the words, 'a stoppage of work which is due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. GOLDMANI beg to move after the words last inserted to insert the words, "or by reason of a trade dispute in which he participates in sympathy with those who are directly affected by another trade dispute."
The object of this Amendment is to provide that where a man, or a body of men, go out on strike in sympathy with a body of men who have struck in consequence of a dispute, that these men shall be prevented from being qualified for unemployment benefit, the same as those where the dispute has arisen. I do not think that the Amendment proposed by the President of the Board of Trade provides for this contingency.
§ Sir J. SIMONThe intention, I think, of everybody is that the workman should be disqualified from unemployment benefit if he is out owing to a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute arising where he works, whether that strike is what I may call an original strike, or whether it is a sympathetic strike. Therefore the only thing that remains is to be sure that we have expressed it properly. I confess I think it is expressed in the Amendment 1741 as it stands, but I should a little doubt whether the words proposed by the hon. Member are the most desirable. If the Committee will just follow for a moment a rather technical matter, they will see an alternative way of dealing with it. The Clause uses the expression "trade dispute," and a trade dispute is defined in the Trades Disputes Act as being "any dispute between an employer and workman, or between workman and workman, which is connected with the employment, or non-employment, or terms of employment, or conditions of labour, of any such person." The object which the hon. Gentleman has may be conveniently secured if we added a few words to make it quite clear that this disqualification, due to the fact that the man is out by reason of a trade dispute, is to apply whether the persons—with whose employment or non-employment, or terms of employment, or conditions of labour, the dispute is concerned—are employed at the same factory or workshop, or elsewhere. That does not introduce into an Act of Parliament expressions which are not known to the Legislature, such as "sympathetic strike" and the like, which, I fear, might now and again produce that very difficulty of decision we are anxious to save the insurance officer from. If we put on the face of the Bill that, if there is a dispute which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment, or the conditions of labour, it is perfectly immaterial whether the man who applies for the benefit is a man who is employed at the same factory where that dispute originated, or whether he works elsewhere, then, I think, we have it in appropriate legal form. If the hon. Member would allow his Amendment to be withdrawn I will move instead these words: "Or whether the persons with whose employment, or unemployment, or terms of employment, or conditions of labour the trade dispute is connected, are or are not employed at the same factory, workshop or other premises."
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI have no intention of opposing the idea embodied in the Amendment of either the hon. Member opposite or of the Solicitor-General, but I would like it to be clearly understood that if we accept these words and allow them to go in, it is on the condition that the whole of this Sub-section is to be reconsidered in view of the discussion we have just had, and the point raised by the hon. Member's Amendment. We are 1742 not opposing the intention at all, we only want to be very careful that the words express precisely what we intend.
Mr. BUXTONI am quite willing, of course, to give that undertaking, especially in regard to these words. We will bear in mind the general feeling of the Committee, and endeavour, so far as possible, to meet it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir J. SIMONI beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, "Whether the persons with whose employment or non-employment, or terms of employment, or conditions of labour the trade dispute is connected, are or are not employed at the same factory, workshop, or other premises."
The Chairman proceeded to put the Amendment.
§ Sir J. SIMONMay I ask the Committee's indulgence. It is pointed out to me by the draughtsman, that we are getting ourselves, probably, into a tangle with reference to another qualification which should come at the end of the Clause, under which it is desired to save a man from being deprived of unemployment benefit, if after being out on strike he gets a perfectly new job and then loses it. We do not want to deprive him of his benefit for that. I think the best course will be for the Committee to allow me to withdraw my proposal, and we will endeavour to propose in the Definition Clause a definition of a "trade dispute" which will provide for this point in the original form of words. Otherwise we should involve ourselves in a sentence of prodigious length, and I think we may have some difficulty in finding out its meaning.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI am quite willing to accept the suggestion made by the Solicitor-General. I fully realise the difficulties, on the condition that on Report he makes it perfectly plain to the satisfaction of any reasonably-minded lawyer that sympathetic strikes are not included.
§ Sir J. SIMONCertainly.
§ Mr. BARNESI do not want to be pledged to the idea embodied in the Amendment that we should include a "sympathetic" lock-out.
§ Mr. GOLDMANA lock-out is not included.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1743§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "strike or lock-out" ["so long as the strike or lock-out continues"], and insert instead thereof the words "stoppage of work."—[Mr. Buxton.]
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson)I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words, "except in a case where he has, during a stoppage of work, become bonâ fide employed elsewhere in employment similar to that lost."
This is intended to meet the case of a man who may be thrown out by a trade dispute which may go on indefinitely, who may get employment similar to that he was in, and then again goes out. By these words we provide that if he gets fresh employment and loses that in another way — for instance, through lack of work — he will come into unemployment benefit. The words "bona fide employed" are inserted to guard against such an arrangement as a trade union giving temporary work not of the usual trade kind to a man so employed. The words, "bona fide employed," are simply to limit the operation of the Clause whilst securing to the workman, who loses his work in a trade dispute, and who then gets other work, and then loses that, the unemployment benefit.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. GOLDMANI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words: "Provided that where any workman claims that a lock-out has been influenced by the prevailing depression in his trade, the insurance officer shall have power, subject to an appeal to the Court of Referees, to permit the payment of unemployment benefit in such case as if no lock-out had occurred."
The object of this Amendment is to try and provide for the case where the weapon of a lock-out is used by the employer instead of his discharging men. Frequent cases have arisen in the past where you have a trade depression and it suits the particular employer to produce a lock-out rather than to dismiss his men. Under my proposal there would be an opportunity for a workman to go to the Court of Referees and put his case before them and, possibly, it might then be found that the lock-out itself was merely a pretext and 1744 that, in fact, under ordinary circumstances he would have become unemployed. But it has this effect upon the working man, that in the case of a lock-out he would be disqualified for benefit while, if he can prove that in ordinary circumstances he would have become unemployed without the lock-out, he will be entitled to unemployment benefit. For these reasons I should like to protect the workman in such an eventuality.
Mr. BUXTONI hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment because I think I can show him that it would lead to great complication. In the first place, I do not know that any employer, simply because of a depression in trade, would lock his men out. What he would do would be to part with his workmen and they would come under benefit. If it is a question of a trade dispute it comes under the other provisions of the Bill, but it really asks the Insurance Officer in the first place to declare whether there is a depression in trade; in the second place to find out what was in the mind of the employer when he gave his lock-out notice; and, in the third place, he has generally to look into the whole merits of the particular case. It would throw on him a burden with which he would not only be unable to deal but which no human being in this world would really be capable of dealing with. I hope, under these circumstances, the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
§ Mr. GOLDMANI do not wish to press it, though cases are vividly in my mind where small disputes have arisen under the same particular pretext, and where men have lost their employment and been locked out, and in that case they would be disqualified under the Bill for the benefit, and that would be a great hardship.
Mr. BUXTONThere is always, of course, an appeal in the case of the benefit being refused from the decision of the Insurance Officer to the Referees, so that in case of hardship there would be that appeal.
§ Mr. GOLDMANIs there an appeal in a case where you lay down that a man shall be excluded from benefit in the case of a lock-out?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1745§ Mr. GOLDMANI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3). This Sub-section, if allowed to stand, really constitutes in my opinion a very great injustice.
§ Sir J. SIMONI hope there will not be a discussion on this. The Sub-section goes much too far, because it deprives a man, not while he is in prison—that comes as a matter of course—but after he has left prison for six weeks, of unemployment benefit he might otherwise get, even though he has been sent to prison for an offence which has nothing to do with his industrial occupation. That I do not think is justified, and it seems to us that it ought to be withdrawn. The only stipulation we must make is that, if the Committee agree that the Sub-section should go out, when we come to Sub-section (4) we should put in the word "prison" so that it will run:—
A workman shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit whilst he is an inmate of any prison, workhouse, or other institution.I do not suppose anyone will suggest that he should get benefit while in prison, but we had better make it clear that he should not.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI do not oppose the withdrawal. The reason why the Sub-section is withdrawn is that the man has committed an offence and condoned it. He has paid the penalty. But there really is a reason connected with the unemployment fund why the Sub-section should be inserted. He is out of employment on account of the offence. If he had not committed the offence he would not have been on the fund, and I really think there is something in it.
§ Sir J. SIMONOf course, he is still disqualified if he has lost his employment through misconduct. If he went to prison on that account that would be another matter, but it appeared to us to be too wide if it had nothing to do with his employment.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONMay I ask the Solicitor-General whether, in his opinion, misconduct covers any offence involving moral reprobation for which a man might be sent to prison?
§ Sir J. SIMONThey are two things which are quite distinct. It is one thing 1746 to say that a workman has lost his employment through misconduct and it is quite another to say that a workman is in prison through misconduct, and it by no means follows that the two things are the same. If a workman has lost his employment through misconduct and then, in a fit of rage, as he walks down the street, breaks a plate-glass window, he very likely goes to prison, but he goes because he has broken the plate-glass window and we say that if he is disqualified, it is not because he has broken the window but because he lost his employment through misconduct. The two things are not the same. They may be the same and again they may not. If they are the same he is disqualified. If they are not the same he goes to prison for a different offence.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONIf he steals from a third party would not that bring him within the Clause?
§ Sir J. SIMONI think I can imagine a case. Supposing he steals from his employer, and the employer thereupon dismisses him. I conceive that he has lost his employment through misconduct. But suppose that his employer prosecutes him and he goes to prison. The reason he loses his benefit is not because he has gone to prison, but because he lost his employment through misconduct. The hon. Gentleman says, supposing he steals from a third party? The answer depends upon whether he loses his employment through misconduct. Certainly the mere fact that he stole from a third party—a thing which has nothing to do with his work—would not, in my judgment, submit him to any further penalty than the penalty of going to prison, serving his time, and getting no benefit until he comes out.
Mr. PEELIf he goes to prison for three weeks he scores, does he not? If he is guilty of misconduct and the employer does not prosecute, he loses his benefit for six weeks. On the other hand, if he is prosecuted and goes to prison for three weeks he gets his unemployment benefit for the fourth week, so it is better for him in some circumstances that he should go to prison. It seems a peculiar result.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BUXTONI beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "any" ["an inmate of any workhouse"] to insert the words "prison or."
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONIt seems to me that this is an Amendment of false sentiment. There is no reason for having made it.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI should like to ask the Solicitor-General where the disqualification in this Bill is which prevents a man from getting both sickness benefit and unemployment benefit at one and the same time?
§ Sir JOHN SIMONIt is in the Clause which we have just passed—Clause 62. The statutory conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit are, amongst other things, that he is capable of work.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. GOLDMANI beg to move, after the word "funds" ["out of public funds"] to insert the words "or is in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit under this Act, and whilst he is."
The object of my Amendment is to prevent a man, while unemployed, from receiving sickness benefit at the same time. It is quite conceivable that a workman, being unemployed, should fall sick and go to the insurance officers and claim his benefit. In that case there is nothing to prevent him getting both sickness benefit and unemployment benefit, and it is to prevent this that I suggest that, where a man is receiving sickness benefit, he shall not receive unemployment benefit, and where he is receiving unemployment benefit shall not receive sickness benefit.
Mr. BUXTONIt has already been pointed out to the hon. Member that, in order to obtain sickness benefit under Part I, the man in question must be unable to provide his own maintenance, and in order to obtain the benefit under Subsection (2) he must be capable of work. He cannot be both things at once and cannot get both benefits at once.
§ Mr. GOLDMANI am afraid I disagree with the Solicitor-General. It is quite conceivable to me that a man may lose his employment, and, being unemployed, may fall sick. Being an insured person he may claim sickness benefit, and, under the circumstances, while receiving unemployed benefit, he is simultaneously on the sick list and gets sickness benefit, and there is nothing in the Act to prevent such an occurrence.
§ Amendment negatived.
1748§ Mr. HORNERrose to move, in Sub-section (4), at the end, to leave out the words "the United Kingdom" and to insert instead thereof the words "Great Britain."
I have an Amendment to Clause 59 to exclude Ireland from the scope of the Bill, and all the Amendments in my name from and after that Clause are in the same terms—to leave out "the United Kingdom" and to insert "Great Britain."
§ The CHAIRMANI quite understand that. I called on the hon. Member in order that he might explain his position. His Amendment is consequential on an Amendment rejected by this Committee, and therefore I cannot accept it.
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.