§ The power of the Minister, under section eighteen of the principal Act to make special orders approving or making special schemes shall not be exercised during the deficiency period:
§ Provided that this section shall not apply in any case where notice of a proposal to make such a special order has been published before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.
§ Lords Amendment:
§
Leave out the words
notice of a proposal to make such a special order has been published—
and insert
application has been made to the Minister to approve a special scheme on or—
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara)I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Section 18 of the principal Act of 1920 provided for setting up special schemes for the contracting out of various industries from the main scheme, but the present state of funds compels me to introduce into this Bill a Clause limiting severely for the time being, during the deficiency period this power to contract out. Therefore we put into this Bill Clause 5, providing that orders approving special schemes should not be exercised during the deficiency period. But this is also a proviso that the section shall not apply where notice of a proposal to make a special order has been published before 8th June, 1921. We put that in in order to keep faith with those who had practically gone all the distance towards the creation of a special scheme. On the Report stage my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir F. Flannery) thought I had drawn my line too tightly and I resisted that frankly. In another place at the instance of Lord Selborne the proviso was made to read
Provided that this section shall not apply in any case where application has been made to the Minister to approve a Special scheme on or before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.That is much too wide. I propose to disagree with the Lords, and I suggest a form of words as an alternative which I hope may be acceptable to this House and no less acceptable to-morrow to the other House. My alternative is as follows:Provided that this Section shall not apply in any case where, before the eighth 2483 day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, a draft scheme appearing to the Minister to be complete has been submitted to him, and application has before that date been made to him to approve the scheme in accordance with the provisions of section eighteen of the principal Act.
§ Mr. HAYDAYI desire to support the disagreement with the Lords Amendment. I am not quite clear whether I could support the suggested alternative of the Minister. I would first like to know the number of schemes that have been already so submitted to him, in order that we might judge as to the number likely eventually to take advantage of that Amendment and go out of the main scheme. It is quite clear that if there is a large number going out of the scheme the unfortunate, residue left in the scheme will find that although those at present involved in the scheme have helped create the deficiency and have drawn upon the surplus for the 1911 scheme, they will be allowed to go out and become relieved of their responsibility to make good their share of the deficiency. The actuary who appeared before the Special Committee of Inquiry into the employment exchanges said it would be fatal to any national scheme of unemployment insurance if the best industries, with a percentage of anything up to five, were allowed to go out, leaving the residue, which would necessarily have a much higher percentage of unemployment in the scheme. That would necessitate a review, and higher contributions would undoubtedly be asked of those left in the scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman's alternative is agreed to and a large number are involved, they would be out of the scheme within the next month. The residue would consist of those intermittently employed, those employed in casual industries, and the percentage that might now be 25 would at once go up to not less than 30. It would not only lengthen the deficiency period, but it might also call for another early revision, necessitating a higher contribution from those least able to pay it, because the better and more favourable trades had been allowed to contract out. If the right hon. Gentleman would say to what extent his Amendment would affect those already in the scheme, if the number is few in comparison with the larger body, I think one must withdraw one's objec- 2484 tion with a view to meeting the desires of the Noble Lords in the other House.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI can assure my hon. Friend I am anxious not to allow more than three or four to come under this provision.
§ Mr. HAYDAYCan the right hon. Gentleman say roughly the number involved? Would it be two millions?
§ Dr. MACNAMARANo.
Sir W. BARTONI would like to have information on the financial effect of this change. What is the difference between the Bill as it left this House and as it is now, and what is the difference between the Lords Amendment and the one proposed by the right hon. Gentleman?
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONAs far as I understand it, the only difference between the Bill and the proposal the right hon. Gentleman now makes is that in the one case the scheme has to be "published" and in the other case the scheme has to be "completed." I do not think he is giving any concession at all. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has behaved at all fairly to those people who wanted to contract out of the scheme. He brings in a Bill first of all giving them an option to contract out. A lot of those industries go through very expensive negotiations, they employ legal opinion, they put out a great deal of money, and then the right hon. Gentleman brings in a Bill doing away with contracting out.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAFor the time being.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONHe only allows one single industry, the insurance industry, to contract out, and the insurance industry finds it only requires 50 per cent. of the contributions under the State scheme to make it solvent, which shows that it is to the benefit of the employed people and employers to be out of the scheme. I went to another place and got the actual Amendment, and so far as I can see there is no concession at all in what is now proposed.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House)I am a little surprised at my hon. Friend interposing to raise objection to the restriction which my right hon. Friend is seeking to enforce. My hon. Friend intervenes generally in debate to blame the Government for spending public money 2485 injudiciously, and on this occasion, when the Government are trying to restrict their liability and save the public purse, my hon. Friend is equally critical and equally violent in opposition.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONContracting out costs the Government a great deal less.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINMy hon. Friend is mistaken. If general contracting out is now allowed it will cost the taxpayer a great deal more. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour feels, on reflection, having listened to what was said in another place, and reflected on what was said here, that he had drawn his Bill rather too tightly, and he has met what I believe was the object of the other place by the new Amendment which he has proposed. It will let in those schemes which are practically completed. They are four or five in number. They do not affect a large number of men and therefore do not affect in a material degree the finances of the Bill. But there would be some reason to charge the Government with harshness if those four or five schemes, which are on the eve of acceptance, were excluded, and it is to meet their case that my right hon. Friend is proposing the Amendment referred to.
§ Sir T. ROBINSONI am afraid this case may be far more serious than appears on the surface. The Minister proposes to allow four or five industries to contract out. To what extent are those four or five industries indebted to the national fund?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI could not answer that question at the moment.
Sir T. RICHARDSONThe Bill as it stands practically precludes the people who have sent some of us here to represent them from ever having any benefit under the Bill. Unless we can get outside the Bill we are going to continue paying, instead of the taxpayer, to make the funds solvent, and without any hope of drawing a penny. For a million men
§ to be paying contributions until the fund is solvent, without hope of any benefit, is manifestly unfair.
§ Mr. LAWSONThe Amendment of the Lords is exactly in line with the action taken by the Labour Party throughout the discussion of this Bill. Originally, on principle, we did not believe in contracting out, but the Government insisted on contracting out in its original Act. Large organisations have prepared various plans of their own and spent large sums of money, but their schemes are not completed in the sense required, and now they find they are to be deprived of the right originally given to other organisations. This situation has been created by the zig-zag legislation of the Government. Having led the unions into the position of spending thousands of pounds, they abandon their proposal. All along, we have put the arguments which have been put in another place. The right hon. Gentleman now sees the wisdom of those arguments when they come from another place, instead of from these benches. It has been said that there is some democracy left in Parliament, but that it is at the other end from this. The Members of this House will enjoy the unusual sight of the Labour Party supporting a Lords Amendment, because at least it is consistent. We have regularly stood for this line of policy since the introduction of the Bill. While we think contracting out, originally, was a mistake yet it has led the unions into expenditure on a large scale and it is unfair at this point to drop it and leave them in such a position that all the work they have done will be of no effect at all. We support the Lords Amendment because it is consistent, and on the line of policy which the Government should have taken.
§ Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 32.
2487| Division No. 219.] | AYES. | [11.23 p.m. |
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Barlow, Sir Montague | Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Barnston, Major Harry | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive |
| Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James | Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Broad, Thomas Tucker |
| Amery, Leopold C. M. S. | Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Brown, T. W. (Down, North) |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Bruton, Sir James |
| Atkey, A. R. | Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Carr, W. Theodore |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Borwick, Major G. O. | Casey, T. W. |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Johnstone, Joseph | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Kennedy, Thomas | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Seager, Sir William |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Seddon, J. A. |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Lindsay, William Arthur | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Lloyd, George Butler | Simm, M. T. |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Locker- Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Lort-Williams, J. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Fildes, Henry | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Lyle, C. E. Leonard | Stanton, Charles Butt |
| Forrest, Walter | Lynn, R. J. | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | M'Connell, Thomas Edward | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Mason, Robert | Sugden, W. H. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Goff, Sir R. Park | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Green, Albert (Derby) | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Murray. William (Dumfries) | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Greig, Colonel Sir James William | Neal, Arthur | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Gretton, Colonel John | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wallace, J. |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Parker, James | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Waring, Major Walter |
| Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Perkins, Walter Frank | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Hayday, Arthur | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray | Wise, Frederick |
| Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Pratt, John William | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Purchase, H. G. | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Ramsden, G. T. | Younger, Sir George |
| Hinds, John | Rankin, Captain James Stuart | |
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hood, Joseph | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) | McCurdy. |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Roundell, Colonel R. F. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Lunn, William | Swan, J. E. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Waterson, A. E. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Mosley, Oswald | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross) | Wood, Major M. M (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth) | O'Grady, James | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Raffan, Peter Wilson | |
| Hirst, G. H. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Holmes, J. Stanley | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) | Mr. Lawson and Mr. C. Edwards. |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Royce, William Stapleton |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Amendment made, in lieu of the Lords Amendment disagreed with:
§
Leave out the words
notice of a proposal to make such a special order has been published before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one—
and insert
before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, a draft scheme appearing to the Minister to be complete has been submitted to him, and application has before that date been made to him to approve the scheme in accordance with the provisions of section eighteen of the principal Act."—[Dr. Macnamara.]