SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(List of Insured Trades for the purposes of Part II. of this Act relating to Unemployment Insurance.) (Hansard, 24 November 1911)

Mr. BUXTON
I beg to move in paragraph (1) of the Schedule to leave out the words "any building or any part thereof," and to insert instead thereof the word "buildings."
The reason for this Amendment is that the words that I propose to leave out may give rise to some misapprehension as to what is included or what is really intended. For instance, if the whole building was not in question, some arch, or some portion of it, might equally come under the provisions of the Act as if in respect of the whole building. Therefore to make it clear I propose to omit those words and to insert "buildings."

Mr. TYSON WILSON
I should like to have a better reason for this Amendment than has been given by the President of the Board of Trade. "Any part thereof" would include any part of the building. For instance, it would be a very doubtful point, supposing a person proposed to build a new porch, whether that porch would come within the scope of the Bill. I think it would be far better to leave the words in. I could give a number of instances in connection with buildings, as to which it would be arguable whether they came within the scope of the Bill or not. I understood the object of those who are responsible for the Bill was to bring within its scope as many workmen as possible. It seems to me that they are going to take advantage of these technicalities in order to exclude as many workmen as possible.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I can assure my hon. Friend that in the Schedule we desire to avoid these technicalities, and it was because we thought a legal technicality might be urged if we left the words as printed that this change was proposed For instance, I do not suppose my hon. Friend suggests that a manufacturer of door handles by the gross is building, but I 2056 can imagine a lawyer—such as is the devilish ingenuity of lawyers—arguing that it really was, by construction, a part of the building. In order that they should not be given the opportunity of arguing anything so absurd, we thought it would be better to make the definition "the construction, alteration, repair, decoration, or demolition of buildings." I can assure my hon. Friend that when the President of the Board of Trade adds a porch to his house, that that will be within the Clause. It will be an alteration of the President's building, and therefore will be clearly within the Clause. I can assure him that our object, so far from introducing this as a technical distinction, is simply to get a common sense and, I hope, a clear rule. The use of the word "buildings" in the plural I think makes it plain as to the real scope which we intend the words to provide for.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
It is proof of the self-sacrificing spirit of the legal profession that I entirely agree with what the Solicitor-General has said. Therefore, I would suggest that the lay members should gratefully accept the Amendment.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (1) to insert the words "including the manufacture of structural fittings."
The Committee may have noticed that we are proposing when we get to the end of the list to add a sixth division. Originally our idea had been that it would be in that sixth sub-division that these words might be conveniently brought in. But it is pointed out to us by those who know these trades extremely well that the Amendment as to structural fittings ought to be regarded as falling more naturally into the first sub-division. It appears, therefore, better to bring in the words at this point in order that it may be quite plain that the fact that a thing is made of wood instead of brick is no reason why it should not be regarded as building.

§ Mr. PETO
I desire to ask, as an old builder, exactly what is meant by "including the manufacture of structural fittings." Structural fittings is certainly not a term I am familiar with. I would like to know whether he means structural ironwork, because the only way in which I have heard the words used is as to what is essentially some of the finishings of a building. There might be plumber's 2057 fittings, joiner's fittings, and so forth, but structural fittings is quite a novel expression as far as my experience goes. Does the Solicitor-General intend to include the whole of the manufacture of plumber's fittings, lead, pottery, porcelain, and so on, or does he mean structural ironwork, and does he limit it to that.

§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIES
What is the mean-of the words "structural fittings"? I happen to be a lawyer when I am at home. I confess, like the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I have not the remotest idea of what is meant by structural fittings. We have an Amendment further down, and we are anxious to include those who make slates. Slates are used, not only for roofing, but in other parts of the structure, such as for window-sills. Am I to understand that quarry-men engaged in making slates for window-sills come within this Section, while the men who make slates to be used for roofs, do not come within the Bill? Slate is used in electric fittings, and the installation of electric light, both in buildings and in houses. I am rather curious to know whether we are to understand that the quarry-men are to be divided into two classes, so that those who make one kind of slates will come within the Bill, and those employed in making roof-slates are to be excluded, and on what principle I do not know. I confess there was something to be said for the Bill as it stood. We understood, and we were told, that, the Government had decided once and for all that under present conditions, such an occupation should be excluded, but the Amendment which the President of the Board of Trade circulated this morning for the inclusion of the making of window-frames, doors, and other structural fittings of wood, opens the door for the inclusion, and I think quite rightly, of others who are absolutely dependent for their living on the prosperity of the building trade. I do not know the exact meaning of the words "structural fittings," and I should like to know what is really intended to be included. Is it intended to include within the scope of this Bill all those subsidiary employments which are really dependent on the building trade, and in which, of course, the rate of unemployment is quite as large as in the building trade?

§ Mr. HOLT
I am very much concerned about this proposed addition. It does seem to me to almost take us back to the position from which we started. There is 2058 in my Constituency a manufactory where they make all sorts of earthenware, including things like sinks, and w.c.'s, and lavatories, and pipes, and articles of that description. Am I to understand that a sink, or a washstand, would be regarded as structural fittings. I suppose a drainpipe is not. You could hardly say a drainpipe is a structural fitting. If a man is making a wash basin, and if it is built into a house, would it be a structural fitting, and would it be a structural fitting if it was intended to be exported abroad and not to be used in a house in this country. If you are making the structural fittings not for use in this country, but for export abroad, are they structural fittings under this Bill, because I do not think anybody intended or contemplated that the manufacture of articles for the building trade abroad—and there is a very considerable manufacture for the building trade in foreign parts—that that was going to be included in a scheme for insuring persons in the building trade in this country. I see very great danger in these words. I would press on my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw them. They have not been on the Paper, and I suggest he should take time to think them over.

§ Mr. J. WARD
I certainly feel dubious about supporting this Amendment. I can quite understand if you leave it as the construction, alteration, repair, decoration, or demolition of buildings, that you have practically included the whole of the building trade. I seem to imagine that if these words are included you will include all quarries. Go to Portland, for instance, and you will see stretched out at the quarry the front elevation of plenty of buildings which are to be erected in London. Surely you could not say in such a case that the men were not making a structural fitting. As a matter of fact, they do the work that used to be done in the builder's yard, and which is done in some cases still in the builder's yard. If these words are adopted you will include all stone quarry and slate quarry men. I am not so sure that you will not go even into ironstone mining, because a great many buildings are built with skeleton of steel and iron. It seems to me that the words of this Amendment will include nearly every trade there is.

§ Mr. PETO
I think the real crux of the matter is that "structural fittings" is not a term known in the building trade, and nobody, no matter how well inclined, could 2059 ever interpret what was the original intention of this Committee in putting it in. I do not believe, however, that any one in the wildest flights of fancy could say that a Portland stone front of a house was affected by this Amendment. I think that certainly would be excluded. I cannot think what is in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade in putting in these words, unless that it was intended to mean "constructional ironwork"; that would bring in a whole trade, which may be desirable or not, but everyone, at any rate, would then know what was meant; there could no longer be any doubt, and I suggest if that was the intention, the matter should be made quite clear.

§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I think the best plan would be for the Government to withdraw this Amendment now, and to reconsider it later on. I think, like my hon. Friend, what was really intended was constructional ironworks, steel girders, and so on. As I pointed out, the term "structural fittings" is not a work of art so far as the building trade is concerned.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I think this has been a useful discussion, because it is hardly necessary to say the Government does not desire to alter anything in the Sixth Schedule except after they have had the fullest assistance from critics who speak with knowledge from that point of view. I shall give the reasons why I asked the Committee to allow these words to go in now, on the clear understanding that they are to be reconsidered, and reconsidered in no perfunctory spirit. Of course it is very familiar to all of us that when one gets to this part of a Bill everyone gets up and propounds his own conundrum, I do not complain of that; the only submission I respectfully make to hon. Members who propound their conundrums is that I should be greatly indebted to them if they will bear in mind that the Schedule will have to be read as a whole, and, secondly, I ask them to remember that whatever you say there may be a difficult case with which, I am glad to reflect, it will not be for a law officer, but for the umpire to deal. Take the first point first. The hon. Gentleman who raised the first difficulty said he supposed that "structural fittings" referred to constructional ironwork. I do not know if he meant that if these words were not in the construction of such work would be outside the Schedule. But when we 2060 come to mechanical engineering we shall find that steel girders would come in there. Do not let us lose sight of other parts of the Schedule when discussing this matter; it is not an easy matter, and this is a necessary warning to give. Whatever else structural fittings are intended to mean, they are intended to mean something that has to do with structure, and something that is fitted, and some of the illustrations given here as hard cases are very easy to deal with when that is borne in mind. For instance, I am sure my hon. Friend (Mr. Ellis Davies) will see that a slate is certainly not a structural fitting.

§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIES
I never said it was; what I pointed out was that one man employed in a quarry would come in under the Bill under this Amendment, while another would be outside it.

§ Sir J. SIMON
May I ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that putting in a window-sill in a house is any part of building, and whether taking a slate out of a quarry is any part of building? What we must do is to get the clearest words possible, and when a difficult border-line arises we shall have to fall back upon the powers the Board of Trade are given in an earlier section to exclude from the Schedule things which it is well to exclude in order to have a clear boundary. If the Committee will permit me, I shall ask them to insert these words for this reason—members well know it is not possible on Report stage to make any change in a Bill which would increase the public charge. If we do not have our Schedule wide enough before we come to Report we shall not hereafterwards be able to enlarge it; and while I am very far from submitting that these words do not need further consideration, and they certainly shall have it, surely it is better, if we have to choose between two courses, to submit this Bill to the House with areas rather too wide which we could cut down later on than with areas which may be found to be too narrow but which we could not enlarge. That is the only reason. I press hon. Members to allow the words to be added, and then by all means let us shape them as a result of further consideration.

Mr. TYSON WILSON
Personally, I think this Amendment is an improvement upon the first proposed Amendment, and as far as I am concerned I am prepared to support it. I am afraid the Solicitor-General is a little bit jealous of the 2061 umpire; I prefer a lay umpire to a lawyer in this matter. I am surprised at the attitude of the hon. Member for Stoke, because, on page 76 of the Amendment Paper, he has an Amendment providing for bringing in "brick, cement and lime manufactory for building purposes," and still he seems to oppose the widening of the scheme of the Schedule. I hope the Committee will allow this Amendment to pass.

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
I want to say a word or two as to the difficulty in which I find myself after the explanation of the Solicitor-General. I understood him to say that stone would not be considered a structural fitting. I represent a constituency in which the work of the preparation of stone for building purposes and dock purposes is largely in existence. If stone is excluded, that would place me in the difficulty of not knowing whether the same worker one day employed in working stone for building, and another day for docks, would be included or excluded.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I did not say a word about stone.

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
The hon. Member for Stoke raised it, and I think we ought to know something before these words are passed.

§ Mr. HOLT
Will the learned Solicitor-General answer my question? Do the words include the manufacture of fittings for export trade?

§ Sir J. SIMON
That certainly is not intended, and we will see whether we can get words, so far as the ingenuity of man goes, to make that plain.

§ Mr. PENRY WILLIAMS
Supposing a firm manufactures both for London and for export; how will they be affected? In my own Constituency there is very big works, which has houses in London, in South Africa, and in Australia. Will they have to keep staffs of workmen for London separate from the men who make for Australia, South Africa, and so on.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I think it may be that my answer was misunderstood, and I should not wish that to be so at all. I certainly do not anticipate that anything that comes under this Sub-section (1)—which was, I thought, what we were particularly considering—would be related to the export trade. It had not so occurred to me. The question of structural iron- 2062 work will come under Sub-section (4). I do not think that the Committee had better take it that it would be possible for us to insist that a series of books shall be kept that will earmark the destination of each particular thing produced. I was rather referring to the fact that the structural fittings used were in connection with buildings, and it appeared to me—I will, however, look at it again—that that would cover things like staircases, windows, and doors, which are, in point of fact, structural things for buildings. [An HON. MEMBER: "Earthenware."] I do not think earthenware fittings are really intended by the Sub-section.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
One does not want to give the appearance of opposing the suggestion to put the Amendment into the Bill now with a view to probable reconstruction on Report; but I am bound to say that to my mind this Amendment is a very dangerous one, and I think certainly a most important one. The amount of time spent upon it, I think, is not half equivalent to the importance of it. I can quite appreciate the difficulty of opposing the Amendment in view of what the Solicitor-General has said. It certainly, however, will require very careful consideration. I think if we put it in now it must not in the least be accepted that we are not going to strenuously object to it on Report. [An HON. MEMBER: "If you get the chance."

§ Mr. PETO
I would like to reply to the Solicitor-General in respect to what the hon. and learned Gentleman on this side has just said. Is it at all certain that we shall have any opportunity of going into this question at Report stage? It seems to me quite possible that we may not reach this part of the discussion since Report will be under the rules of the Closure. On the point which we are discussing I want to press very strongly upon the Solicitor-General that it would not be in the interests of the Bill to include these particular words for the simple reason that I firmly believe that those two simple words "structural fittings" are practically a contradiction in terms. They may mean a part of the structure of the building or a part of the fittings of the building. If you try to include them you get into a difficulty. One man is in a slate works, and will be making the parts of a cistern, or urinal, or something of that sort, which will be interpreted as being the structural fittings of a house. The rest of the people—it may be 90 per cent. 2063 of the workmen—will be engaged at some other slate works, where they do not make those things.
Again, in the case of structural iron work, which I agree may come in under "structural fittings," it is not only a question of the export trade, but the destination of the actual girder or whatever it may be that is being made. One may be for a building and another may be for some purpose which does not come within the four corners of the Bill. Therefore I submit that the inclusion of these words, which I believe are wrong words and wholly unacceptable words, is not a thing which the Committee ought to agree to. It is infinitely better to leave it to the Government to ascertain what words they do want to put in, and let them put them in. If they cannot do it on Report stage, for the reason stated by the Solicitor-General, it would be infinitely better to leave them out, and leave the Act to be amended at some future time. The inclusion of these words means the inclusion of dozens of subsidiary trades that have nothing whatever to do with the trades which are really intended to be insured trades. In every case where such a trade is intended, whether pottery works where baths, sinks, and such things are made, you may have two lots of scheduled workmen. Most workmen in the works will be engaged on things which are not an insured trade, and nine or ten, possibly eight per cent. of the workmen may be engaged in an insured trade. The only result of these words will be that the administration of this Bill will end in absolute and hopeless confusion. I hope the Solicitor-General will not press to try to include by a side wind fractions of other trades which are not intended to be in the Bill. If he wants to include some other definite trade, by all means alter the Schedule and let us debate it, but let us know what we are really discussing.

§ Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH
Would it not be well to suspend the discussion of this question until after the Adjournment, because I think we are working in a condition of some duress at the present moment. This appears to me to be the most important Amendment we shall have to discuss in this Schedule. We here take out the words "or any part thereof," and put in words that are scarcely less vague.

Mr. BUXTON
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me to make an explanation on this matter. May I say that I 2064 think the Government, the President of the Board of Trade certainly, owe an apology to the Committee in this matter, for this reason. We had intended to move an Amendment dealing with this, which we proposed to put on the Paper last night, but the House rose earlier than we expected, and, therefore, it did not appear on the Paper. The Amendment was circulated as far as possible to Members of the Committee, and, on its circulation, it was suggested to us that the matter would be better met in other words. We committed perhaps the great folly which Lincoln always objected to, of swopping horses while crossing the stream, and, as the thing was just coming on, we suggested words instead of the words which we have circulated to the Committee. Those words were obviously, therefore, really not properly considered, and by the light of the discussion which has taken place, I am bound to say the words then suggested have been shown to have had no friends, and also to possess great disqualifications—for instance, as to structural fittings, and so on. It was also held by some Members on both sides that they carried the extension of these insured trades much farther than was intended; and looking at them again in the light of the small opportunity we have had of considering them during the luncheon period, we quite agree with the view the Committee held with regard to them.
I assure the Committee that we had no intention by those words of extending the scope of this matter at all, and it was shown that those words would certainly do so. I therefore propose to withdraw the words now before the Committee, and, for their convenience, perhaps I may just read to them the words we propose in substitution, which I really think carry out, as far as I was able to follow the Debate, the original intentions of the Government, and, I think also, the views of hon. Members who discussed this matter. Instead of the Amendment which has now been put from the Chair, I would propose to add these words, and, if the Committee will allow me, I will read them as they would run with the whole of the sentence. It is on page 75, line 4, the first Sub-section: "Building—that is to say, the construction, alteration, repair, decoration, or demolition of buildings, including the manufacture of any fittings of wood of a kind commonly made in builders' workshops or yards."
2065 That was really what was intended by the original Schedule, and the words we circulated this morning. I ought perhaps to point out in explanation of a remark which fell from the Solicitor-General, under a misapprehension of the question put to him, that in any trade included under this Act, whatever may be the ultimate destination of the manufacture, whether export or import, obviously, if it is an insured trade, it will come under the provisions laid down. The answer of the Solicitor-General may have left an impression that that would not be so, but clearly, whatever trade is brought in, it would affect the manufacture of that trade. I beg to withdraw the Amendment moved by the Solicitor-General in order to insert the words I have proposed.

§ Mr. J. WARD
May I ask a question of the Solicitor-General before the Amendment is withdrawn, otherwise, I am afraid I shall not be able to ask it on the Amendment that is going to take its place. I think it is now in order for me to ask the question. I want to know whether the term "Building," in this Sub-section, will include such work as drainage work attached to the building of a house? Such work is usually done, of course, by labourers who are actually employed in the building construction, and, therefore, unless it is understood that that was included also, there would be a most peculiar situation developed. I would like to know therefore, whether it is understood that drainage connected with the construction of a house which is carried out by the ordinary builder's labourers is also included in this Part.

§ Sir J. SIMON
In answer to the question my hon. Friend asks, I do not entertain any doubt that that is so, and that the work that has been described would fall within the words of the Schedule. That is the intention of the Government, and I think it is plainly the effect of the words.

§ Mr. STEWART
Might I ask one question, also, as the words proposed seem to refer to things made of wood? There is in my constituency a great industry in connection with corrugated iron. People not only construct houses, but make additions to their houses of corrugated iron, and I should like to know how that trade would be affected, as there is a very large number of people employed in that particular industry.

§ Sir J. SIMON
It seems to me fairly plain, as the words run which are now proposed to be inserted, that the putting of a roof of corrugated iron on a building, to take that example, would clearly be within the words. The manufacture of the corrugated iron, the rolling and the preparing of it, would not be within the first Subsection of the Schedule, because it would not be a building as explained by these words, but I should imagine it might come under Sub-section (4), "Mechanical Engineering."

Mr. BUXTON
Not necessarily.

§ Mr. BIGLAND
I have a list of brick makers who are very anxious to know whether they come under this category or not. I should like to have a definite answer upon that point. Would the brick makers rank as builders?

§ Sir J. SIMON
No, they would not.

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
Would a mason employed on stone making or moulding come under the provisions of this Bill?

§ Sir J. SIMON
Yes, certainly.

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
Do I understand that the same person employed in the quarry in stone making would come within the provisions of the Act as a mason?

§ Sir J. SIMON
Yes.

Mr. BUXTON
I beg to move in paragraph (1), after the word "building," to insert the words, "including the manufacture of any fittings of wood of a kind commonly made in builders' workshops or yards."

§ Mr. BIGLAND
I beg to move, in paragraph (3), after the word "ships," to insert the words, "carried on in a shipyard or graving dock."
I propose those words so that we may know clearly where our Constituents are, and who are the persons who come under this Bill. In the shipbuilding industry there is an enormous number of subsidiary trades, many of them very closely allied to it, and we want a definition of what this really means to those trades which are very closely allied to shipbuilding, though not actually under the roof of the shipbuilding yard. If those words are added which I propose, then there will be no misunderstanding as to who comes 2067 under the Bill and who does not. The Committee know that in the building of ships there are many parts brought to the shipyard all ready to put into the ship, and there are a great many men employed in certain shipyards constructing those things, while in regard to other yards they are constructed outside the actual shipbuilding yard.

§ Mr. J. WARD
I am anxious to hear the view of the Solicitor-General in regard to this Amendment, because I can quite see how dangerous it is likely to be. If you put in the words "carried on in a shipyard or graving dock" it might be that a ship would be moored just outside the shipyard or graving dock undergoing repair, and the whole of the men in the shipyard or graving dock would be excluded. Of course, a limitation of that description would make the Schedule absolutely ridiculous. That is why I want some explanation.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I am afraid, for the reason which has just been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke, that we could not accept the limitation proposed by the hon. Member. For the convenience of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment and of other Members of the Committee, I may state that we shall propose to leave out the words "any parts thereof, and of the tackle thereof," and to substitute words similar to those which the Committee have already inserted in paragraph (1) of the Schedule. The words we propose to substitute are "including the manufacture of any fittings of wood of a kind commonly made in a shipbuilding yard." That will prevent the inclusion of some cases which might otherwise not properly fall within the general object of the provision.

§ Mr. BIGLAND
I quite accept the explanation of the Solicitor-General, and I can see what the hon. Member for Stoke meant when he spoke of the ship moored either outside the shipbuilding yard or the graving dock. All I want is a clear definition to show who will come into the Bill in connection with the construction of a ship. Parts might be made in quite another quarter of the town, and there is great confusion in the minds of many men as to whether they will or will not come under this Bill. So long as we have a clear definition as to who are to come under the Bill, and which will prevent any squabbling or wrangling in 2068 future as to whether or not a particular trade does come under it, then I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me the words he proposed to move.

§ Sir J. SIMON
We will have to dispose of the hon Member's Amendment before we can deal with that which the Government propose to submit. The proposal of the Government is to leave out "any parts thereof, and of the tackle thereof," and to insert in their place the words, "including the manufacture of any fittings of wood of a kind commonly made in a shipbuilding yard." I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he will find that this does exclude some of those cases which he had in mind when he moved his Amendment.

§ Mr. BIGLAND
I am quite satisfied, so long as the matter is clearly defined. A certain number of workers are very much dissatisfied at present. If the word "wood" were put in—

§ Sir J. SIMON
That can be discussed when the Amendment has been moved, after the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn his Amendment.

§ Mr. BIGLAND
I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I beg to move in paragraph (3) to leave out the words, "or any parts thereof, and of the tackle thereof."

§ Mr. HOLT
Before the further Amendment is moved, I propose to move another Amendment in paragraph (3). I move after the word "being" ["persons not being members of a ship's crew"] to insert the word "usually."

§ Sir J. SIMON
I accept that.

§ Mr. HOLT
I may explain that it is purely a technical point, because at the time these men may be engaged on the work of the ship they may have been paid off, to be re-engaged afterwards. They are not technically members of the crew.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
I doubt very much whether this will be a safe Amendment—"not being usually members of a ship's crew." Sometimes members of the crew are employed for this purpose, but if they are engaged in carrying out the 2069 actual operation one does not see why this word "usually" should be inserted at all.

§ Mr. HOLT
I am afraid my hon. and learned Friend has not understood my point. It occurs in the interval between one voyage and another. There is technically no crew, though, they are the same individuals, who were the crew in the last voyage and will be the crew in the next.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
The result is not being members of a ship's crew, they might be members of a different ship's crew.

§ Mr. HOLT
The ships have no crew.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
Not being members of a ship's crew, what I suppose is meant is not being members of any ship's crew.

§ Sir J. SIMON
Would it do to make it the crew?

§ Mr. HOLT
They change from ship to ship; they are regular seafaring men.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I beg to move at the end of paragraph (3) to insert the words "including the manufacture of any fittings of wood of a kind commonly made in shipbuilding yards."
The words which we suggest here are the same as those we added a little time back at the end of the building definition, except that we speak of shipbuilding yard, whereas in the case of the building definition we speak of builders' yard. I hope I shall find that the hon. Members of the Committee who are very familiar with this branch of the industry, will recognise that these words are apt for what we mean. The hon. Member for Birkenhead said he thought it might be a question whether we should limit the reference to fittings of wood. If you take such a thing as a water-tight door, which is not made of wood but of iron, it would still be within this, because it will be shipbuilding, and it would probably also come under mechanical engineering. What we desire to avoid is the furnishing of the cabin as opposed to the fitting of it, with wood fittings and the like. I think we have probably chosen accurate words to express that idea.

§ Mr. BIGLAND
I fail to see why the Government insert the word "wood" and 2070 exempt the word "iron." In my own constituency there is a factory for making wooden fittings for steamers that have been built, and there are other large industries making ironwork which also goes into steamers. It might be remarked that they would come under Paragraph (4), and that they will be mechanical engineering, which is such an enormously wide term, that I suppose every iron worker in the country would come under that head. Suppose there was a foundry outside and not under the roof of the shipbuilding yard, manufacturing castings for the yard, would the foundry workers come under the Bill?

§ Sir J. SIMON
They would come in under paragraph (4).

§ Mr. HOLT
I think this Amendment does meet the case, and does take out the objection as to bringing in subsidiary trades, and includes those men in trade in the shipbuilding yard engaged in woodwork, which is almost entirely done in the yards. As to the point of the hon. Member for Birkenhead about ironwork, it is quite clear that the next Amendment on the Paper will raise the whole question.

Mr. BUXTON
I beg to move, in paragraph (4), after the word "including," to insert the words "iron founding and."
It was intended that this should be included under mechanical engineering, but as we are a little doubtful about it we think it is as well to insert these words.

§ Mr. PETO
May I ask why iron founding? If it is in reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, he was speaking of subsidiary trades which manufactured parts which ultimately go into the ship, and quite outside the ordinary shipbuilders' yard, and which are made inside the shipbuilding yard too. I will give the President of the Board of Trade an example of what I mean. Bronze or brass portholes and the porthole doors are always made in brass foundries. But this is only one item of various manufactures carried on in such a place, a great many of which are quite unconnected with shipbuilding and some unconnected with the building trade. So far as we have already got we have excluded as far as the building trade is concerned the manufacture of such things as door knobs and so on, specially mentioned by the Solicitor-General as being excluded. If we are 2071 to take his statement to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, practically the whole of those things come into mechanical engineering. We have got there a term which is of such wide application that no member of the Committee will know where it begins or ends. I should not have imagined that mechanical engineering included brass founding, which is a trade. I was still more surprised to hear the hon. Member for Wirral Division include the manufacture of corrugated iron, because that is understood to be absolutely a trade by itself. If you mean that in an ordinary mechanical engineering shop, a place with which I am very familiar, that you do not want the men who are engaged in brass founding, which is undoubtedly a part of the industry, that is to say, you find in most mechanical engineering shops there is a means of making iron castings necessary for their business, although some buy iron castings, then why on earth should you include the men who are engaged in working iron and exclude or do not include a larger number of men engaged in working crucibles for brass castings, bronze castings, and the other articles which are still more used in mechanical engineering.
As the thing stands, I admit I have not, myself, the haziest idea of what is the intention of the Government to include or exclude. If I might suggest what we really want is words either to include a trade or exclude a trade. We do not want to have groups or bodies of a man's employés contributors to the unemployment scheme, whereas the main number of men he employs may be outside of it. A perfectly valid argument may be brought forward for introducing words including any trade before this Schedule passes, but I do not think any argument can be brought forward for including only parts of a trade. By the words which it is proposed to include you would only make confusion worse confounded, because we do not know whether brass founding is to be included, or whether it means that iron founding, even where iron founding is practically the sole industry carried on the premises, is an insured trade, because for the first time I learn that iron founding, as a trade, is part of mechanical engineering. On the other hand, it may mean that if, on the premises of a genuine mechanical engineer, iron founding or brass founding is carried on, there is no intention to leave 2072 these particular employees outside the Act. With that I should entirely agree. Therefore I suggest, if that is the intention, to let people know who is in and who is out—which is what we want to do—you require words limiting it to the men who are employed on iron founding or brass founding on the premises of a mechanical engineer, as you do not want to include these people where it is the sole business carried on. There are many cases that I know well, where they are not mechanical engineers at all. They are perfectly plain and simple brass-founders. The same thing occurs in Birmingham, where there is an enormous industry of brass founding. Are you going to include the whole of the brassfounders? If so, I submit that you want a fifth and perhaps a sixth sub-division, saying perfectly frankly that all people engaged in the Birmingham trade of brass founding are to be included in the Act. If that is the desire, what becomes of the Solicitor-General's argument in relation to the building trade, where he was so anxious to define what he meant that he positively took, as a typical example of what he did not mean, the casting of brass door-knobs.

§ Sir J. SIMON
Really, I took the casting of brass door-knobs as an extreme illustration of a possible misunderstanding of the phrase "constructing part of the building." I did not use it for any other purpose.

§ Mr. PETO
I am not complaining in the slightest degree. I meant that we had specially limited the first Sub-section of the schedule so as to exclude such things. But if we are going to leave Sub-section (4) so vague and so wide that it will again include all these same things, I say, by all means let us do so, but let us do so by a definite Sub-section which says that all brass founding carried on in this country is an insured trade. If it is intended to be only brassfounding carried on in the ordinary workshops of a man who may be properly termed a mechanical engineer, you want words to the effect "including brassfounding and ironfounding if carried on on the premises of a mechanical engineer."

§ Mr. BARNES
I sympathise with the Amendment now before the Committee. I think it is probably meant to include a trade which was not thought to be included before, but I agree with the hon. Member opposite that it may have exactly the opposite effect. In the absence of 2073 these words, I should have said that not only iron moulding, but brass moulding, copper moulding, and other sorts of moulding incidental to the engineering trade, were covered by the term "mechanical engineering"; but inasmuch as the Amendment specifically mentions iron-moulding, therefore, inferentially, it excludes other sorts of moulding.

§ Mr. PETO
The term is "iron founding." It is not clear that it includes even iron moulding.

§ Mr. BARNES
I am using the terms as synonymous.

§ Mr. PETO
There is all the difference in the world.

§ Mr. BARNES
I think iron moulding is a general term covering iron founding. My point is, if you are going to make any addition at all, make one which will include all these different grades or classes of founders and moulders. For my part I do not see that anything at all is necessary if it is understood that founding or moulding is included in mechanical engineering. I cannot follow the hon. Member in his statement about portholes and brass fittings. It seems to me obvious, without any extension, that that is included, in mechanical engineering. The men engaged in making porthole fittings are brass turners, and are exactly the same type of men as those employed in the building of an engine or in the building of a ship. Therefore, for that reason alone, and because of the term "mechanical," it clearly would be part of the mechanical engineering trade. If you go on putting in special branches, such as we are now engaged in discussing, you will very likely find in a general way that, instead of including somebody whom you had forgotten, you will inferentially exclude a great many more. Therefore, before we vote on this question, I hope the Government, if they are going to adhere to their Amendment, will add words so as to bring in all classes of founders instead of including only ironfounders.

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
Will the manufacture of belting in connection with driving machinery, or of wire-roping for driving machinery, or haulage purposes be included within Sub-sections (3) and (4)? It constitutes part of a ship's equipment, and it is part of mechanical engineering. There is a very large factory of wire- 2074 roping in my constituency, and I have been asked whether it will come under the Act.

§ Sir J. SIMON
The question which has been raised is a very difficult one, and we are all much indebted to those Members who have spoken with an intimate knowledge of the trade. It will be for the Committee to determine what is the best thing to do. I may explain the object the Government have in view, and then the Committee will judge whether we have carried it out, and whether they would wish that object to be varied. The original idea was to include mechanical engineering which does not mean the same thing as the occupation of every man who calls himself a mechanical engineer. We shall all agree that the occupation of mechanical engineering is not necessarily the same thing as that of a man who is called a mechanical engineer. Mechanical engineering is an expression which people generally understand. We were in this position. Some branches of iron founding I conceive would probably be included in the term "mechanical engineering" anyhow; but if you take such a thing as the making of stoves and grates—the Wolverhampton trade, for example—it seemed to us at least open to great doubt whether mechanical engineering would cover such a case. It was our intention to cover it. The Committee will probably approve of that. That is why we propose to put in the words "iron founding." Now we come to the case of brass founding, which the hon. Member opposite has been discussing. There the position is not quite the same. The reason why we thought we would include all iron founding is, first, because most iron founding work is essentially part of mechanical engineering—[An HON. MEMBER: "NO"]—a large part of it, at any rate; and secondly, that the iron founding which is not engineering is very closely associated with processes which do come into mechanical engineering. That is really not true of brass founding as a whole. There is some brass founding that is undoubtedly included in mechanical engineering in the general sense. You have brass founders in a place where mechanical engineering is going on, but it would be a very serious extension of the Schedule, and would really be invading quite a new piece of country, if we were at one fell swoop to include all those small trades connected with the working and making up of 2075 brass. I call them "small" only because there is such a great variety and number of them. The hon. Member mentioned my brass door-knobs. That is the sort of thing we had in mind. Therefore the Committee will see the object we had in view was, not to exclude all brass founding, but to include it in so far as it fell within the general description of mechanical engineering, and I think it will be agreed you do have things that deal with brass founding in mechanical engineering. But, on the other hand, we wished to exclude such brass founding as is really outside the scope of mechanical engineering. That was our object. As regards iron founding, realising, as we thought, that for the most part it is mechanical engineering, it seemed to us better to bring in iron founding as a whole. I only say this in order that the Committee may see the view which has presented itself to our mind, and it will be for the Committee to say whether that view is right or not, and, secondly, whether we have carried it out as well as we can. It is desirable to keep the two things distinct, and that is the general view. Now, my hon. Friend opposite has asked me whether wire-rope making would be included. I think the answer to that is "No."

§ Mr. BIGLAND
I rather agree with the hon. Member opposite who has spoken that the including of those words excludes a great deal that might come under the natural term "mechanical engineering." To decide in future what is mechanical engineering and what is not will be a most difficult matter. I have no opposition to the Bill in any way. All I want to do is, as a member of this Committee, to make it sufficiently clear that when my Constituents and the people in other towns come to read the definite Act of Parliamnt when it is passed, they will see that there will be no ambiguity as to whether they are in an insured trade or not, and I am still afraid that we shall have a great deal of trouble on that point. Take, for instance, chain makers. I do not say, and I could not say personally, whether a chain maker is a mechanical engineer or whether he is not, and no doubt there will be hundreds of industries in which people will immediately ask the question of their Members of Parliament, "Am I in an insured trade, or am I not?" I am rather inclined to vote against this Amendment, and leave it as it originally stood.

§ Mr. BARNES
So far as I can understand the Solicitor-General, he wants us to believe that iron founding in the sense in which it is now inserted, is only intended to cover iron founding as apart from engineering workshops. Now, if that is so, why not say so; because you do not say it here? By putting those words in the Bill as they are now, you include, as I understand it, iron founding as part of mechanical engineering, and, therefore, inferentially, you exclude other sources of founding. Of course, I know the class of founding the hon. and learned Member has in mind, such as that in Falkirk and elsewhere, and also a much larger industry, that is to say, the founding of water pipes, and similar pipes, that public bodies carry water in for long distances, and I have no objection to them being brought in. Then again, there are castings for sewing machines, and I have no objection to all these being brought in, but they are all part of the iron founding business carried on apart from an ordinary engineering works, and, therefore, if you want to bring them in, say so in the Bill, or, otherwise, as these words now stand, they will exclude the other classes of founding to which reference has been made by hon. Members opposite.

§ Mr. BALDWIN
I must say that the sudden inclusion of the iron trade as a whole has come rather as a surprise to us who know the trade. I know the last thing I want is to be at all technical, but I wonder if the Board of Trade realise how much is covered by these simple words, iron foundry? Of course, I have to come back once more, and I must apologise for coming back to the point of the weight of the double incidence upon English industries of the first Part and the second Part of the Insurance Bill. I am sure that everybody on this Committee on both sides, quite independently of party politics, wishes to see that this Part is given a fair trial, and they will be only too pleased if it has this consequence; and if, in process of time, it can be extended, no one will be more pleased than I; but I do realise that we are making an enormous experiment, and that we have already got in very large numbers of men, and I think we are rather risking the success of this Part II. by overloading the trades introduced at the beginning. Now, let me just in a few untechnical words remind the Board of Trade of what iron-founding comprises. It comprises various items which are distinctly connected with 2077 the building of houses coming under No. 1, such as the manufacture of grates, hinges, window frames, and so forth. Now we come to a very wide subject of manufacture which has been hitherto supposed to be entirely outside the Bill, in a manufacture carried on in many parts of the country where competition is keen and where not very large profits are made, and where, consequently, the incidence of 2½d. and 5d. as between masters and men will be seriously felt. You cover at once the whole industry of hollow-ware manufacture and of cast iron pots and pans, which are used as domestic utensils.
You also, as the hon. Member for Black-friars (Mr. Barnes) has said, cover cast iron pipes, which is a large industry. They are used for post-office purposes, and are largely used for export, and you cover also the manufacture of certain kinds of plant for practically every industry in the United Kingdom, thus throwing an extra burden of cost on production on the cost of your plant in nearly every manufacture in the country. If you look at an iron works, for instance, of any kind, or a steel works and rolling mills, though I do not know whether they can come under mechanical engineering or not, you have got all your floor-plates, and the constructional parts of your furnaces, and all your roll houses, and all your rollers, that is to say, everything which is used in the manufacture of rails, and every kind of constructional steel work that there is. You have, generally, the castings of every description used in the erection of every form of machine that is put up in any way, and I should like to have some assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that he realises what that means, and that this inclusion of iron founders will bring in many small industries, many of them struggling. I think it will bring in a great many more men, and a great many more industries than he has any idea of.

Mr. BUXTON
I may say this particular Amendment in regard to iron founders was really put in at the request of the employers themselves, because they professed to represent the Iron Founders' General Federation. They were representing those who were interested in this matter, and they thought it would add to their difficulties unless the whole were included. Therefore it was very largely at their request that we proposed to include them. But as regards the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member from Glasgow, I quite appreciate his remark. He says that if we put in the words "iron founders" 2078 in this way, it might be held to include some, and exclude others in the ordinary course coming under it. I do not know whether my hon. Friend had the words suggested to him, but at all events, I will say to him, that looking at it as a matter of drafting, possibly the simplest way to meet this point, which is a very good one, probably would be to accept these words now, but to put in in the Report "iron founders" in a second category, and making it clear that it was not in any way to be held to diminish or affect other industries, or other branches of the trade, but that it would apply to the mechanical engineering as well as to the rest of the iron founding. It is really a question of drafting. We are in accord with him in regard to that, and either now or later, we can accept words as to that.

§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIES
May I ask, are the words which will include all the trades and industries to include all the industries spoken to by the hon. Member opposite?

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
May I just ask one question in relation to the actuarial side of this Amendment? I should like to know whether the calculation of the large number of men who are likely to come in under this proposal has been considered by the actuaries who have made the reports. You are bringing in iron foundries. How many men is it calculated approximately would come in under this provision.

Mr. BUXTON
We calculated originally that they were to be included in the words. After further consideration we came to the conclusion that the words would be ambiguous, and in order to make it quite clear we proposed to insert these words. The men are already included in the actuarial calculation.

§ Mr. HOLT
I do not think the Board of Trade can have thoroughly realised what an enormous extension of the Bill this involves, because, surely mechanical engineering means colloquially the manufacture of those articles which if exported would be classified by the Board of Trade as machinery, that is, I take it, what any ordinary person would understand by the term mechanical engineering. It includes the whole manufacture of iron articles, such as plates, angles, bars, pipes, armourplate, joists, and all sorts of things that anybody who knows the term would classify as machinery. It may be right or 2079 wrong to do it, and to represent it as a very simple extension of mechanical engineering. But it is as well to make the point clear, so as to leave no doubt of what mechanical engineering is; for it seems to me that the matter has not been considered as its importance deserves. This addition is a far bigger thing than mechanical engineering: it means a very much bigger thing, and includes far more people than would be included in the term "mechanical engineering." If we want to do it, I would suggest that it would be much better to withdraw this Amendment, and to propose a new Sub-section dealing with the iron trade.

§ Sir. J. SIMON
The hon. Member is quite right. I was going to follow up the suggestion of the hon. Member; the same idea has occurred to others of us. It is quite plain, as a result of this discussion, that there is in the minds of some Members doubt—and I think it is a perfectly reasonable doubt—as to whether the introduction of the word "iron-founding" into this Sub-section might not lead to confusion, and make "confusion worse confounded." I would suggest, therefore, to the Committee to allow us to withdraw this proposal so that we may bring in a new Sub-section (5), which at any rate will leave the thing open to be discussed.

An HON. MEMBER
Why?

§ Sir J. SIMON
I want to avoid the argument since iron-founding is put in a separate category in the Bill as to whether iron-founding is mechanical engineering or not. I must not be treated as though I had finally committed myself to the words, but I am prepared at once to move a new Clause.

§ Mr. PETO
I beg to move, in paragraph (4), after the word "including" ["including the manufacture of"] to insert the words, "such metal casting and moulding as are incidental to the trade of mechanical engineering, and are carried on on the premises of a mechanical engineer and". The statement of the Solicitor-General made me hand in that Amendment. Whether we adopt the further Sub-section (5), which the Solicitor-General suggests, to include the whole trade of iron-founding, or not, it seems to me essential that if we do adopt it, that we ought to make it perfectly clear that metal casting, whether in brass, bronze, or iron, or 2080 anything else incidental to the trade of mechanical engineering, if carried on in the specified works, are included. If the article properly and finally takes its form specifically in an iron foundry, I think it will be more than open to argument, almost to attack, as a prima facie case, for if iron-founding be included, brass-founding, and the moulding of other metals are excluded by the Bill. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars, that mechanical engineering wherever it is put in specifically, will exclude all else. If you include one particular metal, or moulding, the tendency is to exclude other metals.
I think it would make it much clearer, that in mechanical engineering you should limit it, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hexham said, to what everybody has always understood—that it is a trade engaged in the manufacture of such things as is classified on exportation as machinery. That is a very wide term. Therefore I think the Amendment makes the Sub-section very much clearer, makes it, in fact, perfectly clear, that it is not only fitters, turners, and all other trades who are usually engaged in mechanical engineering, but that there are also included founders of metals, and moulders of metals, if they are carrying on their industry on the premises of a mechanical engineer. That will still specifically exclude brass-founding as a trade entirely separate. Iron founding is an open question; brass-founding is not. Brass-founding specifically does not want to be upon this experimental portion of the Bill, Part II., though for some reasons I have not yet heard, and which we shall get later, there is some good argument for including the great trade of iron-founding in this country. I hope the Solicitor-General will agree with me that it makes the matter much clearer in regard to what is included and what is not, that metal moulders and metal founders, if they are carrying on that trade on the premises of the mechanical engineer, in connection with the trade of mechanical engineering, are all included. I particularly want these to be included, because I think it should be the desire of the Committee, as I said once before—I only repeat it—to include all the men in a certain workshop, and not to exclude any of them; not to include a few men in any workshop.

§ Mr. STEWART
May I ask for a clearer definition of this particular Clause, be- 2081 cause the industry in which I am especially interested—not personally, but as regards my Constituency—is that of corrugated iron. I do not quite know how it stands.

Mr. BUXTON
It is not in.

§ Sir J. SIMON
Let me first say a word before dealing with that matter about the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I can assure him that the object which he has so very clearly explained in his speech is exactly the object which those responsible for the drafting of this Bill have in view. Therefore it is a pure question of words. I hope I am not so obstinate as to prefer any words of my own simply because they are my own. I have no desire except to get things right. It seems to me that the particular matter which the hon. Gentleman is anxious to guard against does not arise. If the Committee is disposed to include iron-founding it can do so whether under this head or not. It is said that it is included, and if so, it is mechanical engineering that includes it. On the other hand I am extremely unwilling, without good cause, to add a series of words to mechanical engineering, we have already had so many incidents of unexpected consequences. It is not obstinancy on my part which prompts me to refuse these words but a desire to keep things in their proper order, that is the reason I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, especially in view of what is proposed below. Then when we have the Bill reprinted we can go through it item by item and line by line and we will not overlook what he said.

§ Mr. PETO
Will the hon. and learned Solicitor-General agree that some words are necessary to include iron-founding?

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
I think the Government would be far better advised if they said at the start they were going to stick to the schedule as it is and would not alter a line of it, because it seems to me that the result of our discussions is going to enormously widen the scope of this Bill. If mechanical engineering is to include iron-founding, metal-casting, and metal-moulding at the one end, and is to include fire-irons at the other, why should you not have watchmaking in the middle? You are making a perfect farce of the Bill. No ordinary mortal would think that a man who made fire-irons was a mechanical engineer. I do not know whether a gun-maker would regard himself as insulted or exalted by being called a mechanical 2082 engineer. If we are to determine whether mechanical engineering includes iron-moulding, brass-moulding, and the making of fire-irons and ordinary pocket pistols, and all other constructions of this class, I am glad to think that it is an umpire of the Board of Trade and not a lawyer that will have to deal with the matter. The conclusion I venture to submit is this—it would be far better to leave the Schedule as it is instead of trying to construe manuscript amendments, formulated while discussion is going on, and the ultimate meaning of which nobody can understand. Not only my hon. Friends but the Government have moved manuscript amendments which it is perfectly impossible can be regarded as intelligible. We have had three or four changes made in this very important Clause while we are here discussing it. One Amendment is withdrawn, another is put in, and we really do not know what we are doing, and as to the proposals that we are told we can consider at a future time, let it be remembered there are only to be five days for the whole Bill, and we simply will not have time to consider half of it. I respectfully suggest that as the Government have taken three years to frame these Clauses they had better let them stand, and not try to alter them in three minutes.

§ Mr. HOLT
I am inclined after the last speech not only to support this Amendment but every other Amendment that shall be moved, as then apparently we shall have accomplished a job which a lawyer thinks impossible of accomplishment. There are two things under consideration here which ought to be kept separate. Let us keep mechanical engineering properly water-tight, and then we can come to a scheme which includes other forms of iron-founding. I think these words ought to be inserted because they are designed to make the question of mechanical engineering fairly watertight, and I think these words are better than the alternative words. I think that the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Scott Dickson) that the words of the Schedule should be left as they are is the best of all, but of the two alternative Amendments I prefer the words of the hon. Member Mr. Peto to those of the Solicitor-General.

Mr. BUXTON
I beg to move to insert a new Paragraph at the end of (4) "Iron-founding, whether included in the foregoing headings or not."
The argument in favour of that has already been stated more than once, namely, that iron-founding in the ordinary way is an essential part of mechanical engineering, and so far as it is outside mechanical engineering, the two branches are so connected that to draw a line between the men employed in one branch and the men employed in the other, would give rise to great difficulty. As I have already said, its inclusion has been urged upon us by the employers quite as much on the ground of simplicity—they would rather have the whole of the men in than some in and some out. This is to meet the point of the hon. Member for Glasgow, that it should not by implication be thought that some of the men were out.

§ Mr. HOARE
On a point of Order. May I ask, does this preclude the discussion of paragraph (5) on the Paper to which I have an Amendment?

§ The CHAIRMAN
No.

§ Sir J. SIMON
It will come in between (4) and (5).

§ Mr. HOARE
I beg to move at the end of paragraph (4) to add the words, "and motor chassis." Although I fear that it will bring my right hon. Friend's wrath in adding yet another category to that paragraph, I hope that what I shall say will relieve the Schedule rather than make any addition to it as a whole, if you take it altogether My second Amendment, to leave out paragraph (5) is consequential on my first Amendment. My object is to break up into two parts the group of trades here described as the "Construction of vehicles," and to bring a part of it into paragraph (4), and to exclude another 2084 part of it altogether from the scope of the Bill. If I understand the Bill aright, it is expressly designed to be restricted to certain trades which have a mutual similarity. May I make good what I mean by quoting what the President of the Board of Trade himself said in his Second Reading speech with reference to these groups of trades? He said: Assuming that there are selected classes, the House may ask why particular classes are in fact chosen. The trades to which I have referred are the trades in which we found, on the whole, that the fluctuations of employment were the greatest and, on the whole, they were the trades most sensitive to ups and downs of depression and good times. I find that in the trades concerning which we have information in the twenty years on which we have actually based our estimates, taking the trades as a whole, the unemployment percentage varies between 2 per cent. and 7.8 per cent., while in regard to these particular trades the figures vary between 2.7 per cent. and 18.4 per cent. which shows that in these trades the fluctuations are greater than in the rest of the industrial field.…. They are trades also in which I have already said the difficulty is met rather by discharges than by short time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1911, col. 278–279.] Let me apply those remarks to the two branches of the carriage trade. First of all, there is the manufacture of motor chassis. I think that that branch does come within the scope of the President of the Board of Trade's remarks. We have there a trade which is virtually an engineering trade—a trade which employs large numbers of men at certain given times and then dismisses them. I think, therefore, that that branch of the construction of vehicles trade might very well come within paragraph (4). But if you pass to the other branch of the construction of vehicles trade, I think you will find that that is not so. It is worked on quite different conditions, and whilst motor chassis should come into this paragraph, the construction of motor bodies and horse carriage bodies should be excluded altogether. Should I be in order in elaborating that point? The two Amendments are virtually the same.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am not sure that the hon. Member quite understands what has taken place. He has moved an Amend- 2085 ment to add the words "and motor chassis" at the end of paragraph (4). If those words be added to the end of the paragraph, as it now stands, it will not be grammatical because the words "iron-founding, whether included under the foregoing heading or not," has been added.

§ Sir J. SIMON
If the hon. Gentleman will move to leave out "construction of vehicles" we will put it in on Report.

§ Mr. HOARE
Then I will move my second Amendment.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have not put the Question yet, so I will simply call upon the hon. Member to move the next Amendment standing in his name to leave out paragraph (5), which will now be paragraph (6).

§ Mr. HOARE
Yes, I will do that. I beg to move to leave out paragraph (5), "Construction of vehicles."
My second Amendment is complementary to the one I intended to move. The attitude the Board of Trade took up with regard to the inclusion of these men was that in the first place their employers dismissed them rather than keep them on on short time; and, in the second place, that they were liable to great ups and downs and sudden fluctuations. Take the trade of the construction of carriage bodies. There I find that very different conditions apply. I am informed that it is the practice for carriage bodybuilders to keep their men on the whole of the year. They work them very often overtime during the summer months, when the demand for carriages is great, and in the winter, keep them on very often on short time, employing them not upon building carriage bodies for actual purchase by private customers, but for building show bodies to place in the windows of their shops. The first condition, therefore, does not apply. The carriage body-building trade does not dismiss its men, but, on the whole—though, of course, there are exceptions to this case—keeps its men on in the winter.
Then, again, the carriage body building trade is not liable to sudden fluctuations. I think this is more than proved by the Schedules and Tables in the Actuary's Report which we have all read. If the Committee will refer to the first Table on Page 5 they will find that the average rate per cent. of unemployment in the coach building trade is only 3.5, and the average unemployment rate in the shipbuilding 2086 industry is no less than 10.4. Further, if they will look at Table 1 on Page 14 they will find those figures further amplified, and going back as far as 1891 that the figures of unemployment in the carriage body building trade have on the whole remained constant. In 1891 it was 2.4. In 1902–3 and 1904 it rose to an average of about 4.6. It then went up as high as 7.5 in 1908, but that is altogether exceptional, and taken all through the average has been 3.5. If, on the other hand, the Committee will look at the figures for the shipbuilding trade they will find that they have jumped suddenly up from 4 or 5 per cent. to 15 and 16 and even as high as 22 to 23 per cent. in 1908 and 1909. I think therefore the Committee will agree that it is to some extent unfair to include a trade that has so small a percentage of unemployment with a whole number of other trades, where the percentage is very low. I need not remind the Committee that the contributions are pooled. If they were not pooled it would be different, but as they are pooled it does seem hard on this one industry, which I would remind Members is a very small one, should be called upon to contribute the greater part of their unemployed premiums to provide bonuses for unemployment in the shipbuilding and engineering industries, where the unemployment is much greater.
I have no wish in any way to appear to be specially pleading for a particular industry, but I honestly believe, where a particular trade is not likely to get its full share of benefit under this Act, it had better be excluded altogether. Take the case, for instance, of the two carriage building trade unions. I am told that both of these unions give a higher rate of unemployment benefit. Yet in spite of that there is very little unemployment at all as I read their annual reports. I find in the report for March, 1911, of the United Kingdom Society, which I believe is the biggest Union, these words used, "no members need have been unemployed, if they were prepared to remove to where the demand for men was."

§ Mr. BARNES
The shipbuilders have said the same thing this year.

§ Mr. HOARE
I am only speaking of this one particular branch. That is what the men say—not the masters. It seems, therefore, established that there is very little unemployment in that particular branch of the construction of vehicles trade, which deals with the building of carriage bodies as apart from motor 2087 chassis; and in addition to that, the conditions of the trade are such that men are kept on the whole year round, and are not dismissed as they are in the shipbuilding and engineering trades, where large bodies of men are taken on during busy times and dismissed during slack times. I beg to move to leave out paragraph (6), and on Report I will move to include motor chassis in the previous paragraph.

Mr. BUXTON
I need hardly say that assuming the Committee agree to this Amendment, there will be no difficulty in making the Schedule agree with that decision; but, on behalf of the Government, I propose to oppose the Amendment of my hon. Friend, very much on the ground that he has himself given. He says that this is not a fluctuating trade, and that he desires to distinguish between the motor chassis building and the carriage body building, and that to bring this trade under the Act will throw a great burden upon the employers and the men and that they will not benefit from it. As regards the question of the fluctuation of the trade, my hon. Friend quoted some figures from the Actuary's Report—and I do not deny the fact—showing on the whole a fairly regular percentage of unemployment. But that requires this further analysis, I think, which bears on the reason why we are unable to accept his Amendment, and why we think it a singularly suitable trade to bring under the Act, that, taking the years as a whole, the fluctuations during twenty years vary from 2.4 to 7.5.

§ Mr. HOARE
7.5 is exceptional.

Mr. BUXTON
That may be, and it is for exceptional periods of unemployment that the Act is particularly intended. But taking the average of twenty years, and taking the years as a whole, I agree that the fluctuations are not so great as is the case in some of the other trades within the Act. Taking the average of the last ten years, and taking each trade month by month, we find that this trade is prosperous. The percentage of unemployment is very low in the months of April, May, Jane and July. When we get to the other parts of the year, it rises from 2.31 up to 7.5. If you take the years as a whole, there is very considerable fluctuation in nearly every year, and therefore, an advantage will accrue to the men employed in that industry. But as regards the question of the burden, to 2088 which the hon. Member referred, he said that it was throwing a heavy burden on the men because being a non-fluctuating trade they would not receive the benefit. I do not know on whose behalf he is speaking. All I know is that representatives of the men employed in these industries have come to us and said they are extremely anxious to be brought within the Act, and yet, if it is a fact that the fluctuations the hon. Member mentioned are correct, those men are the very persons who will pay a larger amount and receive less benefits.
As far as we are concerned we do not see why they should be deprived of the advantage for which they ask. The hon. Gentleman says you can distinguish between the body building and the chassis building, and that you can bring one in and exclude the other. We have looked into this matter. I have had an opportunity of discussing it with the employers themselves, at a deputation and in other ways, and we think it is quite clear that there is no distinct line to be drawn between one and the other. At Coventry, for example, and at other places, you will find that the whole of the car is made by one firm, but whether the whole of the car is made by one employer or not, and the same men in the same workshop, the two works are going on side by side, and I think the Committee came to a decision an hour or so ago that in any particular workshop where the men are working at substantially the same work they should all be in or all be out. Therefore, on the ground that in our opinion this is a very suitable trade to come within the Act, and that the men themselves desire it, and on the ground that you cannot, I believe, distinguish between one and the other, I am afraid I must resist the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
My hon. Friend, the Member for Chelsea, has made out a very good case in favour of excluding motor chassis builders, and it would be much more advisable, as he feels so strongly upon that point with regard to coach builders, to move an Amendment leaving them out, instead of moving to leave out the paragraph because this paragraph deals with a much wider trade than that of motor cars. You have the whole question of the rolling stock of railways, the question of drays, tradesmen's vans, motor 'buses, and vehicles of various descriptions. This paragraph deals with the very large volume of trade and a very great number of men employed. I think it 2089 would be rather hard that all these men should be excluded, because my hon. Friend is able to make out a strong case on behalf of the Coachbuilders. Surely it would be better to move an Amendment to exclude them?

§ Mr. BARNES
I should like to give one reason in addition to those already advanced as to why we should reject this Amendment. As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he says we should exclude these men from the operations of the Bill, because they are not subject to unemployment, and in support of that, he read a report from the United Carriage Builders Alliance of 1911. As a matter of fact, he might have read a report of the Boilermakers or the Shipbuilders which he would find couched in the same strains as that from the United Coachbuilders. The Boilermakers and Shipbuilders have stopped all unemployment pay benefit because they practically say to their members, "you can get work if you want it, and that being so you shall not get unemployment benefit." Yet these are the trades that are put at the other end of the scheme. However, that is incidental. Assuming that the rate of unemployment is not so severe, and not so fluctuating in the motor coachbuilders' trade as in other trades, it should be remembered that that is due to the fact that this trade is a new trade which has sprung up in the last few years. You had practically to build up a new body of mechanics for the construction of these motor-cars. It is because this is a new trade, and that its ranks are filled from what is practically a new body of men, that it is not subject to the unemployment that are other trades. But we are not passing this Bill for the next year or two, but for a very long time, and I should say that before very long this very industry will be subject to fluctuations just as are the iron or shipbuilding industries.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman, although it is not a very rosy picture he draws of British trade. I have not been able to make up my mind from the discussions which I have heard whether it is a blessing or a curse to be under this Bill. There is one well-known phrase in political life that would apply to that and that is—"Wait and see." If my hon. Friend would pardon me I should again advise the Government to stick to the Schedule as it is.

§ Mr. HOARE
Let me in the first place, in answer to my hon. Friend, say I think 2090 it will be a blessing for people to be under this Bill, provided that at each stage they get their full share of benefit. In reply to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow, I desire to say I read from the publication of March giving the figures for the last two or three years, but I acknowledge there has been a boom in certain kinds of motor cars. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the figures he will find they are fairly consistent for twenty years, and that for that period the rate of unemployment has been much lower in the coachbuilding trade than in other groups of trade included under this Bill. However, I see that the feeling of the Committee is against my Amendment, and I shall not press it now, but will, if I have the opportunity, bring it up again on the Report stage.

§ Mr. BALDWIN
Can the President of the Board of Trade tell us for our information what is included exactly under the term "vehicles." A vehicle may be everything from a perambulator to a locomotive.

§ Sir J. SIMON
It includes for instance the making of bicycles.

§ Mr. BALDWIN
Does it include all rolling stock?

§ Sir J. SIMON
Oh, yes, certainly.

Mr. BUXTON
I beg to move "That this Committee sit after four o'clock."

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
That is rather difficult for us, because there are some important Scotch clauses coming on in the Bill (National Insurance) now before the House.

Mr. BUXTON
My right hon. Friend was not here at the last meeting, when I think it was generally agreed that it would be possible to finish the Bill to-day.

§ Mr. BARNES
Are we pledged to finish it to-day?

Mr. BUXTON
Not necessarily.

§ Mr. BARNES
If we are not to finish, let us adjourn pretty early.

Mr. BUXTON
I beg to move to add, at the end of the Sixth Schedule, a new paragraph:—
(7) Sawmilling, including machine woodwork.
In sawmilling the bulk of the work is done for builders, and some maybe done by outside workshops. It seems a right and proper thing that they should all come in. That certainly was our intention, but we thought that the wording of the schedule did not cover it.

§ Mr. PETO
This comes upon me somewhat as a matter of surprise. After the discussion on the building paragraph, I certainly thought the words the right hon. Gentleman put in made that paragraph fairly water-tight, and showed perfectly clearly what was going to be included in wood-working as far as it applied to the building trade. Personally, I think that the five different trades included in this sixth schedule have a category wide enough for what is obviously only an experiment. There will be power to include other trades, but I cannot see any possible reason why saw milling should be included otherwise than as part of the building trade. If this item is added to the schedule, we shall have everything connected with building woodwork—sawmilling and everything else included. I strongly object to the extension of this part of the Bill to all sorts of other trades never contemplated during the six months that the Bill was before the country, or during the three years in which it was in the minds of the Government. Therefore, I oppose the inclusion of an additional trade, whether it be this or any other trade.

Mr. BUXTON
As to the question that nothing was done during the six months that this was before the country that is not so. We believed that words covering this trade were actually in the schedule, and it is only to make the matter clear that these words are now introduced. So much did we think that was the case that if the hon. Gentleman will refer to the report of the actuaries, he will see that some of the actuarial conclusions are founded on the saw-milling trade.

§ Mr. T. E. HARVEY
I beg to move to add at the end of the 6th schedule:
(7) Labour or employment in connection with docks or the loading or unloading of ships.
The promise was made, I believe, during the consideration of the financial resolution that this most important question should be raised. I think many Members were greatly dissatisfied when they came to examine this Bill that no provision was made for the insurance against unemployment in the case of the dock labourers. We had great expectations raised by the actual words in the King's speech, which promised a measure of insurance for unemployment in trades, especially liable to it. I think no industry stands in need of greater assistance in that direction than dock labour. Indeed, one of my hon. Friends has pointed out that this is not so much a question of unemployment as of under-employment, and though that may appear one reason for not dealing with it, careful examination would show that under-employment does necessarily involve unemployment as a sequel. A man only employed on odd days, finally becomes unemployable, at any rate for a time, and those who know anything of the conditions of East London and of other great centres connected with the dock industry must feel the need for dealing with it in this Bill. It may be said that it is very difficult to define what a docker is, but the same difficulty arises in connection with the Building trade. The percentages of unemployment shown in the returns of the Distress Committee in the case of general labourers and dock industry are very high. In the Report of Distress Committees for 1909, whereas only 7 per cent. of the applicants to Distress Committees come from the engineering trade, and only 20 per cent. from the building trade, 52 per cent. are classed as dockers and labourers. So that for including this branch a very strong case indeed is made out. I do not think the difficulties should be insurmountable, even under this Bill. It might be said that because dock labour is so largely recruited from the refuse of other trades there are special difficulties, but it ought, surely, to be possible under this Bill to establish a register which would prevent men thus coming in from other trades, and at once claiming to be regarded as dock labourers. That would tend to the gradual decasualisation of dock labourers. The other main difficulty that occurs is in the connection of 2093 docking industries with general transport. No doubt it may be thought inadvisable to deal with dock labour without dealing also with the general transport trade, but I very much hope, though it may be too much to expect, that in the present state of business Parliament will include dock labour now, that the President will take this opportunity of announcing his intention of including dock labour at a very early date under the provisions of this Bill. I think there will be a very great disappointment in the country if it is felt that it is not the intention of the Board of Trade to deal at a very early date with this very important matter. I beg to move accordingly.

Mr. BUXTON
I agree with almost everything my hon. Friend has said, and like him I hope before long under the provisions of this Bill it may be possible to bring dock labourers under its advantages, because I regard it as an advantage and not a burden, and personally my interests if I may say so are in that direction, because I think I represent more docks than any other Member of this Committee, but in reference to this matter I wish to appeal to the Committee as I had to do in regard to other matters not to extend the Schedules of trades at this moment. We have gone very carefully into the whole of these insured trades which have been taken in the first instance. Everybody agrees, as has been stated, and it is obvious that this is an experiment and we have no precedents elsewhere on which we can guide ourselves, as in Part I. There is no such thing as compulsory insurance on a large scale anywhere at present, and therefore we have not much experience as regards the actual working of it. We are also somewhat handicapped by not having very accurate figures on unemployment, on which also to base the scheme, though we have a certain amount and quite sufficient to give us the actuarial calculations on which this Bill is based. Therefore I do think, apart from the question of the particular issue of dock labour, it would be a very great misfortune and a great mistake if we were to endeavour now, before we have more experience in regard to this matter, to extend the provisions of this Bill in the direction proposed by my hon. Friend.
I am not going into the merits or demerits of so extending the operations of this Bill, but I am bound to say in reference to that that it involves a more difficult question than these other insured trades, which are in the first instance to come under the provisions of the Act. For 2094 reasons quite patent to anybody who has studied this question it is unquestionably a more difficult problem, and therefore I think that is all the more reason for letting us move slowly with regard to this matter, and for letting us see how the Act works out, in the first instance. But I can assure him that as far as the Board of Trade is concerned they have no hostility to including dock labour, but on the contrary we should like to see it included, but I do not think the time has yet come, because we have not the necessary evidence and experience before us. I have received considerable opposition to its being included on the part of certain sections, and I really have received hardly any support from either masters or men in regard to desiring to be brought in, at all events under the conditions of this Bill. It is quite possible we may have to deal with it in a somewhat different way, but perhaps my hon. Friend will rest content with the assurance now that it may be these particular trades can be brought in under Clause 77, and that we are not only not hostile to it but we hope they may be brought in under the provisions of the Bill.

§ Mr. HARVEY
In view of that assurance I do not press my Amendment, and beg leave to withdraw it.

§ Mr. HAYDN JONES
I beg to move to add to the Schedule,
"(8) Slate quarrying, i.e., the obtaining and preparation of slates for roofing and other building purposes."
I believe those trades are in a state of fluctuation, and also are subject to a great amount of unemployment. Now, on referring to Table I. of the Report to which the hon. Member for Chelsea referred to a few moments ago, I find the main annual percentage of unemployment in carpenters and builders for the last twenty years is 5.8; and engineering, 5.6; shipbuilding, 10.5; boat-building, 3.5; and mill sawyers, 3.6; but now, Sir, I wish to lay before the Committee the facts so far as they affect the quarry-men in North Wales. Whereas there were over 14,000 in 1906, they have dropped in successive years to 13,552 and 12,714, and in 1910 to 11,140. Now, if we examine the percentage of unemployment and compare that percentage with the percentage in Table I., we find this to be the case. In 1905 the carpenters and builders are dealt with in this Report by Mr. Acland, and I want to be perfectly fair to the 2095 Committee, but I think he makes this remark: So far as the data can be relied on they appear to indicate that the average rate of unemployment in the whole of the building trade is double that of the carpenters and plumbers. This is what I find in the Schedule. In 1905 the building trade had a rate of unemployment of 16.6, and the slate trade 6 per cent. In 1906 the building trade had 14.4; the quarry trade 12 per cent. In 1907 the In 1906 the building trade had 14.4; the cent. In 1908 it was 23 in the building trade and 21 in the quarrying. In 1909 it was 23.2 in the building trade and 23 in the slate trade; 17.2 in 1910 in building trade and 23 in the quarrying trade. I quote those figures to show that the quarry trade is absolutely dependent upon the building trade. In fact the slate quarrying is at an absolute standstill when the building trade is also at a standstill. Slate is used for nothing else practically but building, and I take it that what the Government really seek to do is to relieve those trades suffering now from most unemployment.
I am met with the argument merely that seeing there are so many men unemployed at present in the slate trade it will mean a very heavy charge on the fund. I wish to emphasise this, that men in the slate quarrying trade once they are thrown out of work have to seek work elsewhere, and though skilled they have to take the chance of getting any labourers' work in South Wales. So that there will be no immediate charge on the fund on account of the large number of men unemployed now. But we have to guard against this sort of thing in future, and we hope that the slate trade will recover, as the building trade has. When the building trade becomes slack we have to look for unemployment in the slate trade, and I venture to suggest that if any regulations could be put forward to deal with this matter of the slate trade of the Principality of Wales it would be beneficial. Then I am met with the argument that it is true that slates are required in building but so are stones and bricks, but I venture to say you cannot say that stones and bricks are so exclusively required as slate is for that trade, and in view of that, in a case where there is so much unemployment, I beg to ask the Government earnestly to include this trade, and to show that they really sympathise with those trades which have most unemployment.

Mr. BUXTON
I much regret I have been unable to accept this Amendment to include this industry in the scheduled trades. I have explained that it was necessary to draw the line in the first instance, and we have drawn it at the particular trades which we are proposing to introduce. They are not necessarily the trades in which unemployment is greatest, but those in which we believe the experiment could be best made. We should be very loath under existing conditions to extend the area of those trades—not because we have any desire to exclude them in the end, but really because in experimenting, you must really draw some line, and obtain your information before extending the trades. Let me point out to my hon. Friend that my real difficulty, or my chief difficulty, in regard to this particular case is this: He says, as I understood him, that the particular quarries for which he is speaking produce slate solely for building purposes. Well, there are, of course, other purposes for which slate is used, but I do not know how far that may be actually the case. But, if it is as he puts it and if that particular industry can make out a good case for inclusion, I would venture to point out to him that we have provided for such a contingency, and especially so under our Clause 77, which enables us under certain conditions and in certain circumstances, and after proper inquiry, to extend the provisions of the Act.
I would therefore venture to make an appeal to him not to press this particular Amendment, for the reasons I have given, but unless he is able and unless those who are interested in the trade are able to prove their case, of course it is obvious that I here am not in a position to say that there are special conditions in regard to this trade which do not apply to a good many others as well. He mentioned the brick trade and others. I may say I have had a letter, received only just now, in which it was indicated that the writer understood that the quarries were going to be included, and he thought that therefore bricks ought to be included. But if at this moment one does not draw a clear line at the trades already scheduled it would open the floodgates of all sorts of other trades, and it would be very difficult to deal with the question in that respect. My hon. Friend's case is one on which I have not sufficient knowledge, but if it is a peculiar one, particularly in the form in which he has put it, then it is open to that industry to ask for a 2097 special inquiry and to have the matter fully and properly inquired into, and if the report is satisfactory it can be added to the Bill. I hope under those circumstances, without any hostility to his proposal, he will allow me to say that I draw the line for the moment at the scheduled trades. Clause 77, as already passed, would deal with the last Amendment as to dock labourers and deal with other trades in the same position. I would, therefore, venture to appeal to the hon. Member not to press this Amendment at the present moment, but to rest satisfied with the observations I have made.

§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIES
I listened with a good deal of curiosity as to what is the exact position which the right hon. Gentleman would take up in view of this discussion. One of his reasons for refusing the Amendment was that he had no knowledge of the special circumstances of this particular trade. May I point cut with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman that that is his fault and not ours. Eighteen months ago an application was made to the Board of Trade, while the Bill was being considered and drafted, that the quarrymen should be considered. In March last I brought the matter to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and surely in eighteen months, in view of the very large number of men affected, the Board of Trade had quite sufficient time to inquire into the circumstances of this particular case. The objection to the inclusion of this trade comes in this instance from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and not from his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, as a matter of fact, is in sympathy with the object we have in view, and who, as we understood, consulted with the right hon. Gentleman so that the quarrymen should be included.

Mr. BUXTON
I do not know what right the hon. Gentleman has to say that.

§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIES
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told me so, and said he would communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. BUXTON
I had no communication.

§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIES
The right hon. Gentleman's colleague is in favour of this.

Mr. BUXTON
I am responsible for Part II. of this Bill. I know nothing of 2098 what is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's view, but, of course, if I did, it would receive consideration. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to bring in my colleague in this way. I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would resent very much if I were to say to some hon. Members, with regard to friendly societies, that I was in favour of some particular Amendment in Part I. I hardly think the Chancellor of the Exchequer authorised the hon. Gentleman to say what he has said. To say simply that the Chancellor is in favour of this Amendment is quite another matter. He is entitled to have his view, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to quote the Chancellor of the Exchequer against me.

§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIES
If the right hon. Gentleman had only a little more patience, he would understand better when he heard what I had to say. What I said was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in favour of the proposal and that I understood he was to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman this morning. This very information, which the President of the Board of Trade ought to have had, and has not got, is information which is within the knowledge of his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who represents one of the divisions of Carnarvon affected by that trade and who, with that knowledge, is ready to support my proposal. I did not understand when so many other trades were included that this particular trade would have been rejected. Surely this trade, where unemployment is very large, ought to be included. It is perfectly dependent upon a trade where it is perfectly well known that the rate of unemployment is very large. It depends entirely upon the building trade, and it is a necessary corollary that as the building trade goes down, the rate of unemployment in the quarry shed goes up. It is for that reason that we have been pressing the Board of Trade in the last two years to do something to assist the men out of work in this industry.

§ Mr. J. WARD
I do not suppose it is any use attempting to support this proposition after the speech which has just been made. But at the same time I wish to point out in reference to this matter, especially as I have Amendments dealing with a similar subject lower down upon the Paper. After all, the President of the 2099 Board of Trade must take into account the question as it stands. There are districts in South Wales where, except for a little lining in the chimneys, the whole premises are built of stone; and you will find places where the houses are constructed of stone and where even the roofs are of stone, and certainly, in my opinion, you must take into account stone quarries as well as other trades.

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
I would like to support what was said by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward). I represent a constituency in which a large number of men are engaged in the quarrying industry. It is subject to very severe competition at the present moment, and I would like to feel that in any action that is taken to include slate quarrying, stone quarrying also shall have special consideration.

Mr. TYSON WILSON
I am afraid that the prospect of the quarrymen being included has been somewhat spoiled by the speech, or by the feelings that have been aroused in the Committee on account of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Ellis Davies), but I hope that it may not be allowed to prejudice the case of the quarry-men. I think that their trade is one that ought to be included. There is not a very large number of them, and, as a matter of fact, we adopted an Amendment this afternoon that would include a very much larger body of men. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will hold out some hope that he will give further consideration to this matter between now and The Report stage, and, if possible, include all these men.

§ Mr. WALTER ROCH
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will further consider this matter. I have received a great deal of representation in its favour, and I can assure him that there is a very strong feeling about it. After all, we are here to do the best we can for the quarry-men, and while I do not think for a moment that the President of the Board of Trade will attach any undue importance to what was said by my hon. Friend in reference to the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—which was expressed not only as a Member of the Government, but as a Welsh Member as well—I do not know whether it is too late to appeal to the right hon. Gen-

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
We have plenty to do on the Report stage, and I hope that the Government are not going to pledge themselves to do any more.

Mr. BUXTON
Perhaps my hon. Friend (Mr. Ellis Davies) did not exactly appreciate the effect of what he said, but I am bound to say that I resented the way in which he put it. Of course, if he did not intend it in that sense there is no more to be said about it.

§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIES
I did not intend to make any personal observation that was offensive. On the other hand, I did wan to point out that the right hon. Gentleman objected, as President of the Board of Trade—which is the only capacity in which I know him—to a proposal for inclusion of which his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, knowing the circumstances of this industry, was in favour. I am extremely sorry if I said anything offensive, and I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have no personal animosity whatever towards him.

Mr. BUXTON
I am very glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have already given an undertaking that, if a special case can be shown, whereby this and other trades should be included, there is a provision under the Bill which would enable that to be done. I had already given that promise, and it was ignored.

§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIES
That is in the Bill already.

Mr. BUXTON
Yes, I already alluded to it, and when the hon. Gentleman says we have known all about this for eighteen months, the only knowledge that we can have is that which comes out in the inquiry, which necessarily must precede inclusion in the Bill I can give no other promise, and in these circumstances I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
I beg to move the addition of the words at the end of the Schedule, (8) Dressing of stone; that is, preparing of stone for building and construction and such work as comes within the meaning of this Schedule. I think my Amendment has been largely met already by the learned Solicitor-General and the President of the Board of Trade, and I only ask will it include the preparing of stone in respect of bridges and docks and so on? If that is included, I withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. BUXTON
That is included.

§ Mr. GOLDMAN
Then I withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. J. WARD
Paragraph two of the Schedule has not been under discussion at all, and I would like to ask a question with regard to it. It seems that all works of construction are pretty well included under it, but there are three or four sorts of works that I am not sure are covered. For instance, there are waterworks. I do not think they come under the term "embankments" or "harbours," although they may come under the term "other works of construction." There are cases again where things could not be called "embankments," such as big masonry dams for reservoirs and things of that description. Would such works as those come under the term "other works of construction"? Then, in the old Schedule, from which this has evidently been taken—the Schedule to the Act of 1894—the Notice of Accidents Act, there is the expression "tramway" as well as "railway." I should like to know whether the erection of tramways, which is really excavation and construction work, and almost exactly similar to railways except that they are constructed in roads instead of across country, is also included.
Tunnels in railways are included, but I should like to know whether such tunnels as the Blackwall Tunnel is included? 2102 That is not a tramway or a railway or anything of the kind but still is a great public work, carried out by exactly the same kind of employers; the same system and the same men are employed. Then road making is a part of the building operations, and I should like to know whether that is included? Sewage work, too, is another matter on which bricklayers are employed for the building of the sewers and navvies for the excavating, and, as a matter of fact, it is all attached to building work. It is constructional work, and the Contractor who builds the railway very often contracts for and employs the same class of men to do the brickwork of the tunnels in railways and the sewerage work and other work of that description. Then there is the term "quays and docks." I was wondering whether that included quay works in the old Schedule which are neither docks nor harbours, and I should like to know whether quays would be included in "construction of works." With regard to the building of wharves which are not docks, but are used for the purpose of loading and unloading ships, and would not come under the term "dock or pier or harbour," as the case may be, would they be included? It seemed to me that the term "or other works of construction" included nearly all these things I have mentioned, and for that reason I did not move any Amendment with regard to it, seeing that it is the same set of men who do the work and the same set of employers who tender for the same. I should like to know from the Solicitor-General whether I am right in the inference I have drawn?

§ Sir J. SIMON
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and I think my Friends opposite will agree that that is so. It is difficult to use a list of words which does not leave something out, and it is for this reason that, after mentioning three or four obvious cases of works of construction, we have added the words, "or other works of construction." I feel no doubt that they will include many of the things the hon. Gentleman mentioned—waterworks, dams, tunnels, sewerage works, quays and wharves. The substance of the paragraph is that it includes on the one side everything which, in 2103 ordinary parlance, can be said to be done by a contractor, or on the other side, to be done with the help of the navvies, or navvy work.

Mr. TYSON WILSON
I should like to make an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to adjourn until to-morrow, as it seems to me we shall not be able to get through to-night.

Mr. BUXTON
Of course the matter is entirely in the hands of the Committee; but I do not think, with the exception of this Amendment, there are many Amendments, save the Government Amendments which are agreed—in reference to juveniles, and so on, that will take much time. So that I think really it would be actually for the convenience of Members of the Committee to finish now, rather than have to meet again, either to-morrow or on Monday. Of course, it is a matter of the general convenience of the Committee, and I have no personal feeling whatever with regard to it.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
Let me make an appeal to the Committee. It is that the Government should say that they are not going to take any more Amendments except their own. I am making this suggestion fearlessly, as we seem to be doing a great deal of talking and very little work.

Division No. 11.]	AYES.
Baldwin, Mr.	Holt, Mr.	Peto, Mr.
Bigland, Mr.	Nuttall, Mr.	Stewart, Mr. Gershom
Hoare, Mr.

NOES.
Alden, Mr.	Hackett, Mr.	M'Callum, Mr.
Barnes, Mr.	Harmsworth, Mr. Cecil	Robertson, Mr. John
Brady, Mr.	Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund	Roch, Mr.
Buxton, Mr. Sydney	Hayden, Mr.	Smith, Mr. Albert
Davies, Mr. Ellis	Jones, Mr. Haydn	Ward, Mr. John
Denman, Mr.	Jones, Mr. William	Williams, Mr. Penry
Goldstone, Mr.	Leach, Mr.	Wilson, Mr. Tyson

Division No. 12.]	AYES.
Barnes, Mr.	Leach, Mr.	Ward, Mr. John
Davies, Mr. Ellis	Roch, Mr. Walter	Williams, Mr. Penry
Goldstone, Mr.	Smith, Mr. Albert	Wilson, Mr. Tyson
Jones, Mr. Haydn

NOES.
Alden, Mr.	Ferens, Mr.	Norman, Sir Henry
Baldwin, Mr.	Harmsworth, Mr. Cecil	Nuttall, Mr.
Bigland, Mr.	Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund	Peto, Mr.
Buxton, Mr. Sydney	Hoare, Mr.	Robertson, Mr. John
Denman, Mr.	Holt, Mr.	Solicitor-General, Mr.
Dickson, Mr. Scott	Joyce, Mr.	Stewart, Mr. Gershom