§ (1) Any workman who satisfies the Board of Trade that he has paid contributions in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act in respect of five hundred weeks or upwards shall be entitled at any time after reaching the age of sixty to be repaid the amount, if any, by which the total amount of such contributions have exceeded the total amount received by him out of the unemployment fund under this Act, together with compound interest at the rate of two-and-a-half per cent. per annum calculated in the prescribed manner, and such repayment may, in accordance with the regulations made by the Board of Trade, be made by way of a lump sum payment or by way of annuity, or in such other manner as may be prescribed.
§ (2) The Board of Trade may, if they think fit, by regulations reduce the age of sixty mentioned in the foregoing sub-section to an age not less than fifty-five in the case of workmen who prove that they have finally ceased to follow any insured trade.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment proposing to leave out Sub-section (1) is out of Order, because if the Sub-section were omitted, the Clause would become unintelligible The Amendment amounts in substance to a proposal to leave out the Clause.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton)I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "any workman who satisfies the Board of Trade that he" and to insert instead thereof the words "if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade by any workman or his personal representatives that the workman."
In moving this Amendment I want to give credit to the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Goldman) for having originally put the proposal on the Paper. He put it down in a form which would not 1850 really have fallen into line with the Clause, and I suggested other words. For some reason he did not put the fresh Amendment on the Paper, therefore I had to put it down in order that it might come in at the right place. It deals with a matter to which the hon. Member and the Government have given consideration, and I am glad to say we are able to accept it in principle. Under Clause 71, a workman who has been in regular employment and therefore has not come upon the Fund, and has not exhausted his benefits, after ten years of contributions, if he is over sixty, is entitled to a refund of his contributions with compound interest less any deduction for benefits that he may have received. It was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman and others that it might be a considerable hardship if a man on arriving at the age of sixty had not drawn his benefit or obtained his refund, and subsequently died before he had done so; because he would lose all the advantage of his regularity of employment. The suggestion of the hon. Member was that in such a case as that, the heirs at law of the man should be entitled to the refund. I think that not only is that a matter of justice, but it has the additional advantage that without it the inducement would be very great to the man of sixty necessarily to draw his refund, although it might be no particular advantage either to him or to the Fund that he should do so at that particular moment. This Amendment will get rid of any particular reason for the man to withdraw at a particular moment, and it will save his rights in the Fund. There will be consequential Amendments to follow.
§ Mr. GOLDMANI should like to make my acknowledgments to the President of the Board of Trade for having considered my Amendment and accepted it in principle, and perhaps given it a wording better than that of my original proposal. The right hon. Gentleman has fully expressed the intention of the Amendment. It would have been a great hardship on the dependents of a man if they had been deprived of the contributions which might have come to him at the age of sixty, or, as contemplated in the Bill, even at the age of fifty-five. That being so, I wish most heartily to support the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. BUXTONI beg to move, as a consequential Amendment, to leave out the words, "shall be entitled at any time after reaching the age of sixty," and to insert 1851 instead thereof the words, "that the workman has reached the age of sixty, or before his death had reached the age of sixty, the workman or his representatives shall be entitled."
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to insert after the word "sixty" the words "and that he has finally ceased to follow any insured trade."
This proposal has been on the Paper in the name of one or two other Members, but their Amendment now no longer fits the Clause. The principle, however, is the same—namely, that there should not be this return of money in a lump sum or in any other way, so long as the man is still working at an insured trade, and is therefore a contributor. If we adopt the Government plan and say that while a man is still in a trade he shall have this return of all the excess contributions, we shall land ourselves in very great difficulties. This is clear from the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman has been obliged to put on the paper, by which he proposes to make most elaborate provision for what is to happen in the case of a man who has received this money, is ipso facto put into arrears, so to speak, and continues in the trade, but who subsequently becomes unemployed, and to whom therefore unemployment benefit has to be paid. I question the whole principle of allowing this return to a man while he is still in the trade. The Clause as it stands is wholly illogical. By Sub-section (2) the age may be reduced to fifty-five.
§ Mr. BUXTONWe propose to omit that.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENThen my charge of illogicality falls. There are other points to be considered. I candidly confess that I do not know how you are going to prove that a man has finally left a trade. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman will explain that, because it was part of his original Clause. There are certain cases where it would be quite clear. If a man had gone abroad or was 1852 totally disabled, it would be obvious that he had left the trade, and no further proof would be necessary. But in the case of a man still in the country and in full possession of his faculties it may be very difficult to prove. At all events, I want to know on what system the Government propose to go, and in order to ascertain their view I beg to move.
§ Mr. HOAREWhat is to happen to a man who receives this lump sum of money and immediately goes back to his trade? Has a case of that kind been contemplated? If it has not been contemplated it seems to me to point overwhelmingly to the necessity of some such Amendment as that now proposed.
§ Mr. BUXTONI admit the difficulty of following Amendments on the Paper in reference to this matter, but the Amendments that I have put down to this Clause have, I think, met both the objections taken by previous speakers. The point raised by the last speaker is met by an Amendment which practically puts the man back into the position that it would have held before minus the amount which has been repaid to him. What it will come to is this—that he will have the benefit of the employment contributions and such contributions as have accumulated during the period when he has been at this insured trade; but he will not have the benefit of his own contribution which he has had repaid. That is the point of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and I think it is met.
My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment for the purposes of discussion, asked me a question which is the real reason why I am afraid I am not able to accept the Amendment. He asked me to explain how under Sub-section (5) we were going to decide whether a man of fifty-five had, or had not, finally ceased to follow his insured trade We had that in the Clause, but looking into it and working it out from the administrative point of view, we came to the conclusion that it was really impossible, or practically impossible, to decide whether a man had finally ceased to work at an insured trade. The man might leave it for a time and take his money, and come back. The difficulties of deciding this very question have resulted in another Amendment, which, I admit, on the face of it, is not very clear, and which I am proposing. It is an Amendment to leave out certain words, which practically mean leaving out that particular sub- 1853 section. I propose to leave it out on the very ground to which the hon. Gentleman referred; and that is the difficulty of deciding whether a man has, or has not ceased to follow his trade. Apart from that, I do not see that there is any great evil in this proposal. The man has been a regular payer of contributions for many years, and he should be entitled to a refund of the contributions which he has paid. We took the age of sixty as a rather round figure, and it did seem to us that at that time he should be entitled, if he choose, whether he has left the trade or not, to a refund of his contribution. As far as his fellow workmen are concerned, they will not, in any sense, suffer from the man drawing his refund, because, as I have explained, his contributions for the future will be to that extent reduced. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment, because I can assure him that difficulties of deciding the very point he raised, in our opinion, are really insuperable, and that, is the reason why we drop that particular proposal.
§ Mr. BARNESI must say I do not like this provision at all, and I really do not see any need for it. If a man has been in constant employment, during which he has paid for some five hundred weeks, then it seems to me he has been very lucky, and that therefore he might be well content to leave his contribution, and what he has not drawn, in the pool. That is the trade union practice, and I do not see why that practice was departed from in this Bill. Moreover, it seems to me to have an effect on trade union money. This man has been paying 2½d. per week all this time through his employers; money which would otherwise have gone into the trade union exchequer. Therefore, confining one's attention to that aspect, and eliminating the other question of the contribution from the employer and the State, the union is worse off by losing the money which it otherwise would have obtained. There are practical difficulties that have been pointed out as to a man leaving a trade. Very likely the man may have intended to have left it for good, and may have come back. There are many such cases. For instance, trade is good at present, and, as a matter of fact, in most of the trades connected with engineering and shipbuilding, the very trades covered by this Bill, there are hundreds of men who had no intention of going back, but who, in consequence of the pressure to get men, as there is just now 1854 difficulty in getting men in shipbuilding, they have gone back. I think that would introduce a practical difficulty into the working of the Clause. I must say I do not like the Clause at all; but I am inclined to vote for the Amendment from the opposite side, as it does, to some extent, minimise the evils; and as a hon. Friend reminds me, we had also put an Amendment of the kind on the Paper, and I hope that the Amendment moved will be pressed.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI think the Committee will find that it is in a difficulty in dealing with this Clause. There are obviously some grave practical difficulties in ascertaining whether a man has ceased to follow his insured trade or not; and there ought to be, perhaps, some penalty put upon him if he takes his lump sum and then breaks what is, apparently, a restrictive covenant, intended to be put on him by the Government when they put in that he shall only get back his money if he ceases to be in an insured trade. The whole question is a wider one than that. Ought the money to be repaid at all?—that is a question which, I think, the Committee ought to consider. This Bill is an Insurance Bill based upon those who are employed paying contributions as small as is possible, with the object of giving those who are out of work insurance against loss of wages. To the extent that you refund to any man any portion of that which he has paid, you are depleting the Fund, and, consequently, you are making the contribution of all who are in the insured trade higher. I do not know what the financial effect of this refund is—there is nothing in the Actuary's Report to tell how much this refund will amount to—but it is quite clear that if this refund was to take place in many cases then the necessity for a contribution of 2½d. would arise partly because of the refund. If it were not for the refund, the contribution might have been 2d. instead of 2½d.
We have had no explanation from the actuary, and the President of the Board of Trade has given us no information on the subject; but let it be supposed that if this Clause were not in the Bill, the contributions all round could be reduced by a ½d. Then they could be reduced to 2d. instead of 2½d. What this Committee ought to consider is, are we using the money in the best way; is the refund the best bonus to the workman, or is it better that all the contributions should be reduced from 2½d to 2d.? I think the Committee ought to 1855 hear from the President of the Board of Trade what the financial effect of this Clause is. We know there are administrative difficulties in putting in this limitation, but the limitation is only intended to remove, to some extent, the effect of the Clause. We may go much further; we may come to the conclusion that it is better in the interests of the workmen and of the employers, that the Clause should be struck out, so that the contributions can be reduced. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will give the Committee some information on that point. I must say I think it is a great pity where we are entering into insurance against loss of wages, or unemployment, that we did not follow the existing practice. There is a trade union practice in this matter, which has held good for many years, and which has worked, I believe, on the whole, satisfactorily and without complaint by the individual members. Why should we, when we first enter this field of insurance, deviate from the existing practice, unless there is some good reason for it.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDOn a point of Order, may I submit that the hon. Member is now raising the whole question of the Clause, and as some of us would like to take part in a discussion on the Clause, it is rather undesirable to have part of the discussion of a general character, and have it broken through and started again. If convenient, I would suggest that it might be kept over until the Question is put that the Clause stand part.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI entirely agree, and I am glad that the hon. Member recalled me to the particular Amendment. These considerations will arise, and perhaps it is better that they should be delayed until the Clause itself is in question.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon)Bearing in mind the suggestion which has just been made, and your ruling on it, I will not attempt at the moment to deal with some of the wider considerations which the hon. Gentleman has been putting before the Committee. As to this Amendment, I would very confidently ask the Committee to come to the conclusion that it is not desirable to introduce this Imitation. When we come to deal with the Clause as a whole, we may have to decide whether we want it as a whole or 1856 whether we reject it as a whole; but assuming that you are going to accept the principle of the return of contributions at the age of sixty, should that principle be limited by requiring the condition that the man has finally ceased to follow an insured trade. May I point out that to ask a man at the age of sixty to satisfy you that he has finally ceased to follow an insured trade is to ask a thing almost as impossible as to ask a candidate for Parliament who is defeated to satisfy you that he is never going to stand again. It is not a thing which you can, in the practical working administration of the scheme, fairly impose on anybody. The difficulty was felt by my hon. Friend opposite, because he said, perhaps it might be found necessary to arrange some penalty, or some disabling burden, to fall upon the unfortunate man's back if he broke his word. Surely we cannot legislate that people over the age of sixty are not to follow a trade, even though they have promised.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENThat is what you put in the Bill.
§ Sir J. SIMONThe hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to say that it is in the Bill as it stands. That is quite true, and it seems a very good reason for omitting it, which the Government propose to do, but I do not see that that is a good reason for repeating and making it twice as bad as it was. I would ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment.
Mr. HAMILTON BENNI have not heard the Government state, in any way, why this is the age chosen for the repayment of the money.
§ Sir J. SIMONLet us have either one thing or the other. Either we are going to discuss the Clause now, or we are not. I said when I began, that I was limiting myself strictly to this Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANThat question hardly arises on this Amendment to the Amendment.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI really raised the point in order to get a discussion on the principle. As there are objections to the Clause as a whole, and as we were going to have a debate on it, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1857§ The CHAIRMANThe words of the Amendment hardly read grammatically. There is some conjunction required. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put it in. I think that before the word "that" "and" or "or" should be placed. I will read the Clause as it stands amended. After the word "upwards" ["five hundred weeks or upwards"], insert the words, "'and' that the workman have reached the age of sixty, or before his death had reached the age of sixty, the workman or his representatives shall be entitled."
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next two Amendments have been dealt with.
§ Mr. BUXTONI beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "and such repayment may, in accordance with the regulations made by the Board of Trade, be made by way of a lump sum payment or by way of annuity or in such other manner as may be prescribed." I do so on two grounds. The first part of it applies to the question of what the methods should be supposing there is a refund.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI beg pardon. I think I should move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Gentleman for East Wilts (Mr. Peto). It will go in, I think, before the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a proviso to come in at the end of the Subsection.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member will see in a moment.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI beg now to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words, "five hundred weeks or upwards shall be entitled at any time after reaching the age of sixty to be repaid the amount, if any, by which the total amount of such contributions have exceeded the total amount received by him out of the Unemployment Fund under this Act, together with compound interest at the rate of 2⅜ per cent. per annum calculated in the prescribed manner, and such repayment may, in accordance with regulations made by the Board of Trade, be made by way of a lump sum payment or by way of annuity, or in such 1858 other manner as may be prescribed, and to insert instead thereof the words, provided that in lieu of the foregoing provision, if he so elects by notice in writing to the insurance officer, and to his employer, any workmen who has paid contributions in accordance with the provisions of this Part of the Act in respect of one hundred and fifty six weeks without drawing any unemployment benefit shall not be required to make any further contribution, nor shall his employer be required to make any further contribution on his behalf until he claims unemployment benefit.
(a) After the first and every subsequent period of unemployment in respect of which unemployment benefit shall have been paid he shall be required to resume the contributions specified in this Part of this Act, and his employer shall be required to resume the contributions on his behalf, until the total of such weekly contributions, together with the one penny and two-thirds per week contributed from money provided by Parliament, shall equal the amount he shall have received in unemployment benefit, when he shall be free from liability to contribute."
This Amendment stands on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Wilts (Mr. Peto). It explains what will happen in the case of any subsequent period of unemployment when the man is employed again. I am afraid it is rather complicated, but it has had to be altered in view of the fact that the Clause was really recast by the Government. What it comes to is that the workmen may have the alternative of either getting a lump sum down or taking the benefit in the form of not paying contributions in the future. It has this further effect: the Clause as it stands only benefits the workmen. If his contributions have exceeded the amount that he has received in benefit he gets a lump sum. The employer gets no advantage at all under the Clause—absolutely none. He may have been paying the contributions on behalf of this man, for this full period, and this man has never once been unemployed. The workman gets a lump sum back, representing his share; the employer gets nothing. Under this Amendment the employer is to be advantaged also, because not only would the man cease to pay contributions in lieu of getting a lump sum, but the employer would also cease to pay contributions on his behalf until such time as the man came back into work and became unemployed. This, I venture to 1859 say, is a very reasonable alternative to the plan propounded in the Bill, and which I now put before the Government.
The man can elect—the employer would merely follow. He would have to abide by the choice of the man. If the man elected and said, "I am going on in the trade, I do not want a lump sum down, I would sooner take my benefit or bonus"—it really comes to a bonus—"in not having to make contributions in the future"; if I say, a man elected to put that forward as an alternative to taking the lump sum down, we ought to permit it. I think it would be very much better in the long run. It is also an advantage and a benefit to the employer. Why should not he be benefited? He has paid contributions for this man, and the man has never been once unemployed. He has kept him in full employment for all these number of years regularly, and I think he is entitled to something. It is perfectly true under the Amendment he would not get it, of a right; only if the workmen so elected. You could not give an option to both sides, and we think that the man is entitled to a prior option to the employer. If the man does exercise that option then the master will be benefited and the man also will get his bonus. For that reason I move, and apologise to the Government and the Committee for the fact that the Amendment has been altered, but it could not be helped under the circumstances.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson)The hardship that the hon. Member has pointed out in the case of the employer who has kept a man in employment during that long period will be met under Clause 70. His objection, therefore, disappears from the argument. It is to be provided for by a refund to the employer.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENCan the hon. Gentleman mention what the new words are?
§ Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONYes. It is in this morning's paper. The Amendment of my right hon. Friend reads: After Clause 69 to insert,
The Board of Trade shall, on the application of any employer made within one month after the termination of any calendar year, or other prescribed period of twelve months, refund to such em- 1860 ployer out of the Unemployment Fund a sum equal to one-third of the contributions (exclusive of any contributions refunded to him under any other provisions of this part of this Act) paid by him on his own behalf during that period in respect of any workman who has been continuously employed by him through the period, and in respect of whom not less than forty-five contributions have been paid during the period.
That is a fairly complicated Clause, but I think it will be found to meet the particular objection of the Amendment actually moved. It is somewhat difficult to see how the line of argument of the hon. Gentleman can be pushed along with the objection that the Government Clause is inconsistent with the principle of insurance. The hon. Gentleman opposite has just been arguing that the Clause which he objects to is as a whole really an interference with the principle of insurance; that it is giving a man back that which he contributed. The Amendment proposes that the man's contribution should be limited to the amount of benefits he has received, which is an absolute cancelling of the principle of insurance. It would be properly completed by the further argument to the effect that his benefit should be limited to the amount of his contribution. This would complete the cancellation of the insurance principle. In any case the Amendment is perfectly unacceptable. It goes much further in absolute deviation from the principle of insurance than the Clause in any point seems to go. It would, in fact, wreck the whole Bill.
§ Mr. BAIRDI do not know whether the hon. Member is quite fair to the proposal of my hon. Friend. Surely the two things are in accord? The Government proposes to give a certain amount of relief to the man who has paid a certain amount of contribution, but has not drawn any benefit, and the proposal of my hon. Friend is that the workman should have the option as to the form he should take that relief in. Financially the cost is apparently intended to be the same, whether a man receives a lump sum, or whether he has a reduction in contributions. Surely any or each man is entitled to decide for himself, provided the cost of the two schemes is the same. So far as the Bill is concerned, the Amendment does not seem to be any infraction of the principles laid down by the Government, who admit that some sort of relief is 1861 justifiable. It does not seem any infraction of that principle to give a man the option of what particular form of relief he will choose. That is all that the Amendment of my hon. Friend endeavours to effect. I will not go into the further question as to whether the whole Clause is, or is not, desirable, but taking into consideration the fact that we here on this side are in a minority, and that however we may vote against the Clause it will probably be carried, the intention of my hon. Friend is to make it as reasonable and just as possible.
§ Mr. BUXTONI do not know that the Movers of this Amendment have really seen the practical difficulties which appear to us to be fatal to it. I admit it is a little difficult to follow exactly what is proposed. As I understand it, an option is to be given to the workman so that instead of taking his refund in the form of a lump sum, he will be entitled to take the same amount by a cessation of his contributions, and during that period the employer likewise is to cease to pay his; and I presume also the State. Well, the hon. Member opposite, in discussing the proposal to omit this Clause, laid great stress on the financial difficulty, namely, that if you give this refund, it will put a severe strain on the finances of the Fund. I think in a few moments we shall be able to show that that will not be so. This Amendment will put a much greater strain upon the finances of the Fund, because the hon. Gentleman must see that what he is proposing is that not only shall the man himself be relieved to the extent of his contribution, but during the same period and to the same extent both the State and the employer will also be relieved. It is therefore really throwing a double burden on the Fund, instead of the single burden which we propose. Sa far as I can understand the Amendment, it is not limited to the age of sixty. It is not limited, as we have suggested, to the ten years.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI think it is limited to the age of sixty. The words are "provided that in lieu of the foregoing provision, if he so elects. …"
§ Mr. BUXTONI do not dwell so much upon that. What I would point out is that this would put a very serious financial strain upon the Fund, and it would really upset the principle upon which these contributions are paid. Under these circumstances I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. BARNESThe hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment can scarecly have appreciated the effect of it For my part I have been looking forward to the operation of this Bill as affording relief more or less to the casual worker by having his contribution and the employer's contribution pooled with those of the regular worker. For instance, take the railway shops. They will come under this Bill. When a man goes into a railway shop, in nine cases out of ten he remains there all through his life, at any rate for thirty or forty years. As far as I can see, a man at sixty years of age is knocked out by this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Yes, that is the effect of it. You start from the line of the Clause before sixty, so that that provision about sixty years of age is no longer there.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENNo, it comes in at the end of Sub-section (1) in lieu of the foregoing provision. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the Amendment as it stands upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Wilts (Mr. Peto), but it could not be moved there owing to the fact that the Clause has been recast. It now comes in as a provision at the end of Line 20, after the words "prescribed manner."
§ The CHAIRMANThe words are "Provided that in lieu of the foregoing provision, if he so elects, by notice in writing to the Insurance Officer, the employer of any workman who paid contribution in accordance with the provisions of this Act in respect of," and then follow the words on the Paper.
§ Mr. BARNESThen I suppose "sixty" remains, and to that extent my argument is weakened. But it still holds good in respect of the man after sixty years of age. Why make this elaborate provision for the relief of a man after sixty if he is working? In the railway shops men continue to work after sixty. Men after sixty are in constant employment, and they are just the sort of men whose contributions should go to swell the fund under this Bill for those less fortunate than themselves, and for my part, I am inclined to make no special provision for such men.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI will not follow the hon. Member for Blackfriars, because his argument is one against the Clause which we can refer to when we come to discuss the Clause. All the Amendment proposes is that a man at 1863 sixty instead of being bound to take his bonus in a lump sum, should be given the option to take it in another form, namely, the reduction of further contribution. It is said by the President of the Board of Trade that this would be a great strain upon the Fund. That is not the intention of the Amendment, and I do not think it is the meaning of the wording of the Amendment. It is intended to be the exact equivalent. Whether it is contrary to the whole principle of insurance to make any refund at all is a matter that we must discuss upon the Clause. If there is to be a refund it should be in the form the workman himself selects. That is what is intended by this Amendment, and the actual wording of the Amendment carries that out. If my hon. Friend presses this Amendment I should certainly support him because I think if the Clause is to stand at all, it ought to be in as elastic a form as possible.
§ Mr. T. E. HARVEYIt is urged by the mover of the Amendment that it is only fair that an employer who has a workman a long time in his employment should get the advantage as well as the workman, but
| Division No. 5.] | AYES. | |
| Baird, Mr. | Goldman, Mr. | Lowe, Sir Francis |
| Benn, Mr. Hamilton | Hills, Mr. | Stewart, Mr. Gershom |
| Bird, Mr. | Hoare, Mr. | Worthington-Evans, Mr. |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith- | Horner, Mr. |
| NOES. | ||
| Barnes, Mr. | Jones, Mr. Haydn | Palmer, Mr. |
| Brady, Mr. | Jones, Mr. William | Price, Mr. |
| Burke, Mr. E. Haviland- | Joyce, Mr. | Primrose, Mr. |
| Buxton, Mr. Sydney | Kelly, Mr. | Robertson, Mr. John |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin | Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay | Roch, Mr. Walter |
| Denman, Mr. | M'Callum, Mr. | Scanlan, Mr. |
| Ferens, Mr. | Mond, Sir Alfred | Solicitor-General, Mr. |
| Goldstone, Mr. | Norman, Sir Henry | Webb, Mr. |
| Hackett, Mr. | Nugent, Sir Walter | Williams, Mr. Penry |
| Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund | Nuttall, Mr. | Wilson, Mr. Tyson |
| Hayden, Mr. |
§ Sir J. SIMONI beg to move to add a new second Sub-section to the Clause:—
(2) A repayment to a workman under this Section shall not affect his liability to pay contributions under this part of this Act, and, if after any such repayment he becomes entitled to unemployment benefit, he shall be treated as having paid in respect of the period for which the repayment has been made the number of full contributions which is most nearly equal to five-eighths of the number of contributions actually paid during that period."
§ under this Amendment this benefit could be claimed by an entirely different employer. Supposing a man of fifty-nine left work and went under a new employer, that new employer would be entitled to claim the benefit of the reduction.
§ Sir EDWIN CORNWALLI think we shall be able to make out a good case for the Clause when we come to it, but the spirit of the Amendment, it seems to me, would give the workman an opportunity of taking his money back at different intervals during his working period which would be contrary to the whole structure of this Bill. I do not think the workman would desire any such thing. I hope the Committee will not support the Amendment which would enable the workman to have the opportunity every two or three years of overhauling the account and withdrawing his money. I think that would be fatal. With regard to the employer, we need not be anxious about him, because he will be very glad to make his contributions to this Fund without looking forward to having it refunded to him.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 11; Noes, 31.
§ If the Committee will look at the Amendment, they will see that it wants following closely, and if followed closely it will be found quite simple to understand.
§ The object and effect of it is as follows: Presumably, in most cases where the workman reaches the age of sixty and exercises his right under the first part of the Clause to claim the repayment, he does not intend, or in many cases does not intend, to follow his trade; in other cases perhaps he does. If he does not follow an insured trade any longer, there 1865 will be no question of any payment having to be made by his employer, and no question of further payment through his employer on his behalf. If he goes on, or returns to his work, there will be a further payment made week by week. Now what is his position as regards unemployment benefit if he falls out of work, although willing to continue in work? In so far as he has already received his interest in the Fund, he cannot have that over again in the form of unemployment benefit; but in so far as he has not withdrawn his full credit from the Fund, he is to be treated in the same way as if he had not reached the age of sixty at all. That, I think, is a right principle. There is a reference in the Amendment to five-eighths of the number of contributions actually paid, which is due to a very simple calculation. The first part of the Clause does not give back to the workman who has reached the age of sixty anything that represents his employer's contribution, or anything that represents the State's contribution. It only gives back his own contributions in so far as that which he has drawn out of the Fund does not exceed the total of his own contributions. His own contributions are three-eights of the total.
§ Therefore, in any case, the operation of the Clause will not be very widespread, since any man unemployed to the extent of three-eights of the average of his class would never be able to satisfy the conditions of this Clause. There is the 2½d. standing to the credit of the man, 2½d. contributed by the employer, and 1⅔d. contributed by the State. It is only the man's 2½d. that he has any claim to get back. Of course, there will remain the employer's 2½d. and the State's 1⅔d. If you take the total of those three, the man's 2½d. represents three-eighths of the whole, and there is five-eighths remaining, and if he has withdrawn at the age of sixty three-eighths of his credit he should be treated as if he still had the other five-eighths standing to his name. The result will be that a workman who has exercised his right, on reaching the age of sixty to withdraw whatever credit there may be in respect of his own contribution, will remain a member of the Fund entitled to be treated as having the five-eighths, that is, the employer's and the State's contribution, still standing to his credit in the Fund, and it will be by reference to that sum, and not the total, that you will have to judge how far he is entitled to call for unemployment benefit, having regard to the One in Five Rule with which the Com- 1866 mittee is familiar. Some such proposal as this is required, and is only right and proper in order to make the Clause work out intelligibly.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. HOAREI beg to move at the end of Sub-section (2) to add:—
(3) If a workman feels aggrieved by the decision of the Board of Trade on any question arising under this Section, he may appeal therefrom to an umpire appointed under this Part of this Act, whose decision shall be final.
I do not think I need labour the point at all, but it seems to me that if this Section of the Act is to work easily and satisfactorily, a workman should have the right of appeal to an independent umpire. Here, we have the immense advantage of having the Solicitor-General to lucidly explain the different parts of this Section, but the workman will not be so fortunate. He will have to fulfil a variety of conditions, and I am confident, unless there is some right of appeal, there will be a good deal of friction.
§ Mr. BUXTONThere might have been something to say for this proposal if the Amendment which the Committee has already agreed to had not been passed. I think, in this matter, the Board of Trade may be left to be the decider. The decision is not a question of opinion, but it is a question of fact as to whether the man has contributed for five hundred weeks or over, and whether he is sixty years of age, and so on. I can hardly see how any dispute can arise, and if a dispute does arise, really, I think we may trust the Board of Trade to arrive at a fair and just decision without resorting to what I consider to be a somewhat cumbersome method of referring it to an umpire.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI do not think this is merely a matter of fact. The workman has got to prove to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that he comes within the provisions of the Clause. There may be a question as to whether the evidence shall be accepted. If the workman is dissatisfied by the decision of the Board of Trade, surely it is wise that there should be some sort of appeal. The decision will probably be made on the spot, and very likely by an under-official of the Board of Trade, who has not, as the hon. Member who moved this Amendment said, the assistance of the learned Solicitor- 1867 General, and who has to make up his mind whether the workman has produced sufficient evidence or not. If that official has the feeling that his decision is subject to an appeal, at least, he will be likely to take more care in giving his decision. I think that when you deprive a man of a privilege you intend to give him by an Act of Parliament, you ought not to leave it to an under official of the Board of Trade to decide.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLWith regard to this proposal, I conceive that the Board of Trade themselves might be very glad to have an umpire in some cases. So many difficulties may arise; difficulties may arise all over the country in regard to all manner of questions, and there may be a good deal of dissatisfaction if these matters are left entirely to the Board of Trade. I think the Board of Trade itself might be very glad to fall back in some cases on an umpire, whose decision would be final. I suggest to the Government, that any rate, it would be better for them to consider this proposal before deciding to throw it over altogether.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI would like to know if the Government are going to give way on this point?
§ Mr. BUXTONI am not going to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Chelsea, but we see the point which has been raised, and we would like to consider whether it would be an advantage from the point of view of the Board of Trade, and from the point of view of the workman, that there should be some appeal. I should like time to consider the point between now and the Report stage, but I cannot accept the Amendment, nor can I say that my final decision will be in this direction. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to look into the point. I have not had an opportonity of considering it, and I think the course I am suggesting is only fair.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENDoes the right hon. Gentleman mean that on Report he will put down something. I do not doubt his bona fides, but it does not go very far. When we get to the Report stage there is very little time for discussion. Practically only Government Amendments will be taken. That in practice is what will happen.
§ Mr. BUXTONThere will be two and a half days for discussion.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENUnless the Government put something down, we cannot raise the point. We do attach some importance to it, but if the right hon. Gentleman will undertake now that he will put something down we will withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. BUXTONThe hon. Member asks me to put something down. I have said we will consider it, and if we think there is a good case, and we are able to accept something in that direction, I will probably put an Amendment down. I cannot, however, at this stage, give an undertaking, because that is prejudging the question. I think the hon. Member has misapprehended the amount of time to be given to discussion. There will be two and a half days, and that will give plenty of opportunity.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI am afraid if the Board of Trade take the attitude that they cannot say anything more now because it will prejudge the question, then it will be for this Committee to judge whether the Bill ought to be given assent. I am very reluctant to divide on a question of this sort, but if the President of the Board of Trade says it will prejudge the question for him to say what he will do on Report, then it is quite time this Committee judged the question, and I hope my Friend will press his Amendment.
§ Mr. BUXTONThen my offer, of course, fails.
§ Mr. DENMANI hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment. My hon. Friend and others who support the Amendment, have not made out any sort of case that can arise in which there will be a dispute between the workmen and the Board of Trade. In point of fact there is one quite simple source of evidence as to the money contributions the workman pays, and that is his insurance books and the records in the accounts kept by the Board of Trade. That evidence will be absolutely conclusive, and I cannot conceive any dispute arising whatever. Until those who support the Amendment show some kind of possible dispute it will be a great pity to bring in an umpire.
§ Mr. BAIRDI think the difficulties of the working of this Clause are underrated. I cannot see what possible harm could be done by the introduction of the umpire. We have anxiety on this subject. We think that difficulties may 1869 arise, and we object to putting ourselves more than, ever under the heels of a body of officials. The whole tendency of legislation seems to be in the direction of making us a more official-ridden country. I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a division, and that the President of the Board of Trade will acquit me of any intention of being discourteous. Surely, however, this Committee, representing the House, is entitled to consider this question, and not be bound simply by the fact of whatever decision an official at the head of a department takes to be officially binding. This is a broad measure of principle, and there should be an appeal to an independent man from a body of officials in a Government office. There ought to be that right of appeal.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLI should like to make another appeal to my right hon. Friend in this matter. This is the first time any Government has proposed to give to a Government Department power to refund money to working people in this country, and I can see no end of difficulties that are going to crop up in regard to this in future. If there is no appeal from the Board of Trade, the number of questions that will be asked in Parliament through communications Members will receive from large numbers of their constituents as to why certain money has not been returned under this Section of the Act, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, will simply by overwhelming. If the President of the Board of Trade can only say that it has been dealt with in a departmental manner, I am sure that will not satisfy the House of Commons, and questions will pour in and pour in; but if the President of the Board of Trade can say that the matter has been considered by his Department, and that in certain cases there has been an appeal, and that that appeal has Been sent to the umpire, whose decision under the Act was final, it would make for a much more smooth working of the Act. I appeal, therefore, for a more favourable answer as to what he will do on the Report stage.
§ Mr. BUXTONI think it is rather unreasonable to press me at this point. I have had no opportunity to consider this Amendment with my advisers, with whom, of course, it is necessary that I should confer. I have offered to consider it between now and the Report, and I understood the hon. Member who moved the Amendment nodded assent. Now hon. Members get up, and because I will not 1870 pledge myself to this Amendment, they seem inclined to think that I am not going to give any consideration to the matter. I really cannot go beyond what I have said, and I think they are rather inconsiderate in asking me at the present time to do more than that in regard to an Amendment sprung upon us, and which I have had no opportunity of considering with my advisers.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI hope the President of the Board of Trade will very seriously consider the matter, but not for the purpose of accepting the Amendment. I am certain that if some of the hon. Members opposite, who agree with the spirit of this Section, and have been helping it through, will carefully consider it, I do not think they will stand by this Amendment, because Clause 71 is precisely the sort of Clause that ought not to be subject to an arbitrator. If they will consider the matter carefully in all its details, they will find, as a matter of fact, that an umpire will not help here, but will only give rise to expectations on the part of men who imagine they have got grievances, and who have not got grievances. It would only hamper the administration of the law, and cause a great deal of unnecessary work and unnecessary worry. There are certain clauses in regard to which an umpire is necessary, but Clause 71 is not one of those clauses.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI cannot understand why the Government should refuse this Amendment. In any case, it can do no harm. On the other hand, it might possibly enable us to remove injustice in certain cases. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend opposite who spoke just now, that if the refunding of the money to workmen is simply decided in the department, there is certain to be a great deal of dissatisfaction. If dissatisfaction arises, the umpire could be called in as arbitrator, and if he decided the matter on evidence, that would settle it once for all. I object entirely to all these important duties being put upon a body called the Board of Trade. What is the Board of Trade? I really have not the slightest idea what constitutes the Board of Trade. [A VOICE: "The Archbishop of Canterbury."] At any rate, in this Committee we see the Board of Trade in its majesty represented by the right hon. Gentleman, but generally speaking, I do not suppose these questions 1871 will come to the right hon. Gentleman. They will be settled by some official, probably drawing a small salary himself—some practically unimportant subordinate. There ought to be some appeal from a person of that sort. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment, and that hon. Members will support it, because in any case it can do no harm, and it might remove real cases of injustice.
§ Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONI would point out to the hon. Member that in other matters it is not commonly admitted that there is anything very conclusive in the finding of an umpire or even of a judge. We every now and then see, in the House of Commons, an appeal to the head of a Department, even against the decision of magistrates and judges. Hon. Members argue that where you once get an umpire's decision, you have something which will satisfy the public mind, but that is not so. The Home Secretary is again and again called upon, as head of the Home Office, to revise a sentence passed by judges; so that really public opinion recognises the head of a Department as someone to be appealed to over even a judge, to say nothing of an umpire. In this case, my hon. Friend behind me assumes a case in which letters of complaint pour in with regard to some decision against a workman. The President of the Board of Trade will be there to revise the act of his subordinate, and, if the Home Secretary's decision in regard to a matter of life and death can be invoked, even over the decision of a judge, surely the President of the Board of Trade may be regarded as giving sufficient and conclusive judgment in a
| Division No. 6.] | AYES. | |
| Baird, Mr. | Goldman, Mr. | Ingleby, Mr. |
| Benn, Mr. Hamilton | Harris, Mr. | Lowe, Sir Francis |
| Bird, Mr. | Hills, Mr. | Palmer, Mr. |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith- | Hoare, Mr. | Stewart, Mr. Gershom |
| Cassel, Mr. | Horner, Mr. | Worthington-Evans, Mr. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin |
| NOES. | ||
| Barnes, Mr. | Jones, Mr. Haydn | Nuttall, Mr. |
| Brady, Mr. | Jones, Mr. William | Price, Mr. |
| Burke, Mr. E. Haviland- | Joyce, Mr. | Primrose, Mr. |
| Buxton, Mr. Sydney | Kelly, Mr. | Robertson, Mr. John |
| Denman, Mr. | Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay | Roch, Mr. Walter |
| Ferens, Mr. | M'Callum, Mr. | Solicitor-General, Mr. |
| Goldstone, Mr. | Mond, Sir Alfred | Webb, Mr. |
| Hackett, Mr. | Murray, Captain | Williams, Mr. Penry |
| Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund | Norman, Sir Henry | Wilson, Mr. Tyson |
| Hayden, Mr. | Nugent, Sir Walter |
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
1872§ case where a decision has been given by one of the officials of his own Department.
§ Mr. HOAREI had hoped the answer would have been so favourable that I could have withdrawn the Amendment, but, in view of the course the discussion has since taken, I do not see my way to do so. Take the speech of the hon. Gentleman to which we have just listened. Can there be any analogy between an appeal from the Central Criminal Court or from the Assizes to the Home Secretary on a question of life and death, and an appeal from a workman, not to the President of the Board of Trade, but, as it will certainly prove in practical effect, to some inferior official in the Provinces? I have only to state the matter to prove how utterly apart are the two cases. I desire by my Amendment simply to provide a kind of appeal from the Board of Trade. I daresay my Amendment is not worded in the most perfect manner, but that is for subsequent arrangement. Much as I regret this Amendment has not been on the Paper for a longer time, blame surely should not attach solely to me. I am not the only member of this Committee who has been guilty of such a dereliction of duty. If members of the Committee will look at the paper to-day, they will see a number of Amendments have been put down by the President of the Board of Trade himself. In view of the Debate, I must press my Amendment to a Division.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 29.
§ Mr. BARNESI want to say a word or two against the Clause. I am going to 1873 throw my captain over, because he will probably put up a case for the Clause. I see no reason for the Clause. It is against the principle of insurance, and against the existing practice of trade unions. It is going to give an advantage to the man who has had fairly constant employment. While the Debate has been proceeding, I have been picturing to myself two types of men. There is, in the first instance, the man who has been in and out of work to some extent, say a man in the shipbuilding industry, which is a part of the engineering industry, and which is subject to great fluctuation. When that man is sixty years of age, he will get no bonus, because his periods of unemployment will probably have absorbed his two and a half per cent. There is nothing for him, although he has been subject to the vicissitudes of unemployment, and probably the hardships connected with it as well. Then, on the other hand, I picture to myself the man in a railway shop. He has probably been working there for many years, say thirty years. Because he has never been out of work, and because he has paid say 10s. a year under this Bill, he gets all his contributions back, so far as I understand. It means that in thirty years time the man who has been working in the railway shop will draw a bonus of £15, plus 2½ per cent., which will give him a sum between £15 and £20. That cannot be done, it seems to me, without upsetting any actuarial scheme based upon insurance, because it is in accordance with the principle of this Bill, that the man who has had steady employment, and is, therefore, in a position to do so, should be called upon to help his neighbour. For my part, I think this Clause eats into that principle, and I am going to vote against it.
§ Sir J. SIMONI want the Committee to see what the argument is, in brief, on the other side, and then it will be able to judge. My hon. Friend, in the first speech he made referring to the Clause, said he objected to it because it was a departure from trade union practice. He pointed to the fact that it is not customary among trade unions, which pay unemployment benefit, to hand back that benefit or the residue of it, when the member reaches a certain age. There is this fundamental distinction between the two cases. Trade union insurance is voluntary, and this a compulsory system. We are saying to a man, even although he has got a job which, in all human probability, is going to keep him employed, "You must pay 1874 2½d. week after week." That is the great distinction, and an argument is applied to this Clause which is derived from the practice of trade unions, which only insure those persons who find it to their own personal advantage to come in.
§ Mr. BARNESNo.
§ Sir J. SIMONMy hon. Friend says "No," but at any rate it is primarily directed to those persons who find it to their advantage to come in. Surely that is not a conclusive argument when we are judging this Clause. May I ask secondly—and I speak with great diffidence about a matter of trade union experience on which my hon. Friend, of course, speaks with infinitely greater knowledge—am I not right in thinking—and is it not notorious—that a member of a trade union who finds that he is in absolutely permanent employment has some time been known to leave the trade union on that account? Is not that because he realises that some at any rate of the benefits the trade union gives are no longer so important for him as when he first joined?
May I say a word next as to the financial aspect of the question, to which attention has been called. Financially speaking, this Clause does not drive a coach and four through the actuarial basis of this scheme. I think some who have criticised this Clause have not quite appreciated its comparatively limited, scope of operation. In the first place, it cannot have any operation for ten years, because a man coming under it must have 500 weeks to his credit. That will not be possible in any case until ten years have passed. Then the Clause only applies to people who have reached the age of sixty, and, in the third case, it only operates where the man who has reached the age of sixty can show that all the unemployment benefit he has drawn is so far short of the average unemployment benefit that it does not even exhaust his own contributions to the Fund. Suppose the Fund consists of a series of sevenpences, the question is not whether the man has drawn out as many sevenpences as have gone to his credit, but whether he has drawn out as many 2½ds. as there are sevenpences to his credit; therefore the only case in which this can operate is where a man reaches the age of sixty years—ten years or more hence—and has been much more fortunate than the average insured person in that he has not 1875 drawn out the full contribution which he has given from his own wage.
It may be said that the Clause is not likely to have a very wide operation. That may be a just observation in itself, but it is not so in the mouth of one who declares that it destroys the actuarial basis of the scheme. It does nothing of the sort; this Clause, with others, has been very carefully considered by those who have advised the Government. The figures put forward by the hon. Gentleman which are supposed to make a difference in the rate of contribution as between 2d. and 2½d. were purely hypothetical, and I hope it will be clearly understood that the Clause will not be properly explained to the country if we state that that is the effect of it. It is not really the effect at all. It would not affect by a fraction of any one coin of the realm, either the contributions or the benefit, but it does remove any gross case of hardship as it would appear to an exceptionally fortunate man. The insured person brings along his own contribution, together with the contribution of the employer and the State. Surely, we are entitled to say to him, if, when he comes to the end of his life, he has not drawn so much as amounts to his own contribution, that, under proper conditions he may be entitled, if he pleases, to say that henceforward he will be treated as somebody who has drawn it. If you are going hereafter to give a special privilege to the employer who keeps his men in constant employment, how do you think we shall stand in regard to the individual workman who comes forward and says, "You give this concession to my employer, where is the concession which I ought to have?" I do not think members of this Committee would very much like the situation if no better argument than that were put forward against this Clause.
§ Sir HENRY NORMANI find myself in some difficulty in regard to supporting this Clause, notwithstanding the lucid statement we have had from my hon. and learned Friend. Surely it is against the principle of insurance for a man, who has not required the benefits, to be able to withdraw his contribution. In the case of fire insurance, those whose houses are not burnt down, pay for those whose houses are. [An HON. MEMBER: "In this case, the contribution is compulsory."] The principle is the same, whether it is compulsory or not; I fail to see how compulsion affects 1876 the principle. Then, in the case of life insurance, those who do not die at the natural expiration of life, pay the dependents of those who come to an untimely end. In the same way, those who are so fortunate as to be in employment all their lives, should bear the burden of those who are not so fortunate, and if that principle is acted upon, then the contributions of the fortunate ones should not be allowed to be withdrawn. Reference has been made to a case of gross hardship. I do not feel that I have any right to speak with positiveness on this point, but is it the case that a man who has been fully employed, practically the whole of his working life, and has subscribed a small sum out of his wages to help those who have been unemployed, would consider that he had been treated with gross hardship? Would he not consider that he had been an exceptionally fortunate man, and would he not be very glad that it had been possible for him, out of his own good fortune, to extend every week a helping hand to those who had been lees fortunate? This Clause puts the unemployed insurer in very much the same position as the deposit insurer in Part I. of the Bill. He is to get out what he has put in. In the second place, it should be borne in mind that the operation of this part of the Bill is limited to very few trades. We all want, of course, to extend it as soon as possible to other trades where unemployment is greater and more severe. Surely the extension of it to those trades will depend on its financial success, and anything which would weaken its financial position must postpone its extension to hundreds and thousands of men and women who need it still more badly than those who will, as the Bill is at present drafted, come under its operation. It seems to me that to give back the contribution of the lucky man who is steadily employed is not only unnecessary, but it is unfriendly to the less fortunate workman. For my part, I cannot see why, in principle, if you are to return his contribution to the workman who has been employed all the time, you should not in fair logic return the contribution to the employer, who has subscribed on behalf of that man all the time also.
§ Sir J. SIMONSupposing you are prepared to say that no employer should have any rebate except the employer who employs people over sixty years of age, then you would be able to put the two things on a parallel.
§ Sir H. NORMANWe shall came to that point by and by. I have an open mind on this Clause, but I certainly should like to hear the case for it put forward a little more conclusively than I have heard it put up to the present time.
§ Mr. HILLSI do not think the Clause is perfect, yet I shall vote for it. I should like to say a few words about its finance. I am not at all satisfied with the somewhat off-hand statement of the Solicitor-General, that even if the whole of the rebate was taken off the contribution, it would not affect the payment by a fraction of the smallest coin of the realm. I believe we shall find, when we come, to work out this Bill, that in certain trades there is hardly any unemployment at all. In a certain group of trades, men work thirty or forty years without losing a week's work. The hon. Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow has quoted one instance of that. He has pointed out that in the railway shops men work year after year and never lose a week's work. The Committee ought to be informed whether the Advisers of the Board of Trade can say what the effect would be if the whole of the advantage was taken off the contribution instead of being given as a bonus. I can see very great advantages that might result. I was a little bit impressed by the argument of the hon. Member who spoke last. If we could, in the case of the fully employed men, meet the point by reducing the contribution, I think we should find that we had gone a long way to relieve his mind. The argument on the other side does not seem to me very convincing. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) has quoted the practice of trade unions, and the Solicitor-General has given one answer to that. May I give another? The member of a trade union does not pay a special premium for insurance against unemployment; he pays a general subscription to his union.
§ Mr. SCANLANIn many societies they pay a special contribution for unemployment.
§ Mr. HILLSI think I am right in this that in a great many cases a lump sum is paid down, which covers the whole subscription, and in those cases you cannot allocate a special Fund to return to a man in respect of insurance against unemployment. The hon. Member who spoke last said that if we passed this Clause, we should cut at the root of insurance, and he quoted the case of Fire Insurance. But 1878 surely the Committee realise that the whole point is that this is a compulsory Bill Just suppose that a man's house was built of asbestos, and you compelled him to insure against fire. In that case, you would obviously be creating a great injustice.
§ Sir J. SIMONAt the same rate.
§ Mr. HILLSYes, at the same rate as payable by people who live in burnable houses. Then, again, even if we passed this Clause, the fully employed workman will still be supporting the burden of the badly employed workman, and I hope that the Committee will pass it. I do not think the Clause is perfect, but still it seems to me to meet a very obvious injustice.
§ Mr. T. E. HARVEYI think this Clause may be justified as one of the very best in the Bill, and it can also be justified from the point of view of insurance. It will have the effect of making a large number of men additionally desirous of keeping their work. They will see that they will not lose the fruits of their labour, and that, if they stick to their work, they will ultimately get back every penny of the contribution with compound interest. It is a tremendous incentive to a man to know that he will not lose a penny of the contributions he had paid in—that they will come back to him at a time of his life when he most needs it—and it will, I think, have a very great moral effect in promoting the success of the whole Bill. I think the point raised with regard to fire insurance can, to some extent, be met by pointing out that it is customary in the case of fire insurance to give a reduced premium after a certain period, if no claim has meantime been made; and this Clause may be dealt with as somewhat comparable to that. But the more important reason for our supporting the Clause is the great moral effect it will have on the success of the scheme as a whole. It is not a negative scheme dealing with unemployment as such, but a positive scheme to promote continuous employment.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI am going to vote in favour of this Clause, but with a good deal of reluctance. I think in principle the Clause is sound, but I do not quite see why the principle and soundness of it should only be carried into effect when a man reaches the age of sixty. I do not see why a man who has reached the age of fifty-five, for example, should not, assuming the principle is sound, be a beneficiary under the Clause. I am 1879 afraid I cannot associate myself with the view the prevous speaker has just enunciated regarding the moral effect of the Clause. These things are really so remote that they do not enter into the workman's consideration at all. I daresay the members of the Committee take rather long views in order to average advantages, but I am perfectly certain that if we were engaged in a workshop at £1 a week, the worry of our weekly finances would be so great that the advantages we should receive under a scheme of this character at the age of sixty would be obliterated from our minds. But I support the Clause principally on the ground that it is sound from an insurance point of view. The insurance is not a simple insurance like fire, or life, or even sickness; it is a complicated insurance. It is a triple insurance, an insurance of trade risk, an insurance of workshop risk, and an insurance of individual risk, and the problem that the draughtsmen of this part of the Clause and those who thought out all its operations had to meet, was the problem how are you going to meet, first of all, the trade risks of a man in the engineering trade which is common to the whole of the trade, and which was attempted to be met by a differentiation between the benefits.
Then in Clause 70 you have a workshop risk in which the employer joins, and from which he gets a benefit. Clause 70 deals with certain methods of employing groups of men, which will be attended with certain benefits to the employer himself. Clause 71 deals with the individual risk; because after all whilst it is a good sound trade union principle that everybody should stand in and share in the common risk, I am not at all sure that that is a good principle when you are dealing, as you are now dealing, with whole trades, and compelling the individuals in those trades to take up responsibilities. If a man comes in as a member of a trade union, takes the sort of fraternal responsibility of a trade union, and gets his trade benefit as a consequence and as the real reason why he is a member of a trade union, you can perfectly well say he is not entitled to any rebates or to any reserves. But the moment you come as a Legislature and say to every man in the trade, "You have got to do certain things," then you have to be much more careful in your adjustments and readjustments of justice; and in your readjustment of justice you have 1880 to construct your Part II. so that the three classes of insurance, the trade, the workshop, and the individual, may somehow be taken into account.
That is why I am in favour of the principle, of the Clause—the principle that the individual workman shall be insured as well as his factory and as well as his trade; and you cannot insure the individual workman unless in some way or other you give him special benefits within the insurance of his trade. Clause 71 attempts to do this, although I think that it does not do it very successfully. I see very great difficulties in the way of doing it successfully, and what I should have liked would be a much more careful and actual statement of the actuarial meaning of Part I. with Clause 71 in, and Part I. with Clause 71 out. I think that is really what we want, because if Clause 71 means little in money, then I am not sure that it need stay in; if it means a good deal of money, then I think it ought to remain. Not being an actuary, and unable to work it out myself, and not being at all sure how the matter stands, I am prepared to vote for it with a great deal of reluctance and a good deal of doubt.
§ Mr. BIRDI do not propose to detain a hungry Committee more than a very few moments. The principle which Clause 71 seeks to establish is contrary to what has been laid down in the earlier portion of this Bill—that relating to invalidity. I distinctly remember hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that it was impossible he could entertain any such proposal, and I think that should make us hesitate a little before we make so important a departure. The next point that I desire to submit to the Committee is that either these benefits in the shape of the return of contributions that have been paid are going to be worth having, or else they are not. If they are going to be substantial and worth our consideration, then that shows that it would be quite possible to reduce the contributions of the working man to the Unemployment Fund rather than returning it to the fortunate ones who have not been out of employment for any length of time. It is perhaps the most unfortunate class of workmen who will benefit least under the operation of this Clause, and not those who have been fully in employment, and who are not so much in need of consideration as those who, from causes over which they have no control, have lost their employment and have, therefore, not derived the same 1881 amount of benefit from their contributions as others have done. I do hope the Committee will hesitate before they accept this Clause for the reasons I have ventured to lay before you.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI would really press upon the President of the Board of Trade to give us between now and Report, the figures with regard to this Clause and what it means to the Insurance Fund, because to me the whole question is a financial one. I do not object to the Clause, but I think the system proposed is a clumsy method of getting over the difficulty caused by equal rates of insurance premium. I think there may be a better way of applying the money, and I think the Committee ought to know what the difference will be. The learned Solicitor-General said that it would not be represented by any current coin of the realm.
§ Sir J. SIMONI meant in contribution.
§ Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSYes, in terms of contribution, and I should like that point dealt with before we finally commit ourselves to this.
Mr. HAMILTON BENNI would like to ask why sixty years has been fixed upon as the date for the repayment. I shall have no difficulty about voting for this Clause if the repayment is made at the period when the man leaves off his employment in the insured trade. But having fixed an arbitrary time of sixty, I should like to know the reason why that time was chosen. The Solicitor-General did say just now that it was the end of the man's life. I would only say that if it is the end of his life, he has certainly ceased to follow the insured trade.
§ Mr. BUXTONI think the answer to the conundrum propounded by the hon. Member is that sixty is the sort of age at Which a man might be expected to leave off his trade, and it has given him forty years' contributions to accumulate. Of course, it is an arbitrary figure, but after full consideration we thought that the fair age at which to fix it, and, further, it is an age at which this refund might be of great practical value to the man. As regards the other point of the hon. Member, I should be very glad to give him the information he asks for so far as it is in our power, and I should prefer to do it in the way he suggests—either in the form of a memorandum, or, at all events, in debate—rather than state it now. I think that is what he asks.
Mr. TYSON WILSONI would like to say in connection with this Clause that the Ministers speak with two voices with regard to it. In the House of Commons the present First Lord of the Admiralty told us distinctly—particularly in connection with this part of the Bill—that we were "pooling our luck"—that the best workman was going to help his less expert brother when out of employment. That has been stated on a thousand platforms in the country, and that being so, I hope the Committee will reject this preposterous Clause. It is a ridiculous Clause also, when all is said and done. It is defended on grounds of justice and equity, but I cannot see any justice or equity in it. Supposing a man, fifty years of age, meets with an accident which makes it impossible for him to follow his employment. Where does he come in? He may have paid considerably longer to this Fund than the man of sixty, and yet he gets no return of the contributions he has paid, and it seems to me that the best thing you can do, if the Clause is to be adopted, is to let them divide the contributions every year in the same way as is done in a slate club, so that everybody gets a fair share. Then with regard to the Clause encouraging men to keep their employment, it may encourage them to do that, and it may encourage them in two ways. It may make a man accept a lower wage than he otherwise would have done, and ought to have done, in order to keep his job. I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish any such result as that. That would be simply lowering the man in the social scale, and I hope that argument will not be used again in favour of this particular Clause at any rate. I do, therefore, hope that the Committee will consider what it is doing. We may possibly have a deficit in this Part of the Bill, and what about the men who are called upon to pay the levy? They are to be called upon to pay it, with the object of returning to men who are sixty years of age the whole of the contributions they have paid in. I say that is absolutely unfair and contrary to the system adopted by those societies who, at the present time, are paying unemployed benefit. The hon. Member for Durham is wrong when he runs away with the idea that there are no societies which pay separate contributions for unemployment benefit. There are a good many who do, and if there is a deficit, they levy just for that particular fund.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
| Division No. 7.] | AYES. | |
| Benn, Mr. Hamilton | Hills, Mr. | Nugent, Sir Walter |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith- | Hoare, Mr. | Nuttall, Mr. |
| Brady, Mr. | Horner, Mr. | Palmer, Mr. |
| Burke, Mr. E. Haviland- | Jones, Mr. Haydn | Price, Mr. |
| Buxton, Mr. Sydney | Jones, Mr. William | Primrose, Mr. |
| Denman, Mr. | Joyce, Mr. | Robertson, Mr. John |
| Ferens, Mr. | Kelly, Mr. | Roch, Mr. Walter |
| Goldman, Mr. | Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay | Scanlan, Mr. |
| Goldstone, Mr. | M'Callum, Mr. | Solicitor-General, Mr. |
| Hackett, Mr. | Mond, Sir Alfred | Webb, Mr. |
| Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund | Murray, Captain | Williams, Mr. Penry |
| Hayden, Mr. |
| NOES. | ||
| Barnes, Mr. | Harris, Mr. | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Bird, Mr. | Ingleby, Mr. | Stewart, Mr. Gershom |
| Cassel, Mr. | Lowe, Sir Francis | Wilson, Mr. Tyson |