§ (1) If the repeated failure of any insured workman to obtain or retain employment appears to the insurance officer to be wholly or partly due to defects in skill or knowledge, the insurance officer may, if he thinks fit, offer to arrange for the attendance of the workman at a suitable course of technical instruction, and may out of the Unemployment Fund pay all or any of the expenses incidental to such attendance. If the workman fails or refuses either to avail himself of the offer, or to produce satisfactory evidence of his competence, or if the person in charge of the course attended by the workman reports that there is no reasonable prospect of such defects being remedied, such facts shall be taken into consideration in determining what is suitable employment for the workman.
1914§ (2) The regulations of the Board of Trade made under this Part of this Act may provide for the return to a workman who is not a workman in an insured trade and to his employer of any contributions paid by them respectively under the belief that the workman was a workman in an insured trade.
§ (3) Where under regulations made by the Board of Trade any sum has been paid out of the Unemployment Fund by way of reward for the return of a book or card which has been lost, the person responsible for the custody of the book or card at the time of its loss shall be liable to repay the sum so paid, not exceeding one shilling in respect of any one occasion.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI wish to move the Amendment which appears in the names of Mr. Joynson-Hicks and myself, namely, after the word "workman" ["failure of any insured workman to obtain or retain employment"] to insert the words, "under the age of twenty-one." This is a most extraordinary provision. It is this, that where a workman has been constantly unemployed, and it is thought the reason is a want of skill, that he may be sent to school, so to speak, and taught a trade, and this is to take place at the cost of the Unemployment Fund. I fully recognise that the intention of this is good. There may be cases, especially with young men, who keep on losing their jobs and fail to obtain employment on account of want of skill, and if that can be remedied in the way suggested, I certainly should not oppose it for a moment; but as the thing is now drafted, I think it is absolutely illusory. You can send a man to school, apparently, at any age, and really it is absurd to suggest that a workman of 30 we will say, or 40 or 50, who has been repeatedly out of work is likely to remedy his defect in middle-age by being sent to some kind of technical school. I venture to think if that is done you will simply be depleting the Unemployment Fund, which we all want to maintain as far as possible, without any results whatsoever. I want, therefore, to have some limitation as regards age after which this Clause will not operate, and the limitation which has been suggested to me is the age of 21. After 21, I really do not think it is probable that you will get any good results at all. I think it is very likely that you would under 21, and at all events the experiment might be tried, but I certainly do not want to see the Unemployment Fund used in cases where there is likely to be no good result. 1915 This matter has been pressed upon me very strongly by various associations and others who are interested in this particular Clause, and for the reasons I have given, I desire to move the insertion of these words on the Paper, limiting it to those under the age of twenty-one.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEI hope the Government will not accept the Amendment. It seems to suggest that at the age of 21 a man has come to the limit of his development.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI do not insist on 21.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEIt also seems to me to suggest that the hon. Member has not read further into the Clause, because it says that the insurance officer may, if he thinks fit, offer to arrange for it, and it would appear to me that any insurance officer who exercised common-sense in carrying out his duties would take into account the age of the man he was dealing with, and, therefore, it is hardly fair to suggest that a man of 60 would be asked to attend, say, a continuation school. It seems to me that the principle of causing a man to be trained if he is not suitable for a certain class of work is entirely good, and I accept the Clause as it stands.
§ Mr. HOAREI do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend, the Member for Dudley, for two reasons. In the first place, I am told by people very well qualified to speak on the subject, that there are many cases where an adult has been instructed simply in one particular branch of a given trade, and that one or two lessons at a course of instruction may make him competent to take other work in one of the groups of the insured trades, and secondly, I cannot see why a man over the age of 21 should not attend these courses. It seemed to me that my hon. Friend appeared to think that only children of an elementary school age attend technical courses.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENNo, that ends long before 21.
§ Mr. HOAREIf my hon. Friend would visit some of the County Council technical institutions in London, he would find that many adults follow these courses of instructions, and I see no reason why a man, subject to the approval of the insurance officer, should not be required to attend a course of such instruction, provided the insurance officer is satisfied that by doing 1916 so he is likely to better his chances of getting employment in one of those branches of the insured trades. I, therefore, hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
Mr. BUXTONI beg to move, "That the Committee do sit after 4 o'clock to-day." I would suggest that we finish at Clause 75. There are practically no Amendments to that Clause, except one to which I think the Government will be able to agree, and the Committee also.
§ Question, "That this Committee do sit after 4 o'clock to-day," put and agreed to.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENMay I ask the Government if they will be so good as to give me some answer to my point in general. I do not insist upon the age of 21, but I do say there ought to be some limitation of this Clause, and I say it in the interests of the Unemployment Fund, because this matter can be decided now by any insurance officer. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) is an educational enthusiast, and you might get an insurance officer who is an educational enthusiast. I hope he will be as good as the hon. Member for Chelsea, but these educational enthusiasts very often go in for various fads. I do not say this is a fad, but if a single insurance officer is an educational enthusiast, he might admit all kinds of unsuitable people of considerable age to obtain this technical instruction. It depends entirely on one single insurance officer. Though I do not insist on the actual terms of my Amendment, I move in order that we may protect the Fund, and limit it in some way, either as regards the officer or as regards the age at which men can be sent.
§ Sir J. SIMONI thought the thing had been discussed with candour and fairness by several hon. Gentlemen from the various points of view. I do not make any complaint that hon. Members take different points of view. After all, if we turn back to Clause 62, we shall remind ourselves of one of the statutory conditions under which a man, who is not employed is entitled to benefit. He has to show that he is capable of work, and incapable of obtaining suitable employment. Supposing a man comes and states that he is a carpenter, and that he is, in fact, quite ignorant of the necessary processes of carpentry, what do you suggest should be done? He comes and says so, and what is to be done? It is surely necessary we should have some machinery in the Bill somewhere by which we are going to do 1917 what we can for cases such as that. The first object of Clause 74 is to provide for a test of that sort. I quite agree it has an educational value, but I think we may trust the Board of Trade to see that their insurance officers do not go spending money on fads. It is not in the interest of the Board of Trade to spend money in fads.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI think the Amendment is absolutely necessary. The Solicitor-General tells us if a man comes and says he is a carpenter, and that if he is not a carpenter that then you must send him to be taught carpentry.
§ Sir J. SIMONI did not say so. I said the first object of the Clause was to test.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENHow are you going to test?
§ Sir J. SIMONI do not think the hon. Member has read the Clause.
§ Mr. T. E. HARVEYIn the sub-division of industry it sometimes happens that a man is doing highly-specialised work. He has got real skill, but he has been at a particular work so long that he is not adapted to other forms, although he is qualified technically, and a very short time of training would enable such a man to take up some other branch of his trade by which possibly he would find work. I knew of a particular case of a man who was a metal worker. For a long time he did nothing but make kettle spouts. He was thrown out of work, and if he had had the opportunity of a few weeks or possibly less at his proper trade, or with proper training, he might have revived his skill and been able to get work.
§ Mr. BARNESI am going to vote for this Clause, but the more I hear its practical aspects discussed, the less I like it. I think on the whole it is a good principle that a man who has repeatedly failed to get himself into work shall be dealt with somehow or another by the person responsible for giving him money out of the Fund. I think that is a right principle, and that yon cannot get away from it. When I hear arguments, such as I have heard just now, I feel alarmed. I know the class of man my hon. Friend who spoke last has in mind. He is the man who, during his teens, has been an apprentice, and has been served badly by the employer, who has exploited him at low wages and not taught him his trade. If I thought this Clause was going to increase that sort of thing, I should have more misgivings than I have now. There is one thing, however, that I 1918 cannot get out of my mind, and do not want to get out of my mind, and that is that the Trade Unions have got to be on the ground in the working of this Act. I would hope that instead of that sort of thing being increased, that it will probably be diminished because the Trade Unions will have some influence in bringing cases to the Board of Trade, and that they will see that young fellows are not exploited and badly used in the way I suggest.
§ Sir J. SIMONIt does not say so.
Mr. TYSON WILSONIt will have to be interpreted very broadly or otherwise it is going to cause great hardship. In the building trade, for instance, you may have men who are quite good as inside carpenters, and those who are quite good as out side carpenters. If the man accustomed to inside work is sent to outside work, and vice versa—
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think that quite arises.
Mr. TYSON WILSONYes, it does, because under the Section those workmen will be sent to a technical school, nd they may be forty-five or fifty years of age. The outside carpenter is not able or accustomed to do the work inside, and the inside carpenter is not able to do the work outside. That is the point.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI am not in the least convinced, but as I do not get much support I would ask leave to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. BUXTONI beg to move in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "course of" ["suitable course of technical instruction"], and to insert instead thereof the words "institution for." These are consequential words, to make if clear that the first part of the Clause is for the purpose of testing, and not education.
§ Mr. BARNESI should like to be clear as to the power of the insurance officer in this matter. I suppose that there will be no question of benefit coming in here. I should like an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade with regard to that matter, that while a man is under supervision or under test he is still going to get his benefit. I have no objection to the proposal, but I think that ought to be made clear.
§ Mr. HOAREI view these words with considerable apprehension, and for this reason. As far as I understand the Clause, the duty will almost invariably be given to the local education authority of testing workmen and of saying either directly or indirectly that the workman is unqualified for a particular form of employment. That seems to me to raise several extremely dangerous points. Take one of them. Anyone who has to do with Local Education Committees, will know how extremely difficult it is to make a course of technical instruction popular, and I am very much afraid that if it comes to be known that these courses are to be used to disqualify particular workmen, you will bring it about that working men will be disinclined to go to them as voluntary attendants at the class. That, to my mind, is a very dangerous thing. I cannot see why you should have these tests at all. The Clause as it was originally drafted, was, so far as I could understand it, designed to give a badly educated workman better education. To that extent I agree with it, but the Solicitor-General has just declared that the primary object of this Clause is not education but a test disqualification. That puts an entirely new phase upon the Clause altogether. I hope that these words will not be inserted, and that we shall go back to the Clause as originally drafted, under which it was intended that these courses of instruction should be educative and should not be designed to disqualify a workman and prevent him coming upon the Unemployment Fund. I therefore hope the Committee will not agree to the insertion of these words.
§ Sir J. SIMONI hope the hon. Gentleman and those who are supporting him will reconsider their view about this matter. May I ask the Committee first just to see what would be the general scope of the Clause supposing the Government's Amendments in it were adopted. This is the first of two or three Amendments and they want to be looked at together. Supposing the Government's proposals are adopted the general effect will be this. Clause 74 is intended to apply to the purely obvious principle that if a man is going to claim benefit amongst other grounds because he cannot get employment for which he is suitable, we must have some machinery for finding out whether he is really right in saying that the employment he names is suitable for him. Therefore the first object of Clause 74 as amended 1920 by the Government would be to see in a real case of doubt whether or not a man who is put to a fair test shows that his credentials are satisfactory. It is only when you have found out whether he is right or wrong that you can very well go the further step of providing for his training. It may be that he is perfectly right. In that case it will be the height of folly to teach him things which he already knows. On the other hand it may be that he was wrong and so hopelessly wrong that it is not practicable or reasonable to spend the Insurance Fund on teaching him the trade which he has named. You would not wish to go to that expense.
If you have a case where a man is tested and there are such defects in his technical skill as call for training, and those defects can be reasonably met, then and then alone the object which my hon. Friend opposite has in view comes into range. That is the general effect of the provisions in the Clause. May I say one word to relieve the mind of the hon. Gentleman and those educationists who have looked at the Clause with the same suspicious glance as he has done. There is nothing in the Clause at all to make it the duty of any education authority to give this instruction or to impose these tests. There is nothing in this to say that the London County Council or the Education Committee must do it. We are not passing an education Bill, we are merely passing an insurance Bill, and that is why we use the expression "an institution for technical instruction." It would be very undesirable that we should set up machinery which would be likely to cause existing institutions to be unpopular The very fact that we cannot ask them to do it but can only ask them for their assistance is surely a very practicable safeguard against their suffering anything of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.
§ Mr. HILLSI hope the words that we are now inserting do not govern the last Amendment which is on the Paper for the first time this morning—the last Amendment before 74.
§ Sir J. SIMONNo, they do not.
§ Mr. HILLSThe Committee must admit that private Members are in a difficulty. We have suddenly put before us what looks like a wrecking Amendment of the whole Clause.
§ Sir J. SIMONThat is why I asked the Committee to look at the others.
§ Mr. HILLSSo long as that point is safeguarded I do not think I can follow my hon. Friend into the educational bypaths where he has trod, therefore I accept the Government Amendment.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENThe Solicitor-General will now see why I was very doubtful about withdrawing my previous Amendment. It is true he has proposed this system of testing. I think a system of testing is very important. If it were not agreed to, certainly I think we ought to have some limitation as suggested. I know my hon. Friend and the other educationists are opposed to this testing question, but I am very sorry I cannot support them. I shall support the Government.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEMay I point out that you are going to exploit the Unemployment Fund to meet education expenses. While the principle of private instruction is good, it seems to me that to exploit the Unemployment Fund to pay the fees of certain workmen and leave others in the Fund to bear the cost of this technical training is a weak point in the scheme.
§ Sir J. SIMONThat is not the effect.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. HOAREI hope the Government will agree to the Amendment that I am about to put forward. I imagine that it is their intention that the Board of Trade should pay for this course of instruction. If that is the case, I hope they will accept my Amendment, that in Clause 74, page 61, line 24, the word "shall" take the place of "may." That is a point that needs no argument at all.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLIt seems to me there may be circumstances which will arise where it may not be essential that the Fund should pay. I agree that the Fund should bear the cost if there is no reserve. I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment, because it is possible that circumstances may arise where societies will be very glad to give these facilities. Do not make it statutory on the Fund that they must pay the money. There may be circumstances in which the employer might pay.
§ Mr. HOAREI am not at all satisfied. I cannot see that there will be any circumstances. The education authority, or the county council, or whoever it may be, obviously cannot give these classes for nothing, and who is to pay for them?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENWhere is the money to come from?
§ Sir J. SIMONThere is no danger of the education rates going up.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. BARNESShould I be in order in moving, for the purpose of getting a statement from the President of the Board of Trade, the Amendment standing in the name of Mr. Lansbury?
§ The CHAIRMANYes.
§ Mr. BARNESI beg to move in Sub-section (1) after the word "Fund" ["out of the Unemployment Fund, pay all or any of the expenses"], to insert the words "in addition to whatever unemployment benefit the workman may be under this Act entitled."
I think the Clause is fairly plain, that the insurance officer shall arrange for the instruction of the workman and pay for it out of the Unemployment Fund, but I should like to know from the President of the Board of Trade if that is also his view, because, if so, I should, of course, withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. BUXTONI understand my hon. Friend has moved the Amendment merely for the sake of getting information. I had already assured him, by a nod, that his point was met by the Clause.
§ Mr. BARNESThe nod does not get on the note, but after the President's intimation I withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. HOAREI beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "person in charge of the course," and to insert instead thereof the words "insurance officer."
This Amendment places the insurance officer in the position of the person in charge of the course attended by the workman. I do this because I am most anxious to keep the teacher at this course of instruction out of any possible controversy, either with the unions or with the man himself, with reference to the particular individual's qualifications to come on the Fund or not. It seems to me tbe Board of Trade is responsible, and should take the responsibility.
Mr. BUXTONI understand my hon. Friend's idea is, that if there is to be adverse report from the officer of the institution, and that is given as the reason for the refusal of benefit, that that might be injurious in some ways, or put too much responsibility on the institution. I have no objection to the Amendment. I think the words as they are may have to be altered on Report, but I accept them for the time being.
§ Mr. DENMANWould the hon. Member move to also leave out words, "attended by the workman?"
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "that" ["the workman reports that" insert the words "the skill or knowledge of the workman is defective, and that."
Mr. BUXTONI beg to move to insert at the end of Sub-section (1) the words,
If in any case the person in charge of the institution reports that the skill or knowledge of the workman is defective, but that there is a reasonable prospect of the defects being remedied by technical instruction, the insurance officer may subject to any directions given by the Board of Trade pay out of the Unemployment Fund all or any of the expenses incidental to the provision of the instruction, if he is of opinion that the charge on the Unemployment Fund in respect of the workman is likely to be decreased by the provision of the instruction.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENOught not we here to again use the same words "insurance officer"?
Mr. BUXTONWe think the same words would not do, but perhaps it may stand, and on Report I will make the two things run together. Altering it now may really not improve it.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEWill the President of the Board of Trade seriously consider some modification of this Clause, which would throw the cost on the Treasury and not on the Unemployment Fund. This is primarily a Board of Education matter, and the Unemployment Fund should be re- 1924 lieved of the cost of technical instruction, which is really a Board of Education and Treasury matter.
Mr. BUXTONUnder the wording of this Clause, the only individuals who would come under it and benefit from it, are those who, in the opinion of the Board of Trade and the insurance officer, are likely, in respect of the technical education, to lessen the charge on the Unemployment Fund rather than to add one. It will diminish the charge, if anything.
§ Mr. HOAREI will not move the Amendment in my name, as it is exactly the same as the Amendment the Committee has been discussing.
§ Mr. HILLSI should just like to ask a question with regard to the proviso at the end of the new paragraph. It seems to me it may limit the usefulness of the Fund, and it is impossible for any insurance officer to say that the education of a single workman will decrease the charge on the Fund. It depends on all sorts of conditions. Supposing a man is coming up for instruction during a period of trade depression. The education of that man may have a very small effect on the charge that man makes on the Fund. Surely we are want is the education of the man who has been taught an obsolete process; we want to teach him a new process, and is not that a matter that is best left to the discretion of the insurance officer under the supervision of the Board of Trade? It is an impossible proviso to work, it is very far reaching, and in practice, I believe, would militate against the usefulness of the Clause. I do not see that the Government want it because all the instruction that is given is made subject to the directions of the Board of Trade. They have the final word, and I suggest that the way in which they exercise their discretion should not be limited, as it is, in this way.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEIt seems to me that this is narrowing down what I thought was such an admirable principle enunciated by the President of the Board of Trade. There is very little of educational suggestion in what is proposed. I think it is going to be governed by other things than educational efficency, and that if this cannot be widened in some way, that it is going to do little in the direction in which the Government have set out to go.
§ Mr. BALDWINI hope the Government will sit tight on this point. I think this is one of the most extraordinary Clauses I 1925 have seen. I can only imagine that the Clause has originated in the brain of an educationist, and I thank the hon. Member for Chelsea for the word, who has escaped from Ruskin College into the Board of Trade. I do think that before this Clause passes it would be very interesting if some educationist present would tell us, having reference to the schools of technical instruction in London which have been alluded to, to what extent they would be able to help men in the insured trades, say, in construction or demolition of houses or in the contruction of railroads. Does this mean that a man who is an indifferent navvy and housebreaker is to be taught to be a plasterer? Supposing a man who has been brought up to the making of kettle spouts like my hon. Friend's friend, how can he be taught anything else, even supposing he came into the Bill, and I imagine he does not. I quite see there is something to be said from the educationist's point of view, but surely it is a false principle to mix up the education of working men with a Bill for National Insurance. I think the whole Clause is perfectly ridiculous. I sent down this Bill to a large employer of labour, and asked him for comments. I had some very valuable comments on all these Clauses, and against No. 74 he wrote the word "Rot" in big letters. I very much hope the Government will remain firm on this point, so that the Clause as amended by them may do as little harm as possibe.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.
§ Mr. GOLDMANI beg to move in Subsection (2) to leave out the word "may" ["Act may provide"] and to insert instead thereof the word "shall," and after the word "return" ["for the return"] to insert the words "subject to such conditions as may be prescribed."
The object of this Amendment is to make the Clause mendatory instead of commissive.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. GOLDMANI beg to move in Sub-section (2) after the word "any" ["of any contributions"] to insert the words "unexpended balance of."
It seems to me if a man has been employer, and if the employer has taken the risk, and if the man turns out to be incompetent or unskilled, I do not see why the employer should be entitled to re- 1926 ceive the full return of the contribution he has made, because you have to remember that such a person on losing his employment goes on to the Unemployment Fund. I think the employer or the workman should only be entitled to the unexpended balance of the amount standing to credit.
Mr. BUXTONThis point is raised somewhat suddenly, and I have not had the opportunity of looking into it. I note the Amendment, and what the hon. Member has said, and perhaps he will allow me to look into it. I think his point is a good one, but I should like to have the opportunity of considering it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.