CLAUSE 67.—(Regulations.)

HC Deb 24 November 1911 vol 31 cc1765-804

(1) The Board of Trade may make regulations for any of the purposes for which regulations may be made under this Part of this Act and the schedules therein referred to and for prescribing anything which under this Part of this Act or any such schedules is to be prescribed and—

1. (a) For prescribing what occupations are to be deemed employment in an insured trade for the purposes of this Part of this Act; and for excluding—
1. (i.) any occupations which are common to insured and uninsured trades alike, and are ancillary only to the purposes of an insured trade; and
2. (ii.) any occupations which are ancillary only to the trade carried on by the employer where that trade is not an insured trade; and
3. (iii.) any occupations in businesses which, though concerned with the making of parts or the preparation of materials for use in an insured trade, are mainly carried on as separate businesses or in conjunction with trades other than insured trades;
2. (b) as to the determination, on application being made for the purpose, of questions whether contributions under this Part of this Act are payable in respect of any workman or class of workman;
3. (c) for prescribing the evidence to be required as to the fulfilment of the conditions and qualifications for receiving or continuing to receive unemployment benefit, and for that purpose requiring the attendance of workmen at such offices or places and at such times as may be prescribed;
4. (d) for prescribing the manner in which claims for unemployment benefit may be made and the procedure to be followed on the consideration and examination of claims and questions to be considered and determined by 1766 the insurance officers, courts of referees, and umpires, and the mode in which any question may be raised as to the continuance, in the case of a workman in receipt of unemployment benefit, of such benefit,

and generally for carrying this part of this Act into effect, and any regulations so made shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.

(2) The regulations may, with the concurrence of the Postmaster-General, provide for enabling claimants of unemployment benefit to make their claims for unemployment benefit under this Act through the Post Office, and for the payment of unemployment benefit through the Post Office.

Sir EDWIN CORNWALL

I beg to propose in Sub-section (1) after the word "may" ["the Board of Trade may"] to insert the words "by Special Order made in accordance with the provisions of the 9th Schedule to this Act,"

This is an Amendment which provides that the Commissioners should have the same power to make regulations under this Clause as they have under the 9th Schedule, that matters of detail are matters proper for the Commissioners to deal with, but that matters of policy and principle dealt with under this Clause should be dealt with in the same way as all these regulations under Schedule 9. I think the Government would desire this course to be adopted, and I move this Amendment feeling confident that they will accept it.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton)

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, because, as the Committee may observe, it would apply to a large number of questions of procedure for which really the special order, which involves public notice and public inquiry, with considerable delay, would really be out of place. If the Committee take the various Amendments which I have put down, they will see that the Board of Trade, in consequence of representations made in reference to this Clause, have considerably curtailed the powers which we propose to take under this Clause. For instance, in reference to prescribing what trades should be included, and to a certain extent also what trades should be excluded, and in other ways, we have diminished the powers of which the Board of Trade propose to take, so that the matters which are left are really administrative matters, and are not matters, therefore, affecting the various trades in the same way as the Clause did in its original form. That diminishes very much the reason for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

Sir E. CORNWALL

Where are your Amendments?

Mr. BUXTON

They are all on the paper. The real pith of them is that paragraph (a) in the old Clause, prescribing what occupations are to be deemed employment, is practically cut out, and we only now retain power to exclude from occupations which are to be deemed employment for the purposes of this Act occupations which are common to several industries, and are ancillary to them. This is a considerable limitation of the existing proposal.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

Do you cut out (a) (i.), (ii.) and (iii.)?

Mr. BUXTON

(a) (i.) and (ii.) are taken out, but we leave (iii.). That, however, is a minor matter compared to the other. Also, as far as the Bill is concerned, there are three methods of proceeding. One is the special procedure order, detailed in the 9th Schedule, in which certain notice has to be given to the various parties concerned, an inquiry has to take place, and various proceedings have to be gone through before the order comes into force. That is applied to what we consider the proper purposes of the Act, namely, I think it is under Clause 76, where there are continual variations, and under Schedule 7, where the question of reducing the benefit below the prescribed rate is concerned. A special order also was going to be applied in the case of Clause 77, which is the Clause enabling the extension of the Act to other trades and industries. It has been represented to us that that might be somewhat strengthened as against the power of the Board of Trade to extend the Clause to trades, and to put down an Amendment in view of that which will come later on the paper, in consequence of representations made to me by those interested in the matter. In addition we have these regulations which will be made by the Board of Trade itself, and we do not think that in regard to the various matters to which it is applied, under Clause 67 and elsewhere—they being practically administrative matters—that it will be necessary to have the Special Order procedure. When we get the new Paragraph (c), where a decision has been given in regard to a particular case of employers and workmen as to whether they are in or out, that will be done by procedure of the Board of Trade; but, no doubt, the ultimate authority on all these questions in dispute would be the umpire. As regards (b) and (d) and (e) they are all matters really for administrative powers only. As regards (a), if the Committee felt that it was giving too great powers to the Board of Trade, without any check upon them, we should be prepared to consider whether that might come under some other procedure—some procedure, for instance, such as laying the Order on the Table of the House of Commons for a certain time, so that it might possibly be criticised, and, if necessary, revised. As regards (a) I am prepared to consider suggestions and references to that matter. The others I really think are questions purely of administration, and any additional procedure would, I believe, delay the matter so much as to greatly diminish the elasticity which is necessary in these matters, I hope, therefore, that the Committee will not insist on extending the special procedure or anything of that sort to those particular regulations. As regards (a) I am open to consideration, and as to procedure under Clause 77, I am proposing to strengthen it. As regards Special Procedure Orders, they apply to all the matters in which employers and workmen are interested.

Mr. HAMILTON BENN

I agree that the speech just made by the President of the Board of Trade does cut away some of the strong objections which I felt to this Clause, but it by no means meets the case in my opinion. The proceedings under this Bill allow of three courses—Order of the Board of Trade, Special Order, and Act of Parliament. There are some matters bound to be dealt with by Special Order which appear to me to come under Act of Parliament, and there are in this Clause matters that will certainly be the subject of a Special Order, and dealt with simply by Order of the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade referred to paragraph (a), and appeared to think that occupations which are to be deemed employment in an insured trade should be settled by pure Order of the Board of Trade. That is one of the most important matters, not only for the workmen who come under this Act, but also for the employers. It really strikes at the whole root of the working of this Act, and surely that is a matter in which there should be some other authority than the Board of Trade.

There should be some means of influencing the decision of the Board of Trade in regard to it. The Bill provides a very useful piece of machinery in the 9th Schedule, one point in regard to that being that at least twenty-one days are allowed for objections to be lodged by people who consider that their interests are hurt by the regulations proposed. That is not too short a time to allow classes of workmen, or classes of employers to put their views before the Order is laid upon the Table. I have a very great respect for the officials of the Board of Trade, and for all the other Government departments, but I do not think it is humanly possible for them to know everything about every trade, or about every class of employment, and at least time should be allowed to those who are engaged in them, and who feel they are hurt by this Bill, to make objections to the Board of Trade before the orders are made. I know that in this democratic age we are coming to a time when in England, everybody, from the cradle to the grave, is to be shepherded by an official, but I do not think we have arrived at the stage yet when the regulations under which we live should be made without our having an opportunity of objecting to them. That is the point of the Amendment down in my name, which provides that the regulations should be made by Special Order, giving us the opportunity to put in our objections, and then afterwards to have them laid on the Table.

The President of the Board of Trade referred to the regulations as being merely administrative regulations, but I do not thing he fully considered all the Clause. For instance, paragraph (c) prescribes the evidence to be required as to the fulfilment of the conditions and qualifications for receiving or continuing to receive unemployment benefit. That is one of the utmost importance for the workmen who come under this Bill. These regulations ought to be subject to the most careful consideration, not only by a Government Department, but by those who receive the benefit, and by those who have to pay. That will have a very far-reaching effect upon some trades. There is another aspect of the matter, which is that the Order of the Board of Trade can be issued at any time. Employers may be under contract and under certain regulations, and this new order may come out at any moment altering the regulations and putting the employers in a totally different position from what they were in at the time they undertook the contract. It applies in the same way to the workmen. I hope the Government will see their way to agree to this Amendment, and, if necessary, exclude certain matters which are purely administrative from the operation of the Clause.

Mr. HOLT

I think the speech of my right hon. Friend and the Amendments of which he has given notice go a considerable way towards meeting the very strong objections many of us entertained to this Clause. I understand that now we have not got in any shape or form to discuss Clause 77.

Mr. BUXTON

No, and indeed as I pointed out, I propose to strengthen it.

Mr. HOLT

I only wish to make that quite clear.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon)

It is out of it for this purpose.

Mr. HOLT

It is also clearly understood that my right hon. Friend will move the Amendment, of which he has given notice, in regard to paragraph (a). That I consider a very material matter, and it goes a long way towards meeting my objections to the Clause if the powers under paragraph (a) are reduced in the manner proposed. I would like to ask for one further concession. Will the President of the Board of Trade be willing to leave these regulations—I quite agree there may be circumstances in which the regulations are required to be made promptly, and one does not want unnecessarily to put people to the expense of procedure by Special Order—would my right hon. Friend be willing to agree that these regulations should first of all be publicly advertised before they are made in the "London Gazette" or other proper publication, and that the Board of Trade should give persons affected by the regulations an opportunity of raising objections and of being heard at the Board of Trade before these regulations finally come into force. Most of us engaged in trade feel very great confidence in the justice and fair-play of the Board of Trade. It is one of the Government Departments against which we do not make any complaint. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us an undertaking, or insert an Amendment in the Clause itself, that these regulations, before coming finally into force, should be advertised, and that the objector should have an opportunity of coming before the Board of Trade, I think we should be very much helped. I do not want to put difficulties in his way. I should not object to these regulations having force ad interim, in order to get on with business which is urgent. If that right hon. Gentleman sees his way to meet us on that point, I think that on the whole, subject to one or two small matters of detail, the interests of the large employers and of the large public authorities who are concerned in this matter will be considerably met.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

The President of the Board of Trade has lightened the objections to this Clause, but still there are three categories into which the regulations, prescriptions, and alterations may be said to fall. First, there is the ordinary regulation for carrying out the Act, which is a complement to the Clause, but does not alter or extend the Clause. As regards that class of regulations there should be some quite simple procedure, and I think that there we must trust the Board of Trade officials to carry that out.

The second category, at least, in my opinion, are such things as are included in Paragraph (a) (iii.) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 67. That is a very important Sub-section. I do not think that ought to be left to the Board of Trade without any consultation with the employers and workmen and without any objection being taken. I think the President of the Board of Trade will agree that something is necessary to meet the representation made by the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce, and that special consideration should be given to the proposal that some of the matters which are mentioned in the Clause shall be dealt with by general orders, while others shall be dealt with by special regulations. I think a number should be dealt with by special regulations, and that those matters should be taken out. There are other things in Clause 77, which I do not intend to discuss now, to make the category complete. Those other things dealt with in Clause 77, it seems to me, ought only to be dealt with by Parliament itself, and I believe in that way we should have a logical method of dealing with the various points likely to arise. I am not sure that the President of the Board of Trade did not indicate in his opening statement that the Board of Trade meant something of that sort. It was a little difficult to follow, because as the Amendment at present stands these matters are gathered together in one new Clause, and it is difficult to say how far he does intend to go. I think the Committee would have their labours lightened if the President of the Board of Trade would say exactly what the matters are he is prepared to put into Clause 77.

Sir J. SIMON

The speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down indicates, I think very justly, this important fact, that Clause 67, even if it be modified in the way the Government propose, will deal with regulations which do not all fall under quite the same category. I think that is a perfectly just observation, and it follows from that that there is much force in the contention that perhaps some of those regulations might be checked and supervised by one procedure, whereas others could probably be dealt with as being matters of mere detail. Certainly we could not do that which the Amendment proposes, because the Amendment before the Committee is an Amendment which would require every single regulation, of whatever category, and however minute, to be put through the extremely severe test which is set out in Schedule 9 of the Bill. The Committee will recognise that clearly if they look at the Schedule. They will see that the Board of Trade are to consider objections, and, if they think fit, hold a public inquiry. Then there is an elaborate procedure with which some of us lawyers are not unfamiliar in the very important departments of industrial legislation, which would certainly be inappropriate to some of the matters which have to be dealt with under Clause 67. So far, on reflection, the Committee I think will be agreed. May I indicate to the Committee what would be the effect of Clause 67, supposing the Government proposals are introduced into the Clause. I sympathise with the observation of the hon. Gentleman who thinks that it will be very difficult to follow until the thing is seen more or less as a whole. For the convenience of the Committee I will summarise Clause 67, as it would run, supposing the Amendments put down by the Government are accepted by the Committee. The result in substance will be this: The Clause will provide that the Board of Trade "may make regulations for any of the purposes for which the regulations may be made," and then there would follow this list: First you would have regulations excluding occupations which are to be deemed employment in an insured trade for the purposes of this Part of the Act, and any occupations which are common to insured and uninsured trades alike and are ancillary only to the purposes of any insured trade. So far, the Committee will see that is cutting down what is at present undoubtedly a very wide power, and I think meets the objections which are felt. Still continuing my first category under the Clause we find in the Bill, under the Roman numerals (iii.)—"any occupation in businesses which, though concerned with the making of parts or the preparation of materials for use in an insured trade, are mainly carried on as separate businesses," and so forth.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Is that excluded or included?

Sir J. SIMON

All these are governed by the words for exclusion.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I understand that those are to be subject to the Board of Trade regulations.

Sir J. SIMON

If the hon. Member will excuse me, I propose to continue my preliminary observations concerning the different categories. We propose to break them up, and then indicate what we propose to do. That is what I call the first category. The Committee will observe that so far we are dealing with the regulations which include the occupation as a whole. I mean it does not touch the individual workman, but it deals with his occupation. Now, on that part of the Amended Clause, as my right hon. Friend indicated, we should not be unwilling, if it be the desire of the Committee, to apply the Special Order procedure. It seems to us, so far as that is concerned, that we are dealing with a thing which is very important in itself. We are dealing with a thing which affects the branch of trade both of the employer and workman and the Special Order procedure is not inappropriate.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

That is all right.

Sir J. SIMON

So far the Committee will see that it is not unreasonable. May I return to the amended Clause in order to indicate the second category. The second category in the Clause would be for regulations in regard to workmen employed "under the same employer partly in an insured trade and partly not in an insured trade being treated with the consent of the employer as if they were wholly employed in an insured trade." That is to say, both are as though in a wholly insured trade. I am confident that the Committee will agree that the special order procedure could not be applied where it is essentially a matter of the individual, more particularly because what is done is with the assent of both parties concerned. That is one case. The third subdivision is also indicated in the new Clause—for giving the employers and workmen an opportunity of obtaining the decision by the umpire appointed under this part of this Act on any question where the contributions on this part of this Act are payable in respect of any workman or class of workman—and so forth. The object of that is to put both the employer and the workman in this position, that if he gets a decision, he knows where he stands. He is not going to be prosecuted for failing on the one hand, nor will he find afterwards that he has been paying to no purpose on the other hand. There again it appears that the special procedure should not apply. An hon. Gentleman, who spoke a little time ago, called attention to the next proviso in regard to regulations, "for prescribing the evidence to be required as to the fulfilment of the conditions and qualifications for receiving or continuing to receive unemployment benefits." That is in paragraph (c) of the Clause, but in the new classification, it would take a lower place. May I submit to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee, that on reflection they will see that the Special Order Procedure would be quite inappropriate to that. The object is really to avoid technicalities of law preventing the plain working of this Act of Parliament. If we do not have regulations prescribing the sort of evidence that will do, it may be said that you must have first-hand evidence on oath from the man, no hearsay, all documents produced, and that sort of thing.

In connection with Clause 62, what we desire is to make regulations which will show in what circumstances the statutory conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit will be satisfied. That Clause says that the workman has to prove that he has been employed in an insured trade and the like. This sort of evidence, of course, will be on documents that will be taken in the place of viva voce evidence, and under proper conditions inquiries could be made, and things of that sort. But surely we could not have an inquiry in which all the workmen of England may offer their respective opinions of the law and lawyers before deciding what the regulations are to be. Surely the Insurance Officers of the Department in this matter must decide, and it may be sometimes vary their decisions, under the regulations, as to how it should be done. For these reasons I suggest to the Committee that if the Government make the alterations they propose in the Clause, and if they apply those alterations to what I described as the first category, we shall really be meeting the objection—and there is great substance in the objection—taken by my hon. Friend and those who support him. On the other hand, I have shown to the Committee that to apply all and sundry regulations without distinction or classification would make confusion worse confounded.

Mr. BONAR LAW

This is a very important matter, and it is one which is especially raised by the Board of Trade, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the President of the department for the attention which he has given to the matter, and for his promptitude in supplying us with information which will be so useful. May I ask him, not in the way of pressing him, whether it is his intention and within his power to give us any further information?

Mr. BUXTON

I will state later.

Mr. BONAR LAW

Everyone has felt precisely the difficulty referred to by previous speakers. Nobody wants in any way to hamper the Board of Trade in regard to the matter. We wish them to have a free hand. On the other hand, nobody, I think, wishes to increase bureaucratic powers unnecessarily, to enable the rights of groups of individuals to be taken away without the express authority of Parliament. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down thinks that procedure by Special Order is too cumbrous for anything in the amended Clause except as regards the particular section to which he has referred. There are other matters which are too great to be left simply to be decided by the Board of Trade without any further consideration whatever, and, what I propose, and what I hope the Government would accept, is that they should adopt the plan followed in the Finance Bill, and simply allow these regulations to lie on the Table of the House of Commons for a certain length of time, and if there is no objection to them then they may come into force. I do not think that is making a great demand. I am sure I must say it would do away with a great deal of feeling among the employers, and I am satisfied that the Committee will think it a wise procedure to help the Government to get through the Bill in the most smooth and simple manner possible.

Mr. BUXTON

I hope the Committee will recognise, indeed the right hon. Gentleman has recognised, that it is not only our desire to give all the information we can, but also to give it with promptitude. In these matters Government Departments are sometimes supposed to be slow. The Board of Trade is never slow, but in this case they have shown special promptitude. As regards the question of further information may I make an appeal to the Committee. We have given information which, in a sense, is public property. That is to say, these communications were all published, or were in written correspondence and known to the public. But, as I have mentioned, in addition to that course we received a large number of deputations and communications of all characters. I put it to the Committee that it would be a very disastrous thing, I am sure, from the point of view of the public interests and from the point of view of the utility which the Board of Trade exercises, not only in regard to this particular Bill but to questions generally, if in any way at all it was thought that the free intercourse which at present takes place between all sorts and conditions of men and the Board of Trade was at all, in any sense, hampered. At present, every day the President and the Permanent Secretary and others spend most of their time in seeing people and talking fully and frankly in regard to all matters which are brought before them, and I am quite sure it would be a very serious matter if it was thought by those who come to see the Board of Trade that notes, in regard to their conversations or in regard to what passes on either side, would be likely to be called for or could be produced. It would be a very serious and disastrous state of things from the point of view of the public interest, so I ask members of the Committee not to press me to produce anything of that nature. We have produced really all I think I can produce with justice to those interested and in the public interest. It really covers all the points which practically were brought before us in regard to both sides. Of course, we had further discussion in reference to all these matters, and we were able to meet them in a large number of cases.

As regards the proposal of the hon. Member, my learned Friend has explained clearly how the matter stands and what we propose to do in regard to the first Section. I am sure, in this, I am voicing the views of every member of the Committee and of every Member of the House. I think it is one of the evils of our system of Amendments, which the clerks at the table will never allow us to improve upon, that you cannot, as I should like to have done in this case, leave out from so-and-so to so-and-so and "insert the following words." That is not supposed to be the rule at the table, and one has to cut it up into a lot of various paragraphs, which makes it difficult for Members to follow, but that is not the fault of the Member of the Government who has to put these things down. He, of course, would like to put it more clearly.

Mr. W. PEEL

Could not you circulate the print of the Clause as it appears as well?

Mr. BUXTON

It is not very easy to do unless it can appear on the paper generally. My learned Friend has dealt with paragraph (a) as it will be. We gave the matter great consideration, and before the Debate we had come to the conclusion that the Amendments down were right and proper, and that paragraph (a) should be taken out of the Clause and taken into Clause 77, and that Special Order procedure should be applied to it. As regards the other paragraphs, the hon. Member wants them but admits that they should be done by regulations, but that they should be brought under Procedure without which they would be laid for forty days on the table of the House of Commons. That is carrying out the Procedure under the Finance Act and substantially the Procedure laid down in the Labour Exchange Act. The proposal which we are making about that will enable the Board of Trade to introduce the regulations. They will not necessarily have to be hung up until the House of Commons may be meeting and the forty days have elapsed, but they will be able to put them into force, though it will always be in the power of the House of Commons, when it meets or afterwards, to repeal them. It is by no means an ineffective Procedure, because, at the beginning of this Session, there was a Home Office regulation which had been issued, and was in force, and there was also the Finance Act, so it is really a perfectly effective weapon. We must guard ourselves against a possible delay of even six months in making the regulations. Subject to that, I am prepared to accept the Amendment at the end of the Clause.

Mr. GOLDMAN

The President of the Board of Trade has, I agree, gone a long way to meet some of the objections which have been raised, but in dealing with paragraph (b) of the Amendment, although, indeed, it gives the employers and the workmen an opportunity of obtaining an authoritative decision, he does not convey in this Amendment who the authority is going to be who shall have the decision on this particular point. He gives us no indication whatever who is to be the authority who is to decide upon the question whether the contributions in this part of the Act are payable from all classes of workmen or employers. It is very necessary that we should have this explanation from the President of the Board of Trade, and if he agrees that the authority shall be the Board of Trade committee, so far as I am concerned, I think the control of that authority should not rest in the Board of Trade, but should be referred to a higher authority, and it is for that reason that I support my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) in suggesting that important questions as to the particular trades that come under the provisions of this Act should be referred to Parliament and laid before the House of Commons and dealt with by that authority.

Sir E. CORNWALL

The object I had in putting down this Amendment was to ascertain from the Government whether they were prepared to deal with this matter in a different way from what was in the Bill. As far as I am concerned, I am quite satisfied in the main with the attitude taken up by the Government, and I am very glad the Committee as a whole has agreed as to what we really want. We do not want to give unnecessary power to the Board of Trade, nor to handicap them in their work. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make that provision quite clear. It is difficult, of course, in Committee to follow the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to put into the Bill, but we shall have an opportunity when he moves his Amendment later, and as we are agreed at present, and I take it we shall have another opportunity on Report of getting the words right, I desire to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. BAIRD

Was I correct in understanding from the right hon. Gentleman that he was prepared to consider the Amendments appearing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Goldman) and myself to insert at the end of the Clause words to secure that these rules shall be laid on the Table of the House?

Mr. BUXTON

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BUXTON

I beg to move to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), and to insert instead thereof—

1. "(a) for excluding from the occupations which are to be deemed employment in an insured trade for the purposes of this Part of this Act any occupations which are common to insured and uninsured trades alike and are ancillary only to the purposes of an insured trade; and
2. "(b) for permitting workmen who are employed under the same employer partly in an insured trade and partly not in an insured trade being treated with the consent of the employer as if they were wholly employed in an insured trade.
3. "(c) for giving employers and workmen an opportunity of obtaining an authoritative decision on any question whether contributions under this Part of this Act are payable in respect of any workman or class of workmen, and for securing that a workman, in whose case contributions have been paid in accordance with any such decision, shall, as respects any unemployment benefit payable in respect of those contributions, be treated as a workman employed in an insured trade, and that employers and workmen are protected from proceedings and penalties in cases where, in accordance with any such decision, they have paid or refrained from paying contributions."

Mr. BUXTON

That will cut out the whole of (a) and (b), and the result will be that of course as regards (a), we shall have to consider it later on in the Bill with a view to putting it under a special order of procedure, and so to amend it.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

On a point of Order—I desire to ask, does that include the whole of the Amendments down in the right hon. Gentleman's name? Is he now moving the whole of the Amendments on page 96 of the Paper, in his name?

Mr. BUXTON

Yes, as printed on the Paper.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

The Board of Trade has power to make regulations in regard to procedure, and I want to know something about the cost. I want to know whether the employer or the workman, seeking "an authoritative decision," will be out of pocket for the cost. Of course, the President of the Board of Trade may say this is a matter for regulation, but I should like some assurances on the subject. It seems to me the decision ought to be without cost to the applicant.

Mr. BUXTON

The answer to that is this: That as regards all questions of official procedure, the umpire and so on, it will be at the cost of the State. If either side chooses to go to the expense of bringing in counsel they would have to bear their own cost to that extent, but they need not go to any expense, because all the expense of the procedure itself will be borne by the fund.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I want to make it quite clear that we are now dealing only with what we may call the unimportant Clauses, which are to be dealt with by regulations of the Board of Trade. When does the Government propose to deal with the important Clauses, and how does the Government propose to deal with them?

Mr. BUXTON

As new Clauses or under Clause 78?

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

On that understanding, and that they will be dealt with by Special Order or under Clause 78, I do not now press the point further. One other question, and that is with regard to that "authoritative decision." That point was not dealt with. The learned Solicitor-General took a note of it, but in the confusion it was not answered. "Authoritative decision" is rather a sloppy form of words, if I may say so. Whether it is to be by the Board of Trade or a court of law, or a court of summary jurisdiction is not quite clear?

Sir J. SIMON

I quite agree that the points mentioned are important points. As regards the first, what is proposed is that since what I had called the first category of regulation is now to be made by special order, it should be removed altogether to that part of the Bill that provides special orders in such cases. The result will be you will have regulations under Clause 67, and Special Orders under another Clause. That is the first point. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) and also the hon. Member for Falmouth, asked if the Government Amendment provides that regulations may be made for giving the employer and the workman an opportunity of obtaining an authoritative decision. They ask, and the question is a most pertinent one, "What is the authority?" We contemplate and should be prepared to put into the Bill that the decision should not be by the Board of Trade, and that it should not be by somebody who is in the Board of Trade, or anyone subordinary to the Board of Trade. On the other hand, it goes to my heart to say that it appears to us that probably this is a matter in which the employment of lawyers might be regarded as not to the public advantage. I recognise the prejudice, though I do not share it, or sympathise with it; and in these circumstances what appears to us to be the proper course would be to say that this new and independent functionary, the umpire, who will be in no way subordinate to the Board of Trade, but will be acting, not indeed as a judge in a court of law, but in other respects judicially, is the very best person to deal with the matter. What we should propose to do if the Committee so desired, with regard to the decision by the umpire, is to make it plain that the Board of Trade is not free to decide these questions itself.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

We were told at the last meeting of the Committee that there was only to be one umpire. Are you not putting upon him an amount of work which is too great? How on earth is he to hear all the appeals between the referees, and the insurance officers? Now he may have to give this "authoritative decision" under this new section prepared by the Board of Trade; is not the umpire going to be a lawyer?

Mr. J. WARD

I hope not.

Sir J. SIMON

He will be the best man, I am sure.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

Notwithstanding the self-denying ordinance of the Solicitor-General, it appears the umpire will be a lawyer after all. I do not object to that, but I raise the question now, and I think it is an important one, that if you decide to have only one umpire for all the purposes of this Bill, you are going to give him more to do than he can possibly do.

Mr. PETO

I have an Amendment down to create an authority, and in spite of what the Solicitor-General said I should like to move it.

The CHAIRMAN

That does not arise on the Motion to leave out those words.

Sir E. CORNWALL

It seems to me this is giving very large powers to the Board of Trade, and some difficulty will arise under Clause (b) with regard to the proper people employed under the same employer with the consent of all the parties. Suppose you do not get that consent. You are making regulations, and the Board are going to make regulations with a view to obtaining an authoritative decision. I am sure these questions are going to create a good deal of difficulty in the future, and members of Parliament will be brought to task about them. I do not want to do anything to prevent the Board of Trade getting on with these orders, but they should be under some obligation to make some report to Parliament, so that we may know what is being done in regard to the matter. It is all very well to pass this legislation giving these wide and sweeping powers to the Board of Trade, but Members of Parliament will be questioned very much upon these matters, and I should like the Committee to consider whether it should not be obligatory on the Board of Trade to make reports with regard to them.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

I should be the last to suggest that the Solicitor-General is insincere, but what he said in reality amounts to nothing because in any case lawyers will have to be brought in. Sitting as arbitrator for a friendly society I find that when a workman presents his own case it is always badly done, but that when he brings in a friend, whose profession is not specified but quickly guessed, things are presented in a better form in his interest. Therefore barristers or solicitors will inevitably appear and represent the different parties, and what I wanted to insure is that so far as possible there should be some—I will not say-contribution—but where there is a well-founded cause some of the costs should be paid by the State or out of the Insurance Fund as the case may be. I do not know whether I am in order in commenting on the looseness of the phraseology later on.

The CHAIRMAN

No, the question now is whether certain words are to be omitted. When the alternative words are proposed, the hon. Member would be in order.

Mr. BONAR LAW

As we are all agreed about leaving out certain words, I think we should do so.

Question, that the following words stand part of the Clause, put and negatived:—

1. (a) for prescribing what occupations are to be deemed employment in an insured trade for the purposes of this part of this Act; and for excluding—
1. (i.) any occupations which are common to insured and uninsured trades alike, and are ancillary only to the purposes of an insured trade; and
2. (ii.) any occupations which are ancillary only to the trade carried on by the employer where that trade is not an insured trade; and
3. (iii.) any occupations in businesses which, though concerned with the making of parts or the preparation of materials for use in an insured trade, are mainly carried on as separate businesses or in conjunction with trades other than insured trades;
2. (b) as to the determination, on application being made for the purpose, of questions whether contributions under this part of this Act are payable in respect of any workman or class of workmen."

Question proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted."

Mr. PETO

I beg to move in paragraph (c) of the proposed Amendment to leave out the word "authoritative."

I understood from the Solicitor-General that he is proposing to insert the word "umpire," and I think the word "authoritative" is practically without meaning.

Mr. HOLT

Is it in order to proceed to discuss the second part of this Amendment until we have definitely adopted the first part of the Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN

I understand that the hon. Member for Devizes is proposing to leave out the word "authoritative."

Mr. BUXTON

I accept the Amendment.

Mr. BARNES

Do I understand that the Government is accepting the Amendment?

Mr. BUXTON

Yes.

Mr. BARNES

I should like to know some reason why. I think the proposed Amendment is far better with the word in. Why I say that is because it seems to me that with the word "authoritative" the decision would carry finality with it. In the absence of the word it seems to me that there is a loophole for bringing in the Law Courts and judges. I do not want the Law Courts or the judges brought in in connection with this matter. I would just as soon trust the Board of Trade, and sooner trust the Board of Trade than a judge. Therefore, I would like this word retained.

Mr. BUXTON

Perhaps my hon. Friend has not observed the last word. Practically this will be a final decision whether given by the umpire or any alternative, and the word "authoritative" is really unnecessary. The decision being that of the umpire, whoever he may be, will be an authoritative decision, and there will be no appeal from it.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. WARD

I should like to move to insert the words "by the Board."

The CHAIRMAN

There is a prior Amendment.

Sir J. SIMON

I beg to move in paragraph (c) of the proposed Amendment after the word "decision" ["with any such de-decision, shall"] to insert the words "by the umpire appointed under this part of the Act." I think my proposal will very likely satisfy my hon. Friend. It will, on the one hand, exclude the Law Courts and litigation, and, on the other hand, it will prevent the matter being a merely Departmental matter with the Board of Trade. It appeared to us that this would probably secure the object which different Members had in view.

Mr. BALDWIN

Would the hon. Gentleman be willing to put into the Clause words giving expression to what he said just now, that the umpire should not be anyone permanently employed in the Government service?

Sir J. SIMON

There may have been a little misunderstanding. I do not know whether the umpire will have any other work to do but the work of umpiring.

Mr. BALDWIN

Why suggest it?

Sir J. SIMON

I do not wish to be understood as saying that the umpire was meant to be appointed by an outside authority. What I meant was that it would not be any subordinate of the Board of Trade. That is the point. The umpire and his status have really been dealt with in an earlier Clause of the Bill by which we have determined that the umpire shall be appointed. It was there, I conceive, that that sort of question would arise. I do not wish to be understood as saying that the umpire would be brought in casually from other occupations.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

I suppose the umpire is sure to be what is known as a gentleman of the Long Robe. It is to be a quasi-judicial appointment.

Sir J. SIMON

Certainly.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I had intended to propose an Amendment, but I will content myself by saying a word on the Government Amendment. I desire to protest against the remarks that have been made against the judges. I think it would have been very much better to have maintained the old system. I am not ashamed of the legal profession myself. The old system has been maintained in Acts of Parliament in this country for years and years. Why not refer the decision of this point to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The Amendment I intended to propose was that instead of an umpire, we should adopt the old system of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. That system is easily accessible, and, moreover, there is a very good reason in the Bill why such a court should give the decision, because under Clause 75 the employer or the workman who has failed to carry out these regulations is subject to a fine in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Thus you are going to set up two courts to do what one could do. You are going to have the regulations interpreted by the umpire, and to take that to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and ask the court to fine the man for not complying with the umpire's decision. I do suggest that Courts of Summary Jurisdiction have held the balance perfectly fairly in times past between employers and workmen on all kinds of Acts of Parliament. All this could have been entrusted to them, and it would have been very much better in the interests of justice and of quickness, certainly of quickness, because you would get the decision much more rapidly from those Courts than by going to the Board of Trade and having the matter referred to an arbitrator, who might perhaps be blocked up for months with decisions waiting for him, whereas you could take the point to the nearest police magistrate and get a decision in a week. The same magistrate would apply Clause 75, and fine either the employer or the workman for disregarding his own decision. I do not want to move hostilely, but I should like the Government to reconsider this point between now and Report.

Mr. J. WARD

I certainly am against the umpire being placed as the arbitrator and the decider of this part of the proceedings of the Bill. I think it would have been much better for the Board of Trade to have insisted on maintaining this part of the business, which is quite a minor part. I suppose this will deal largely with individual cases under the Orders that will be provided under Clause 77. Where classes of workmen are involved proper Orders will have to be made, and proper inquiries will have to be held, so that almost the whole of the cases which will come under this Clause we are now dealing with will be cases of individual workmen or of individual employers, as the case may be. I feel certain, so far as individual workmen are concerned, that you will rarely have complaints from them relating to this particular point. We are really setting up machinery before which, as a rule, the complaints of employers will be heard. In addition to that, it will be a class of case with which lawyers are really not competent to deal. It is not a question of law at all. It is the question whether a certain man works sufficiently in a trade. That is really a practical proposition. The legal mind is just about the sort of mind that ought never to be allowed to decide such a matter. If the umpire is a lawyer, that will be a greater reason why the Board of Trade should have the decision of a matter of this description. If an umpire is appointed, it almost necessarily supposes that you will have to present a case to him and employ all the legal paraphernalia for the purpose of presenting that case. On that understanding there is a moral certainty that the individual workman will always be at a serious disadvantage. I would much prefer that the officials of the Board of Trade, who are always dealing with these particular matters and have an immense amount of information at their disposal for deciding as to whether a man ought to be included within this Section or not, should be the body to decide. It will be an umpire before whom legal gentleman will possibly appear to confuse the whole issue, and if the results of similar decisions in the past are to be taken as any criterion relating to this part of our proceedings the workmen will always come off second best.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. BALDWIN

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words—

"Provided that any regulations shall provide that the umpire or other person to whom a decision is remitted under the paragraph may at any stage of the proceedings, and shall, if so directed by a judge of the High Court, which direction may be given on the application of the employer or of any workman concerned, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court any question of law arising in the course of the inquiry."

I should like, in moving this Amendment, to express the obligation that all we who are interested in industry feel to the President of the Board of Trade for the way in which he has met several of the points that have been under discussion this morning. As far as I am able to speak for the industry with which I am connected, I think the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has met us on the question of the Special Order constitutes a very valuable concession, that will be of service to all who are interested under this Act. With regard to the Amendment, it was said a good many years ago by a very distinguished servant of the Board of Education, that what the English people were most in need of was sweetness and light, and that although no one who takes part in politics can ever hope to achieve sweetness in life, he may yet strive towards the light. We people in business want as much light as possible thrown on the proceedings of Government Departments when they interfere with British industry. It was to secure more light that we supported the procedure of the Special Order, and the President of the Board of Trade has given us more light. That is the reason why I am appealing for more light still. I quite appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward), and had this Clause applied only to individual workmen I think there would have been a good deal in what he said. But it does not only apply to individual workmen; it applies to classes of workmen, and it seems to me that a real danger may arise.

We must all remember that the Insurance Bill will throw a considerable extra burden on British industry as a whole, and this second part of the Bill will throw an additional burden beyond what is thrown on the industry by the first part. It is spread over all classes, masters and men, but it is a charge on the productive power of the country. Therefore, those of us who are primarily concerned in the conduct of industry and know the difficulties we have to face in meeting world-wide competition, want to be protected in every way possible against decisions that may be given, more or less in the dark, by Government officials, that may bring whole sections of men within the province of the Act, and impose un-expectedly upon us, and upon them, and through us and them on the industry as a whole, increased charges which may make all the difference in some industries between carrying on at a profit and carrying on at a loss. It is for that reason that we feel we want some further protection beyond what was called "the authoritative decision" of a highly competent man, no doubt, but one who still is practically a Government official. When a subject can be brought before a Court of Law you get the utmost amount of publicity, and it is publicity that we want. We invite it; we want as much as we can have; we want the people in the country to know exactly what charges are being put on our industry, how they are being put on, and why they are being put on. I think that is the whole essence of my case. I am sure that any hon. Members who are concerned directly in industry will feel that, at any rate, there is a good deal to be said for what I have proposed.

Sir J. SIMON

Certainly none of us will complain of the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has made this suggestion, and we realise that in making it he has the desire, as all the Committee desire, to secure the smooth and fair working of this Part of the Act. The question is whether it really is a desirable thing after you have selected the ultimate tribunal to go on and say that either party concerned may demand, and if he is refused, that he may appeal to the court to support his demand, and that there shall be a statement of the facts of the case in order that the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice may pronounce upon matters of law which appear to arise on the case. Though I have not the slightest intention or desire to speak otherwise than with the greatest respect of the part which the bench plays in solving difficulties that arise in connection with Acts of Parliament, I confess that I think it a very doubtful thing myself whether in the circumstances of the case this is desirable. For one thing I very much question whether the matters which are likely to cause difficulty will be matters of law, and, of course, the Committee realise that it is only on matters of law that the Court can decide if a special case is stated. It has probably happened in the experience of many who are not lawyers that when a case has been stated for the decision of the Courts the Courts have ultimately discovered that there is really no question of law involved, but really a question of fact, and the ultimate effect is that the appeal has been wasted, and probably the very question affected may be left in an unsatisfactory condition. On the other hand, if you say to your tribunal, which in this case is the umpire, "You have cast upon you the responsibility of final decision, you are to make a decision which is not unlikely hereafter to affect others than those immediately before you," and if you choose the right qualities in your tribunal, and put him in the right position in relation to his work, I suggest that it is better to leave it at that.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. John Ward) just now pointed out that the case of the individual workman was perhaps not always suited for the whole paraphernalia of the final tribunal. May I explain that what is in the mind of the Government in suggesting the umpire is this? The umpire would be a man of independent position, who would be in no way the servant of the Board of Trade, and who would have all the independence properly associated with a judicial office. On the other hand, I hope he would, by the very fact that he had nothing to do but this work, be more suited to deal with the technical difficulties of the work than a lawyer dealing with one thing to-day and another to-morrow is likely to be. His position, as we conceive it, would be a position of authority and independence, which would enable him to become used to the work, and to deal with it as satisfactorily as you could expect a tribunal of three judges to do it.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

He will be a new judge.

Sir J. SIMON

He will be a new judge with this difference. He will be a judge who will do nothing else but this, and in that respect he would be in a position not unlike that of the Comptroller of Patents, who discharges most important duties to the industrial community, and in all cases without appeal to the law courts, not only personally, but with the assistance of a certain amount of staff. That is our view, and therefore, I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I have some difficulty in saying that I do not agree in the main with what the hon. Gentleman has said. In his interesting speech he showed us that he has a great appreciation of the gentlemen of the long robe, but, as far as I can gather, it does not go to quite the same extent as that of those who wish an appeal to the Bench, and in my opinion this Amendment does undoubtedly decrease the evil which was complained of by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke. There is another point to which I would call the attention of the hon. Gentleman. He is proposing to leave these things to the officials of the Board of Trade, but you cannot get rid of lawyers so easily as that. There is a Solicitor's Department in the Board of Trade, and how is he to know that they will not decide it?—and they will be as much lawyers as anybody else. [An HON. MEMBER: "Lawyers seem to be everywhere."] There is some point in my hon. Friend's Amendment. His case is that nothing can be more important under this Bill than that a large class of employers who think they are not in the Bill should not be put into the Bill unless there is an authority to which they can appeal. I quite agree with every word the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that that case is just as likely to be decided properly by an umpire as anybody else provided he is what he says he means him to be, an independent person and in the position of a judge. That is our whole case, but there is nothing in the Bill to show that he will be in that position. I am sure my hon. Friend would not press his Amendment, and I should be content, if the President of the Board of Trade were to tell us now that the umpire's position will be defined, and that we shall see he is completely independent and not merely an official under the authority of the Board of Trade.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I really want to say a word or two with regard to the Solicitor-General's speech, because I feel myself that he did not make as good a defence as my hon. Friend seemed to think he had done, but that he was exceedingly uncomfortable while he was speaking. The logical conclusion of it, as it seemed to me, was that he proved that there was no possible need for any court of appeal at all. He said, if you take the umpire and select him with care, he is just as likely to give a good decision as anybody else.

Sir J. SIMON

I said so in view of the circumstances that the questions he will have to deal with will be largely questions of fact, and that habit and experience will make those questions familiar to him.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Then the learned Gentleman went on to quote as an example the Comptroller of Patents, but he did not tell the Committee that the Comptroller is subject to an appeal on very technical points to the Attorney General—not perhaps to the Solicitor-General—who has not the technical knowledge that the Comptroller of Patents has. That has been done by the wisdom of Parliament because Parliament thought that it was wrong to put so important a matter as the whole of the Patent legislation of our country into the hands of one man to decide, however much he may devote the whole of his time to it, as the umpire would do in this case. What is asked for is not for an appeal on matters of fact. The Solicitor-General said that it was not necessary to have an appeal because there would be very few points of law on which an appeal could take place. I agree, but there is no reason why, if there are any points of law on which the umpire has gone wrong, there should not be an appeal. Many of our judges confine themselves to particular branches of law. Take, for instance, the Judge of the Divorce Court, who, year after year, sits deciding certain points connected with that law, and is an expert in it, but if he goes wrong there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal. All our legislation and judicature is based upon the principle that the human mind is liable to err, and the human mind in the case of this umpire is just as likely to err as in the case of any magistrate or judge or comptroller throughout the world. Are the Government going to say that they intend to appoint this man to deal with the whole rights not merely of employers, but of workmen? The hon. Member for Stoke told us that no workman is likely to go to law, and I agree with him, but he knows perfectly well that the workman has behind him all the power of the trade union, and no one would be quicker to try and get a decision which they thought was wrong reversed than the trade unions. I remember several cases decided in the courts of law where the trade unions have come off not second best but first best, and I do venture to suggest to the learned Solicitor-General that he is raising a very new proposition of legislation here if he says that a big official is to be appointed in this matter to decide questions of law and fact, and that there is to be no means whatever of putting him right if he goes flagrantly wrong on a point of law. That is all that the Amendment of my hon. Friend asks—that if a prima facie is made out to show that the umpire has made a mistake he shall be ordered to state a case for the decision of the Court of Appeal. Surely that is not asking too much, and in the interests both of employers and workmen I suggest it is right that there should be such a power of appeal.

Mr. BUXTON

I think what the hon. Gentlemen opposite really want is some undertaking that the umpire appointed under this Act shall be an independent person, and not under the influence of the Board of Trade or any other Department. We certainly intend that the umpire, once appointed, shall in all these matters be entirely independent—that is to say, that there can be no possible influence brought to bear upon him. That is a thing that we have considered before, and it is not an easy thing to put into words to make it quite clear. For instance, the appointment might be by the Crown instead of by the Board of Trade, or in some way to make it clear on the face of the Bill that it was intended that this officer should be an independent officer. At all events, that is our intention, and if the Committee will allow me between now and Report to consider whether we can put in some words to that effect—there is no difference really between us—we will endeavour to meet the desires of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment.

Sir F. LOWE

I think we really want a guarantee that the umpire in a case of this kind, having to decide questions of this sort, should be something more than an independent person. I think every member of the Committee will admit that this is a most complicated Bill.

Sir J. SIMON

No, it is quite a simple one.

Sir F. LOWE

If it becomes an Act of Parliament it will certainly he one of the most difficult Acts of Parliament that any judge has ever had to construe, and I think we want some guarantee that the umpire who will have to decide these complicated questions under this Act shall be a person who is accustomed to construe Acts of Parliament. We have not even a guarantee that he will be a lawyer who has had any training at all in the construction of Acts of Parliament, and I take it that my hon. Friend's Amendment simply means that there shall be an appeal from the umpire on questions of law. I quite agree with the Solicitor-General that most of the questions the umpire will have to decide will be questions of fact, but there certainly might arise some complicated question such as, for example, whether a particular employer came within the four corners of this Act, and on a question of that kind it would, in my opinion, be very useful and desirable that there should be such a power of appeal as is suggested by my hon. Friend's Amendment. I hope the President of the Board of Trade and the Solicitor-General will take this into their careful consideration, and bear in mind that it is simply on a question of law, and not on a question of fact, that we are asking for an appeal. I think they might very reasonably do something to meet it.

Mr. J. WARD

I hope, considering the way in which the Bill has been treated so far, that the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment. I quite agree that if this Clause suggested bring in any large classes of people under the Bill, that then, at once, it would open up such questions, and that this investigation and inquiry would be absolutely necessary. We might then really have to go to the High Court, and almost to the House of Lords, to decide whether an individual workman, just on the margin, it may be, of some particular trade where it is well known that in the ordinary course of events the employer ought to pay—that if there is some doubt about some special work ancillary to the ordinary occupation—whether the employer or the workman ought to pay. That cases of that description, which are now confined practically to the subject of our discussion, should be given the right, if necessary, to go to the House of Lords, seems to me an unnecessary proposition. Having made the arrangements which the Government have made, I think the whole case has been met, and that there can be no hardship in allowing these cases to be decided in the way suggested.

Mr. HOLT

I must say that if the Clause referred only to what my hon. Friend has just said, I should be inclined to agree with him; but surely, under this provision, it would be quite possible for a thoroughly wrong-headed man to exercise the powers given under Clause 77. There is absolutely no limit to what may be decided under this Clause. He may decide what class the workman is to be included in under the Act. A man sufficiently determined to go wrong can, under those circumstances extend or drag the Act to an almost unlimited extent. That is clearly possible under the words of this Clause. I do think in some form or other, we should have such protection as will prevent a wrong-headed man—if a man be irremovable and independent, there is always a chance of his being wrong-headed, that, and we do not find that making a man irremovable prevents him from being wrong-headed—some protection against something like a whole class of workmen being swept out of the Act without any appeal whatever beyond this particular umpire.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

It seems to me that this difficulty might be avoided if the President of the Board of Trade would tell us the name of the gentleman whom it is proposed shall be umpire; and whether he is a Member of this House, or a Member of the Government?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

Division No. 3.]	AYES.
Baird, Mr.	Goldman, Mr.	Lawson, Mr.
Baldwin, Mr.	Harris, Mr.	Lowe, Sir Francis
Barrie, Mr. Hugh	Hoare, Mr.	Peel, Mr.
Benn, Mr. Hamilton	Holt, Mr.	Peto, Mr.
Bigland, Mr.	Ingleby, Mr.	Rutherford, Mr. John
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-	Joynson-Hicks, Mr.	Thomson, Mr. Mitchell-
Cassel, Mr.	Law, Mr. Bonar	Worthington-Evans, Mr.

NOES.
Barnes, Mr.	Hackett, Mr.	Nuttall, Mr.
Brady, Mr.	Harmsworth, Mr. Cecil	Primrose, Mr.
Buxton, Mr. Sydney	Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund	Robertson, Mr. John
Cornwall, Sir Edwin	Jones, Mr. William	Scanlan, Mr.
Cowan, Mr.	Joyce, Mr.	Solicitor-General, Mr.
Denman, Mr.	Loach, Mr.	Ward, Mr. John
Ferens, Mr.	Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay	Wilson, Mr. Tyson
France, Mr.	Mond, Sir Alfred	Wood, Mr. M'Kinnon
Goldstone, Mr.	Nugent, Sir Walter

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (c) leave out the word "prescribed" ["as may be prescribed"] and insert instead thereof the word "required."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]

Mr. PETO

I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to add to paragraph (c) the words, "but in no case shall such regulations compel any workman, as a condition of receiving unemployment benefit, to register at and seek employment through a Labour Exchange when he can show that he is bonâ fide seeking employment through channels by which he has a reasonable expectation of obtaining employment in his own trade at the rate of wages current in his own locality."

I raise the question involved in this Amendment not with the slightest hostility to the working of the Labour Exchanges, but in order to raise this question: There is no doubt that in the five scheduled trades in this part of the Bill the people concerned are very largely, in fact, almost entirely, of the highest class of mechanics—joiners, engineers, fitters, and so forth. They are not the people for whom the Labour Exchanges were specially designed, or the people, who, in a great majority of cases, either in the past or the present, have to find their new employment, if unfortunately they should happen to be out of work, through the Labour Exchanges. I think it would be very unfortunate if this new Act, when it becomes an Act, were made the vehicle for changing the existing means by which men have always been in the habit of finding employment. The best workmen in all these five scheduled trades are perfectly well known. They know perfectly well

The Committee divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 26.

through the trade union and in other ways where to find employment when out of employment. I think it would be very hard if the officials had the power to say that a man is not entitled to receive unemployment pay unless he has attended at a Labour Exchange or sought to get further employment through a Labour Exchange. If he can show, as he would in many cases be able to show, that he had been constantly in employment, and had aways been in the habit, on the rare occasions when he had had to seek further employment, of finding it through the ordinary channels that had been open to him long before Labour Exchanges were instituted, and that he was, in the words of my Amendment, "seeking employment bonâ fide through channels by which he has a reasonable expectation of obtaining employment in his own trade at the rate of wages current in his own locality," that should do.

Therefore, I think, as there is probably no intention of trying to get an entirely fresh class of clients for the Labour Exchanges, that there is no possible harm, but a great deal of good, in making provision that no regulation should be made which positively compels men to seek employment through any such channel, and to compel him to attend at the Labour Exchange, where the vast majority of people who are seeking employment are a totally different class of workmen altogether to those who are his mates in his own trade. I do not wish to put the thing any higher than that; it is purely a negative. I am not asking to put anything into this Bill to enforce any special form or regulation, but that merely in no case shall any regulation made compel a workman on condition of receiving unemployment benefit, to do something or the other which, in the ordinary course, he would never think of doing if it were not for that regulation. I would only like to add, I am quite sure it will be the experience of every hon. Member of this Committee who has had anything to do with workmen—and that includes the vast majority—that the people of the class for whom I speak are perfectly able to find new employment when out without the assistance of the Labour Exchanges; therefore, it would be undesirable and unnecessary to make it an absolute rule that a man should attend there and should be compelled to find his employment through the Labour Exchanges.

Mr. BARNES

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "exchange."

2.0 P.M.

I move this Amendment for the purpose of discussion and in order to get some statement which I trust will be satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peto) will probably be aware that the last part of his Amendment is impossible in any case because we have already dealt with that point and we struck out reference to current rates of wages and put in other words which we think are more satisfactory. Therefore that part of the Amendment is disposed of. But the first portion lays down a principle which is at least worth discussing, that the Board of Trade shall not make it a condition of a man getting unemployment benefit that he should sign at a Labour Exchange. That is a proposal of some importance to us, having in view the fact that a good many men will be covered by this part of the Bill who are members of trade unions, but as the Bill is at present constructed it does not mean all trade unions that come under Clauses 79 or 80. There will be a good many builders' labourers and men like that belonging to unions that do not pay unemployed benefits, many of them being too poor. We want to maintain the rights of those men somehow or other to work in conjunction with their own trade unions. Take a man who may belong to a building union and he comes out of work and is entitled to unemployed benefits under this Bill.

As at present drawn the Bill makes no provision for that man's union administering this benefit; it must be done through the Board of Trade. The man may live close to a place where his union has a meeting house or a place where he may register himself as out of work in accordance with the provisions laid down by his union. On the other hand the Labour Exchange might be three or four miles away from his home. We do not want the Bill, and we do not want any regulations of the Board of Trade to require that poor man in addition to making his union acquainted with the fact that he is out of work to register himself in accordance with their requirements as being able and willing to take work that they may find for him. We do not want, in addition to that, to enforce upon the man an obligation to walk three or four miles to a Labour Exchange. That would be a great hardship upon the man, and there is no need to impose that hardship, because we think that the Board of Trade might make an arrangement with the man's union to avoid this. The union might meet at the Labour Exchange, and in that event the man would sign there. We certainly think that this should not be made a condition, and that is why I am moving to strike out these words, which cover ground already covered, although I am willing to leave in the words down to the word "exchange."

Sir J. SIMON

I think I can say something which will deal both with the original Amendment and with the Amendment to the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow has suggested. I rather apprehend that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peto) and my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Barnes) have made the Motions which they have rather for the purpose of ventilating what is an important part of the Act. I may point out at once that if we were to accept these proposals—I do not make any complaint of their having been put forward—the consequences upon the Bill would be of the most serious character, because these proposals are disabling Amendments. They are not Amendments which say that it shall not necessarily and always be the case that the workmen must go to the Labour Exchange, but they are Amendments which say in effect that he shall never in any circumstances be required by regulation to go to the Labour Exchange. We cannot work the Bill with such an Amendment. I have not now in mind the class of workmen referred to by the hon. Member, but I would ask the Committee to consider how could you work a Bill which gives unemployment benefits not only to organised labour and skilled labour, but gives it to the unskilled and out of work, who have none of the esprit de corps of a trade union and none of the checks which organised labour gives. How could you work the Bill if you had not the power to require attendance at the Labour Exchange? The Amendment as it stands could not be accepted except at the expense of destroying this part of the Act.

The questions which the hon. Member opposite puts are none the less relevant and reasonable. It is not the intention of those who are considering how this Act should be worked for the Board of Trade to lay down in their regulations in all circumstances that there must be without any exception such attendance. I can imagine cases where it would not be necessary. What we could not contemplate is laying down on the face of the Bill that no regulation ever in any circumstances is to be required; but what is normally contemplated is that when the workman is out of work, and when he leaves his employment his employer gives him the card or book which the employer has been stamping during the currency of the job. The first necessity, of course, is that the man who is out of work with that card or book—which is his voucher to show he is entitled to come on the Fund—should present himself to the insurance officer and register as a person who claims to come on the Fund. It is a necessary part of the machinery that the insurance officer should be found at the Labour Exchange, and that is not unreasonable considering that one of the conditions which must be satisfied if the claimant is to get his weekly money is that he should not refuse an offer of work satisfying certain conditions. It is quite impossible for us to accept the restrictive covenant that there never shall be a regulation which requires a man to attend at a Labour Exchange. The qualification which has been suggested would hardly be suitable in the present circumstances. I am authorised on behalf of the Government to say that we contemplate the possibility of cases where this constant attendance would not be necessary, and we are very glad to have the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Gentleman behind me showing that in drawing up regulations we must be careful, while securing good administration, to see that we do not impose any hardship on the people where it is not necessary. I hope in view of this explanation my hon. Friends will feel that they may be able to withdraw this Amendment, because I am confident their proposal could not be put upon the face of the Bill without damaging considerably its structure.

Mr. PETO

In view of what has been said by the Solicitor-General. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I was going to ask the hon. Member to withdraw his proposal, because it would diminish the prospects of those who otherwise would legitimately come on the funds.

Mr. BARNES

Would it be possible for the Board of Trade, under the circumstances I have described, to make arrangements with a trade union to report a man providing he complied with their regulations, and signed at the meeting house?

Mr. BONAR LAW

May I say that I think this proposal would be hampering the Board of Trade in a very unnecessary way. The whole case has been put so clearly by the Solicitor-General that there is nothing more to say except that obviously, however high a man may be in this labour scale, and however far he may differ from those who generally go to Labour Exchanges, he would come on this fund unless he is in dire necessity, and under such circumstances no one has the right to give him money unless he has taken every opportunity of taking the kind of situation provided for him under the Bill. Unless Labour Exchanges are to be a farce altogether—I may say that I voted for them, and should like to see them extended—I do not see why they should not be used for workmen of all classes, as in Germany, and it would be a misfortune if anything were done to make it obligatory on the part of the Board of Trade to throw any restriction on the further development of Labour Exchanges.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

If the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman were adopted it would be putting a degrading status on those who had to go directly to the Labour Exchange and a slur on their character. They would be looked upon as inferior to those who reported to their trade unions. I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to cast such a slur upon them.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. GOLDMAN rose to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words, "Provided always that all such regulations shall lie upon the Table of the House of Commons, after due notice given, for two calendar months while Parliament is sitting, before such regulations come into force."

The object of my Amendment is to provide that certain regulations should lie on the Table of the House of Commons before they receive the force of law.

Mr. BUXTON

My Amendment covers that.

Mr. GOLDMAN

I understand the principle of my Amendment is contained in an Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade, and I do not therefore move.

Mr. BARNES

I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words, "In such regulations provision shall be made for giving effect to The Friendly Societies Act, 1896, Section 97 (1), in respect of payment of fee by an insured person to a registrar of births or deaths."

We have got on fairly well so far without reference to other Acts, and I make this reference leaving the Government, if they accept, the principle of the thing, to put it in order. It deals with a matter of considerable importance to trade unionists and a large number of people who come under this Bill. The section to which reference is made makes provision whereby members of friendly societies can get a copy of the registration of birth or death for 1s., whereas the ordinary fee, I think, is 3s. 7d. I know the rank and file of trade unionism very often complain of having to pay 3s. 7d., while their more fortunate brethren of the friendly societies get these things for 1s. My Amendment provides that this particular section which confers that privilege upon members of friendly societies shall for all purposes come under this Act. We are bringing a great many poor people in, to whom the difference between 3s. 7d. and 1s. is a very great consideration.

Sir J. SIMON

My hon. Friend may rest assured that the object he has in view is one with which the Government sympathise, and it seems to us it is an object which may very well be secured. I do not think it can be done by adding this as a subject matter for regulation, because you cannot very well by a subordinate regulation practically say another Act of Parliament shall extend to a completely new subject matter. That would be really reversing the position of regulations in Acts of Parliament. We can, however, do it in some other form, and, if my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment, we will consult those who guide us in these technical matters and see we put it in what is considered the best shape.

Mr. BARNES

Might I suggest that Clause 74 would be a more profitable place?

Mr. BUXTON

Or a new clause, one or the other.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BUXTON

I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (2) to add the following new Sub-section:— (3) All regulations made under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and, if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within forty days on which that House has sat next after such regulation is laid before it praying the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may, if he sees fit, annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of any new regulation. This, I think, meets the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goldman). I have already explained to the Committee, in reference to these other Sub-sections, that it will be necessary these regulations should be laid before both Houses of Parliament for forty days, but I explained, and I think it was clearly understood, that would not necessarily delay the issue or the getting into practical working shape of the regulations. It might so happen regulations were necessary at once, and the House might not be sitting for another six months. If the House of Commons in any way desired to vary or cancel the regulations, they would cease to be in force, but anything done under them would be valid, and they would not be invalidated in consequence.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

Apparently these regulations are to lay on the Table of both Houses for forty days. An Address may be carried in the House of Commons praying that a regulation should not be carried out, and then His Majesty may, if he thinks fit.… That apparently gives a discretion to the Government still to persist in the regulation even although an address has been carried in the House of Commons praying it may be annulled. Surely, if either House of Parliament decides against a regulation, that should be absolute upon the Government. Perhaps the Solicitor General can satisfy me, but it seems to me it still gives a discretion to the Government, which I do not think ought to exist.

Sir J. SIMON

This is the provision which has been used hitherto. We have exactly this provision in Section 93 of the Finance Act 1909–10, and it is also used in other places. We have only followed the usual course of events. After all, if a majority in the House of Commons decides one of these regulations is to be cancelled, and if the Government of the day none the less resists, well, the majority in the House of Commons has its remedy. It might conceivably, however, for one reason or another, be that the thing required either re-consideration or some other treatment.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

What about the House of Lords?

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Oh, they do not exist.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

The Solicitor-General tells us that if the majority in the House of Commons come to a decision of this sort they have their remedy; but has the majority in the House of Lords an equal remedy? I think we might have that point explained.

Mr. BUXTON

There was a regulation under the Old Age Pensions Act, in which, if the majority of the House of Lords decided in favour of cancellation, the Government, though they till possessed a majority in the House of Commons, accepted the decision of the House of Lords. As a matter of common practice, they would do so in such a case.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I quite agree that, so far as the present Government is concerned, at all events, there is no danger of their risking their skins on a measure of this kind. We run no risk on that point. But the other point is important; will the Lords have power to make their views good in a case of this kind? I suggest we should leave out these words. Perhaps it is mere laziness that has kept them in.

Mr. BUXTON

I am quite willing to take them out.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

Should I be in order in moving to omit the words?

Mr. BUXTON

This is a new point. The words are in the common form, but if the hon. Gentleman will allow the matter to stand over, I will undertake to look into it between now and the Report stage, when I can explain to the House of Commons how the matter stands. I would rather not make the alteration at the moment.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I quite agree. I am only desirous it should be made perfectly clear that the decision of the other House is equally binding.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

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