§ Section eight of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920 (which sets forth disquali- 1854 fications for unemployment benefit), shall have effect as if for the words "reason of a stoppage of work which is due to" there were substituted the words "the withdrawal of his labour in order to participate in.— [Mr. Clynes.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. CLYNESI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time.
I should be happier if there happened to be in the House a larger number of hon. Members on the Benches opposite than I see before me, as I am confident that if hon. Members, before being called upon to give a vote on this Clause, could only hear the case which can be stated for it, we should probably find it would be added to the Bill. The events of our industrial troubles, and the general facts and circumstances relating to them since last we had to consider this question, have strengthened the case which on several occasions we represented to the House and the Committee. During the present year considerable numbers of men have been prevented from proceeding with their work because of trade disputes, and they have received the benefit, but in the case of lesser numbers of them the benefits have been stopped for exactly the same cause, and they have not been able because of the terms of the Act as it now is to receive any benefits at all. Our plea is for equality of treatment as between men who have to pay exactly the same contributions under exactly the same conditions in their particular employment. May I point out that this is not a voluntary contribution, and the men who pay are compelled to pay. It is therefore logical and reasonable to say that where you have conditions of compulsion in exacting a contribution you should have conditions of equity in regard to the general payment of the benefit derivable under the Act.
Our proposal really is to avoid existing injustices applying to individual workmen forced to be out of work through no fault of their own. The principle of the law of injustice in providing anything for conditions of unemployment is that when men are out of work through no fault of their own they should have some assistance through the means of insurance to enable them to face their difficulties until work is resumed again. On the strength of that principle, we say that when a workman is prevented from going on with his work because some fellow workman—it 1855 may be in the same establishment or the same department—is in a strike or lockout, that in itself should not disqualify the innocent workman from receiving the general benefits provided for under this Act. Where the workman is not responsible for the discontinuance of work, and where he is in no way a party to the dispute, where in short he is nothing but a victim of circumstances which he cannot control or terminate, surely the House will agree that provision ought to be made for that man to receive benefit, and he should not be disqualified merely because of the accident that he works in a department where there has been a dispute.
The right hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion has dealt with this claim. I think he cannot argue to-day that if he met this claim the whole financial foundation of the Bill itself would be destroyed or seriously impaired, because nothing of the kind would take place. So far as I can see the right hon. Gentleman has had to fall back upon one argument and that is that the parties to a dispute, that is labour on the one hand and capital on the other, through their respective representatives, have not been able to agree amongst themselves upon a form or set of words that would cover the principle upon which it appears everyone is agreed. That seems the only argument of any substance which the right hon. Gentleman has so far adduced. Let me try to deal with that argument. The right hon. Gentleman has used during the Report stage of the Act which we have to consider elsewhere, that is the Act of 1920 in this relation, the following words:
If I could have submitted to me a proposal which is acceptable to the two main parties, the employers, on the one hand, and the employés, on the other, if I could have placed before me an agreed proposition acceptable to both parties, and it is workable, I shall not put any undue obstacle in the way.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAHear, hear!
§ Mr. CLYNESFrom the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has submitted that point of view, he believes it to be a fair position to take up. Let me make some attempt, however feeble it may be, to show the right hon. Gentleman that that is a most unreasonable and unfair position to continue to maintain in view of what has happened. When the 1856 statement was first made, and these conditions first formulated by the right hon. Gentleman, no sustained attempt had been made by the parties to reach an agreed settlement, but attempts have been made since, and the result, I think, justifies us in asking the right hon. Gentleman no longer to stand by this condition, for in doing so he puts one of the three parties in the position, if it likes, of being, able to laugh at the other two parties.
§ Dr. MACNAMARANo!
§ Mr. CLYNESLet me show the right hon. Gentleman that that is so. The Minister of Labour represents the Government. He admits the reasonableness and the justice of the principle which we are asking him to embody in the Act. He admits also that an injustice is being done to the individual workman, who is aggrieved, because he cannot get the benefits for which he pays after he is thrown out of work. He admits all this, and he says to the employers and employed, "You come together and agree, and arrive at an agreement, and I will embody the principle in the Act, and find language to cover the case." Whereupon the two parties come together. We have been together on more than one occasion, and the result of our conferences has been not a difference upon words or upon a formula, not a breaking away because we have not been able to agree on language, but we have broken away and discontinued our endeavours because the employers' representatives have refused to admit the principle, and they will not under any circumstances agree to any language or words which would provide for the case which the right hon. Gentleman himself admits is a just and reasonable proposition. Therefore I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to find language to cover this claim is in substance enabling one of the three parties concerned to completely frustrate the wishes of the Government itself in regard to this grievance.
Personally, I have met and discussed the matter with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir Allan Smith), who in this House can speak with very great authority for that particular industry which has been most concerned in relation to this subject. The great engineering trades at this moment are very much involved in wage questions, and they are continuing their conferences, and ballots 1857 are being arranged and the usual procedure is being followed. We have met my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, and, indeed, I have put pointedly to him in this House the question of whether he was prepared on behalf of the employers to agree to the principle in order that we could find language to cover this case, but he has remained silent. I regret that he is not present, and that when challenged in this House to debate the matter and state his view, he has declined to say a word. I repeat that outside this House we have failed to get the employers' side to agree to the principle of the demand which we are now pressing. My argument now is that I must throw the whole responsibility upon my right hon. Friend and say that, in face of the failure of the two sides to agree, and in face of that failure being due to a refusal of the employers to accept a principle which my right hon. Friend has himself accepted, it becomes his obligation as the responsible Minister to proceed and find language which would meet this case.
I do not think that the absence of any agreement, or the refusal of the assistance of the representatives of the employers to come to terms any longer justifies the Government in allowing this question to remain in abeyance. It may be 12 months before we can again return to this subject, and meanwhile a large number of workmen who will have to pay will be prevented from receiving benefits to which morally they are entitled, because the right hon. Gentleman fails in his duty and throws the responsibility on two other parties, who clearly cannot agree at all. On behalf of my hon. Friends who sit on these Benches I can say that if the representatives of the employers will agree to the principle we would be disposed almost to leave to them the providing of the language. It is not a difference on mere words; it is a difference on the principle between the two parties, and in face of that difference now being so fully revealed, there can be no excuse or justification of any kind for declining to meet us in the case we are now pressing.
The right hon. Gentleman has given as a minor argument some instances of difficulties that will arise in ascertaining properly who would be the particular persons entitled to claim in the event of the present Act being altered. I agree that there may be administrative diffi- 1858 culties in regard to identification, but they exist in relation to any man who makes a claim in respect of his benefits. You must identify the man and be able to certify from revealed facts that he is entitled to the benefit before he can get it. But we have at this moment knowledge of cases in which men have to wait many weeks and even a couple of months for their benefit until it has been completely established that they are entitled to it. Therefore we submit that administrative difficulties, or any question of not being able at once to certify that a man is entitled to the benefit, ought not to stand in the way of including this just claim in the amending Bill which we are considering. Again I would say that we on this side of the House would be disposed to leave entirely to my right hon. Friend the finding of language to embody in this Bill a provision which would meet such practical or administrative difficulties as there may be, or we might even willingly leave it to the employers in particular instances to supply such facts from their knowledge, and to say whether or not a man is engaged directly in a strike. There could be in fact no better or fairer judge of such a case than the employer himself, and if he would say that a group of men were on strike and therefore not entitled to benefit, while another group of men were locked out, I see no difficulty whatever in treating the workers accordingly. We are not asking for unemployment pay for men engaged in a strike.
§ Dr. MACNAMARABut you want to include all the men who are locked out.
§ Mr. CLYNESThe case I am trying to, put is that we are not asking for unemployment benefits under this Act for all men who are engaged in a strike, but we say that in the case of other groups of men in the same department, or in other establishment, who may be indirectly stopped through the strike of combatant persons, those persons not being parties to the dispute should have the unemployment benefit. If my right hon. Friend reverses the position and asks whether we are asking for unemployment benefit under this Act for men locked out by an employer, because of wage or other industrial quarrels, we say No. We are not asking for benefit either for men on strike in connection with the dispute or for men locked out by reason of the dis- 1859 pute, we are merely putting forward a plea for men neither locked out nor on strike, and who are not parties to the dispute. We are putting forward a claim only for the men who fall between the two, between the employers and the employed, men who are innocent sufferers by some dispute which happens to occur in the place where they are working for the time being. I hope my right hon. Friend will see there is reason in the case I am putting forward.
We ought no longer to allow the unbending attitude of the employers' representatives in their refusal on any terms to arrange language that shall meet the case to prevent the alteration of the law for which we are now pressing. This is an amending Bill. It is a Bill which in our judgment will make the law of insurance benefit very much worse than it now is, for the reason that it reduces the benefit and inflicts injustice as we believe. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill therefore ought to be willing to take every opportunity of amending the Bill in other respects, and even of wiping out blemishes in the general law when it can be done without any serious impairment of the financial provisions of the Bill itself. It has been said by those who have addressed themselves to this question in connection with other disputes that to provide pay from funds under the Act in these cases might promote strikes or tend to lengthen their duration. I have endeavoured to meet that view by appeals to experience, and on the strength of that experience I can say that the money factor very seldom, if ever, determines either the beginning or the duration of any dispute. Let me take the present position in the coal trade to reinforce what I have said. It is known that the miners in many districts had no funds to begin with. In other cases they had very small funds which were soon exhausted. They are not now considering the terms of settlement or discussing conditions under which work may be resumed merely because their funds are exhausted, because, as a matter of fact, their funds were exhausted in the first week or two of the dispute. Frequently strikes have taken place in the case of workers who had to fight bitterly and for long without any reserves whatever. To start with, they had no funds in their organisation, and 1860 notwithstanding that, the men came out for a long time, thus proving that the money factor is not a decisive consideration in regard either to the starting of a dispute or when it should be terminated.
I think employers should draw from their own experience and see that no contributions from the funds of the Act would in any way affect any question on negotiations regarding matters in dispute. Even if it were possible that in some odd cases the payment of such a benefit might have something to do with the prolongation of the dispute or even with the starting of it, that, in my judgment, would not be a sufficient reason for withholding the benefit from individual workmen who justly claim that they have a right to it. I put it to the House that when men are compelled to pay their contributions under the Act there ought not to be any authority whatever under any part of this Act enabling those who have control over these funds to withhold the benefits from men who clearly are not responsible for their own unemployment, and who if they had their way would be continuing their work in the ordinary manner. I can only put this, further, to the right hon. Gentleman. Inasmuch as we shall not be able to return to this subject probably for a very long time, he ought not in face of the proved unwillingness of the employers' representatives to carry out his wish that they should try to come to some arrangement in regard to the language to be adopted; there is no ground whatever for throwing the responsibility upon two parties one of whom will not consent to any change, and the time has arrived when it becomes not merely his duty but when it becomes the right of the workmen to impose upon him that duty, he having now the power to make the alteration in order that all men shall be placed equally before the law, just as the law places them on an equality in respect of the payment of contributions.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAMy right hon. Friend has raised a very old question, and one which he will admit to be of very great difficulty. The form of the Clause which he has put to us is precisely the form which was moved as an Amendment to the Bill of last year and again which was discussed in Committee upstairs only last Thursday. On the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1911 there were long discussions on this point as to the position of men who are direct parties to a 1861 dispute and those who collaterally are thrown out of employment as a result of the dispute. It is now suggested that every man not directly responsible for the dispute should be entitled to unemployment benefit. The Act of 1911, as a result of considerable discussion, laid down that
Where separate branches of work which are commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises are in any case carried on in separate departments on the same premises, each of those departments shall for the purposes of this provision be deemed to be a separate factory or workshop or separate premises, as the case may be.That is how the position was defined in 1911, and there it has stood ever since. It has been agreed by common consent that in connection with certain disputes men thrown out of work are not therefore entitled to the benefit. Take the case of bricklayers. They may be at work on a job in which boilermakers are concerned, and if the boilermakers have a trade dispute the bricklayers' work is for the time being suspended.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI am trying to put the case of a bricklayer who finds himself unemployed by reason of a dispute in which he is not directly concerned, and who does not get the benefit. The difficulty is to find a line of equity which shall not create greater evils than those it is sought to remove, and up till the present that line has not been found. Let me take the terms of this Amendment, and the position which would be brought about if it were embodied in the Act. Here is a dispute in connection with a particular craft arising out of some disagreement between the union on the one hand and the employers on the other. There is a strike, and there are members of that craft who are not members of the union. I assume that, being members of the craft, and not being so far detached as the labourer, they would lose benefit; and they would come at once and say, "We did not withdraw our labour; why cannot we have benefit"? My right hon. Friend, if he will think for a moment, will see the difficult position in which these words—
§ Mr. W. THORNEThat would not apply, because his wages are affected in the same way as those of the men coming out on strike or locked out.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI do not think my hon. Friend has followed me. Here is a dispute between a union and an employer in the case of a particular craft—I am not raising the question of the labourer at all. It may be either a strike or a lock-out. Work stops; unemployment starts; wages stop; and, according to these words, the men would get no unemployment benefit. But there, right in the middle of it all, is a member of this craft who is not a member of the union. He says that he has not withdrawn his labour, and he would come to me; and these words would place me and those who have to administer the Act in a position of very real difficulty. I rather gather that my right hon. Friend suggests that in the case of a lock-out the craftsmen should not get benefit. But, in the case of a lock-out, does my right hon. Friend suppose that each of these men would not come and say, "I did not withdraw my labour; I am locked out." My right hon. Friend would not give that man benefit. He has told us so. But I can assure him that, if these words were used, the man would come and ask for it, and some of my hon. Friends behind him think that he ought to ask for it. If that is going to be the dilemna in the case of my hon. Friends opposite, what is going to be my position when I have to adjudicate upon and determine the matter? These words seem to seek to amend something else entirely, namely, the case of the labourer and of the man who is consequentially out of a job because the craftsmen have gone on strike or have been locked out. With great respect, they do not approach that in what I may hope may be the easiest way. I have always said, let the representatives of Labour and the representatives of the employers agree upon a form of words, and I will place no obstacle in the way if they are at all practicable. In connection with the 1920 Bill, I said that I would do my best to get the words introduced in another place, and I make the same offer now. My right hon. Friend says that, since two of the parties cannot agree, therefore I, the third party, must settle it, but he knows that that is much more difficult.
§ Mr. THORNEThat is what you are there for.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI congratulate my hon. Friend upon the fact that he has not got the job, because it is not so easy 1863 as he thinks. I say that these words unnecessarily create within a craft the difficulty which I have tried to describe, and do not direct themselves to the case of men who are consequentially thrown out. I admit that that is a hardship, and if my Friends opposite will show me a form of words which will take the line of equity without creating greater evils than those which it is sought to remove, I will give it every possible consideration. These present words are words which could not possibly be accepted.
§ Mr. NEIL MACLEANI think the right hon. Gentleman is sheltering himself behind the question of an agreed-upon form of words which he wishes us to place before him in an Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) has told him very plainly that the employers will not agree. It is not merely that they will not agree upon a form of words; they will not agree upon the principle. Now the Minister of Labour suggests that we should go back to the employers and get them to agree upon a form of words and upon a principle as to which they disagree with us. Really I think the Minister is quibbling with the whole question. This question involves a very large number of people who, as he knows, are suffering hardship. I take it that the House agreed, in the case of the previous Bill, as the Minister himself has quoted, that in order to meet the difficulties which might arise in complex industries, where several trades are engaged in the production of a certain commodity, a certain form of words should be put into the Bill. That form of words says that, where businesses, which have been carried on as separate businesses outside the trade in question, are in that trade carried on as part of the trade, and where disputes take place in one of those departments and unemployment results in the others, the same conditions as regards unemployment benefit, will prevail as though those men had been employed in separate premises outside and far away from that particular workshop. Is it beyond the wit of the Ministry of Labour to draft a form of words that will meet this difficulty? Is it the form of words that is the difficulty? If the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, or his predecessor, could draft a form of words to get over the difficulty I have mentioned, which is a 1864 much more complicated difficulty than the one with which he is now asked to deal, surely it is not beyond the wit of his Department to devise words which will take the place of our words and will cover the point put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting. The Minister takes credit for being responsible for the framing of those words—
§ Dr. MACNAMARANo, it was before my time.
§ Mr. MACLEANThe right hon. Gentleman claims that they settled some of the controversies that existed up to that point. Let me disabuse him of that idea. They have not met the point. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I placed numbers of cases before his Department—
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI said that the result of the discussions in 1911 was to produce those words, and I said that that is where the matter has rested ever since. I was merely making a historical statement; I did not say it had settled the matter.
§ Mr. MACLEANThose words were framed with the object of meeting the difficulties which had given rise to so much controversy, and it was in the mind of those who put forward the statement quoted by the Minister that it had met the difficulty. It does not meet the difficulty. In the shipyards, during the joiners' dispute, we have had the joiners out on strike, and we have had boiler-makers, platers, shipwrights—men who were not engaged in handling a single piece of wood in the shipbuilding yards—dismissed; and we have had this curious anomaly, that in some unemployment exchanges these men have been refused unemployment benefit because of the joiners' dispute, while in other exchanges, only a mile or two away, men belonging even to the same boilermarkers' squad have been paid their benefit, although they were dismissed at the same time and under practically the same conditions. When, in the case of those to whom no benefit has been paid, there has been an appeal to the Referees and the case has gone to the Umpire, the contention of the Department that they are not entitled to benefit, because they have been dismissed owing to a dispute, has been upheld, and the right hon. Gentleman has told me himself that he cannot move further in 1865 the matter. I am putting these matters forward to show that even the words which have been placed in the Bill to meet the points which previously had given rise to so much controversy and dispute did not settle the matter, and that even at the present time men are not receiving unemployment benefit although they actually come within the scope of this particular quotation.
Our point is that a lock-out is a trade dispute, the same as a strike. Consequently, if those who are engaged in a trade dispute are not to be entitled to benefit, that includes a lock-out. I am not saying at the moment whether I personally agree with that point or not, but am putting it forward as a statement of fact that, if the term "trade dispute" is to cover those who are to be ineligible to receive unemployment benefit, then the point which the Minister of Labour sought to raise against my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) is not a point that can be called anything but a debating point. It does not hold in the realm of industry, because both a lock-out and a strike are considered to be trade disputes, and, therefore, would be covered by any form of words which the right hon. Gentleman agrees to bring forward. Here are men compelled to pay out of their weekly wages contributions to an unemployment scheme. They are told, under that scheme, that when they are unemployed their contributions, plus those of their employers and those of the State, make up a fund which will guarantee to them a certain payment for a certain period of their unemployment. The men agree—they are forced to agree. They pay their contributions, and then, when a dispute comes along in which they are not involved and upon which they are not asked to take a Vote—a dispute in which their union may not have been given any consideration by the other unions involved in the dispute— then, because they are working in the same establishment, or it may be in a different establishment altogether or in a different building far removed from the work that is done by the men who are out on strike, and because the employer dismisses them and may write upon their dismissal tickets that it is due to a strike in a particular craft, when they present themselves at the unemployment exchange they are refused that to which they are justly entitled, namely, the unemployment benefit for which they have 1866 been paying. Surely the Ministry of Labour has a drafting department that can bring forward words to meet the situation. The Minister understands the point. He has shown in the Committee upstairs that he understands it, and again in his speech here this afternoon. Why, then, does he always hide behind the form of our Amendment? Why does he not say, "I recognise the point. We do not wish to do any injustice to any body of workmen. They are paying for their benefit, and they are justly entitled to it. The Amendment moved by the Labour party does not cover the point; it enables non-unionists to come under it"? That was the point raised. Why is that?
§ Dr. MACNAMARABecause they have not withdrawn their labour.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MACLEANIf that is the difficulty, cannot the right hon. Gentleman suggest a form of words that will cover it? He can, and his Department can, but because they do not wish to do it they shelter themselves and quibble at words and refuse to do justice to thousands of men who are walking the streets to-day, signing their names at the unemployment exchanges, and who are refused benefit for weeks and months because they have been locked out or dismissed owing to the joiners' strike on the Clyde and in other parts of the country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to trifle with the matter further. I hope his Department is not going to trifle with the matter further. I hope he is going to do justice to men who are paying their contributions and have a perfect right to the unemployment benefit they are paying for when they are thrown out of work through circumstances over which they have no control. If the words we have used do not meet the difficulty, do not throw it back upon us that we must meet the employers and agree with them upon a form of words. We have put down generally what we consider to be words which meet the situation. The Minister says they do not. Very well, let his Department find better words. I am convinced the Labour Department can find words to suit the situation, and the Labour Party will accept the words which he is prepared to bring forward.
§ Colonel PENRY WILLIAMSI want to join once more in the appeal to the 1867 Minister of Labour to meet this very real hardship in the case of men thrown out of employment through no fault of their own. I rather resent the suggestion which has been made both by the Minister and by the mover of this new Clause that the employers' representatives have refused to admit the principle.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI never said that.
§ Colonel P. WILLIAMSI think the Minister concurred in the statement made from this Bench. I think the House is entitled to some statement as to what negotiations have been going on on this point and what employers have refused to consider the principle of this Amendment. I have never yet met an employer who looked forward to the winning of a dispute by the starvation of his workpeople and by the starvation of their wives and children. I do not believe any dispute is ever settled by starvation. On the contrary it has made many disputes much more bitter. If any large body of employers have refused to come to an agreement with my hon. Friends on this point, will the Ministry take steps either to compel them or to allow any trade that is prepared to agree, to agree to exempt themselves from the provisions of this Act? After all, there are many employers who consider that if they have to pay insurance money for their workpeople—be it compensation for accidents or provision for unemployment—when the occasion arises on which the workman is entitled to draw benefit, then he ought to have it. When a man is thrown out of work, if he does not get any benefit, his labour deteriorates, and his employer, when the dispute is over and the man returns to work, is at a disadvantage as compared to the position he would have been in had the man drawn unemployment benefit. I believe that in 1914, when this matter was being discussed in the House, it was admitted by the spokesman of the Board of Trade that only a very small percentage of unemployment benefit was due to this cause, that is, to strikes where the man is not directly concerned. I believe it is only about 4 per cent. We, on that occasion, tried to put into the Bill a provision which would make it permissive for the Board of Trade to consider these cases and determine whether a man was entitled to benefit or not. Now I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that he might 1868 leave it to the Umpire to decide whether a man is directly concerned in a dispute or not. The employer knows who is concerned in a dispute, the workmen's union knows, and I do not think it would pass-the wit of man for the Ministry of Labour or the Umpire to find out also. I hope my right hon. Friend will meet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting on this point.
§ Mr. HAYDAYThis is perhaps one of the greatest injustices perpetrated in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act. I cannot understand the position taken up by the Minister of Labour in this connection, because evidently his Department agreed that there is an injustice which should be remedied. The workman, representing the second partner to the undertaking, points out the grievance which he suffers from. Two out of the three partners to the great insurance undertaking agree that some remedy should be forthcoming. The third partner for the moment stands aside. He stands aside, perhaps, for the perfectly obvious reason that the Labour Minister had not in my opinion yet made any attempt to call the employers and the workmen together with a view to getting an agreed form of words dealing with this particular matter. What the Minister says is this, "You go to the employers, and if you two agree, come to me and I will consider what you have agreed upon." It is the business of the Department to call such a representative conference. My right hon. Friend knows how difficult it is to get any representative body of employers together at this moment. Every industry is in the throes of trouble and dispute, and any such conference with regard to one industry would not satisfy the others. I do not think it would be a right thing to do, even assuming you could get the engineering employers to agree upon the words. I do not see how that could be accepted, because it would be binding upon all the other sections of industry throughout the country. But I suggest that there is no need for such a conference. If the Labour Ministry and the workmen's representatives agree there is an injustice, why wait for some time to pass before you attempt to remedy the matter?
I want to repeat a point I put in Committee to this effect: In the main there is from 80 to 90 per cent. of semi-skilled and labouring sections affected adversely 1869 in matters of dispute, and through which they are disqualified. To make the position a little plainer, let me take the case of the large foundries connected with furnaces throughout the country. If you have a dispute at a furnace and throw out perhaps a thousand other hands in the foundry department, they can all come on to unemployment benefit; but let 100 moulders in the foundry department have a dispute and throw out 900 other classes of labour, because the dispute is just that one degree nearer to their actual occupation, they are all disqualified from receiving benefit. Take another instance. The switchboard attendants in a big generating station may have some trouble with the employers; it may be by being authorised to withdraw their labour or being authorised to resist some terms which the employers are trying to press upon them. The switchboard attendants are comparatively few when taken in relation to the total number of employés in the generating station. But unless switchboard attendants can be found to replace them the hundreds of remaining workmen, such as labourers, boiler firemen, and the rest that go to make up the component parts of the operatives in a big power station, are rendered idle in a dispute which directly affects ten men, and they are all thrown out of benefit. It is nothing short of a standing disgrace, because these men are not only the victims as between the employers and the section engaged in the industrial trouble, but they are further punished by a Government Department. They have paid contributions under terms which they believe have assured them some benefit, but when they have occasion to require that benefit they are told, "No, because you have been employed at a place where there is a dispute, you are part of that dispute in the general sense, and we cannot admit you into unemployment benefit." I think that is distinctly unfair and something should be done to remedy the matter. My right hon. Friend says, "Oh, but you have the nonunion men." It is the argument he used upstairs. I agree with my hon. Friend there are very few non-union men, but there may be one here and there who may take up that position. But assuming it is an engineering department that is engaged in a wage dispute, and assuming a non-unionist says, "I do not want to leave, I am not going to leave," the em- 1870 ployer says, "Whatever terms are settled will equally apply to you as to the rest of the men; if there is an advance in wages you are covered by that advance, and if I impose a reduction the reduction will equally apply to you because it is an engineering department and you are an engineer and that craft is in dispute." Therefore his labour is involved, and he is a direct disputant whatever you may say to the contrary. The right hon. Gentleman also put the point of the lockout, and finds fault with the words as if they could not apply to a lockout. My right hon. Friend knows quite enough about the industrial unions of the country to know that a lockout is described as a state of dispute where the men have been authorised to resist some imposition that their employer desires to place upon them.
The mere fact of that body being authorised to resist is his guide for saying, You are in a dispute and you cannot come under the Unemployment Fund. The hon. and gallant Member for East Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) said it ought not to be difficult to let the matter go to a referee. It is where the difficulty happens when it goes to a referee. There is appeal after appeal before courts of referees and then before the Umpire, but because they are tied strictly by the terms of the Act they have no latitude at all in the matter.
I believe it is quite easy to discriminate who are actually in a state of dispute. The employer notifies the Exchange and the trade union notifies the Exchange. Assume that a section of men whom I am representing are in a state of dispute. I go at once to the Employment Exchange and notify them that a certain department at a certain place is in a state of dispute, in order that they may not unwittingly send men there to take the places of those who are in the dispute. The fact of my notifying that notifies the section that is in dispute, and sure if that, act of that section throws another few hundreds or thousands out who are not direct participants, the Employment Exchange would have the machinery to consult the employer and consult the official who is engaged, through his men, in the dispute, and they could both give an answer to the Employment Exchange as to just what sections are directly engaged in the dispute and what sections are thrown out in consequence of the dispute at their place of employ- 1871 ment. The right hon. Gentleman ought to take the bull by the horns and not wait for the employers. The employers have quite enough on their hands at the moment in negotiating wage settlements or differences in almost every industry. They are devoting practically all their time now to seeing to what extent wage reductions can be enforced, so that it is quite impossible to get them together in the present atmosphere of the industrial world with a view to dealing with a Clause similar to this, especially where there is a little embittered feeling beginning to come in, and unless the Department can call such a representative conference—take the initiative, call them together and say, "I want a decision upon this"—I feel something ought to be done to protect the innocent victims of industrial trouble. I thing you ought, together with the men's representatives, to find suitable words. We are all three partners with equal responsibility, except that the State is prepared to accept less responsibility than it ought. If you cannot do that, certainly let us have a Clause which will protect those whom everyone in the House who has spoken up to now appears readily to admit are victims. It is cruel to impose upon them hardships such as are imposed if the Clause remains as it is.
§ Lord R. CECILI cannot help thinking the Government would be well advised to meet this point. This seems to me to be just one of those cases where there is a real injustice, not perhaps of very extensive importance as a matter of money, but a real injustice which is likely to rankle and to embitter relations between capital and labour and the Government, for no adequate reason that I can understand at all. Let me repeat what I understand to be the point put forward from the Labour benches. They say this: "It is conceded as a general principle that a man who is thrown out of work by a trade dispute in which he is not concerned ought not to be deprived of unemployment benefit." That is the general principle on which the Act has proceeded. That seems just. But there is one exception. It may be that he is thrown out of work because some other people engaged in the same factory, but doing a different class of work from his, hold up the whole work of the factory by reason of a dispute. In that case he is 1872 deprived of unemployment benefit. I do not understand that the Government deny that that is an injustice. They admit it. There clearly is, if you once concede the principle that a person who is thrown out of work by a trade dispute in which he is not engaged ought to be dealt with for unemployment exactly on the same footing as any other person who falls into unemployment for a reason over which he has no control. I may be wrong about the details, but I will use a case which has been cited in Debate by way of illustration—the case of a joiners' strike in the shipbuilding trade. Because the joiners will not do their work in consequence of a trade dispute, the whole of the work is held up in a ship. If the joiners happened to be in the employment of a different firm from the rest of the people engaged on the ship, the rest of the people would get their unemployment benefit, but if they are employed by the same firm, and it is all one undertaking, they do not get it. No one can defend a state of the law which will produce that result.
The answer of the Government, as I understand it, is two-fold. They say the words suggested by the Amendment would not accomplish what is desired. They say, quite truly, if a man is only to be deprived of unemployment benefit if he withdraws his labour, that would not cover the case of a lock-out. That seems to be a good point. It is also said it would not cover the case, for instance, of a non-union workman who would go with the rest engaged in the same kind of work. Speaking with only outside knowledge I do not think the words would quite meet that case. But surely some such words as these, "a man who has lost his employment because he is directly engaged in a trade dispute"—some general words of that description indicating the intention of Parliament and leaving it to the umpire to see that no injustice is done in a particular case, are required. I agree that it is impossible to define, and in English legislation we are very foolish if we attempt to define absolutely everything you want to do. What you want to do, particularly in this kind of case, is to give the umpire an indication of what you really mean and let him work out the details. If you said only those who were directly engaged in a trade dispute should suffer loss of unemployment benefit, or some words of that kind, I believe that would deal with the 1873 two objects of the right hon. Gentleman, and I should have thought would have been quite adequate for the purpose. At any rate I am certain that if the right hon. Gentleman went to his draughtsman and his technical advisers and said, "This is the case that is made against us; we want to meet it, draft us some words to do so," the right hon. Gentleman will not say it could not be done. Of course it could be done. It is not so frightfully difficult and complicated a problem as to defy the expert advisers of the Government.
But the right hon. Gentleman really puts forward quite a different objection, which is the reason for my taking part in the Debate. It really raises a question of rather important principle. He says, "We will not meet this case unless the employers and workmen can agree on a form of words to meet the grievance." I think that a very improper answer to make. It is not really the business of employers and workmen to legislate. It is the business of Parliament to legislate. By all means let them consider what those engaged in the trade have to say—and I have only heard one employer take part in the debate so far; I hope others will if there is an objection of which I know nothing—but it is surely for this House, and the Government no doubt, to say what words are necessary to meet an admitted injustice, whether or not the employers and the workmen are able to agree. I insist on that, because I think there has been a great deal too much during the present administration of this doctrine that things are to be settled outside by some bodies meeting in Downing Street, or elsewhere, and the House of Commons is to be presented with a fait accompli and told they cannot interfere with the arrangements which have been come to. I have always protested and always will protest against it. Now we are carrying it a little further, and the Government are saying to the House of Commons, "You cannot legislate on this point because an agreement has not been reached." Not only are we to be told in many cases "you have to take whatever has been agreed upon," but now we are to be told we are not able to legislate because an agreement has not been reached. I think this is not really a maintainable position for the Government to take up. I am sure they are making a great mistake to allow this kind of little 1874 sores to go on disturbing the relations of capital and labour. We have not really too great a margin in this matter, and I earnestly appeal to the Government to meet this case, which seems to me a case of justice and just the kind of case which embitters men's minds, and above all, not to tell the House of Commons that they cannot legislate because the workmen and the employers are not agreed.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONEI took part in the discussion last year, when I rather inclined to the view taken by the Minister, but on fuller consideration of the whole subject since then, I have come to a different point of view. I have been much impressed by the argument used by the leader of the Labour party to-day. I should have liked after last year's discussion if the employers and trade union representatives could have agreed upon some form of words which would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, but I quite agree that, failing agreement between employers and trade union representatives, it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to decide the question himself. He sympathises with the grievance, and undoubtedly a grievance exists. Too much stress cannot be laid on the fact that the men are compelled to pay unemployment insurance, and when a man is thrown out of work through no fault of his own, it must undoubtedly rankle in his mind that he has been defrauded of the benefits for which he is compelled to pay. I cannot follow the position of the non-unionist. I have always found, as an employer in connection with trade disputes, that a non-unionist followed one of two courses. He either threw in his lot with the trade unionists and went out on strike, or he remained at work. If he went out on strike, of course, he participated in the dispute and could get no unemployment benefit. I have never known an employer in the course of a strike, where a non-unionist remained working for him, to dismiss him, or of a non-unionist going to a labour exchange and asking for unemployment benefit on that account. I have never known of any employer being so foolish as to dismiss a man who remained on while the bulk of the men went out. The non-unionist, as a rule, participates in the benefit when the unionists go out on strike. If a demand is being made for improved conditions, shorter hours, and higher wages, there is no differentiation made between 1875 the unionist and non-unionist. Even supposing the non-unionist remains at work, he benefits by the efforts and sacrifices of the men who have gone out on strike to enforce better conditions.
There is certainly a grievance and something ought to be done to meet it. The case of the moulders' strike has been mentioned. That strike caused a vast amount of trouble in many industries and led to many men being temporarily suspended from work. Take the engineering trade. The moulders are quite a different trade from the engineers. The moulder could not do the work of the engineer, and the engineer could not do the work of the moulder, but the engineers were thrown idle because the moulders went on strike. Why should not an engineer receive his out-of-work benefit under those circumstances, when through no action of his own, but through the action of another organised body of workmen, who struck in order to get benefits for themselves, the poor unfortunate engineer was thrown out of employment? I can visualise a certain industry where about eight or ten different trades are occupied in producing a single article. In the production of that article the eight or ten different craftsmen are engaged, and they are all interrelated, so that if one branch of trade in that factory ceased work, the rest would gradually be paralysed. The employer might go on for a little time with his other departments, but eventually all his departments would be affected. In a case like that, where men employed in the other departments are taking no part in the dispute, but are the helpless victims of the action of others, why should they not be entitled to the unemployment benefit for which they have paid, although they are producing the same article in the same works where the dispute has arisen? They have clearly a claim to unemployment benefit.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not lightly ride off with the position that, having given a warning to representatives of labour last year, and the employers and the men not having agreed, that he will do nothing. He should do something. As was suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), he could consult both parties before he came to a final judgment, in order to ascertain their views. 1876 He ought not to leave the matter where it is to-day. There is a real and undoubted grievance, and it is the duty of the Minister to bring forward some proposal that will settle this question for all time. The one great issue is that if a man is compelled by the State to pay unemployment insurance premiums, he ought to receive unemployment benefit if he is thrown out of work through no fault of his own.
Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONI wish to join in the appeal that has been made to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this question. As a Member of the Committee last year, I remember the discussion upstairs, and I would remind the House that practical agreement in principle had been arrived at by both sides. The Minister himself said that the only stumbling block was the particular form of words which should be drawn up. On that point he said, "I am arranging a conference between the employers and employed." It was the general feeling of the Committee that from that conference an agreement would be come to before the Bill passed this House, and it was a great disappointment that the negotiations broke down, and that no words were brought forward on Report. Bad as that was, it is doubly unfortunate that nearly a year afterwards the Minister is still unable to find that form of words which will translate into the Act a principle which is admitted by the majority of the House. It is rather significant that the Minister in this discussion stands alone. From all sides, from all sections, there has been striking unanimity in favour of the principle which the Minister accepts, but which he says he cannot translate into law because the employers are against it. We have been assured by the senior Member for East Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) that only a small section of employers are standing out against it. Surely, it is the duty of this House to lgeislate and not to wait until all the parties who are going to be affected by the legislation are agreed as to the effect it would have upon them. When the Government bring in other measures in other walks of life, the doctrine is not put forwards that they are to wait until everybody affected is in agreement. Very little legislation would be carried out if that were the case, and, possibly, some people would be very pleased. Why 1877 differentiate? Why, when you are dealing with this particular question, should you proceed on lines which are totally different from the lines on which you proceed when you are legislating on other matters?
I hope that my right hon. Friend may even yet see his way, after consulting his advisers, to find some form of words which will establish the principle which is approved by the House and which would meet the difficulties which the Minister has pointed out. Let the House settle the broad general principle that the non-combatant shall not be the sufferer in this case, and if the suggested difficulties arise let the referee settle them. Surely it is a recognised rule of civilisation that neutrals are not to be sufferers, and if we can apply that law to international affairs, we have surely advanced far enough in our industrial life to say that in industrial warfare the neutrals shall not suffer. There are many inequalities under the present law. There was a case during the moulders' strike. The general labourer in the steel works and the labourer in the foundry were treated differently. The general labourer in the foundry was debarred from benefit while the general labourer in the steel department of the same works received unemployment benefit. Both were members of the same trade union, both had paid their weekly contribution to their unemployment benefit, neither of them was in any way a participant in the dispute, but there was this great inequality that one received unemployment benefit, and the other did not. The right hon. Gentleman says that if we make the proposed change it will give rise to abuse. Surely there are very many abuses under the present system, and I am sure that you would have lesser abuse and injustice under the proposed system than you have under the present system. If the particular form of words suggested is not acceptable, it is the duty of the Minister to find words in order to safeguard the difficulties which he says would arise. Let him accept the broad principle and then let words be found to carry out that principle.
§ Mr. T. GRIFFITHSI want to emphasise the arguments of the Noble Lord. Representatives of labour and employers of labour have suggested that some form of words should be put in to cover the demand that has been made, and in addition we have had an outsider 1878 like the Noble Lord asking the Minister to settle the point, even if the employers and representatives of the men cannot agree. We have been told that it is only a small number of employers who are not agreed. I believe they are not expressing the opinion of the general body of employers. It is the duty of the Minister to get a form of words that will deal with the question. There is an injustice to be dealt with. I have had experience in these matters for 21 years, not so much experience of strikes but experience of stoppages where men have kicked over the traces, and have caused others to suffer. I fail to understand why the Minister cannot do something in order to meet the grievance in this case. There are only three ways in which a stoppage can take place. In the first place the employers can give the men 28 days, seven days, or one day's notice of a lockout. On the other hand, the men can give 28 days' notice to terminate their contract. Those are the legal methods. Then there is a third method, the illegal stoppage of men who sometimes kick over the traces. It often happens that other men suffer because a certain number of men have given 28 days' notice, or another body of men have kicked over the traces and have come out because they refuse to accept some arrangement made between representatives of the men and the employers either in the office or in the Conciliation Board.
Let me give illustrations to show how my members in South Wales are concerned. Take the case of large steel works employing 1,000 men at the steel furnaces and mills, and as labourers, and, say, 12 bricklayers. These 12 men give notice to stop. That involves a dispute at that place, and perhaps 1,000 members of my society would be affected. And because of this dispute in that particular department with these operative bicklayers my 1,000 men are not entitled to a single penny benefit, though they have paid their contributions in accordance with the Insurance Act. I take another case. In South Wales there are steel works that produce steel bars which are used to manufacture tinplates. On the other side of the road there are tinplate works which buy these steel bars from the steel works. A dispute takes place with 10 or 12 fitters or engineers in these particular steel works. All the tinplate men are thrown out of employment 1879 because of this dispute, and these men do not get their insurance money. But on the other side of the road, where the steel bars are bought, the men are also thrown out of employment, but because they are not participating in the dispute, from 200 to 300 of my men will get insurance benefit, while the men in the tinplate works do not.
That is a monstrous position. If you have 1,000 men thrown out of work as the result of action by 12 bricklayers or engineers, and not allowed to draw their insurance benefit, could you blame them for asking for some themselves in order to draw strike pay from their society? You are simply inducing more strikes. You remember the dispute in the Ebbw Vale, in connection with which the men who were out for weeks and weeks never received a single penny benefit. Your way out of the difficulty is this. Here are, say, 1,000 of my men who are not implicated in the dispute, who will at present be paid by my society their lock-out benefit. You can rely on trade unions not to throw their money away, but always to make a full investigation to find out whether the man is qualified before they pay the money out. If the trade union society pays the lock-out benefit to its members who have not been implicated in the dispute, I would suggest it would clear the air very much for the Government to make these men entitled to benefit if they are thrown out of employment when they are not implicated in the dispute. I ask the Minister now to take the responsibility upon his own shoulders. Employers are advocating that he should do it. So are representatives of the men, and we also have got impartial outsiders like the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) asking the right hon. Gentleman to take the responsibility of including words in this Clause to ensure that justice shall be done to these men.
§ Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMSMany of us, if we were looking at this question in a superficial way, as some are apt to do, might agree with the speeches which we have just heard, but those of us who have had to follow closely in this House over and over again the leaders of the socialist trade union movement, will not do so. Hon. Members of that party from time to time put forward the plea that 1880 labour should have a greater share in the prosperity of the industry in which it is engaged. That is a very sound line, but as regards the position of the Minister to-day, we must consider the profits which can be afforded to be taken out of an industry, out of the price of the goods sold, for payment of the wages in that industry. That is really the point we have got to look at in any trade disputes. You must know the price at which you can afford to sell the article. If you have got a certain works you must look at it not from the point of view of one section of the workers, but of everyone engaged, from the manager downwards, and, that being the case, the real trouble with which we are faced at present is not, as certain people would wish to make out, that the Government is wrong, but that the trade unions and the organisations to-day, instead of being organised on the basis of a factory and what it turns out, or on similar lines, are organised so as to cut right through many branches of trade, and in this way, by that form of organisation, are making it increasingly difficult at present not only to carry on industry, but to find out in each particular factory or other form of industry, shipyards if you like, the real cost of production and the real amount which can be paid out in wages.
§ Mr. SPENCERIs the hon. and gallant Member in order in discussing these questions which are irrelevant?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI will listen to the hon. and gallant Member a little more carefully.
§ Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMSNo doubt I may be causing some anxiety, but I am the first Member to stand up for the position which the Government have taken up, and I do so because I am convinced that the real difficulty with which we are faced here is that the hardship involved on the men who are thrown out of work is not the fault of the Government, but is entirely the fault of the hopeless organisation of the present leaders of the trade unions.
§ Sir W. PEARCEThe discussion this afternoon produces a feeling of disappointment so far as the probable effect of this whole Bill is concerned. Hard cases have been put with great force, and I am afraid that they cover quite a large number of people. Therefore if the 1881 Government were able to meet this point it would cast a very much greater liability on the Bill than at present exists. Therefore I feel found to strike this note of caution that increased liability can only be met either by increasing contributions, reducing benefits, or getting more money from the State. Considering the large amount of the contribution, which is 1s. 3d. a week, and the small amount of the benefit, I had serious qualms about supporting the Bill and I voted against it on Second Beading, because it does not seem to me that the results of the Bill are in any way in proportion to the magnitude of the disadvantages which it involves. If you increase the liabilities to meet these hard cases, and thus have to increase the contributions or reduce the benefit, then you will make this Bill, which is bad enough already, even worse than it is at present. Having been in business all my life, I would say that it is a matter for serious consideration as to whether this Bill gives any advantage sufficient for the very large expenditure which it involves on the State, and I felt bound to point out that any further increase in liability meant increased contributions or reduced benefits.
Mr. J. JONESThe more I hear of this Debate, the more I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Limehouse who has just addressed the House. This Bill is like giving a plaster for a wooden leg. It is an attempt to stave off the inevitable. Some of us on these benches are not going to apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Tavistock (Lieut.-Commander Williams) for our opinion. I am a Socialist because I believe that Socialism is the only method by which social problems can be solved. But this is an Insurance Bill, and when in Committee upstairs I suggested that we were getting money under false pretences a large number of the Members seemed to be impressed with the impossibility of my having any sense of reason. I say that when you claim that a man shall pay into an insurance fund with the almost inevitability that he shall never receive any benefits therefrom, that is imposing on the forbearance of human nature.
I represent a body of organised workmen who are almost bound in all these great industrial disputes to be automatically prevented from getting benefit. Labourers work in every trade. They are 1882 associated with every industry, and because a body of skilled tradesmen or semi-skilled workers may have a dispute with their employers—it may be a lock-out or a strike—these men automatically find themselves prevented from receiving the benefits which they have been taxed to provide. We are entitled to ask, Why should we find money for other people to draw benefit when we ourselves are disqualified?
6.0 P.M.
That is the gravamen of our case. We never went out of the way to advocate insurance against unemployment. We on the Labour Benches are not advocates of post-dated cheques on the bank of futurity. But the Government decided that they could not find useful work for men and women to do, and as a method of dealing with the problem of unemployment they brought in a National Insurance Bill. I am not an insurance company director, as you can judge by looking at me, but, as I understand insurance, when you pay your subscriptions week by week, or month by month, or quarter by quarter, you expect to receive benefits in return in accordance with the terms of your policy. The Minister of Labour has been one of the principal directors of this scheme. He was one of its great advocates when it was first introduced. We have read his speeches and heard his promise of a happy land. Now we find that that happy land is "far, far away." But the workers were compelled to agree to the scheme. They believed that the-longer they lived the more they would get. Now they discover that what they are offered is Dead Sea fruit and that the more they pay the less they get. The more the worker pays, in proportion to the increased cost of everything he has to buy the less he is going to get. With increased unemployment there are to be increased contributions, and with the dearness of food and the high cost of living he will get less out of the scheme.
What is going to happen now? There is a great industrial dispute threatened in the engineering trade. I hope it will never fructify. Personally I would regret it. But where do the labourers stand? A ballot is now being taken. Numbers of the labourers, recognising the inevitable, are prepared to accept reductions in wages. But stronger and better organised bodies of workers will reject them. What will be the result? Thousands upon 1883 thousands of labourers will be thrown on the streets although they themselves have balloted in favour of accepting some kind of reduction. Those labourers will be automatically refused benefit under this Bill. Can the Ministry of Labour defend that position? These labourers have paid their subscriptons for years, but thousands of them will be automatically prevented from drawing any benefit under this Bill because of a dispute with which they have nothing to do. We are not asking for charity; we are asking only that the goods shall be delivered. We are asking that the benefits for which we have paid shall be given to us. If the Minister of Labour was secretary of a trade union and the members demanded their benefits and he could not pay them, I would not like to stand in his shoes. Our trouble is to meet our members and to explain to them the difficulties with which we are faced.
I was present on a recent evening at a meeting of one of our branches with a membership of 7,000. There was a large number of our members present. They wanted to know how they stood in this matter of unemployment, and to have an explanation as to how it was that if certain bodies of workmen were out of work when they were not concerned in any dispute they could not draw unemployment benefit. They asked questions as to the future. They do not wish to continue to be the victims. If National Insurance means that they are always to be placed in the gutter in the case of these great industrial disputes, we want to know why they are being compelled to pay for benefits which we shall never receive? The hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Williams) introduced other matters into the question. I believe we could settle all these problems if we could only sit down together, provided we were prepared to recognise the economic fact. After all, the workers are able to solve these problems for themselves if only they have intelligence enough to use their power effectively, and then the hon. and gallant Member to whom I have referred would not be here. We are moving this Amendment on behalf of the ordinary labourer or the men not directly involved in a dispute. It might be a mechanic who is affected. In a case where labourers struck and the mechanics had to come out, how would the mechanics stand? There ought to be some Regulation whereby all 1884 men who pay into an insurance scheme would have their position defined, and when they are not directly responsible for a dispute they ought to draw benefits for the money they have paid.
§ Mr. SPENCEROnce or twice the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has indicated that the Government were prepared to give consideration to any suggestions coming jointly from the employers and representatives of the employed. In itself that is an admission of the justice of our case. Surely that justice should be met by the Government. It is not enough for the Government to admit the justice of our claim and then to try to evade responsibility. The Minister of Labour said more than once in Committee that if employers and employed could agree upon any form of words to meet this point he was prepared to give it very careful consideration. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that our difficulty is to get the other side to agree to a form of words that will receive his blessing. Justice is overwhelmingly on our side, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot answer our case. I could give him a case in Nottingham where we have had a strike in a furniture factory. The lower grade workmen had struck. Some of the higher grade work was sent to another factory to be done, and the whole of the men in that higher grade factory were prevented from getting unemployment benefit when the lower grade men in the other factory struck work. The Government ought to remedy such a defect in the Act. It is not right that that duty should devolve upon us. I have a letter in my pocket from a man who has paid his contributions under this insurance scheme for years. He is a painter, who worked in a colliery long before the miners' dispute began. He is a non-union man, who paints agricultural implements, mining implements, and everything. When the miners were locked out he could not get unemployment benefit, and has been out many weeks without a single penny; nor has he received any trade union money, as he is not a member of a trade union. Could an injustice be more gross?
§ Mr. SPEAKERHon. Members are repeating each other's arguments.
§ Mr. W. THORNEI think we have a right to complain of the silence of the Government. There have been speeches 1885 made from both sides, from employers and from representatives of the workers, and not a single word has been uttered by the Government in reply. In consequence of the promise made by the Minister of Labour in Committee some of us were under the impression that the Government would have found a form of words acceptable to all concerned. It appears that the Government have made up their minds that they will make no concessions whatever. The reason for that is that they have whipped up their big battalions. We know that when we get into the division lobby we shall be defeated by an overwhelming majority, but I suggest that if any Member of this House went down to his constituents and took a plebiscite of the workers in his own division he would find an overwhelming majority in favour of the position we are putting before the Government. The Government ought to give some reasons for not accepting this suggestion. They give no reasons whatsoever. They have not even told us that they think our suggestion would cost a large amount of money. They have not even mentioned an approximate amount of money. What is the Minister of Labour shaking his head about? If it is not a question of money what is the difficulty? Why is the right hon. Gentleman so obstinate? I hold that it is a monetary consideration and the Government ought to tell us frankly what this concession will cost.
This concession will not cost the money that is anticipated. Let me give the House an illustration. My colleague the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has referred to the fact that a dispute in the engineering trade is anticipated between now and Thursday next. Such a dispute will affect not only craft union men but labourers. At the same time there are a large number of workers who will not be affected one way or another, whose wages will not be cut down if there is a general reduction and whose wages will not be advanced even if those of the craftsmen and the labourers are increased. A large number of men, and of women also, will be involved in this unfortunate dispute if it takes place on Thursday, although they are not directly concerned. They will not be entitled to any pay from their own organisations unless there is some special rule to that effect, nor will they be entitled to unemployment benefit. I would say without hesitation that in the course of the 1886 ensuing 12 months this concession would not cost the Government more than £200,000 at the very outside. I should like to know why the Government are standing against the proposal. It has been suggested that it is because the workmen and the employers cannot agree. I think the Government are merely shielding themselves behind that statement because there is an employer of labour on their own side of the House who has said he is quite agreeable to the concession being made. If you take off the Whips and let us have a free vote you will find a majority in favour of this proposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Then let the Government allow us to have a free vote on it. The Government are afraid to do so and feel they are in duty bound to put on the Whips, because they know a majority of Members feel this to be a concession which should be granted. In view of the attitude taken up by the Government I suggest to my colleagues that this Debate should be carried on until the Closure is applied.
§ Mr. J. DAVISONI appeal to the Minister of Labour to adopt the suggestion made from this side. It is not generally recognised—or if it is recognised it does not seem to impress the Members of this House—that the present abnormal period of unemployment will pass away, and the expenditure with regard to this concession would not be as great as some hon. Members seem to imagine. When the Insurance Act was introduced, for the first 16 months there were 1,434,000 applications for unemployment benefit, and I think the average payment during those 16 months was 6s. per person. To-day I know the payment is considerably greater, but that is because of the proportion of contributions now being made by the respective parties contributing to the scheme. It will be generally agreed that justice is the fundamental basis of civilised society and that a man paying for something may ask in return to be paid the benefit to which he is justly entitled. I hope the House will listen attentively to the recital of an instance I am going to quote to them, which should make every employer of labour chary about voting against the proposal put forward by the Labour party. In 1919 we had a great industrial dispute: 2,000,000 workmen were parties to an agreement with the employers and about 30,000 of those workmen decided to 1887 go on strike. It was pointed out to them that they were parties to an agreement with the employers, whereupon they asked the employers to terminate this agreement by three weeks' notice. The employers consented to the termination of the notice, as far as that particular union was concerned. That union then decided to strike and they were out on the streets for 18 weeks. During the strike vast numbers of men belonging to the engineering industry were thrown out of employment. They had no voice whatever in that strike. They had not balloted upon it. They were never asked their opinion as to whether it was right or not. Frankly, I, as a member of that particular union, opposed the strike, because I thought it was a fatal policy. However, it went on, and time after time during 1919 in this House both myself and other Members of the Labour party raised the question with the Government as to whether the men thrown out of employment by the action of those who had gone on strike, but with whom they had no connection whatever so far as the strike policy was concerned, were to be denied the benefit to which we thought they were justly entitled. Every one of those men was denied the benefit, yet every one of them, with the exception of the 30,000, remained loyal to their agreement with their employers.
How are you going to get workmen in the future to observe the sanctity of agreements if you demonstrate to them that as a reward for observing the sanctity of such agreements you are going to penalise them because a section may decide to strike? You will impose upon people who are simply the victims of circumstance the intolerable burden of being, not only thrown out of employment, but deprived of that sustenance which is vital to the maintenance of their own physical efficiency and the decency of their own wives and children. Surely we ought to have arrived at the stage of realising that we should deal with these matters in this Assembly without the sanction of employers or of workmen. We represent not only the workmen and employers, we are the servants of our constituents, and are responsible to those constituents for the legislation we pass in this Chamber. I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the 1888 employer as much as of the trades unions who subscribe to the Insurance Scheme, to accept this Amendment.
§ Sir GODFREY COLLINSThe House, I believe, is willing to accept the Amendment if it is assured that the Insurance Fund will not be severely drained. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] There is a general feeling in the minds of certain hon. Members that this Amendment, if carried, will upset the Insurance Fund. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I thought that feeling existed in the House, and I wish to direct the attention of the House to the effect that this Amendment will have on the Insurance Fund. As the House is aware, the Amendment is in regard to men who are indirectly thrown out of employment through trade disputes. The first question which arises is, what percentage of men are on the Unemployment Fund through trade disputes? In July, 1914, the Minister in charge of the Department informed the House that only 4 per cent. of the individuals that came on the Fund at that time, came on the Fund through trade disputes, and 96 per cent. came on the Fund through economic unemployment.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIn what year?
§ Sir G. COLLINSIn 1914. [HON. MEMBERS: "A normal year!"] Four per cent. of the total benefit to be paid in the coming year would be £2,000,000 or £1,250,000, because, according to the White Paper, the total benefit to be paid amounts to £47,000,000. The Amendment, however, is a much smaller thing. Whether it be that one in ten are thrown out of employment indirectly through trade disputes, no one is in a position to say exactly, but several hon. Members speaking with the experience gained through many years of connection with particular trades, have stated in the course of the afternoon that only one in ten will be affected by the operation of this particular Amendment. Therefore, if what I am putting to the House is at all within the range of accuracy—
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt is not.
§ Sir G. COLLINSWill the right hon. Baronet state in what way?
§ Sir F. BANBURYBecause the hon. Gentleman is taking the year 1914. [HON. MEMBERS: "A normal year!"]
§ Sir G. COLLINSI am quite willing to increase it by 100 per cent. if the right hon. Baronet thinks that will be a more accurate figure. It will then be £3,500,000 and if the number affected is only one in ten it will represent a sum of about £350,000, taking the hon. Baronet's proposition that unemployment will be doubled. If the hon. Baronet considers that unemployment will be more than doubled, then the whole scheme of the Bill falls to the ground, because the finance of this Bill is based on a 10 per cent. unemployment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt has fallen to the ground.
§ Sir G. COLLINSI am not anxious to detain the House unduly on this Amendment, but I am anxious to show that, while the point raised is one which intimately concerns large numbers, there is not a large sum involved in the acceptance of the Amendment, and I shall have pleasure in voting for it.
§ Mr. ROBERTSONI am not going to repeat the arguments of my colleagues in connection with this question. I am not aware that this Amendment is being opposed on the ground of the cost. I suppose if it were a case of compensating railway shareholders there would be no trouble about cost, but it is not the real question in this case. Men have paid into an unemployment insurance scheme for which they have no responsibility. What we are asking the Minister is that they should get some return for what they have paid. What is his objection? When this question was discussed in Committee it was never argued on the ground of cost. The difficulty about a question of this kind is that when discussion upon it is dragged out for any length of time, we are apt to get away from the real question. The Minister has asked us if we cannot agree with the employers on a certain form of words. There are three parties to this question. There is the Government, there is the employer, and there is the workman. We say the responsibility rests on the Government, but notwithstanding that, the workmen's representatives have gone to the employers to try and agree upon a form of words, so that when men are thrown out of employment through no fault of their own they will get the benefit to which they are entitled. If the employers had endeavoured to agree with 1890 the workmen, there might have been some reason for the right hon. Gentleman's attitude, but as a matter of fact the employers are even worse, because they refuse to consider it at all. Surely in those circumstances the Government are in honour bound at least to make an attempt to find a form of words that will get for these men, and especially the low-paid labourers, some justice for the money which they have paid into the Insurance-Fund. It is not good enough merely to remain silent. When a calamity is on us with regard to unrest, we get the effects, of this silence. Answer the point we have put to you. The employers have refused, and therefore we say that you are in honour bound to find a form of words to meet the position.
§ Mr. A. SHORTI enter my protest: against the failure of some responsible Member of the Government to rise and defend still further the position taken up by the Minister of Labour. He complained about the words of this Amendment, and said they did not meet the situation, that if they were included in the Bill they would not have the effect suggested by the Mover. A form of words, has been submitted by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), who, I believe, is a member of the legal profession and knows something about the meaning of words and their interpretation, and I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have put up someone to answer this case. On the other hand, he has hidden himself behind some presumed or suggested possible agreement between the employers and the representatives of the men. I take the view that it is for this House to decide, and not only that, but the right hon. Gentleman himself admits the justice of this question, and it is for him to find these words. For what do we employ the Attorney-General? He is the most distinguished legal luminary during the last 18 years, a man who has made his mark, and no man has made a bigger mark in the legal profession than the Attorney-General. Is it beyond his power to find' suitable words to meet this situation1? I can remember during the dispute which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. J. Davison) that the-late Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), who has now gone to the other House, made repeated appeals to the Government to remove this wrong and 1891 this injustice. It is a very simple matter, yet the right hon. Gentleman comes down here and talks about the form of words. I am ashamed of him, that he should suggest that because one individual, a non-union member, might provide a difficulty, it is impossible to find a solution of this problem.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIn these words, I said.
§ Lord R. CECILWill you suggest other words?
§ Mr. SHORTWe must attempt to bring home the responsibility. We know there are a number in this House and outside, representing employers, who do not desire any agreement at all upon this matter, for the simple reason that in a dispute where a large number are thrown out and where many of their factories are closed down altogether, and it may well be that the majority of their workpeople are not entitled to benefit because of this disability, they hope that because a majority of their workpeople are suffering, with no possibility of gaining anything, because they have no interest in the dispute, this weapon will be used as a bludgeon to force the minority back to work. At Darlaston the nut and bolt trade had a dispute caused by the employers giving notice to a section of their employés, girls and women, that they would reduce their wages up to 13s. a week. As soon as the girls and women refused to accept the reduction and went out on strike, as they were entitled to do, the employers immediately closed their factories and locked out the remaining workpeople. When they applied for unemployment benefit and I would remind the House "These were not merely employés working in special departments, but employed in and throughout the entire factories," they were refused benefit. They had no interest in the dispute. They did not stand to gain or to lose by the dispute, but they were locked out, and as a result, under the present rules and regulations, they were not allowed to draw benefit under this scheme, though they had paid for it. Not only is it monstrous, but it is criminal that we should be sitting here denying what is purely a matter of justice to the working people of our country.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot defend it, and he has not defended it. He dare not 1892 stand at that box, and he dare not put up his Parliamentary Secretary to defend it—at least, not on grounds of morality. He may defend it because he says he cannot find words, but he is really depending on the big battalions to go into the Lobby and support him and thus defeat a just claim. If I found myself in that position, I should leave that Bench. This is a most serious matter. It may be all right for people who have never been in this unfortunate position, but when I think of the disputes I have been engaged in myself, and of this dispute to which I have referred, a dispute caused by women striking to refuse to accept a reduction up to 13s. a week, and married men with wives and large families depending on them refused benefit under the Act which they have paid for, is it something with which we can really be satisfied? I appeal to hon. Members on all sides of the House not to dismiss this lightly and without consideration. Those who have sat through this Debate and have listened to it, if they follow the dictates of their reason and judgment, will go into the Lobby with us, but we know, of course, as is frequently the case, that a large number of Members will come in when the bell rings and vote against us, without due knowledge and without regard to the facts and considerations that have been put forward from the Benches on all sides of the House. A case has been put up for this Amendment stronger than ever in the history of this subject in this House, and I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to put up someone to defend his attitude. If he has not confidence in his Parliamentary Secretary, let him send for the Leader of the House, and let us have him here to defend a policy which is not only criminal but immoral.
§ Mr. SEXTONI want to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a point that has not been mentioned so far. It was brought seriously before his predecessor when the 1920 Act was first brought in, and I want to tell him now that this refusal to recognise this plea is by inference setting up a blackleg system of labour. On the Second Reading of the 1920 Act, the question was raised on this side: Supposing the railwaymen went out on strike, and the dockers were thrown out of employment as a result, and supposing men supplied by the Government, in the case of a national dispute, 1893 or supplied by anyone else, came to do the railwaymen's work, the excuse of the docker would be gone, because the goods would be coming down to him, and if he refused to handle the goods sent down by blackleg labour he would be disqualified from receiving any unemployment benefit. That is a fact that has not yet been answered. Supposing to-morrow the seamen and firemen struck, the ships would be tied up, but blackleg seamen and firemen can be got to suit the purpose for the time being of the shipowners, and if the docker refused to go on board a ship sailed by blackleg seamen and firemen he would be struck off the unemployment benefit list. These things ought to have some consideration. I do not want to prolong this discussion, because I intend to speak at length on another Amendment. But I do want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give some more tangible answer or explanation of the position.
§ Mr. WATERSONI desire to express, not only my consternation, but my very great regret at the non-intervention in this Debate of the right hon. Gentleman. As a matter of fact, we have had practically no reply to the various statements that have been made from this side of the House.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is not entitled to travel beyond the Amendment; neither are hon. Members entitled to repeat one another's speeches.
§ Mr. W. THORNEWe want to fetch up the Front Bench.
§ Mr. WATERSONI was endeavouring to speak upon proper lines, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SPEAKERPerhaps; but the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to indulge in repetition.
§ Mr. THORNEWe want a reply from the Front Bench, that is all!
§ Mr. WATERSONIn the question contained in the Amendment there is a question of principle. It is not to us simply a matter of finance. We feel that these things are due to the Government seeking to violate a principle that the right hon. Gentleman should not lightly cast to one side. I fail to understand the attitude of the Government. Practically only one 1894 Member of the Government has taken part in the Debate—
Captain STANLEY WILSONBecause the Minister is listening to the same speeches, one after another, from your side.
§ Mr. WATERSONWhen one hears the interjections, and notices the beaming countenances of hon. Members opposite, it does appear to us that we only are taking this matter seriously. We cannot accept it as any light thing. We have been, as a matter of fact, through the same experiences that many of these men and women are passing through. On the ground of humanity, justice, and equity, we have, I think, a right to ask the Government to concede, not something in the shape of preferential treatment, but to concede a principle. When this Bill was first discussed on the Floor of the House, we on this side asked the House not to allow the Minister to leave himself the opportunity or privilege of varying the rate of benefit. We said at that time that when a strike or a dispute took place that at the first opportunity the employer would utilise blackleg labour. What then would follow? The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour shakes his head, but I ask him to read the Report of the Debate. He seems to deny the statement, but I suggest to him with very great respect that I am quoting the speeches correctly then made. There was a railway dispute. What was the first thing done? We found that the out-of-work donation paid was immediately varied—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman's remarks are not relevant to the Amendment, and I again ask for less repetition.
§ Mr. S. WALSHI desire to say a very few words, mainly on the point made by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). The Government uses certain compulsory powers. It places before the nation and the workers a particular prospectus. In that prospectus it says, "You must pay, and here are the conditions of payment, and of benefit." The only people who desire compulsory powers in this matter is the Government. The people must comply. One of those conditions is that certain benefits shall be given in the event of unemployment. To whom? To the unemployed who are 1895 employed through conditions over which they have no control. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Measure admits the equity of the claim for unemployment benefit to be paid to those who are out of work through no fault of their own. But he goes on to say that if the thing is admitted in actual fact many more dangers will be introduced in addition to those against which they are trying to guard. That is the whole thing. The right hon. Gentleman does not run away, but he throws the responsibility upon the two other sections who have been compelled to come into the bargain.
The employers are not asked whether they will contribute, but are told by the right hon. Gentleman that they must. So with the workpeople. They are not willing parties. Many of us think the principle is wrong, and thought so 10 years ago, and fought against it. It is wrong now. But that point at the moment is not before the House. The point is this, that the Minister in charge of the measure admits the equity of the claim, but he says: "Look at the whole of the conditions; look at the interdependence of the various sections of labour upon itself, so to speak; if one particular section is out of work it necessarily throws other people out of work, therefore, we cannot pay benefit without introducing other dangers." Then he says that for the avoidance of these other dangers he will throw the responsibility upon the employer and upon the workmen. He does, but he is making all three parties pay! It is he who is using compulsion. It is he, as the representative of the State, therefore, upon whom responsibility properly falls to provide against this particular danger of which he speaks. First of all do justice. The equity of the claim is admitted. The dangers may be admitted, but surely justice comes first? The Act is not fair to this House. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary—whose ability is recognised by everyone—heard the statement made by his chief. If not, he must have heard that made by the Noble Lord. It is the duty and responsibility of the Government to provide for this kind of difficulty and not to pass it on to others and say: "I am convinced there is a case, but for myself I do not propose to do anything unless you other two people, whom I have compelled to a 1896 bargain, make arrangements between yourselves." That is not fair play. That is simply evading Ministerial responsibility and endeavouring to throw upon the people generally who were not willing participants in the bargain a responsibility that they should not bear.
In doing this, what else are you doing but putting a fraudulent prospectus before the nation? There are tens of thousands of workers who under no possible circumstances have any responsibility for a stoppage, but are simply the victims of it, who are never consulted, whose representatives have never been asked to take part in any discussion, and you put them in the present position on the score of the interdependence of labour! It was perfectly well known when you issued your prospectus that all ranks of labour are interdependent, and that many people who would never have the slightest chance of saying a word must of necessity be thrown out of employment in certain circumstances. In the commercial world such a prospectus not being adhered to would be described as a fraud. An insurance association holding out conditions such as the Government held out would at a later date be charged with issuing a fraudulent prospectus if they tried to evade their responsibilities, just as the Minister in charge is trying to do. Surely we are entitled to have a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary. The real point is this, that the Minister is prepared to take the advantage, but not the responsibility. That is quite a new Parliamentary doctrine. There has been, with only one possible single exception, no one who dared to get up and say that the case put forward by the Labour party and by hon. Friends on this side has not been based upon the plain evidence.
7.0 P.M.
The Minister admits the equity, but suggests that the difficulty of administration is very great. That is a very weak plea. You have in your office able men and that particular difficulty should not be difficult to overcome. In settling this you will do more than settle that difficulty; you will develop in the hearts of men and women, who by the million are compelled to pay, the feeling that after all Parliamentary responsibility remains in this House, and that the Government are doing their best to meet the real difficulties of the situation. You say that others should do the work for which the 1897 Administration exists. This is a very weak attitude. It is a wrong attitude and not at all in accordance with those doctrines of Parliamentary responsibility of which at one time the right hon. Gentleman in charge was the most powerful exponent. I understand the right hon. Gentleman himself cannot speak again, except by leave of the House, but we should be very pleased to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say, as to whether he is in full accord with his Chief or whether, since the Minister in charge made his earlier statement, some change has taken place. The overwhelming sense of the House, however, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the equity of the claim, demand that before we go to a Division we should hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reply!"]
§ Mr. HODGEI appeal to my right hon. Friend to reply to the arguments which have been put forward. I believe a Bill which has come through Standing Committee gives the Minister in charge the right to speak again, even without the indulgence of the House. Be that as it may, however, the Parliamentary Secretary can reply. I want to put forward another instance of the inequality of the Act as it stands at present. One of the greatest industries in this country is the iron and steel trade. As many hon. Gentlemen know, there are big steel works in this country without blast furnaces attached. In steel works to which blast furnaces are attached, as they are practically under one roof and belong to the same firm, if the blast furnacemen strike the other men in those works do not receive unemployment pay. In the event, however, of a strike occurring in steel works where there are no blast furnaces attached, those men get unemployment pay. That is a demonstration of the inequality of the Act as it at present exists. There are many similar inequalities, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short). I really think we have made a strong case for the acceptance of the Clause by the Government. If my right hon. Friend will say that between now and when the Bill comes
§ up in another place he will give the matter further consideration and make an endeavour to meet the case put forward to-night, we shall be perfectly satisfied with such an undertaking.
§ Mr. HALLSWhatever there is to be said upon this issue could have been well covered in the first hour of the Debate. I listened very attentively to the defence of the right hon. Gentleman, but in my opinion he made a very poor case. In fact, he admitted that the whole of our case was proved. I shall be surprised if hon. Gentlemen dare to go into the lobby against this Amendment. Outside the House we often hear a good deal about Parliament, and the question is discussed whether the people of this country still respect Parliament as they used to do. I have always understood and I still believe that it is the object of Parliament to put on the Statute Book laws that seek to carry out certain ethical principles. It has been admitted on every hand here this afternoon that morally this is a good case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Nobody in my hearing has attempted to disprove that these men are entitled to unemployment pay in the circumstances that have been referred to. In my opinion the whole case has been proved. If hon. Gentlemen who come to this House to legislate in the best interests of this country want Parliament still to be respected by the people then, our case having been proved, they ought to feel under an obligation to go into the lobby in support of the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!" and "Divide!"] I submit to those who try to prevent us giving utterance to our views that the case is proved all round. I hope, for the sake of their own credit, that hon. Gentlemen will support the new Clause and will try to do what is right in the interests of the people who are compelled to pay. If men are compelled to pay to make provision for certain contingencies that may come along, then it is dishonest on the part of the Government to do them out of their moral rights.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 144.
1899| Division No. 198.] | AYES. | [7.8 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Breese, Major Charles E. |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- | Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Briant, Frank |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Bethell, Sir John Henry | Cairns John |
| Cape, Thomas | Irving, Dan | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring) |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Jephcott, A. R. | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Casey, T. W. | Jesson, C. | Robertson, John |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Rose, Frank H. |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Johnstone, Joseph | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Seddon, J. A. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sexton, James |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Kennedy, Thomas | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Kenyon, Barnet | Spencer, George A. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lawson, John James | Spoor, B. G. |
| Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) | Lunn, William | Taylor, J. |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Gillis, William | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Glanville, Harold James | McMicking, Major Gilbert | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Tootill, Robert |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Mills, John Edmund | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Waterson, A. E. |
| Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross) | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Myers, Thomas | Wignall, James |
| Hallas, Eldred | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Halls, Walter | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Hayday, Arthur | O'Connor, Thomas P. | Wilson, James (Dudley) |
| Hayward, Evan | O'Grady, James | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Henderson, Major V L. (Tradeston) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Hinds, John | Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark | |
| Hirst, G. H. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. |
| Hogge, James Myles | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles | Neil Maclean. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Gibbs. Colonel George Abraham | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Gilbert, James Daniel | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Nield, Sir Herbert |
| Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W. | Gould, James C. | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. |
| Atkey, A. R. | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Parker, James |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Greig, Colonel Sir James William | Percy, Charles (Tynemouth) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Gretton, Colonel John | Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Pratt, John William |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Reid, D. D. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin | Remnant, Sir James |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West) | Hills, Major John Waller | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Blair, Sir Reginald | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone) |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Hopkins. John W. W. | Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar) |
| Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hurd, Percy A. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston) | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Sugden, W. H. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley) |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill) |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Lloyd, George Butler | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Mitchell, William Lane | Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness) |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Morden, Col. W. Grant | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Evans, Ernest | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Winterton, Earl |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash | Wise, Frederick |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Morris, Richard | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Morrison, Hugh | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen) | Younger, Sir George |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh) | |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Nail, Major Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Gee, Captain Robert | Neal, Arthur | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| McCurdy. |
Question put, and agreed to.