§ (1) The Board of Trade may, with the consent of the Treasury, and on such conditions and either annually or at such other intervals as the Board may prescribe, repay out of moneys provided by Parliament to any association of persons not trading for profit the rules of which provide for payments to persons whilst unemployed, whether workmen in an insured trade or not, such part (in no case exceeding one-sixth) as they think fit, of the aggregate amount which the association has expended on such payments during the preceding year or other prescribed period, exclusive of the sum (if any) repaid to the association in respect of such period in pursuance of an arrangement under the last foregoing section, and exclusive in the case of payments which exceed twelve shillings a week of so much of those payments as exceeds that sum.
§ (2) No repayment shall be made under this Section in respect of any period before the commencement of this Act.
§ (3) 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.
1983§ Mr. GOLDMANI beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words, "At any time after the expiration of five years."
I move this Amendment in order to place some check upon the extraordinary and great powers which you propose to vest in the hands of the Board of Trade. It may no doubt be very desirable—in fact, I believe it is—that every encouragement should be given to associations who are providing for men other than those in insured trades. But however desirable that may be, surely it is a subject for special legislation, and should not come within the scope of a Bill dealing entirely with insured trades. The reading of this particular Clause does not appear to be perfectly clear. The contributions that are to be made are not only in respect of men in uninsured trades, but also in respect of men in insured trades. Do you propose to duplicate the system? Do you propose to give the Board of Trade authority to make contributions to associations of men who are in insured trades in addition to those who are in uninsured trades? I could understand the Clause if it was to apply solely to cases where the associations are making contributions to men in uninsured trades; but if it is also to cover men in insured trades you are duplicating it. In other words, an association may be giving contributions to men in insured trades, and they are to receive a further contribution in respect of those very men from the Board of Trade under this Clause. There is another point. Is the Board of Trade to be empowered to make these contributions, and are the contributions to be paid out of the unexpended treasury balances? Is it only after this expenditure has been made that Parliament is to be asked to vote the amount already expended? These are questions vitally affecting the whole Clause, and in order to obtain further information I beg to move.
Mr. BUXTONI do not know whether it is worth while giving an explanation as the hon. Member has left the room; but it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain how this Clause will work. The Amendment proposes to postpone it for five years. Either the Clause is good or it is bad. If it is bad it should not be in at all; if it is good it should be acted upon at once. The object is this—and I think it will be in conformity with an Amendment moved earlier in our 1984 proceedings in reference to voluntary insurance for unemployment. We have under the Bill as a whole met insurance for unemployment in the insured trades. We have given our benefits through the trade unions in the way of a refund, and we have encouraged them to give more than the statutory amount of 7s. by a provision of Clause 79. Considering that the country as a whole pays towards the unemployed benefits in the insured trades, I think everybody will agree that it will be an advantage if we can also encourage to a certain extent voluntary funds for unemployment benefits. This is what I may call the Ghent system on top of our compulsory system. The idea is that in the event of an association giving unemployment benefit the State should add to that. There is no question of contribution on the part either of the workman or of the employer in this case. It is purely a State contribution. We propose, under this Clause, to give one-sixth of any unemployment benefit given by any voluntary association. It will really work out in this way: Supposing a voluntary association is giving unemployment benefit to the extent of 12s. a week; it would then receive 2s. in addition from the State, which would go towards the increased payment for benefit during the period of unemployment. That is so far as regards a voluntary association outside the insured trades. In the insured trades the process would be this, again assuming that the unemployment benefit was 12s. As regards 7s., the association would receive it by way of refund. Out of the remaining 5s. they would receive one-sixth, which would make 2s. 7d. from the State. In the uninsured trades they would receive one-sixth of the whole 12s., which would amount to 2s. In the case of the insured trades they would receive the statutory benefit of 7s. in addition to the proportion of the 5s.
§ Mr. HOLTDo I correctly understand that in the case of the insured trades the maximum contribution would be one-sixth of 5s., that is, something less than 1s., and that in the case of the uninsured trades there will be a maximum possible of 2s.? Do I rightly understand that not one penny of this can be contributed without a special vote of Parliament on the Estimates? This is to be "out of moneys provided by Parliament." Do I correctly understand that an Estimate will have to be presented to Parliament before any of these payments can be made? Further, 1985 am I right in understanding that the Estimate of £750,000, as the contribution from the public funds towards the expenditure of this Bill is entirely exclusive of any contribution that may be made under this Clause?
Mr. BUXTONThe principle is this. Under this Clause the money comes direct from the State. Therefore, it clearly would come in the ordinary way before Parliament on the Estimates. The £750,000 to which the Solicitor-General referred in connection wtih the Insurance Fund has nothing to do with this point. I am informed that I did not make the point quite clear just now in respect to the insured trades. What I meant to say was that, assuming they are giving unemployment benefit at 12s., they get 7s. from the Fund, and in addition one-sixth of the 5s. Therefore, taking what they get from the Fund as well, the State contribution to them in that case will be 2s. 7d.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe grant of one-sixth is exclusive of the sum repaid to the association under Clause 80, and also exclusive of any benefit which exceeds 12s. a week. So that in the one case it seems to me the maximum is 2s. But if the right hon. Gentleman says that it is 2s. 7d. I will accept his figures.
Mr. BUXTONI think I am right. There is in the insured trades 12s. a week, of which 7s. comes from the Fund. There is in addition 5s., one-sixth of which is 10d. From the Fund they will receive the 7s., so that altogether they will receive 7s. 10d. Out of that the State contribution, taking the State contribution to the Fund and the State contribution of one-sixth, comes to 2s. 7d.
§ Mr. ALBERT SMITHDo I understand that in an insured trade one-sixth of the payments above 7s. will be paid?
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted, put, and negatived.
Mr. TYSON WILSONI beg to move in Sub-section (1), after the word "shillings" ["exceed twelve shillings"] to insert the words "and any insured case, six shillings."
1986 The reason I move that is that a number of societies will be paying 6s. per week over and above the amount provided in the Bill. I think it is only fair to them that they should have the sixth of the 6s. which is paid over and above the benefit provided in the Bill. It would prevent confusion in bookkeeping, and would simplify the keeping of the books very considerably. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment is not on the Paper, and I have not been able to follow it with great care, but I am inclined to think it is out of order.
Mr. TYSON WILSONPerhaps the President of the Board of Trade will say whether the Government are prepared to do anything on the Report stage?
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment is out of order. The next Amendment is by Mr. Buxton in Sub-section (2), after the word "before" to insert the words "the expiration of six months from."
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) after the word "before" insert the words "the expiration of six months from."—[Mr. Buxton.]
§ Question put, "That the Clause as Amended stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. BAIRDBefore this Clause is passed I must frankly confess that I do not understand it, and my feeling is shared by a good many of the Members on this side. As I understood the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, he said this is the Ghent system on the top of our compulsory system. That is a scheme for subsidising trade unionism. In an explanation which accompanied the Bill at the outset there was a paper which stated that it was estimated there were 2,400,000 people who would come under this Part of the Bill, about 400,000 being included in existing institutions. The total number of trade unionists is something like two and a half millions, and as I read this Clause, all but those trade unionists who do not happen to come within a trade to which this part of the Bill applies, would be in the position to apply for the repayment of one-sixth of whatever benefit was given. Is that so? If it is the case, have the Government any idea whatever of the cost that would be entailed on the State? Is there any means of estimating what the cost is likely to be of fulfilling the conditions laid down in this Clause, because it seems to me it is a perfectly 1987 vague liability which the State is assuming? Although it is a right thing to assist those who help themselves, we may be taking under this Clause liabilities of which we have no conception. That is how it strikes me.
Mr. BUXTONThe hon. Member has quoted figures in regard to trade unionists, but he must remember that this Clause only applies to trade unions or associations which give unemployed benefit, and the estimate that we have made, as far as we could estimate, shows that it will cost about £60,000 in the first year, rising to about £80,000 subsequently.
§ Mr. BAIRDAn association may not now provide for giving unemployment benefit, but if they get this additional bonus, they will promptly make arrangement to provide benefit. The hon. Member for Stoke raised that point with great justice. Therefore, it does seem to me that it will be a very difficult thing to estimate. You cannot tell how many associations will at once make a scheme of benefits.
Mr. BUXTONWe estimate that in the first year, £60,000 will be sufficient, and our estimate for the subsequent years, as I have said, will be £80,000. Of course, we think it will tend, as we desire it should, to encourage voluntary insurance against unemployment. The hon. Member must not forget that, after all, it is the association, or the trade union, that has got to provide the bulk of the money. There will be an addition by the State of one-sixth, but the great burden falls upon the trade union, and it is not likely that in any sense there will be bogus provision for unemployment, but whether it is bogus or not, so long as it is provision for unemployment, that is what we desire in this Clause to encourage.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEThere is a phrase in the first line on page 65 which is exceedingly vague. It says the Government are prepared to pay "to any association of persons." If that association is not to be confined to those who are going to manage the association of which the insured persons are a part, difficulties will arise. If it could be "workmen" you would get very near to the type of management in Part II. that we have in Part I. But if "workmen" was included it would keep out an association of clerks, as workman is defined in the preceding Clause. I suggest that "any association of persons" needs to be a little 1988 more restricting than it is at present, otherwise you may have all types of groups, employers possibly, exercising the function of a body which it is intended should consist of persons who are combined for unemployment insurance.
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, put, and agreed to.