§ (1) The Board of Trade may, on the application of any association of workmen the rules of which provide for payments to its members, being workmen in an insured trade, or any class thereof, whilst unemployed, make an arrangement with such association that, in lieu of paying unemployment benefit under this Part of this Act to workmen who prove that they 1964 are members of the association, there shall be repaid periodically to the association out of the Unemployment Fund such sum as appears to be, as nearly as may be, equivalent to the aggregate amount which such workmen would have received during that period by way of unemployment benefit under this Part of this Act if no such arrangement had been made, but in no case exceeding two-thirds of the amount of the payments made during that period by the association to such workmen as aforesaid whilst unemployed.
§ (2) The council or other governing body of any association of workmen which has made such an arrangement as aforesaid shall be entitled to treat the contributions due from any of its members to the Unemployment Fund under this Part of this Act, or any part thereof, as if such contributions formed part of the subscriptions payable by those members to the association, and, notwithstanding anything in the rules of the association to the contrary, may reduce the rates of subscription of those members accordingly.
§ (3) For the purpose of determining whether a workman has exhausted his right to unemployment benefit under this Part of this Act, the amount of any sum which, but for this section, would have been paid to him by way of unemployment benefit shall be deemed to have been paid.
§ (4) The Board of Trade may make regulations for giving effect to this section, and for determining the mode in which questions arising under this section shall be settled.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI beg to move in Sub-section (1) after the word "workmen" ["association of workmen"] to insert the words "or approved society."
This Amendment is one which I hope the Government will accept. I cannot conceive any objection to it. Under Clause 79 the general idea is that the trade unions should be encouraged to administer the Act, and take the payment of unemployed benefit into their hands, and that the Government should repay a proportion to the trade union. I suggest that the approved societies, as defined in the first part of the Bill, should also be entrusted with the same duties, if they choose to accept them. In the first Part of the Bill friendly societies are the natural agents for carrying out the benefits under that Part. The 1965 trade unions are also allowed under that Part of the Bill to rank on all fours with the friendly societies, and it seems to me a fair reciprocal provision that under this Part of the Bill a friendly society should be allowed, if it chooses, to administer unemployed benefit. I would point out that no one knows yet exactly what the development of the approved societies will be. At present friendly societies have done little or nothing in the way of paying out-of-work pay. They have given travelling expenses to workmen in search of work; they have paid railway fares, and given some compassionate grants. One cannot see, however, what the future will be. Undoubtedly their sphere of influence will be considerably extended, and it seems to me from the point of view of the Bill that it is a highly desirable thing that every properly constituted workmen's society, no matter whether it calls itself a trade union or a friendly society, should come to the assistance of Parliament in the administration of this Bill. The Amendment I propose is that after the words "association of workmen" there should be inserted the words "or approved society." It may be that the Amendment ought to read "or approved society under Part I." I do not know whether the definition in the Amendment will require to be extended in that way, but the object of the Amendment is plain.
§ Sir J. SIMONThe hon. Gentleman's proposal, as I follow it, is that in addition to trade unions and other associations of workmen "the rules of which provide for payments to its members, being workmen in an insured trade," whilst unemployed, the Clause should be extended and applied to an approved society. The hon. Gentleman points out quite justly that an approved society exists at present only under Part I. of the Bill, and no doubt he is right in saying that it would be necessary to revise the words of his Amendment in order to suit it to Part II. That, however, is not a matter of substance.
§ Sir J. SIMONAlthough it is not a matter of substance, it is of importance. It shows, I think, that really when a society becomes an approved society it is approved because it satisfies conditions which are laid down in regard 1966 to Part I., and because it is calculated to render services which Part I. of the Act requires, and it does not at all follow that an approved society so approved, and with such objects, is a suitable body for dealing with the work which is dealt with by Part II. of the Bill. The reason why we turn to trade unions and similar associations under Clause 79, under proper regulations, in order that they might assist in the work of unemployment insurance is, of course, because they are associations of persons who themselves are endeavouring by the joint action of their own members, to reduce unemployment to a minimum. It is a very different matter indeed to go and give this privilege of Clause 79 to a society, however admirable in other respects, which has secured approval, not because it is so framed or constituted as to be a good instrument for carrying out Part II. of the Bill, but because it satisfies conditions under Part I. of quite a different character. For that reason, I hope the Committee will see that it is not desirable, and indeed not right, to extend the provisions of Clause 79 so as to cover societies which the hon. Gentleman has in mind when he moves this Amendment.
The Committee ought to appreciate perhaps the way Clause 79 works. Supposing it applies to trade unions and similar organisations, these trade unions and organisations are associations of persons, all of whom are concerned in promoting the interests of employment in their own branch of trade. That is their object. They are not associated because they are persons wanting to provide against sickness, or against any of the other evils Part I. has to do with, but they have this common bond that they are all interested in employment in their own trade. It is the fact that they are associated for that purpose which makes them useful and efficient instruments for administering Part II. of the Bill. But I am slow to believe that merely because a society is approved under Part I. it possesses those qualities. It might possess them or it might not. That is the reason why under Clause 79 we gladly avail ourselves of the help of the trade unions. It is because they are acquainted with and deal with the problem of reducing unemployment to a minimum, whereas I fail to see how a friendly society, which exists for quite a different purpose, and which may include within its membership people engaged in a variety of different trades, and some in no trade at all, would be a 1967 proper instrument for the purpose of carrying out the objects of Clause 79. When workmen under Part II. fall out of work a trade union should be able to go on as in the past paying unemployment benefit according to its conditions to its members. Of course, there must be a proper check before State money is handed over in indemnity to a trade union. We have no desire to interfere unnecessarily, but of course it will be necessary to have some check before indemnifying a trade union. The money we should be asked to pay over to it is the money we should have had to pay to a workman if he had made a direct claim on the fund. We are exceedingly grateful to the trade unions for their help in this matter, but I gravely question whether this is a proper case for extending the Clause to societies and associations formed for quite different purposes. In point of fact there would be, I think, statutory difficulties in the way of friendly societies undertaking the work and paying out-of-work benefit, because, of course, the objects for which friendly societies may be registered are prescribed by the Friendly Societies Act, and the hon. Gentleman proposes something which would bring within the scope of the friendly societies work which they cannot undertake. The workmen must give the industrial society a chance of continuing its work on the ground it already occupies. The industrial society has, substantially speaking, never occupied the field or undertaken this particular duty of unemployment insurance. The trade unions have been doing this work. There may be others which have been doing it. These associations are fit to work under Section 79 on the conditions I have indicated, but there seem to be objections against offering this new work to bodies which have not hitherto attempted to deal with this particular form of insurance.
Mr. TYSON WILSONI wish to endorse every word that the Solicitor-General has said. We on this side expect some fruitful suggestion from the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Worthington-Evans) when he takes part in our Debates. This time, I think, the proposal he makes is most impracticable. He has not had a single communication from the friendly societies asking this Amendment. I have been connected with trade unions for thirty-nine years and with friendly societies for thirty-five years. I can state that the friendly societies do not wish to 1968 enter into competition with trade unions in connection with unemployment benefit. Other difficulties have been pointed out by the Solicitor-General. I hope that the hon. Member will not press this Amendment, because it would make this part of the Bill a great deal worse than it is at the present time. I am quite certain that the friendly societies will not approve of it, and I hope, therefore, that it will be withdrawn.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDI feel certain that the statement of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) is absolutely correct, and that no friendly society ever asked for or ever was a party to putting forward this proposition, and we may take it for granted that within the few lines of this Amendment there is the suggestion of a policy by the party opposite to try to undermine and divide as far as possible the trade union movement. I am bound to say I can see no other explanation for such a suggestion. As has been stated already the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) usually puts forward propositions which are worth considering, but the suggestion that the bodies which will be known presently as approved societies under Part I., and that have never undertaken work of this description, have no machinery to undertake it and know nothing about it, should have this forced upon them is a proposition for which there is not the slightest authority. If they have not requested a single Member in the House to do this, what else is it but foisting it upon them? At any rate I look upon it as a most dangerous suggestion so far as the trade unions of the country are concerned. After all, the only people who have dealt in what you might call an organised fashion with the question of unemployment are the trade unions. A great many politicians have made speeches about unemployment and have used it for party purposes, but there is no organisation in the country that has attempted really to alleviate the difficulties, misery, and poverty caused by want of work in this country, except the trade unions themselves. This is an attempt practically, not merely to encroach on trade unions, but really to divide the responsibility relating to unemployment in the different trades. How is it possible for a mixed society to know so well whether a man is bona fide out of work as it is for his mates who are working with him, who know whether he was dismissed because of misconduct and 1969 whether the employer was entitled for disciplinary reasons to dismiss him? The trade unions of the country have evolved a system of management relating to the distribution of unemployed benefit that it will take the State years to come up anywhere near to, and it is an attempt to divide the responsibility and influence the working of trade organisations that I am afraid underlies the proposition of the hon. Member.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI should not have said anything about this, but for the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward). He charges us on this side of the House with a deliberate attempt to undermine trade unions. He has entirely imagined that himself. There is no such intention on the part of my hon. Friend nor on the part of any of us, neither in the case of this Amendment nor of anything else that we have done in connection with this Bill. The Amendment really says, that if an approved society in addition to a trade union likes to undertake this it may do so. The words are "on the application." The hon. Member talks about foisting this upon friendly societies. I would ask the hon. Member how on earth a thing done on their own application can be said to be foisted upon them? All my hon. Friend suggests is that as, under this Bill, what are called approved societies, become the agencies for the Government in respect of Part I. With regard to sickness benefits, why should not they if they like, and if they apply, also carry out the unemployment portion of the Bill.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENNo, my hon. Friend would certainly do nothing of the kind. If the hon. Member would only read the Amendment he would see that is is only on the application of the friendly society that this is done.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENSurely the Amendment makes it clear to anyone that it is not compulsory. My hon. Friend never suggested that. What he asks is that if an approved society likes to do this it ought to have the opportunity to do it; and to say that that is undermining trade unionism is really to introduce into the Amendment an intention which 1970 is certainly not present, and which, in effect, would not follow. I do not think it would happen in many cases that they would ask for this, but it might happen, and they ought to have the opportunity. The hon. Member made another point. He asked, did a single friendly society ask my hon. Friend to do this? Will he really tell me that any friendly society has pressed for the other part of the Bill? They are willing to undertake it, but I never heard that they pressed for it. I think a great many of them would like to be let alone; that is my experience with regard to friendly societies in discussing Part I. of the Bill; so that the argument of the hon. Member would equally apply there.
§ Mr. J. WARDAt the conferences of the friendly societies the question of getting the assistance of the State to maintain the institutions for benefit has been under consideration for at least twenty years.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI cannot go into that, but this particular Bill certainly was never before them, and I do not think they would ever have asked for it. All that my hon. Friend says is, if they like to undertake this part of the Bill they should have the chance. It seems to me a perfectly innocuous Amendment. It seems to meet the wishes of a certain number of friendly societies, and if my hon. Friend divides the Committee I shall certainly support him.
§ Mr. ALBERT SMITHI have listened throughout the whole of the discussion both on Part I. and Part II. of the Bill and I have more or less admired the ability and pertinacity with which the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has pressed his Amendments. But with regard to this Amendment I feel sure that it is properly described as an attempt to undermine trade unions. Trade unions are practically the only people who are administering unemployed benefit to-day. The friendly societies, the collecting societies, the great insurance companies do nothing of the kind. What it is proposed to do in this Amendment is to give the approved societies power to administer unemployed benefit. This would lead to an endless amount of intricate negotiations with workmen attempting to get unemployed benefit unfairly. The approved societies will be such a mixture that the authority governing the 1971 societies would have the utmost difficulty in distinguishing which is a bonâ fide unemployed man. Further than that, some trade unions, the bulk of whose members are already members of friendly societies, will not become an approved society themselves, but the members will be distributed perhaps throughout three or four of the other approved societies which are the original friendly societies, and in that case it is deputing a function that the trade unions could very well do under this Bill, namely, the unemployed portion of the benefit, without interfering in the slightest degree with the sickness benefit, and the other portion in regard to which the members are distributed throughout many societies. That is not the main reason, but what effect this Bill will have on trade unions in another direction. You are, by the effect of this Amendment, giving to the insurance companies, with a great mass of collectors and of collecting agencies, and to all those other foreign bodies who have never had anything to do with these matters, the power to canvass all members of trade unions, or would-be members of trade unions, and powers in certain circumstances—by giving better benefits with the machinery at their command, and with this aid of the State subsidy—to undermine the organisations existing for securing improved conditions and better wages for the workers, who would be prevented from receiving those benefits. I would not like the hon. Member for Colchester to press his Amendment at all so far as I am personally concerned, and I think there are a few Members of this Committee, and not a few Members of the House itself, who will look upon this as one of the worst Amendments he has introduced either in Part I. or in Part II. of this Bill. What we want is to give everybody fair facilities to make full use of this Bill, either on Part I. or Part II. I said in the House the other day on Part I. of the Bill that I was an advocate of trade unions having their full share of responsibility in putting the machinery of the Bill in motion in order to get the fullest benefit possible out of the measure. I believe the Amendment is calculated to do more injury in another direction than it can possibly do good in the direction the hon. Member intends.
§ Mr. BIGLANDIt is just as well we have had this Debate, because the Government may decide what the word "any" means. An outsider reading this Bill 1972 would take it that "any association of workmen" would include a friendly society if (they took the trouble within their powers to have an unemployment scheme, and said: "If you pay 1½d. per week for unemployment in addition to what you pay to the sickness fund, then if you fall out of work, while the Government give you 7s. 6d. per week we will, under this Bill, give you 2s. 6d. As I read this Clause, "any association of workmen" who are in the habit of forming themselves into the position of paying unemployment benefit, if they have a benefit to the extent of one-third of the total amount paid to the workmen, they could, under this Clause, distribute unemployment benefit under this Bill. I may be wrong, but perhaps the Government will point out what is meant by "any association of workmen." If I understand it aright, the Amendment does include "any association of workmen"; and thus, if an approved society is an asociation of workmen, it can come in.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEI am not at all desirous of discussing the object of the Amendment, and I am more concerned with what I consider to be its possible defects. There is one that I perceive which would be quite inimical to the safe organisation and administration of Part II. of this Bill. I foresee, under the Amendment, the possibility of the great insurance companies attempting to secure the position of approved societies. Their object would surely be to utilise the machine to secure access to lists of names for what might be called their normal business. They would be, as a matter of fact, on the horns of a dilemma. Their object would not be so much, as I foresee it, to administer the fund with the minimum of expense; they would constantly have before them the prospect of men withdrawing from the association, or from the insurance companies, and therefore their whole object would be to make such terms with the men who joined them as an approved society as would give the very best possible unemployed benefits, and therefore at increased cost to the Unemployment Fund. I think we ought to restrict this work to the people who will do it thoroughly. The people who, up till now, have done this work and given most satisfaction, particularly to the workers, have been the trade unions. This is a thing which will specially appeal to them, and I hope that those who really do believe in 1973 trade unions will resist this Amendment, and support the Bill.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIf the Committee will permit me, I should like to make a few more observations upon this Amendment. I do not in the least complain of the criticism, the adverse criticism, that members of the Committee have been kind enough to pass upon the Amendment. Perhaps it has been my fault, but I think the Committee have hardly realised what was in my mind at the time I put this Amendment down. There is a large number of trade unions now which, in the organised trades, have no unemployment benefit. There is a large number of persons, however, who are in scattered trades, in which there is no giving of unemployed benefit to all. These people have various sorts of work, but they are grouped geographically; they live in a district together. Amongst these people there are, of course, workers in a few organised trades who have their trade unions, but there is a large number of other workers who have no trade unions at all, or which do not give the unemployed benefit. When this is extended to all the Clauses that we have been considering this morning, it seems to me that there will be scope for some other administration of the unemployed benefit to these people than that provided by this Bill The only means of the administration of those benefits seems to me to be through the societies in which these men already are for sick benefit; therefore I wish not to compel, not to foist upon anybody something he does not want, but to give the opportunity to the friendly societies in this sort of circumstances, if they choose to apply for it, to become also the agents for administering this scheme. The hon. Member who last spoke in the trade union interest put his case frankly, that the trade unionists want to restrict the administration of benefit to those who have had experience of it in the past, and, as it were, made good their claim to administer the Act.
I do not think I am putting the hon. Member's argument too high when I say that is what he advanced. We have all been familiar with that argument on Part I. of the Bill. It was the argument which the friendly societies originally put forward that they, being friendly societies, should have the administration of the sickness benefit, but Parliament has not allowed that. Parliament has given equal opportunities to every form of society, 1974 including trade unions, collecting societies, dividing societies, and industrial insurance companies, if they choose to come in and qualify as approved societies Parliament gives the opportunity to all these societies to administer Part I. of the Act. When we come to Part II. of the Act the hon. Member says "Oh, no, here we must assert that claim of the trade union to have the sole right to act as administrator of this benefit." I would point out that in claiming that he is asking for something which he has not permitted the friendly societies to claim under Part I. of the Bill. Hon. Members have talked about competition, and weakening the trade unions, and so on, as if my Amendment was either designed to do that or in the least likely to have that effect. It will not have that effect because the men in the organised trades are in them for many other purposes than merely unemployed pay. The societies are not going to give strike pay. That is not the suggestion. The suggestion here is that they should be allowed, more especially in the unorganised trades, and more especially as far as I am concerned, where they are grouped, and their only common bond is a district group and not a big trade group. I have put the point I wish to make before the Committee, and I do not propose to carry this Amendment to a division. I recognise that those who are better able than I am to speak for the trade unions see a danger in it which I confess I never saw when I put it down. Their opinion carries weight with me as it must, and if they really do think that there is danger of that sort I should be the last to press this Amendment.
§ Mr. GOLDMANMay I say one word with regard to a matter which arises out of the remarks that have fallen from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland). The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) tried to convey, or to interpret this Clause as if a monopoly should be given to the trade unions to operate it. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out, that does not necessarily follow from the working of the Clause for the reason that it presupposes that no other association might be created. There might be a number of workmen who are not now in trade unions, and who might combine themselves into a society of their own to work this particular Clause. That being so I think we are entitled to ask how is this Clause going to operate, and what is the machinery by which it is going to be operated. If an 1975 association of workmen so created made out a list of a certain number of men and gave them unemployed pay, what check have we upon the proper administration of the Fund in that respect?
§ Sir J. SIMONI already said, did I not?
§ Mr. GOLDMANI did not quite understand the Solicitor-General to explain that particular point, and I want to be clear on it. Before a man can be put upon unemployment benefit, is it to go to an umpire and to be registered that he is entitled before the Association can pay it to him? If it does not, you may have a very large drain on the Unemployment Fund, because you will not have sufficient check upon it. For this reason I think the point requires explanation.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment is in the name of hon. Members who are not members of the Committee.
§ Mr. ALBERT SMITHI beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "the rules of which provide for payments to its members, being workmen in an insured trade, or in a class thereof, whilst unemployed."
This Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Clynes). With this Amendment adopted, the Subsection would then read, "the Board of Trade may on the application of any association of workmen make an arrangement with such association…" I move this to give the trade unions and the societies which have been administering unemployment benefit, the same facilities to work Part II. of this Bill as we are giving them to become approved societies under Part I. There are many societies now, and some of them which belong to scheduled trades, who do not at the present time pay unemployed benefit. By reason perhaps of low wages they cannot get the men to continue to pay weekly subscriptions that will warrant the payment of any substantial unemployed benefit. There are also in those trades several classes of men who through rapid periodical courses of unemployment cannot possibly exist. Under this Bill they could do all the good in the world and all that the Bill intends should be done for those unemployed people by seizing hold of 1976 the advantages of the Bill, and by administering unemployed benefits to their members. It will give an inducement to those societies which do not pay unemployed benefit, to gather a large number of men who will be left out of the scope of the Bill if such an Amendment as this is not accepted. It will also, to a certain degree, meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Colchester, with regard to this matter in scattered areas. It will certainly be a great advantage in catching hold of every man who may ultimately come on to this Bill. I hope the Government, if they cannot see their way to accept the Amendment in the form in which it is moved, will find some method, or, at any rate, give trade unions and other societies which are paying unemployed benefit power to do so under this Clause.
Mr. BUXTONI think that perhaps my hon. Friend does not quite see the bearing of his Amendment. The result of it would be to cut down from the particular associations the only method under which they could regulate and pay unemployed benefit. They must have rules if they are going to pay those benefits, and if the words proposed are inserted, it will really be impossible for trade unions, as I understand it, to pay unemployed benefit. I think the Amendment must have been put down under some misapprehension.
§ Mr. J. WARDThere is one point I would like the President of the Board of Trade or the Solicitor-General to deal with and give some explanation about. Every man takes his own personal experience in these matters. I remember well a union with which I was connected, a labour union, attempted in 1893 or 1894 to establish an unemployed fund for its labourers. We found that to pay anything like 6s. or 7s. a week, the contributions under a scheme of that description amongst exclusively unskilled workers in the building trade was impossible to carry on. We could have probably carried it on if we had reduced the benefit to 2s. or 3s. a week. Eventually, owing to stress of circumstences, we had to strike unemployed benefit out of our rules altogether. Would this Clause preclude, say, a trade union like mine deciding to pay a certain portion of benefit now that there is a subsidy to assist in the payment of those benefits. Would it enable us from now to begin the process and properly organise to assist in carrying out this part of the scheme, or does it mean that 1977 anterior to the passing of the Bill we must have provided for it some time ago. If they can, then a great deal of assistance and good might be done even by the unskilled labourers connected with the trades which are to be insured adopting this policy and contributing some portion of their fund to make up the payments, or do the words mean that we ought to have done it before, and that we are now to be excluded from doing anything of the kind.
§ Sir J. SIMONI am very glad to be able to give the hon. Member the assurance he wishes as to the meaning of the words in Clause 79. It certainly is not to confine the benefit of the Clause to those trade unions, which, before the Act comes into force, have rules to provide for unemployed benefit. Supposing, hereafter, a trade union which does not now pay unemployed benefit arranges its constitution so that it does pay it, it would then become entitled to make an arrangement under the Clause.
§ Mr. ALBERT SMITHThat is the explanation I wanted, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. TYSON WILSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "but in no case exceeding two-thirds of the amount of the payments made during that period by the association to such workmen as aforesaid whilst unemployed." I move the Amendment in the hope that the Government will accept it. The reason I do is is that we may have societies which are now paying 5s. per week unemployment benefit, and two-thirds is a very small sum indeed for the members who have to pay a contribution of 2½d. per week. I hope the Government will make it clear, if there is a society that pays a lower unemployed benefit, the members of that society will be entitled to the 7s. per week in the Bill, and not only to the two-thirds of the benefit.
§ Sir J. SIMONI hope my hon. Friend will see on reflection why it is necessary for us to preserve these words which he seeks to leave out of the Clause. These words provide that the contributions made from the State Insurance Fund to the trade union is not to exceed two-thirds of the amount which they have expended in unemployed benefit to their members who are within the arrangement. Some such 1978 arrangement, I am sure the Committee will see, is necessary, because, while I desire to pay in the most sincere and candid spirit my own tribute to the value of the work trade unions do, trade unions, after all, like other organisations are mortal, and subject to the temptation of other mortals of getting something for nothing. It is quite plain, therefore, if the trade union is to be at liberty to pay whatever sums of money it pleases to its members and then send in its bill to the Insurance Fund and get the whole amount out of it, that which we all desire to secure, namely, the co-operation of the trade unions in economic administration will disappear. The reason why the trade union is a useful organisation for our purpose is that it has in the past, for its own reasons, done its best to reduce unemployment to a minimum, and to make certain that the cases where relief is given are cases that ought to be relieved. The way we want to preserve that state of affairs is by saying to the trade union, "If you give a benefit of 7s., you shall to the extent of two-thirds be able to get it from the Fund."
There is one concession I am very glad to be able to give to the hon. Gentleman. It has been represented to us that two-thirds is an unnecessarily large contribution, and we propose therefore to reduce the difference from two-thirds to three-quarters, and we are very glad to do it. We require the trade union to pay one-third extra, and we shall be content if they will pay a quarter of the extra. To that extent we are very glad to meet the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. J. WARDI must thank the Solicitor-General for that offer and the suggestion, because that makes it quite easy for some of us. My Friends nearly all represent the skilled trades. I represent the unskilled trades, the labourers, and the men who have not had the opportunity of making provision of this description. We were decidedly fearful that the two-thirds would really make it nearly impossible for us to get a sufficient contribution from our members, to enable the most deserving section of these trades to derive the full benefit from the Act. I am very thankful indeed for what the Solicitor-General has said.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1979§ Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "two-thirds," and to insert instead thereof the words "three-fourths."—[Mr Buxton.]
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSWill the Government say what difference this will make to the finances of the scheme?
Mr. BUXTONIt makes no difference to the finances of the scheme, because no payment is made to the trade union except in respect of money already spent. At present they will receive 7s., and under the Bill they pay one-third of the unemployed benefit. In the future they will pay a quarter. It makes no difference to the finances of the fund.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLIf I understand this matter aright, and I wish to do so, it is that any group of associations of workmen take the Bill as it is drawn, if they are prepared to give additional unemployed benefit of 3s. 6d., they can administer the unemployed fund. The concession given by the Government—I am talking roughly in round figures—is, that they are prepared to give an additional 2s 10d., not less, if that union will administer the fund. It is only on the condition that it is not less than that amount. If they like to give 5s. 10d. or 6s. 10d., there is no interference. It does not touch the fund at all. It is only when they mean to administer it through a group of workmen that they can get the 2s. 10d.
Mr. BUXTONThat is the exact point. It was felt by some of the poorer unions to be a hardship in relation to the particular Clause, because under the Bill where the 7s. was paid they necessarily would have to provide 3s. 6d. in additional unemployment benefit. If they accept this proposal which the Government now make they will only have to provide, I think, 2s. 9d.—as a matter of fact, 2s. 4d., instead of the 3s. 6d. To that extent the poorer unions will be able to come under the provisions of the Act, whereas otherwise they might have been excluded from it.
§ Question, "That the words 'two-thirds' stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
§ Question, "That the words 'three-fourths' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Mr. BUXTONI beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the words, "deter- 1980 mining the mode in which questions arising under this Section shall be settled," and to insert instead thereof the words, "referring to the umpire any question which may arise under this Section."
§ Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause, put, and negatived.
§ Words "referring to the umpire any question which may arise under this Section," inserted.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI rise to ask the Government to explain how this Clause is going to work in practice. I want the Government to assume that the member of a trade union falls out of work, and I want the Government to tell us what is going to happen to that trade unionist. Has he to go to the secretary of his trade union and tell him that he is out of work, and are the Government, if that trade union secretary is satisfied and begins to pay out of work benefit, going to pay three-fourths to that trade union? Or is the man out of work to go before an insurance officer or to a Labour Exchange, or in what way is it to be proved that he is, in fact, out of work? In other words, I want to know to what extent the Government is going to follow the trade union and pay the proportion of benefit which is provided by the Clause?
Mr. BUXTONThe proposal is really this: If a workman falls out of work, and goes on the Fund, he will go in either case, whether he is a unionist or non-unionist, to the Labour Exchange. In the case of the man to whom the hon. Member refers, he will lodge his book at the Labour Exchange, and he will receive a voucher to the effect that his book has been lodged and that he is out of employment. That voucher the trade unionist will take to his trade union. They will then deal with him as they deal with their ordinary unemployed cases, and in the method provided by the trade union, and he will receive his benefit through the trade union, who will then make a claim upon the Insurance Fund for the amount of the unemployed benefit, under 7s., that they have paid. The Labour Exchange through the whole process retains his book, and therefore he cannot again take employment, as the hon. Member knows, without having to go to the Exchange and get his book back, because under the Act in 1981 the insured trades he cannot go into employment without having possession of his book, which is to be stamped from time to time. That is the process which we propose as regards the trade unionist, and to that extent I think is an answer to what the hon. Gentleman wants.
§ Mr. BIGLANDI would like to put it to the President of the Board of Trade whether, before we come to the Report stage, it would not be well to eliminate this word "association," and to insert "trade union." I think after this discussion we have listened to, it being the Government's intention that only trade unions should be the distributors of this benefit, it will make it much clearer if the word "trade union" and not "association" is used. If the word "association" is left in, there will be a great feeling of competition at the moment this Bill comes into force. That is a suspicion shared by the Government—that any association giving unemployed benefit will be able to rank under this Clause.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEIt might be put in set terms "association of workmen," or the usual technical term which is "trade union." If the technical words are used, which are well understood, I think it will meet the case.
§ Sir J. SIMONAlthough I would gladly consider the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead, and that also of the hon. Gentleman behind me, I rather question whether the change is proper. I can quite imagine a case of an association of workmen, which, for some reason, quite alien to Section 79, may not in the set terms satisfy the definition of trade union. It seems undesirable that we should use such an expression as "trade union," which otherwise, is not a definition in this Act at all. To this extent the hon. Member will appreciate that when we say "an association of workmen" we mean that class or body which includes the trade union, though I conceive it might also include associations which are not technically so at all.
Mr. BUXTONI ought to have stated just now that in each case under the Bill the notice will be given to the employer in the event of any workman, whether a trade unionist or not, coming on the funds, so that the reason for leaving his employment may be on record. That is with a view to other Clauses which might disqualify him from benefit.
§ Mr. BALDWINWhat is the exact meaning of the words "any class thereof"? Do they refer to workmen or to trades?
Mr. BUXTONIt does not follow that a trade union will come under the provisions of this Act. A trade union covering several classes of workmen would not necessarily give unemployment benefit to all the classes, and it will come in respect of the particular class to which it gives unemployment benefit.
§ Mr. BALDWINIt refers to workmen?
§ Question, "That the Clause, as Amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.