§ (1) The Board of Trade may in such cases and on such conditions as the Board may prescribe, make an arrangement with any employer liable to pay contributions under this Act whereby in respect of workmen engaged by him through a Labour Exchange, the performance of all or any of the duties required under this Act to be performed by the employer in respect of those workmen, whether on his own behalf or on behalf of the workmen, shall be undertaken on behalf of the employer by the Labour Exchange, and whereby successive periods of employment, whether of the same workmen or different workmen, may for the purposes of the employer's contributions be treated as a continuous employment of a single workman.
§ (2) Where any such arrangement has been made, all the periods of employment during which a workman engaged through a Labour Exchange is employed by one or more employers with whom such an arrangement has been made may, on the application of the workman, be treated for the purposes of his contributions as a continuous period of employment under one employer.
1898§ Mr. BAIRDI beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "through a Labour Exchange, the performance of all or any of the duties required under this Act to be performed by the employer in respect of those workmen, whether on his own behalf or on behalf of the workmen, shall be undertaken on behalf of the Employer by the Labour Exchange, and whereby."
The object of leaving out these words is to raise the question of the participation of the Labour Exchanges in the work of this Bill. I should like to make it perfectly clear before saying anything else, that I am in no way opposed to Labour Exchanges, nor is it my intention to speak in opposition to the employment of Labour Exchanges for the purpose of assisting this Bill. But in this particular connection, I take it that this Clause as it stands, will deal with casual labour, or what is more properly called, occasional labour. That case is not satisfactorily met by the Clause as it stands. Obviously, it is the most difficult case you can possibly get, and it is the case that most stands in need of being dealt with Consequently, I do hope that consideration will be given to this particular portion of the Clause, which assists the casual man by bringing to him the assistance of the Labour Exchange. There is one particular class I have in mind; it is that of the man employed in the ship repairing industry, and who gets occasional labour. If I may give an instance that I have in my mind, it is this. A ship requires repairing and it is sent up to London or Glasgow, and her passage is cabled all the way along the coast. She is being waited for; the heads of the Departments concerned in the repairs, or the firm to whom she is going to be handed over, have to make their preparations to receive the vessel. It is a case where the work has to be done at once, because there is heavy demurrage, perhaps it may be as much as £200 a day. Consequently, the work has to be pressed forward. That is one of the difficulties in the employment of Labour Exchanges. The firm has its own staff of employés, its permanent staff, but it needs in addition a large number of casual labourers whose trade it is to do this particular class of work when they are required. As the Bill now stands, these men would be engaged through the Labour Exchanges. It will be necessary to state the number who will be required outside the regular staff. Then the difficulty arises that, as the Bill 1899 now stands, the employer has to report to the Labour Exchange each time he takes on one of these men. The Labour Exchange may be a couple of miles away, and a man has to go and report that he has been taken on for the job. There is no possibility of allowing the delay necessary to enable the man to make a journey of two miles each way.
The next difficulty is with regard to the payment of contributions. I cannot properly raise the question here, as it will come on the Schedule, but unfortunately the matters are so closely bound together that it is difficult to discuss one without the other. Amendments are on the Paper for dealing with these points on the Schedule. It is perfectly obvious that the Board of Trade have realised what a difficult subject it is and how necessary it is to find some way out other than that provided by the Bill. Therefore in anything I say I hope the President of the Board of Trade will recognise that it is not said in any captious spirit, but that it is because the proposals have failed to meet the views advanced by the people immediately concerned, although they go a long way to improve the position. There are other kinds of casual labour, but in this particular case, if you take the Clause in connection with Part III. of Schedule 8, where the rate of contribution is laid down, you will still find that these men have to report each time they are taken on. That is as I read the Bill. But that is a physical impossibility. The first thing the employers require is that there should be some system of compounding with the Labour Exchange, by which an employer will say, "I cannot tell you exactly how many men I want, but it will be something between ten and fifty. After I have taken on these men I will report definitely every day how many men I have taken on, who they are, and how long they are taken on for." In this particular kind of work men are taken on sometimes three, four, or even five times in one week; a man may be taken on in the morning, and employed for half a day; he may be taken on the next day in the afternoon, and employed for half a day; he may be taken on twice in one day. If he is required to report himself at the Labour Exchange every time he is taken on, it will make the Clause unworkable. The suggestion advanced is that the employers should be empowered to make some provisional arrangement with the 1900 Labour Exchange, giving a rough idea—and they can give only a rough idea—of the number of men they will employ. They will then send in a report at the end of the day of the men actually employed, and those men will rank, for the purposes of insurance, according to the lower scale. Unless something of that sort is done, I am afraid the scheme will be quite unworkable for this particular class of men. There are, doubtless, other categories of casual labour, whose case will have to be dealt with. It is to elicit from the President of the Board of Trade his view upon the difficulties which I know he has been studying, that I move the deletion of these words. I want to make it perfectly clear that my idea is not to take the Labour Exchanges out of the Bill, but to arrive at some solution whereby they may be employed more usefully than by the method embodied in the Clause.
Mr. BUXTONI fully recognise the friendly spirit in which the hon. Member has so lucidly moved his Amendment. His object, so far from being hostile, is that the Labour Exchanges should, if possible, be still more used than they would be under the Clause as it stands. I might point out one flaw in the Amendment, although it is hardly worth while, seeing that it is not moved in any hostile spirit; if these words were deleted the whole power would really be left to the Board of Trade to prescribe what regulations they like; and obviously they would prescribe them very much in the terms embodied in the Clause. But that is a detail. As the Bill stands, the employers are able to secure their men through the Labour Exchanges under this Clause, in which case they would obtain the benefit of reduced contributions—that is to say, they would be able to pay 2½d. per week for each of a certain number of varying men; they would keep their books at the Exchange, and be able to count various periods of employment as continuous employment. That is the object of the Clause, and under it they would be relieved from the necessity of making a separate contribution for each separate period of employment; but there is no obligation whatever on an employer to utilise the Labour Exchange unless he desires. The hon. Member made the point, which, I admit, was a strong one, that a charge of 2½d. for every period of employment, however short, was too heavy a tax. We have Amendments on the Paper, under which the charge is practically reduced to a penny a day. It 1901 is always within the option of the employer, if he thinks it more effective from his point of view, to engage his labour in that way, and as far as I am aware the Clause is very fully supported, in principle at all events, by the various associations of employers who have made representations to me on the matter. They desire as far as possible to utilise the Labour Exchanges.
The object of the Clause is, if an employer utilises the Labour Exchanges, to take over all this work from him and charge him for a continuous period of time—say, three months, or whatever it may be—on the whole of his labour, as if it had been continuous employment. We do not think we can do that outside the Labour Exchanges, for this reason. The employer has the option, at a reduced rate, although it will be something in excess of that charged to employers who use the Labour Exchanges. Our reason, however, for making this proposal is not only that we think it will be a proper relief to employers who use the Labour Exchanges, to make a somewhat substantial reduction in the contributions, but we desire as far as possible that this labour should come through the Labour Exchanges, in order that we ourselves may be able to organise it. We believe that this Clause will do something in conjunction with other provisions in the Bill, to diminish casual labour. We have one or two other Clauses which we believe will have the effect of assisting continuity of employment as against casual labour. This Clause, we believe, will be an advantage to the employer. But if an employer does not care to use the Labour Exchanges to carry out the operations referred to by the hon. Member, he will be at liberty to abstain from doing so, but he will have no real inducement, under those circumstances, to reduce casual labour. If employers come to Labour Exchanges, we offer them our services in order that we ourselves may be able to organise the labour at our disposal at the Exchanges. The policy of the Board of Trade in this matter is, as far as possible, to give a sufficiency of work to various individuals instead of treating it all as purely casual labour. That is the advantage which, we believe, will accrue from the provision of labour through the Exchanges over that which will be under the control of ordinary individuals. The inducement, as far as the employer is concerned, will be that the 1902 more casual labour he obtains the higher will be the contribution he will have to pay. As far as the particular point raised by the hon. Member is concerned, we believe that we can provide the necessary labour required, especially in the particular case mentioned by the hon. Member. I think it is quite clear that the labour can be provided beforehand. As far as our experience goes, our Labour Exchanges are getting more and more efficient every day, and I am glad to say are able to meet very heavy and sudden demands which are made on them. Under those circumstances, I think we must retain this Clause, because we believe that it will have the effect which I have indicated, and that it will assist in the extension of our Labour Exchanges. Without this Clause, we would have serious difficulty in dealing with casual labour.
§ Mr. HILLSI feel rather in a difficulty in regard to this Amendment. I am rather impressed by what the President of the Board of Trade said. As I understand the Clause puts a premium on the employer, or body of employers, who agree that they will engage their casual labour through the Labour Exchange. So far, I support the Clause, and I think everybody will, for it is in line with certain other operations that have taken place in regard to Labour Exchanges, and it is really an attempt to decasualise labour. I need not quote the other cases, because all students of Labour Exchanges know them. Here you have a very casual sort of labour which the Mover has used as an illustration, and the Government say if the employer will undertake to engage all the hands he wants through the Labour Exchange, that he will get certain advantages. The answer to that is that it is difficult, if not impossible, for him to do so. He cannot go to the Labour Exchange and get men, and the men will not put themselves on the books. I am in favour of the Government's proposal if the scheme can be made to work, but I am not quite sure that it can. That, I think, with all respect, is the answer to my hon. Friend, and the real solution is the screwing out of the organisation of the Labour Exchange, and not in the deletion of these words; for, if you give the same advantage to the man who does not use the Exchange as you do to the man who does use the Exchange, then I think you do serious injury to the cause of the decasualisation of labour. As far as we have gone at present, I am inclined to think the Govern- 1903 ment are right. But I think the Committee must understand that the Labour Exchanges should undertake the duty of finding and supplying this labour in such form as the employer wants He must be able to go to them and get the men at the time and the place he wants them. I should like to see some sort of mutual obligation contained in this Clause. It would strengthen the Clause in every way, and if the Government will consider whether they could strengthen the Clause in that way, I believe they will meet the objection of my hon. Friend, and I am certain that they will have made a great step in the direction in which we all desire to go.
§ Mr. ALDENI do not think this Clause is likely to be a great success, but at the same time I do think that the experiment ought to be tried. I think we are all in favour of decasualising labour. I do not at all agree with some of the remarks made as to the difficulty of carrying this out. The main thing is that the employer should be under regulations in the matter and that we should get the right side of the men in this question. If the employer wants to decasualise labour he can do it. I have seen it done on a great number of occasions, and I know it can be done. Let us take a practical instance as to the Labour Exchanges. There is an employer at the docks who wants some men, and there are casual labourers hanging about ready to be engaged, and who obviously do not want to go to the Labour Exchange and be engaged. The moment this Bill becomes law with this Clause in it the employer intimates to all those men who are in the habit of waiting for work that if they want work they must apply to the Labour Exchange and be registered. He tells them, "You need not think that that means that you will have fewer chances of getting work. You will get more chances, because the men who register will have the first opportunity." Then the employer who is in touch with the Exchange by means of the telephone, tells the Labour Exchange, "I want so many men." The Labour Exchange sends so many men—the men who have been in the habit of getting work at that place. All that is required, it seems to me, is that the employer, or one of his clerks, should telephone that he wants so many men for the day, or two days, or half a day, as the case may be. When those men have worked so many 1904 hours, he can telephone and say, "I cannot employ them any more now, but I would like you to know that I may be asking for those men again very shortly." Those men have not got to be registered again. The clerk informs the Labour Exchange, and they are immediately reentered at the Labour Exchange.
§ Mr. BAIRDIf the Board of Trade will allow the employer to use the telephone that will go a long way to meet my request.
§ Mr. ALDENIf the Board of Trade will not do a thing like that, the Board of Trade is not worth much. You have got to meet the difficulties of the employers and of the men in this matter, and as one who has had experience of casual labourers at the docks, I know it is absolutely impossible to work unless through a telephone. I understood that the whole principle underlying this was to work the telephone and telegraph. Unless you are willing to work the practical mechanical means at your disposal you will not get the work done. I think the hon. Member for Rugby may rest satisfied that the telephone will do away with a great many of the worst difficulties.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIf it had been the President of the Board of Trade instead of the hon. Member for Tottenham who had made the last speech I do not think the hon. Member for Rugby would have even moved his Amendment, because practically what the hon. Member for Tottenham said could be done is what is wanted. The hon. Member for Rugby made a suggestion which I am not quite sure reached the President of the Board of Trade. The suggestion was that in the particular trade to which he was referring, the ship repairing trade, a ship comes in and a large amount of labour is wanted suddenly. The repairers cannot say until the ship is in what class of labour is wanted, or how many men are required. Would it not be possible to allow a firm of employers who regularly carry on business in that way to say to the Labour Exchange: "We will take all the casual labour we want through the Labour Exchange and through the registered men; but at the moment we want them, we do not want to have to send those men to the Labour Exchange." They hang about near the dock near to their work. There is no apparent machinery to enable the workmen to telephone to the Labour Exchange.
1905 What is wanted is that the employer should be able to say to the Labour Exchange, "I will take all the casual labour I want through the Exchange," and then to be allowed to do so from the men who are say at the docks, and at the end of the day, to tell the Labour Exchange, "I have had twenty men, or whatever the number may be, and in that way send on the names to the Labour Exchange." If that could be done, it would remove a real practical difficulty in getting men through the Labour Exchange, and it would be doing something which is fair to the men because you would be preventing an unnecessary deduction from their wages and a large amount of additional contribution, which they would otherwise have to pay under the Amendment as proposed by the President of the Board of Trade. Those men might be paid 1d. per day or 6d. per week, while 2½d. would be all more fortunate workmen would have to pay. I believe if the President of the Board of Trade could see that this machinery would be used in a sort of wholesale way that the difficulty would be removed. There is a very good precedent for it which all shipping men know well. They ensure against the loss of the ships of their fleet generally by a covering policy, and they declare as to the particular thing or cargo they want covered. In the sane way, could there not be a covering policy with the Labour Exchange with regard to all the casual labour required.
Mr. BUXTONAs far as the telephone is concerned, it is used to the fullest possible extent, and much depends on how the telephone is used. We are anxious in these matters to meet the convenience of the employer who requires labour, and, as far as we know, the Labour Exchanges to that extent have given satisfaction. If an employer telephones to the Exchange, and informs us beforehand, he is always provided for, but I do not think it would be fair to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. These casual men are not men taken in the ordinary sense through the Exchange, and, as I understand, the suggestion is that the employer telephones up to say that he has taken on a certain number of men and that he wants to come under the provisions as to the Labour Exchange in this Clause.
Mr. BUXTONIf it is merely taking men on at the casual place, I do not really 1906 think he is entitled to get this particular advantage of keeping the books and doing all the work for him which we are proposing in the Labour Exchange. It is where we are doing the work for him and assisting and organising that it comes under this provision, and to that extent this will assist in diminishing casual labour.
§ Mr. BARNESWith the general objects of the Clause I am in agreement, since, as far as I understand it, it seeks to organise and systematise the labour about the docks and elsewhere. I have in my mind a number of trade union men who may be at a disadvantage by this. Those men belonging to a trade union may be in the position to get two or three jobs, and why should they be put in a different position to men getting two or three jobs through the Labour Exchange. I do not see any reason why they should. Why should men be forced to go to a Labour Exchange if they can get jobs as readily or perhaps more readily through the headquarters of their trade union? I have a case in mind where the headquarters in Glasgow of a trade union are on the south side of the river, and the Labour Exchange is on the north side, at least a mile away. Why should the men be compelled to go that distance in order to get the benefits of this particular Sub-section. I should like to know from the President of the Board of Trade if he would give me some information on this point. It seems to me to be one well worth his attention, and one to which trade unionists will attach considerable importance. You are going to force this man, belonging to a union, to go to a Labour Exchange in order to get this exemption, and I do not see why you should do so.
Mr. BUXTONThis is not a question of unemployment benefit or a question of the trade union deduction, which is the point the hon. Member raised the other day. This is a question of whether the workman would be engaged by the Labour Exchange. If he thinks he is able to get his employment more suitably or more readily elsewhere, there is no obligation upon him to use the Labour Exchange.
§ Mr. BARNESThen he will get no exemption.
Mr. BUXTONIn this case the Labour Exchange is doing something for him. It is registering and endeavouring, as far as possible, to find him work. They are 1907 doing something for his advantage, and, therefore, they are entitled to say that he shall register at the Labour Exchange. Indeed, I do not see how it is practical to carry out this Clause unless it is stipulated that he shall register at the Labour Exchange. The Labour Exchanges are spread now very much all over the country. We are gradually extending them, and I do not think that the difficulty of distance to which the hon. Member has referred is likely often to occur. I really do not think it is too much to ask that if a man is going to have the advantage of this Clause that he should be registered at the Labour Exchange, so that he would be in a position to take the job which the Labour Exchange is able to offer him, but it in no sense prevents him from going elsewhere.
§ Mr. BAIRDI do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman quite realises that our desire is to get into the Labour Exchanges those particular men who are now employed outside the Labour Exchanges. That is the precise point. It is no answer to say if they will not come to the Labour Exchange they cannot get the benefit. We want to induce these men to go to the Labour Exchanges, and thus decasualise. I notice the right hon. Gentleman walked very warily regarding telephones. Though he did say a proper use would be made of the telephone, the word "proper" is capable of wide extension.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think the hon. Member can pursue this point.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "exchange" ["engaged by him through a labour exchange"] insert the words "or in his employ at the date of such arrangement."—[Mr. Buxton.]
§ Mr. DENMANI beg to move in Sub-section (1) after the word "under" ["required under this Act"] to insert the words "any part of."
This Amendment is simply intended to make what is already in the Act a little more clear. If an employer pays contributions under this Act and makes an arrangement with the Labour Exchange, the keeping of the books and that sort of thing can be done on his behalf by the Exchange. I suggest the insertion of the 1908 words I have proposed in order to make it perfectly clear what is the object.
Mr. BUXTONI accept these words, but I have not had an opportunity of properly discussing the matter with the Treasury. I have had some communication with them and possibly on report the word may be altered.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI wish formally to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood)—in Sub-Section (1) to leave out the words "and whereby successive periods of employment, whether of the same workmen or different workmen, may for the purposes of the employer's contributions be treated as a continuous employment of a single workman."
I wish to get a statement from the Government exactly what the words in this Sub-section mean. As I read the Clause, although I may be entirely wrong, these words apply to men whether engaged through the Labour Exchanges or not. Is that really the intention of the Government? The Clause says "the Board of Trade may in such cases and on such conditions as the Board may prescribe make an arrangement with any employer liable to pay contributions under this Act, whereby in respect of workmen engaged by him to a Labour Exchange." Later it goes on to say "and whereby successive periods of employment, whether of the same workmen or different workmen, may for the purposes of the employer's contributions be treated as a continuous employment of a single workman." This, I submit, does not refer to men engaged through the Labour Exchange. I suggest to the Government that my interpretation is right, and I would ask why limit this particular provision to people employed through the Labour Exchange? Personally, I think it ought not to be so limited. I think that in any case whether the men are engaged through the Labour Exchange or not it should be for the employers to make such an arrangement as may be prescribed by the Labour Exchange whereby successive periods of employment of these casual labourers should be treated as one continuous employment. I think it should be made clear that this can be done in any case, whether casual labour is employed through the Labour Exchange or not. Will the Government 1909 say whether they intend to include people engaged through the Labour Exchange or not? I am anxious to decasualise labour as much as possible.
§ Sir J. SIMONThe hon. Gentleman has raised two points. The first is a grammatical point, but none the less important on that account, and the other is a question of policy. As regards the grammatical point, it looks as if the hon. Gentleman's criticism was well-founded. It does happen when we look at line 4 that the word "whereby" occurs in the Clause just in front of the qualifying expression "in respect of workmen engaged by him through a Labour Exchange. Later, in line 9 the word "whereby" is repeated. Therefore, grammatically it would appear that the qualification does not apply when the word is used a second time. That is not the intention of the Government or the intention of the Clause, and I shall ask leave later on to use the word "and" and leave out the word "whereby," so that it may be quite clear that both parts of the Clause are governed by the qualification. With respect to the hon. Gentleman's other point, he asked why limit this privilege to cases where workmen are engaged through the Labour Exchange. The argument which he uses to support his proposal is that decasualisation is a good object whether you do it through the Labour Exchange or otherwise. I would point out in answer to that, that you do not decasualise labour if you give a large premium to an employer to take anybody or everybody that comes along, without any regard to the organisation of the work of these people. That is not decasualising. It would encourage the employer to take the first man that came along without the slightest regard to the condition of the industry.
The thing that is cheapest for an employer—and it is secured as the Bill is drawn—is to have a regular man and keep him in regular work. The workman who is regularly employed is the man in respect of whom the employer pays 2—d. in the first instance, and in respect of whom he afterwards gets a rebate of one-third. That is the cheapest kind of man really he can get. The next cheapest kind of man is the man who is not engaged for a period and kept regularly employed, but is engaged only casually, but through a Labour Exchange. In that instance, we are able to control and influence the taking-on of the casual labour of a district, 1910 and I hope to that extent to decasualise the labour in that particular industry. As regards the man taken on through the Labour Exchange, he gets this benefit under this Clause—that he pays only 2½d. a week, but he does not get any rebate under our new Clause 70. If you take the case of the employer who will not have a regular workman and keep him regularly at work, but insists upon taking his casual labour at the dock gates without any regard to the organisation of the industry, then he will have to pay a penny a day if the engagement is for two days or less, or 2½d. if the engagement is for more than two days, and he will get no rebate. As the Bill is now drawn, it has this merit, that it does in fact encourage desirable forms of employment as against undesirable forms of employment. We cannot accept the suggestion that in all cases the employer is to be entitled to be treated as if he was always employing the same workmen, if he is continually taking on men without any regard for the organisation of labour under the Labour Exchange.
§ Mr. HILLSAs I understand the last words of this Clause do not operate as an extension of the new Clause 70. The new Clause gives the employer a rebate where he continuously engages a man for forty-five weeks in the year. I read these words, as giving the same exemption where a body of employers give a single man continuous employment for forty-five weeks.
§ Sir J. SIMONWhich of the employers do you think would get the rebate?
§ Sir J. SIMONI should think it was.
§ Mr. HILLSSupposing my interpretation is right, you have made a much bigger stride towards the decasualisation of labour than by Clause 70, for you have allowed employers to band together and do a thing which no individual employer can do, and you have given them a premium for saying that they will ensure that certain men do get 45 weeks in the year. I think that is worth doing. The exemption of the employer is a very small price to pay for a very important advance in continuity of employment. The individual man cannot say that the casual labourer gets forty-five weeks employment in the year, because in some cases the employer has not got forty-five 1911 weeks to give him, but a body of employers can say that, and whether they engage the man through the Labour Exchange or not, is immaterial. But if they do agree that they will employ the man for forty-five weeks, I think the Government ought to extend the exemption with the object of ensuring continuity of employment. I do so read the Clause, and I hope it will be reconsidered in the light of what I have said.
§ Mr. HOLTI only wish to say that this body of employers who banded themselves together to employ workmen continuously would be certain to get the rebate without asking the Government for it at all, and without carrying it so far as to insure that one employer would always be the nominal employer of the workmen.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENIn reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman I would point out that he seemed to think that the Amendment I suggest would enable any employer to obtain casual labour in any way he liked. That is not so, because this final Section of the Clause is governed by the words "In such cases and on such conditions as the Board of Trade may prescribe." It leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the Board of Trade, but only says that the employer need not necessarily do it through the Labour Exchange. So far from decasualising labour, that would be putting a premium on the employment of casual labour, because the matter is really left in the hands of the Board of Trade.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEIt seems to me that we are missing the point—that the idea of the Labour Exchange is to act as a clearing-house. You must not have a lot of clearing-houses, but you must have one authority in this matter. Wherever you have to deal with casual labour, you must have one authority, and the only idea of the Government in establishing the Labour Exchange as the clearing-house was surely to enable us to get all the facts and figures in order to deal with these casual men. I do not think there will be any difficulty in the employers engaging their men by making arrangements with one another; but it does seem to me that you cannot substitute any other authority for this authority which shall act as a clearing-house, and I sincerely hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI will withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir J. SIMONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "whereby" ["and whereby successive periods of employment"].
§ Question, "That the word 'whereby' stand part of the Clause"; put and negatived.
§ Mr. T. E. HARVEYI beg to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "successive" ["and whereby successive periods of employment"].
My Amendment is with the object of making the Clause smoother in its working. I think it is not at all clear what the exact meaning of the word "successive" being inserted is, and it might give rise to difficulties. It is also not quite clear that difficulties would not arise if there happened to be an interval between the different periods of employment, and possibly, also, in the case of a man being employed for a single day elsewhere. I am not sure that that would not interrupt successive employment.
§ Sir J. SIMONWe accept the Amendment. It really improves the Clause.
§ Question, "That the word 'successive' stand part of the Clause"; put and negatived.
Mr. BUXTONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "contributions" ["the employers' contributions be treated as"], to insert the words "but not for the purposes of a refund of any part of the employers' contributions."
§ Mr. HOLTI want to ask you, Sir, for a ruling on a point of Order. These words obviously refer to the provisions in Clause 70; but Clause 70 has been struck out and a new Clause 70 is to be inserted. I want to ask whether if these words are now inserted they will in any way prejudice the discussion on Clause 70 as to the circumstances under which an employer may be entitled to substitute one workman for another.
§ The CHAIRMANAs I understand it, the hon. Member's point is founded upon the idea that the new Clause 70 must still be Clause 70. I would point out to him that it may be Clause 72, so that I do not think there is anything in the point.
Mr. BUXTONI will meet the hon. Member. As the Committee knows, Clause 70 was withdrawn in order to insert a new Clause, and the original Clause therefore, comes at the end. I assure my hon. Friend that supposing any alterations are made by the Committee in substance to the new Clause 70, inconsistent with this, this will have to be altered to make it consistent with the new Clause 70.
§ Mr. HOLTYes, but supposing we wish to make alterations in the new Clause 70, which are inconsistent with this, shall we be told when we get to that Clause, that by inserting this Amendment we shall already have prejudged the issue?
§ The CHAIRMANI do not see how it will prejudge it.
§ Sir J. SIMONWe do not take any exception.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "may," ["may for the purposes of the employers' contributions"] insert the words "subject to regulations made by the Board of Trade";
§ At the end of Sub-section (1), add the words "and those regulations may provide for the refund of part of his contributions accordingly."
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.