§ If any employer satisfies the Board of Trade that during any period of depression in his trade workmen employed by him have been systematically working short time, and that during such period he has paid contributions under this part of this Act on behalf of such workmen, as well as on his own behalf, without recovering such contributions from such workmen either by way of deductions from wages or otherwise, there may be refunded to him out of the Unemployment Fund in accordance with regulations made by the Board of Trade the contributions so paid by him in respect of those workmen for the period or such part thereof as in the circumstances may seem just.
§ Provided that no such refund shall be made in respect of any workman for any week in which the hours of work have exceeded five-sixths of the number usually recognised as constituting a full week's work at that time in the trade and district.
§ Mr. GOLDMANI beg to move to leave out the words "of depression in his trade" ["during any period of depression in his trade workmen."]
The Committee will observe that the Clause contemplates to afford an employer the means of claiming a refund of contributions on behalf of himself, or of any employed person, during a period of short time, but the short time is qualified and conditioned by the fact that he shall only be entitled to claim such a refund in case "of depression in his trade." I should like to point out to the Committee that many circumstances might arise causing short time. I need only remind the Com-
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 9.
§ mittee of the circumstances in the North of England a short time ago, when a large number of cotton mills were obliged to work short time, on the ground that raw material was not forthcoming. There was a great shortage of raw material, and the result was that the mills were working short time.
§ Mr. GOLDMANI am glad to hear from the President of the Board of Trade that in that case the short time will come under the Provisions of this Clause, but I would like to point out also, that the interpretation that is to be placed on the question, "depression in his trade," is to be given by the Board of Trade. I wish to ask, does "depression in his trade," as applicable to this Clause, merely mean the cyclical depressions that you have after periods of prosperity? In a period of depression in that case, I take it that the employer will be able to reclaim in respect of short time. But, again, in the case of seasonal depression—that is to say, in the normal condition of trade during certain periods you have good trade, and then trade falls off, how is that to be interpreted by the Board of Trade? Is that to come under the interpretation of depression for the purposes of this Clause? It seems to me that the words are redundant and unnecessary. If they were omitted, the Clause would read, "If any employer satisfies the Board of Trade that during any period workmen employed by him have been systematically …," and then certain eventualities are to arise. That must involve a very important question, namely, the question of short time and depression of trade in such a case as I 1885 have cited. It seems to me that it would simplify the Act, and this Clause in particular, if these words were omitted, so that the employer would be entitled to claim a refund in all cases where the workmen employed are systematically working short time.
§ Sir J. SIMONI hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment, because it is not one which the Government can possibly accept. As he will have seen from the Amendment Paper, we do propose to vary the language of the words he proposes to leave out in order that it may be quite plain that what is referred to is not some cyclical depression of the industry as a whole, but some exceptional depression in the individual business of the employer concerned. That is what was in our mind. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, see on reflection that if we were to accept this proposal and allow the privileges of Clause 72 to attach to any employer in any circumstances, so long as his workmen were working short time, we should in effect be encouraging the employer not to pay full wages, not to work full time, but to employ it may be a few more hands and work the whole lot on short time, simply to avoid the contributions under this Part of the Bill. That is not, with great respect, a practical proposal. Assuming, as I think I am entitled to do, for this present purpose, that we are proceeding on the basis that the employer is going to pay the contributions normally, and that we are here providing only for the exceptional case, it will be plain that we cannot use language which will enable an employer to turn the exceptional case into the normal case. The Amendment which the President of the Board of Trade will move will make it plain that what we have regard to is not whether there is depression in an industry as a whole, but whether, a particular employer's business is, for whatever reason, working in a time of depression.
§ Mr. GOLDMANI appreciate the point raised by the Solicitor-General, but I should like to be perfectly clear on this matter. Is such a case as I have cited in the cotton trade included?
§ Mr. GOLDMANThat being so, I do not press my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: Leave out the word "trade" ["during any period of depres- 1886 sion in his trade"], and insert instead thereof, the word "business."—[Mr. Buxton.]
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI beg to move to leave out the word "systematically" ["have been systematically working short time"]. I really do not see the meaning of the word "systematically." I do not see what it is wanted for. Either the workmen are working short time or they are not. The thing must be perfectly clear, and I think that the fewer qualifying ones we have, the better. This has got to be interpreted by the officials of the Board of Trade, and I think the matter had better be made perfectly simple.
Mr. BUXTONThese are the recognised words in regard to short time, and they really mean that the short time worked should be practically applied to the various classes of labour throughout the particular industry for a particular period. You cannot take some men in some particular part of a factory and work them short time, and another lot of exactly the same class and work them full time, and then claim a refund on those working short time. It must be really bonâ fide short time, and the word "systematically" seems to us to cover that point.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSArising out of what the President of the Board of Trade has said, I would point out that this happens in the ordinary course of business. I take the case of an engineering works. The foundry may be working systematically short time, because there may have passed through the foundry articles on which work is being done in the workshops. The erecting shop may be on full time. Does this word "systematically" mean short time throughout the business, or can we divide the business into units of shops?
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI did not understand that. If that is what is meant and the Board of Trade have considered these words, I should not expect my hon. Friend to press the Amendment, because that is exactly what is wanted. What we want to deal with is the shop as the unit rather than the business as the unit. I was afraid that the Government words mean that the business is to be treated as a unit rather than the shop.
Mr. BUXTONPerhaps I used a wrong word. I said "grades;" I meant workmen working at a particular form of work.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENIf that is so the word "systematically" meets the point I have in mind, but I do not think it is at all clear. I do not want to argue a verbal point and divide the Committee, but cannot the Government suggest other words to make it perfectly clear that if the men in one particular shop are working short time the employer may have the advantage of the Clause in that case? I think now you have put in the word "business" instead of "trade," you have made the business the unit rather than the trade, and you have made it less obvious that it may refer only to a particular department of the business.
§ Mr. HILLSI believe we all have the same object at heart, but I think we want some words like "in his business" or "any process of his business," because the word "business" is surely a very wide word, and for an individual employer would include of necessity all processes inside that business, and I think if the Government will consider if some words of that sort, "process" or "department," can be added it would meet the point.
§ Sir J. SIMONReally these words have not been put in casually or by chance. They really represent as it appears to me, what is the desire of the hon. Gentleman. If you attempted to carry out the suggestion now made, so far from increasing the concession it is quite possible you would limit it. We do not say in the Clause, "all the workmen employed by him are systematically working short time," we say "workmen employed by him."
§ Sir J. SIMONI would say so if the draughtsman thought the change made it any better, but if he does not I must ask not to be requested to take every suggestion that is made at a moment's notice. These words have been considered with a good deal of care, and, as they stand, they do not require that the whole of the employer's staff should be working short time. They require that he should show that workmen employed by him have been working short time, and I suggest if we put in these limitations it is very likely to operate not in favour of the view he wants, but even to cut down the advantage of the Clause. As for "systematic," it really deals with a different point. It deals with 1888 this: A man says "In a period of a year workmen employed by me have been working short time." He ought not to satisfy the conditions of this Clause by showing that for only a portion of the year, one week out of four throughout the period, they have been working short time. They ought to have been working short time systematically during the period. Let him come and show a shorter period during which they have been systematically so working. The draughting is quite right.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI think we are all agreed as to the object. Perhaps the Government will consider if it can be made clearer.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. HAMILTON BENNI beg to move, after the word "of," ["on behalf of such workmen"] to insert the word "any."
The object of the Amendment is to provide a right to a refund by the employer for such workmen as he has paid a contribution for. According to the way it stands now, it might be held to read that he should only recover if he paid on all his workmen, and I apprehend that is not the intention of the Clause.
§ Sir J. SIMONI really think, if I understand my hon. Friend, that what the Bill says is that, because there is no difference between saying "on behalf of such workmen" and "on behalf of any such workmen." If the hon. Member means to say, "on behalf of any of such workmen," that is an Amendment which we really could not accept. We cannot pick out an individual who has worked short time and give him that concession. But if he shows that a fair group of workmen employed by him have been systematically working short time he is to have the concession in respect of such workmen. There is really no difference between saying "such workmen" and "any such workmen," except that in one respect you use two words and in the other you use three.
Mr. HAMILTON BENNExcepting this—that the employer may not have paid contributions for all the men who are working short time. He may have paid for only a certain portion of his men, and he ought to be able to recover for those men for whom he has paid, even if he has not paid for all the men in his employment.
§ Amendment negatived.
1889§ Amendment made: Leave out the word "may" ["there may be refunded to him"] and insert instead thereof the word "shall."—[Mr. Buxton.]
Mr. BUXTONI beg to move, after the word "workmen" ["in respect of those workmen"], to insert the words "(including those paid on behalf of the workmen as well as those paid on his own behalf)."
It has been represented to us by more than one association both of employers and men, and by members of the Committee as well, as to whether it is clear on the face of it that in the event of recognised systematic short time taking place, and the Board of Trade being willing to refund, that covers not only the payment of the employer's contribution, but the payment of the workmen's contribution as well. We fully intended that it should cover both, and these words are inserted in order on the face of it to make it quite clear. We believe our words were correct before, but this is to make it perfectly clear.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BUXTONI beg to move after the word "that," ["provided that no such refund"], to insert the words, except in a case where the working of short time has been effected by stopping the work for some day in the week which has been usually recognised as a working day of at least four hours in the trade and district.
§ Sir J. SIMONPerhaps I might just explain the object. The proviso at the end of the Clause is designed to lay down the conditions under which the short time privilege can be claimed, and what is necessary according to the proviso is that there should have been so great a reduction from the normal length of work in the week as to amount to a sixth of the week's work. That is to say, until you have stopped a sixth of your normal number of hours a week, you do not come under this Clause. It has been pointed out to us that there being six working days in the week, and Saturday feeing one, and a short day, a not uncommon form of short time, at any rate in certain industries, is to drop all work on Saturday. This, I fancy, in many trades is not uncommon. Certainly it is not in the textile trades though, at the moment, they are not inside the Bill. It seems to us it would be probably undesirable and unfair that, assuming that short time was adopted, we should none the less refuse the benefits of the Clause 1890 to the employer, and these words are designed to give him the privilege of this Clause supposing that he effects the short time by stopping work on one day of the week, which day in prosperous times is worked to at least the extent of four hours. Since it is a short day it would not be quite a sixth of the whole.
§ Mr. HILLSThe Amendment says the short day must be a working day of at least four hours. Do you not want the words "not more than four hours"? A full working day is a working day of at least four hours, and, supposing you pass the Amendment in this form, you could drop a full day's work and still you would only be dropping a day of at least four hours' work.
§ Sir J. SIMONI do not think so. We are only trying to express the same thing. The proviso says, in effect, "Provided that a certain refund shall not take place unless there is a reduction of at least a sixth." We are proposing to make an exception upon that, and the case which the hon. Member suggests, when it is a full day which is dropped, would be a case where the time is more than a sixth, so that it would be covered by the proviso.
§ Mr. BARNESSupposing the week consists of sixty hours and the employer stops on Saturday, which is only a four hours' day, I understand he will be entitled to the exemption. It seems to me that four hours is a very small number off sixty to constitute short time, and it may be that employers will take advantage of this and squeeze the men for the remainder of the week. Let me give a case in point. I heard only the other week of one of the Government factories having started short time some time ago by this very method of stopping on Saturday. I do not know whether four hours is the time or not. The time-workers have a grievance because they are stopped for four hours, and they say the piece-workers' earnings are exactly the same as they were when working a full week. If the production of the factory can be squeezed up by increased supervision and greater pressure so that there is maintained in fifty-six hours what has been the production in sixty hours, I see no reason why either employer or workman should be entitled to any exemption. I think the four hours is a small margin to constitute a short time.
§ Sir J. SIMONI do not think that the hon. Member in what he has been saying 1891 has allowed for the fact that the whole Clause is inoperative unless the employer satisfies the Board of Trade that in his individual business there is a period of exceptional depression. It is only in those circumstances that it can apply at all.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. BAIRDI beg to move at the end of the Clause to insert the following new Sub-section:
If any employer feels aggrieved by the decision of the Board of Trade on any question arising under this Sub-section he may appeal therefrom to an umpire appointed under this Part of this Act, whose decision shall be final.
This question was discussed on the previous Clause, but it was there intended to apply to workmen. Here it is intended to apply to employers. We are endeavouring to secure equal rights for both sides. The Government refused to concede our demands as regards workmen. That makes it all the more difficult to concede our demand as regards employers, I admit. But that does not destroy the justice of the case with regard to either side. I trust that the Government will at any rate tell us why they will not accept the Amendment in this case, because it has a far more wide-reaching application. This deals with funds which it is the interest of the Board of Trade to keep as much as possible in their own hands, in order to provide for contingencies which may arise in the working of the Bill. Therefore, as you are likely to have a conflict of interest in this case it is specially desirable that the decision should not rest with one of the parties, who would be a judge in his own case under the terms of the Bill as it stands at present. The case here is even stronger than it is under Clause 71. Therefor I would urge the Government to give this point their favourable consideration.
Mr. BUXTONThe answer in regard to this Clause is really quite clear. Certainly what we shall intend and desire is that the employer intending to work short time should in most circumstances communicate with the Board of Trade beforehand to see how far he would be likely to come under the operation of this Clause. Otherwise naturally he is taking considerable risk. It is clear that if this is to be a matter of friendly negotiation, as I think it must be, it is not a case in which there should be an appeal. The Clause is one in which we 1892 must have considerable elasticity. In the last Clause there was something to be said for an appeal. In this case an appeal would alter the whole idea of the Clause, and the whole relations which I hope will subsist in this matter between the employer and the Board of Trade.
§ Mr. BAIRDSurely this Clause applies to the period subsequent to the time when the short time has arisen, and if I understood the President rightly he gave us to understand that an employer would foresee a period of short time and would go to the Board of Trade and say, "I propose to put my men on short time, but only provided I can be certain of getting this money back." What man on earth can foresee a period of short time that is likely to be a prolonged period? If that is so, there is all the more necessity for setting up an umpire to decide these questions. I hope I misunderstood the President of the Board of Trade. I should much prefer to be accused of stupidity in this connection than that he should have conveyed this impression, because really I do not think it is possibly workable. Perhaps the right hon. Gentle man would give a further explanation and put me out of doubt.
Mr. BUXTONI am very sorry that I was so elusive or stupid. The position is: at a particular moment, in consequence of depression in trade or business, the employer desires to put his men on short time. He is anxious to know before doing so how far he may be able to obtain benefit under this Clause, and probably hi most cases if he himself communicated with the Board of Trade a few hours notice would be enough—there is no necessity for any long period of waiting—to find out how far his particular position would be likely to be recognised by the Board of Trade as coming within the provisions of this particular Clause. That is what I intended to convey.
§ Mr. BAIRDIf that is the case surely that ought to be conveyed in the Clause. The Clause simply says that if the short time has been worked then the employer can get this relief. I understand from the President that the employer will be able confidently to expect this relief before the short time has arisen. These words of mine, I agree, do not meet that point at all, but if the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade appeared in the Bill it would be less necessary, although I do not think it would be unnecessary, 1893 to move this Amendment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the possibility of putting in words which will make it clear that it is the business of the employer—it is not clear from the Bill as it stands—to inquire before the short time comes in whether he is justified in working his men on short time, with the reasonable prospect of being accepted as coming under this Clause.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI think the procedure which has been suggested by the Government is very unsatisfactory. I think an employer ought to be perfectly confident that when a period of depression has arisen, if he puts his men on short time and pays the contributions they will be refunded.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENAccording to the procedure suggested by the right hon. Gentleman you have to go to the Board of Trade and ask.
§ The CHAIRMANPerhaps I should have intervened before. That question does not arise upon the present Amendment. The simple question is whether there shall or shall not be an appeal to an umpire from the decision of the Board of Trade.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI was only following what previous speakers had said, but my point was that a man ought to be able to feel confident that he will be repaid, and in this case as the matter is a very important one there ought to be some tribunal to appeal to beyond the Board of Trade. Whatever may have been the argument against having an umpire in the case of the last Clause, this is a very important matter. Many points arise on the question whether there is trade suppression. Surely an umpire is the proper person to decide that. The Board of Trade might take—I do not say they would—a very unreasonable view. At all events if they did the employer who believes himself that there is trade depression, and probably knows it, and is deliberately paying the contributions of the men, ought to have some tribunal besides the Board of Trade to settle the point. Then there is the question raised whether he is doing it systematically or whether he is doing it only in one particular shop instead of in his own works. It might be 1894 held that there is no particular depression in his trade generally, but there is in one department of his trade. Must he accept the absolute ipse dixit of a Government Department? I do not think the Government are treating the employer quite fairly in this matter, although I do not suggest that they intend to be unfair. There should be some further tribunal, and I think the argument for an appeal to an umpire on this Clause is a very strong one, and I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment.
§ Sir A. MONDI hope that for the sake of employers the Board of Trade will not listen to these continual appeals for umpires and other persons. Employers want to get matters settled. We are all confident that the Board of Trade are more competent people to go to than any other umpire.
Mr. PRIMROSEI wish to join with the hon. Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) in the hope that the Government will not give way. One of the great objections to all these forms of social legislation raised by the Opposition is that we are setting up new officials. Now they are actually proposing to set up officials themselves. You cannot have a better umpire than the Board of Trade. Their decisions have to be defended in the House of Commons, and that is infinitely more satisfactory than the appointment of additional umpires.
Mr. HAMILTON BENNThe great objection to the insertion of this Amendment on the previous Clause was that the matters which had to be determined were questions of fact which it was unnecessary to go to an umpire about. Under this Clause it is quite different. There may be a number of questions about which there may be considerable doubt. They are questions of fact, not of opinion, and these are particularly matters in which an umpire should be employed.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as Amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI hope the President of the Board of Trade will consider the point which has been discussed to some extent on the last Amendment, which I wish to refer to now because it is of great importance. As the Clause stands, it says that if any employer 1895 satisfies the Board of Trade that he has paid contributions, then something may happen. But the employer is not to go to the Board of Trade until after he has paid the contributions. He has to satisfy the Board of Trade after the event. It is quite clear that if the employer is to go on paying contributions for the men, he ought to be able to satisfy the Board of Trade, by some arrangement in advance, that he wishes to get the benefit of this Clause, otherwise what will happen will be that the men, instead of having contributions paid for them by the employer, will lose that benefit, and the employer will be in a state of uncertainty as to whether he can come under this Clause or not. I am not going to vote against the Clause, but I want the President of the Board of Trade to consider this with a view to redrafting it. It is not enough to say, "Oh well, we shall make a provisional arrangement, or the employer can make a provisional arrangement with the Board of Trade in advance, or that the employer will submit to the Board of Trade that he proposes to go on short time," because the Board of Trade official, to whom he makes the proposal, cannot make any decision in advance or make any promise in advance. If he did make a promise in advance, that promise would not be in any degree binding, because, at the end of the time, the employer says to him that he has been paying, in the words of the Section. The Board of Trade can ignore any conversations that have gone on before, and, besides, the Board of Trade official in that particular district or place might have been changed and have no record of the arrangement. The words of this Section preclude by their very terms any such arrangement in advance. There ought to be power to make an arrangement in advance, and I ask the President of the Board of Trade between now and the Report stage to see whether he cannot introduce some words which will carry into practical effect the intention of the Government.
Mr. BUXTONI have explained to the Committee already what is the intention of this Section. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Hamilton Benn) apparently seems to be under a misapprehension in the matter. It is not the intention to put anything compulsorily on the employer, but to see how, in cases of doubt, the matter may be settled. We will see, from 1896 the point of view of drafting, how far words can be put in to enable the employer to consult the Board of Trade. Looking at it from the drafting point of view, I really do not think that we shall find words which could be inserted giving a voluntary guarantee which is required. The Board of Trade official could not give an absolute guarantee, because the circumstances might alter. All he can do is to give a moral guarantee, which is rather difficult to put into an Act of Parliament, but, as I have stated, the intention is there.
§ Mr. GOLDMANBefore passing the Clause, I should like to ask the Government, for I think it is really desirable the Committee should have some information from the Government, as to whether they have made any financial provisions to meet the claims likely to be heavy claims, that are going to come into operation in connection with this Clause. Let me point out the fact that this Clause is not only to meet the needs of a very large fund, but is to refund the employers in respect of the workmen's contributions. During the period of short time no contributions are to come into that Fund. The Fund is to be used for the purpose of giving unemployment benefit to a man who has become unemployed immediately after a period of short time; that being so, I think the Committee at this stage ought to have some information from the Government as to what financial provisions are to be made to meet the claims which will arise under the operation of that Clause.
§ Mr. PENRY WILLIAMSMay I ask whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to fix any limit of time to this short time work? If short time is worked for a limited period, it is an advantage; at the same time, if it is worked for a long period, then sufficient should be given to the workpeople to live upon, otherwise, this short time would be deleterious to the workmen themselves. I know a case in my own constituency where the workmen only work one or two days per week. The people hang about month after month, and six months after six months, in the hope that the works will go on full time, and they remain in a state of semi-starvation. I hope the Board of Trade will fix a limit in which the rebate may be paid.
§ Sir A. MONDI think the suggestion of the hon. Member for Colchester is a very valuable one, and I hope the Government 1897 will consider whether they cannot alter the wording of this Clause. It does not seem to me, if their principle is to be adopted, that the Board of Trade would do more than merely give an opinion; it would also be in a position to lay down something as to overtime, or what is systematic overtime. If an employer made an arrangement with the Board of Trade, he would go to the Board of Trade beforehand, saying, what it was they were to sanction. I think this Clause would be infinitely better from every point of view if it relieved the employer of uncertainty, and did away with such questions as have been raised by the hon. Member behind me. This Clause is very mandatory, because the word "shall" has been put in, and the word "may" is gone out.
§ Sir J. SIMONThe suggestions which have been made deserve full consideration, and I will see that such consideration is given.
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.