HC Deb 03 March 1921 vol 138 cc2065-92

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section every person who has been engaged at any time in each of not less than twenty separate calendar weeks since the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and nineteen, in any employment which made him, or which would, if the principal Act had been in force throughout the year nineteen hundred and twenty, have made him an employed person within the meaning of that Act and who satisfies the other conditions prescribed by this Section shall, notwithstanding that the first statutory condition may not have been fulfilled in his case, and notwithstanding Sub-section (4) of Section eight of the principal Act, but subject to the other provisions of the said Act as amended by this Act, be entitled to receive in each of the special periods hereinafter in this Act mentioned unemployment benefit for periods not exceeding in the aggregate in each of those periods, sixteen weeks, and for the purpose of qualifying any person to receive benefit up to the aggregate amounts aforesaid within each of the special periods, but for no other purpose, there shall be treated as having been paid in respect of him such number of contributions as are sufficient to qualify him as aforesaid:

Provided that no person who holds, or has at any time held, a certificate of exemption under Section three of the principal Act shall be entitled to benefit under this Section.

(2) In the application of the preceding Sub-section to persons formerly engaged in war service within the meaning of this Act a period of not less than ten separate calendar weeks shall be substituted for a period of not less than twenty separate calendar weeks, and if in any particular case a person who has been engaged in war service satisfies the local employment committee that his failure to be employed for the periods required by this Section was in consequence of the present war and duo to circumstances not within his own control or, in the case of a disabled person within the meaning of this Act, was due to his disablement, that person may, if the local employment committee so recommend, be treated for the purpose of this Section as though he had been engaged for the period aforesaid in such employment as aforesaid, although he has not in fact been so engaged.

(3) No person shall be entitled to benefit under this Section unless he proves that he is—

  1. (a) Normally in employment such as would make him an employed person within the meaning of the principal Act;
  2. (b) Genuinely seeking whole-time employment but unable to obtain such employment.

If any question arises as to whether any person satisfies the foregoing requirements, the question shall be decided by the Minister and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, refer any such question to the local employment committee for their recommendation.

Where a question is referred to a local employment committee under the foregoing provision, the committee may make it the condition of their recommendation that the case of the claimant shall be reconsidered by the committee on the expiration of any specified period, or that the maximum aggregate period during which the claimant may receive benefit shall be reduced to a period less than the maximum period allowed by this Act.

Local employment committees in the exercise of their powers under this Sub-section shall have regard to such directions as the Minister may prescribe for their guidance.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "those" ["in each of those periods, sixteen weeks"], and insert "the special."

In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "periods" ["for the periods required by this Section"], and insert "period."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

At the beginning of Sub-section (3) insert Paragraph (6) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the principal Act shall cease to have effect, and.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. SPEAKER

This Amendment appears to me to be a privileged Amendment as it alters the statutory conditions for receiving unemployment benefit. The question is, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir F. BANBURY

May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, whether a privilege Amendment is out of order if that Amendment does not increase the charge?

Mr. SPEAKER

According to the precedents the Lords are not entitled, where a sum of public money is involved, to alter the conditions (either by way of limiting them or by way of increasing them) under which such moneys become payable to those who are entitled to receive them. It is open of course to the House to waive its privilege if it is so desired, at all events the Amendment is open for discussion.

Sir F. BANBURY

I remember one or two occasions when the House has waived its privilege, notwithstanding that the Lords had put in an Amendment which is a privileged Amendment. This House has consented to accept such an Amend- ment, and I am very sorry that the Government have made up their minds that they will not agree to this Amendment. I will endeavour as shortly as possible to give my reasons to the House for thinking that it would have been more advisable, in the interests of the unemployed, in the interests of the country, and also in the interests of the taxpayer, to have agreed to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said, in giving his reasons why he did not propose to agree to this Amendment, "It is not a charitable institution, it is not relief from the Poor Law. It is a contribution that is due to the person who asks for it, because that person has subscribed a certain sum." I think I am not misinterpreting the right hon. Gentleman?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I said, "If the person had satisfied the conditions of the Act."

Sir F. BANBURY

Quite so, and the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it would not be fair to put in such conditions as are proposed in the Amendment. At first I thought there was something in that argument, but on thinking it over I came to the conclusion that with all due deference to the right hon. Gentleman there was really nothing in it at all. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that, in the event of a man being out of employment, and being offered sitable employment and declining such employment, he could not obtain benefit. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman himself has put in conditions, and if those conditions have once been put in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, that it is a right which cannot be denied to the people who had subscribed, falls to the ground.

After all, what is it that the Lords propose to do under this Amendment? They propose to do this. Where a man—it does not matter what sum I mention, but supposing for the sake of argument that we take 40s. a week, a figure which has been mentioned on various occasions by hon. Gentlemen opposite—where a man has been in receipt of 40s. a week let us suppose that the particular work in which he had been employed comes to an end. The employer for some reason or other cannot employ that man any longer at 40s. a week. Suppose he is offered much the same sort of employment by another employer in the same district at 35s. a week and he says, "No, I am not going to take that. I prefer to take 20s. a week and to do nothing on the chance that I may be able eventually to get the 40s. per week which I had before." Because that man is obstinate and because he refuses to take other employment which is offered him, the taxpayer has to put his hand in his pocket and to provide for that man a certain proportion of the 20s. a week. That is an extremely bad principle to set up. That is a temptation to men not to work unless they can get exactly the work they like at exactly the remuneration they like. All of us, what ever our rank, have, I suppose, at some time of our lives, been engaged in a profession or a business or some sort of employment for which we have had to take remuneration which we have thought inadequate and we have all had to do things which we would much rather not have done. But to pick out this particular moment when, as I have said before, it is absolutely necessary if this country is ever to recover its mercantile and financial prosperity that everyone must lower his standard of living, the men must accept lower wages, and profits must also be lowered, to come forward and refuse to accept an Amendment which acts in that direction is, I think, a very fatal and regrettable policy. There cannot be any question that all wages must come down. If I am right in that, what would then be the position? A man who has been receiving 40s. per week is offered 35s. per week. Supposing he refuses that wage because he has been in the habit in the past of getting 40s. Wages come down and the wages that he would have got had there been nothing in the way of unemployment insurance would have amounted to 30s. per week. What would happen then? Is such a man to be allowed to say, "No, because I once got 40s., and because living has gone down—"

Dr. MACNAMARA

"Or would have obtained;"—that is the last part.

Sir F. BANBURY

Or would have obtained?

Dr. MACNAMARA

Had he continued to be so employed.

Sir F. BANBURY

Then, as I understand it, there is a little safeguard, but it is a safeguard which I think would be very difficult to maintain. It would necessitate a large number of officials to investigate every single case of out-of-work donation. There would have to be an investigation every time there was a change in the rate of wages, although I admit that, on the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman, it is not quite so bad as I thought. I must, however, again emphasise that I think it is a fatal policy to persist in allowing a man to discriminate and to obtain relief because he does not choose to accept wages which, after all, are above the sum which he would receive from out-of-work donation.

Mr. CLYNES

I hope that the House will support the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Labour in his proposal to disagree with the Amendment. With all respect, I take leave to say that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has not on this occasion revealed his usual knowledge either of human nature or of industry in the case which he has presented in support of his attitude.

Sir F. BANBURY

May I say that it must not be forgotten that this will lead to a very large increase in the number of people receiving this out-of-work donation and will eventually cause the fund to become bankrupt.

Mr. CLYNES

I take exception to the right hon. Baronet's suggestion that to disagree with this Amendment will cause more trouble and more unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman has preferred to state the cases of men receiving unemployment benefit of 40s. per week. That is rather an exaggeration, because the actual benefit is not 40s. a week.

Sir F. BANBURY

I said the wages were 40s. a week, not the benefit.

Mr. CLYNES

I understood the right hon. Baronet to say that the benefit was 40s. a week.

Sir F. BANBURY

I took the figure of 40s. because that has been very often used for certain purposes by hon. Members opposite, but it might have been 50s. or even £5 or even, what the miners get, £700 a year. It would be all the same thing.

Major WATTS MORGAN

The railway director gets £2,000 a year!

Mr. CLYNES

The sum of 40s. was a figure which I had in mind in relation to the benefit to be paid. That is what I understand the right hon. Baronet to say. It may be that his argument that wages will have to come down is correct; I hope not. But still, if eventually there is a variation, I suggest that any variation in remuneration or any reduction in wages should come as a result of mutual agreement and as a result of compromise and the acceptance of overwhelming facts. I hope wages will not have to be reduced, but if there is to be a change it should not be brought about by the process which the right hon. Gentleman has advocated, that is, by compelling a workman out of a job to take less wages than he has been accustomed to work for, or, if he refuses, to force him to take less because you deprive him of his unemployment benefit. That is exerting an inhuman pressure upon him if he does not consent to accept the lower rate of pay. That is a process which is not likely to benefit industry or create a better feeling between employers and employed. I ask the House particularly to go back to the central argument used by the right hon. Gentleman who explained the purpose of this Amendment and its meaning. I think the case he made out is sufficient to secure for it unanimous acceptance. It is that no variation by Amendment in the insurance law should be made in order to completely upset existing customs and trade conditions in regard to wage questions.

1 would also ask the House to remember that most of the money which the unemployed workers receive as unemployment pay comes not from the State but from a joint contribution made by employers and employed, and I think you can trust them to see that there is very little malingering, and where a man is suitable for the work he ought to take it, provided he can get the wages paid to his mates for similar work in similar districts. At the present time, unfortunately, there are many influences at work to cause reductions in wages, and we cannot help it. I merely point to the fact that influences of this kind are operating because of the conditions of unemployment and the dread of even further unemployment, and these are having the effect of causing a reduction in wages here and there. In some cases they are due to what may be termed the one-sided pressure of employers of labour, and in other cases they appear to be due to mutual arrangements made between employers and employed. Of all times this is the wrong time for the House of Commons to be a party to using further influences to reduce wages, and the House can well realise what effect would be produced on the public mind by Parliament appearing to take the side of the employer when such a large number of workers are in such a state of distress because of unemployment. I think a case has been made out on the general grounds of wages, but I will now take the other grounds. Supposing you have forced a man by sheer pressure of hunger, and by the threat to withhold his pay, to take a job against the will of his mates. What have you done? You have only added to your troubles, and you have taken the first step towards causing greater dissatisfaction, leading probably to stoppages or strikes. Not a single good reason can be adduced for importing into this Bill an Amendment so foreign to the real purpose of the measure, and for these reasons I trust the House will disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. G. BALFOUR

I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the same ruling you have given, applies to the other Lords Amendment on the Paper substituting the words "employment on reasonable terms for which he is physically and otherwise fit."

Mr. SPEAKER

No. I do not propose to treat that as a privileged Amendment. My view is that the Amendment made is merely a definition of what is "suitable employment."

Mr. BALFOUR

I understand that unless we resolve to waive the question of privilege we can come to no other determination other than that of rejecting the Amendment. In my view the Lords have taken a right and proper action to assist in the solution in the present pressing unemployment problem. It is owing to the fact that at the present moment the unemployment benefit, added to that received from trade unions that probably such a sum of money is being received that we find a great many men, particularly young men from 18 to 22, have a sufficient sum not only for maintenance but for pleasure, and so long as that condition of things con- tinues we shall not get rid of the unemployment problem. As far as my own personal view is concerned, while I would go to great lengths to do anything to solve this problem or to vote the necessary sums of money to relieve this, I am personally convinced, being in close contact with trade and industry in all parts of the country, that we are now doing the wrong thing in the interests of the working men. These men will accept these sums as long as they can take them, and they will find no suitable employment; in fact they will decline to take employment which is suitable, and they will make out that the employment is not suitable. I do not think it is possible to find any hon. Member more deeply concerned than myself at the present condition, or who is ready to make greater efforts towards the solution of the problem. But just as I am convinced that we ought to take strong measures, I believe this is utterly the wrong way to do it, and I think we should agree to the Lords Amendment on this occasion.

Earl WINTERTON

There is no doubt whatever that this is a most important matter, and I am rather glad that there has been an opportunity of discussing it. We have had a most interesting speech from the Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. Clynes), and we have had a most sincere and carefully thought-out speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). Speaking as one who does not happen to be a large employer, I wish to protest against any suggestion that these matters can be settled solely as between employers of labour and labour and those who represent them in this House. The public as a whole has a right to interest themselves in this case. I hope more of those who are neither employers of labour nor direct representatives of organised labour will take part in this Debate, because the people of the country as a whole are just as much interested as labour.

This is a matter which affects the interests of the country as a whole and cuts across it in two ways. In the first place financially, as affecting the taxpayers; and in the second place morally, because of the considerations put forward by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. G. Balfour). I think the Government still show rather too much of a tendency when they have to decide between conflicting views to adopt the line of least resistance which is put forward by the Labour party. I think the statement just made by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Balfour) is one of the most important I have heard made in this House this Session, if it is correct. He is a large employer of labour, and he says, and the same charge is being made very widely in other directions, that the direct moral effect of unemployment insurance is to prevent the workers of this country realising the position.

Mr. WIGNALL

That is not true.

Earl WINTERTON

The Members of the Labour party are rather inclined to get indignant when anything is said contrary to their views. I am not attacking the hon. Member opposite, but the statement has been made here and outside, and it is important that there ought to be some Commission to inquire into the question whether it is a fact that there are young people who are willing to foster the continuance of trade depression caused in many cases by the high rate of wages, because personally they are contented with what they can get out of the State in unemployment benefit. I am sure Members of the Labour party would be the first to recognise the seriousness of that statement, and if it is true it must mean the complete end of the supremacy of British industries. A statement of that nature is so disturbing that I want to press unon the Government the necessity of having the question investigated. That is just the principle of this Amendment.

5.0 P.M.

One of the disadvantages we always suffer from in discussing Lords Amendments on one of these Bills is that we are generally told that the matter is urgent, and that it is not opposed by people outside. Then hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches get up and say they will not be responsible for what may happen outside if a proposal of this kind is opposed. I am sure they make those statements in all sincerity, but I must say that, in my view, it is a great disadvantage that we have to discuss these matters under the plea of urgency and the threat of what may happen outside. We are dealing with a very important principle in this Amendment. The reason why I must give my support to the Government is that, after all, the whole basis of unemployment insurance, as laid down in this Act, is based upon the trade union system. I know it would be out of order to discuss that point. What the House did when we passed the original Act was to stabilise the collective bargaining system, and the State recognises it as the means through which unemployment might be dealt with. That being so, I feel we have got to stick to it. The whole principle is based on the trade union system, but having said that, how much longer are we going to maintain that system in view of the menace to the whole of industry, I am not prepared to say. That is a matter for employers and employed to consider.

We have heard a great deal of talk this afternoon about the question of reducing wages. The Leader of the Labour party made no reference to what is going on in every other country. I understand there is not a country in the world where wages are not coming down. I hear they are coming down by leaps and bounds in America. If that is so it seems to me they are bound to come down in this country. Economic fact is stronger than any of the theories we hold, whether we are employers or employed, and if wages are coming down in every country in the world, obviously they will have to come down in this country, otherwise things cannot go on. But I do not think that really this particular Amendment much affects the question. In view of the fact that the whole system is based upon the trade union system, and in view of the fact that there would be a danger of this Amendment, if it is agreed to, being used to break the power of trade unions, which may be a good thing or may be a bad thing. I shall support the Government. But I do view with considerable alarm the line which always appears to be taken by the Government in these matters—the line of least resistance—by agreeing with views put forward, in all sincerity, as I believe, by the Labour party, which seem to lead to no sort of finality, which do not seem to really deal with the main question, and which I think sooner or later will bring matters to a crisis. I am inclined to think that the whole system of unemployment insurance and a great deal of the system of trade unionism will ultimately break down under the pressure of economic fact. I know I am laying myself open when I say that to the charge that I would like to see it happen. I think we have reached such an artificial position, with the Government butting so much into trade which it does not understand, and the Labour party butting into questions which they do not understand, that the whole thing will sooner or late tumble down with a crash. I would not like to see the workers of this country worse off fifteen years hence than they were twenty years ago, but I think it is right for independent Members of this House who are not large employers or representatives of organised labour to express their views as to the trend of events and as to the road on which we are going.

Mr. MARRIOTT

I do not think anyone could possibly have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) without a very great deal of sympathy. I, at any rate, listened to it with the greatest possible respect, as I always do listen to his speeches. I entirely appreciate his point of view, and I think he put forward an exceedingly strong case in support of it, but, while I have said that I wish also to say that I do very much hope that the Government will lend an ear to those who desire to support the Lords Amendment on this point, and for this reason: I also speak as one who is in no sense a large employer of labour, but I feel that in this Amendment the Lords hare gone to the very heart and root of the economic and industrial situation by which we are confronted at the present moment. The views put forward by the right hon. Member for Miles Platting were theoretical views with which one cannot possibly disagree in theory, but the Lords, on the other hand, have put forward the practical views of the industrial situation. What is the heart of the industrial situation? My right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting spoke of influences which are making for a reduction of wages. These influences are really irresistible. They are quite irrespective of any opinion of the Members of the other House, or, as a matter of fact, of the opinion of any of the Members of this House. The influences which at the present moment are primarily making for a reduction of wages, or rather of the cost of labour—for I draw a very clear distinction between the two—are these: at the present moment industry cannot stand the charges which have been put upon it. That is the point from which we must start in the discussion of this whole problem of unemployment, and I venture to suggest that the House would do well before it rejects this Amendment to consider the motives that are behind it. These motives are in no sense inimical, I believe, to the wellbeing of the wage-earning classes; quite the reverse. I believe that the very worst which at this moment could be done in the interest of those who live by the labour of their hands is to induce them to suppose that the economic situation of to-day is one other than of unstable equilibrium; and if that equilibrium is overturned, as it certainly will be overturned unless we are very careful, they would be the worst sufferers, the first and the worst sufferers. I would beg hon. Gentlemen opposite, whom I hope I may speak of as my friends of the Labour party, to consider this question very, very seriously.

Mr. IRVING

We are never doing anything else. We live with it.

Mr. MARRIOTT

I do not suggest they ever do anything else, but I would beg them to reconsider this very seriously from the point of view of the realities of the economic situation. My belief is that if they will look at it from that point of view, and not from the theoretical point of view, they will be the first to give support to this Amendment.

Mr. WIGNALL

I am rather inclined to think the discussion has rather broadened out, and one must answer some of the statements that have been made. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has forgotten one essential fact in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act, and that is if men fail to agree with their employers and a dispute follows—I am not talking about the individual man and his 35s. or 40s. a week, I am talking about trades and large bodies of people; if they fail to agree, and if it should result in a strike or even in a lock-out, the right hon. Member ought to know that no person is entitled to unemployment benefit during the period of that dispute, so that knocks his argument all to bits. There is nothing left. There is nothing in it, because if you are going to talk about the individual man I say we must protect the individual man just as much as we have the right to protect large numbers of employés. My hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. G. Balfour) talked to-day as if the whole of the working classes were made up of malingerers and frauds, as if everybody was on the look-out for what he could get for nothing. I say it is the greatest slander that has ever been uttered against the working classes of this country, and I speak with knowledge and experience. I would ask my hon. Friend if it is not a fact that at the present time there is a big industry stopped, which he knows well—the tinplate trade. Raw material has gone down in every way, block tin has gone down, steel bars have gone down, an arrangement has been come to between the employers and the workmen for a sliding scale, and wages have come down. Everything has come down except the price of coal, and, of course, railway charges remain the same. That trade employs thousands of young people of the age he describes, and yet to-day there is not an employer employing one of them. The works are still idle. I do not want to protect the malingerers, I do not want to protect the man who will not work—and, of course, there are bound to be of necessity, in a great community, a few frauds and humbugs among the working classes, as there are among the other classes; but I say that the machinery of the Employment Exchanges and where the unemployed benefit is paid out with the supplementary funds of the trade unions is as good a safeguard as you can have, and the malingerers are weeded out. My last word is this: the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London speaks with two voices in this House. A few days ago we heard him talking in defence of railway agreements, that the railway agreements must be maintained, and that the uttermost farthing must be got for dividends and interest due to the shareholders. He had no voice for the poor taxpayer who was being fleeced then. When it comes to the workman who is protected by this Bill, then, of course, the poor taxpayer is the right hon. Gentleman's first consideration. Let us be fair all round.

Sir F. BANBURY

May I point out to the hon. Member that never in my life have I advocated the breaking of a contract. Any contract made by the workman is just as sacred as a contract made by anybody else.

Sir C. OMAN

An inch of fact is worth an ell of theory and a mile of rhetoric. I just want to keep the House for two minutes to give an example of what this fetish of nobody accepting wages smaller than the highest he has had in the War means in a certain industry with which I am acquainted. For many years the 25 colleges of Oxford bound all their foreign books, thousands of them. The result was a great many binders were employed. During the War the price of binding, but still more, the wages of the binders, went up to a high pitch. The point was reached when the colleges, which are no better off than they were before the War—indeed, they are worse off, because their members are still paid on the scale reached in 1880, with no bonus or addition since that time—found themselves absolutely unable to continue the practice of binding their foreign books. Appeals have been made to the bookbinding fraternity, but they say wages cannot come down. The result is that at the present moment books are going unbound on to the shelves which at any time during the last 50 years would have been bound. The result is that bookbinders are beginning to be discharged. We are very sorry for it, but it is not our fault. Is there any possible way out of this little deadlock except a reduction of wages? I see no other way. I feel I must vote with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London on the general theory that this fetish of maintaining the highest wage paid during the War cannot be defended.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON

The Noble Lord opposite suggested that hon. Members who were not directly connected with labour might well express an opinion on this subject as representing the general public, and I propose to accept his invitation. It has been my privilege, for some months, to sit on a Labour Exchange Committee of Inquiry appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Labour, and one of the facts which emerged from that inquiry was that a certain amount of suspicion existed on the side both of employer and of employed with regard to the use made of these Exchanges. It was felt by that Committee that if the Exchanges are to exist it is desirable they should be made use of to the largest possible extent, and if we want them to secure the confidence of both employers and employed, it is absolutely essential that in their administration they should not take sides with regard to labour disputes. For that reason alone it is important we should not agree to the Lords Amendment. The suggestion is that it would vary the practice of the Insurance Acts since 1911, and interfere with the trade conditions as arranged between trade unions and employers. I submit that is a very sound argument why we should not seek to vary a practice which has worked excellently since 1911.

Reference has been made to the fact that this varies the principle of the Act of 1920. But it goes back further than that. It goes back to the Act of 1911. It is suggested that a man may not care to take work simply because it is unsuitable, and that apparently the insured person is the arbiter on that question. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm me when I say that the question whether it is suitable or not does not rest with the insured person, but with the Labour Exchange in the first instance, and if the Exchange has any doubt as to whether the work is suitable there are employment committees in each district charged with the decision of the matter. The employer has a right of redress if he likes to use it in the same way as the insured person, by appealing, and if necessary that appeal can be carried to the Court of Referees. I submit it is not a question of standing in the way of reduced wages, which, if they are to come, will come in the course of natural negotiations between employers and employed.

Mr. G. BALFOUR

But how long will it take to find out whether the work is suitable or unsuitable?

Mr. THOMSON

This has been going on regularly every week since 1911, and the Labour Exchanges are charged with the responsibility of seeing that the duty is carried out conscientiously in the interests of the taxpayer.

Mr. BALFOUR

My question is, how long will it take to find out whether or not the work is suitable?

Mr. THOMSON

If there is suitable work available no payment is made to an employé, and if he feels aggrieved he can appeal to the local committee and to the Court of Referees. No doubt this will take time, but if the decision of the Labour Exchange has in the first instance been against the insured person the benefit is suspended and he is not receiving any payment. There is another and further security, and that is in the trade unions themselves. In a large proportion of the insured trades the insurance is effected by the trade union as well as through the State scheme, and experience we have shows us that the administration of the trade unions is, if anything, more severe in watching that payment is not made without cause than it is on the part of the Labour Exchanges. Therefore we have a double security. I submit it would be inadvisable, after ten years' experience, to, at this critical time in our industrial history, seek to vary a practice which has worked soundly and well. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said that, in the first instance, the remarks of the Minister of Labour appealed to him as suggesting that there was a contract with the insured parties with regard to the benefits to be administered, and that it would not be fair, therefore, to vary the conditions. But later the right hon. Baronet went on to say that as already the terms under which the unemployment benefit was granted had been varied there was no reason why there should not be a further change. That would be a perfectly sound argument if we were dealing with a new Bill and new conditions. But the administration of benefits to be paid as from to-morrow, if this Bill passes into law, will be in respect of contributions which have been made under the old conditions, and therefore we must keep faith with those who have insured on conditions laid down in the 1911 and 1920 Acts. We should be breaking faith with the insured people if we now sought to impose a further condition which was not laid down when the original Act was passed. Under these circumstances I hope we shall support the Minister in his resistance to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS

This proposed change absolutely destroys the principle of unemployment insurance by importing into the Insurance Act the principles of Poor Law relief. The object of the Unemployment Insurance Act was to obviate the necessity for Poor Law relief in order that people without work should not be obliged to go to the workhouse, but should be able by their own contributions together with the contributions of the employers and of the State, to maintain themselves. A man has a right to live, to be fed, clothed and housed. That is an elementary right which we acknowledge in this country, and it is far better he should get the wherewithal to do it from the insurance fund than from the workhouse. We settled that principle in 1911, and I must say that the arguments of my hon. Friends opposite who have spoken on this subject have seemed to ignore that fact.

Earl WINTERTON

The hon. Gentleman waived his hand in my direction. I suppose therefore he includes me. May I say that is the very reason I supported the Government.

Mr. DENNISS

I support the Government because I believe that to introduce the principle of Poor Law relief into unemployment insurance is wrong.

Earl WINTERTON

At any rate I did not ignore that principle, on the contrary, I agree with it, and that is why I am supporting the Government.

Mr. DENNISS

Of course I will not include the Noble Lord in the general waive of my hand, but hon. Members must remember that these increased benefits that are given to the unemployed are really to a large extent paid out of a pool to which they have contributed in the past, and therefore on that ground I support the action of the Government in asking that the Lords Amendment be rejected, more particularly for the reasons given by the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Clynes), with which I entirely agree.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I desire to say one word as to the responsibility of the Government in the matter. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough said that if the Amendment were accepted it would introduce new conditions. Unfortunately there are new conditions to-day which we have to face. We are in the new condition of being a poor country instead of a rich one and having an unprecedented situation throughout the land. The Government must take responsibility in this matter, and we who are here to support them can only support them when they make a proposal of this kind. I should, however, like to have some assurance from the Minister of Labour that he realises that behind this there lies a great question, and that is, how we as a nation can find the money with which to go on paying for what is after all uneconomic employment. That is the real point. Here is a man who has been in a certain kind of employment drawing an adequate wage. When he loses that employment, through no fault of his own, is he to have unemployment pay because he cannot get employment at his old trade or at the old rates, or is he to be obliged to take something that he does not like, something which will, from a national point of view, be economic employment in which he will be producing something that will pay for the wage he receives? That is the real point. How long can we go on withdrawing labour by unemployment pay and paying money to men who are producing nothing, withdrawing it from paying wages to men who are producing something? That is really at the basis of the whole matter. Where we have, as we had before the War, large resources, we can afford to look into the question as between individual workmen and the industry, and to talk about this bargain, this arrangement or these conditions. We have been discussing the matter to-day as if that were the position now. It is not so. We are face to face with the position that it is doubtful how long we shall be able to carry on our industries if the costs of production remain as high as they are to-day with unemployment continually increasing at the expense of productive labour. Whatever bargains we may have made in the past, whatever we have been able to do in the past, and however much we may desire to see men either doing their proper work or getting unemployment pay, the question that lies behind this Amendment is, how long, under present conditions, can we afford to give a man that right, when he can get some other work which would be productive, and would add a little to the wealth of the country instead of subtracting from it? The question for the Labour party is, are they prepared, in a crisis like this, to surrender that right, which they have got as a bargain, that a man is either to do his own job or get unemployment pay, when it means the loss of something to the country? la it in the national interest, is it in their own interest in the future, to go on pressing for that right, rather than say that, in the present crisis, it is better for the man to do some other job where he will be adding to the wealth of the country instead of subtracting from it. This is not a question of what is moral, or what is right; it is purely a question of what is possible. From the point of view of morality, we should all wish every man to get the highest possible wage. It is not a question of what is right, but of what is possible. If the money is not in the country, whatever right a man may have to a high wage or to unemployment pay, he cannot get it if it is not there. The Government must look at the matter from that wide point of view, and, if they ask their followers to support them in rejecting this Amendment of the Lords, on the minor ground of existing conditions, it is for them to deal in some other way with the much wider issues upon which I have touched, and to see that they do not go on withdrawing from productive industry—in which money is vitally necessary at the present time—money for paying unemployment benefit to men who could be working at something which, perhaps, they might not like so well, but which would add to the wealth of the country instead of decreasing it.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Dr. MACNAMARA

On a point of Order. Is it not necessary to move to waive the question of privilege?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

No. The question was, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in said Amendment." Had the Motion been to agree with the Amendment, an entry would be made in the Journal that the privilege was waived.

Dr. MACNAMARA

With great respect there has been no Motion, so far as I am concerned, to waive the privilege. I understood Mr. Speaker to say that this was a question of privilege, but that the Debate might continue.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

There is no need for a Motion to waive the privilege The Question was put from the Chair, as Mr. Speaker informed me, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (3), after the word "section" ["No person shall be entitled to benefit under this section"], insert whose wife or husband resident in the same house is in receipt of wages, annuity or other income amounting to more than double unemployment benefit at the full rate, or

Dr. MACNAMARA

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

This Amendment falls under the same ruling of Mr. Speaker in regard to the matter of privilege.

Sir F. BANBURY

Before the House decides to disagree with this Amendment, I should like to say one or two words in support of it. May I point out to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Bartley Denniss) that we did amend the Act of 1911 by the Act passed in October, 1920, and we again amended it last December. We are now amending it yet again. If it is possible to amend it three times in certain directions, it certainly is possible to amend it in other directions. I do not think my hon. Friend can say that it can be amended in one direction and in one direction only. I regret very much, for the reasons, more or less, which I gave before, that the Government do not accept this Amendment. Here is a person whose wife or husband, resident in the same house, is in receipt of an income of 40s. a week. Why on earth should they receive a further donation? Surely the whole object of this Bill was to save people from starvation; it was not intended to give them a kind of pension and make life easy for them. If they are in receipt of an income, from no matter what source, amounting to 40s. a week, how can it be contended when it is in the interest of the country as a whole, or of the workers, that they should be able to claim an additional sum of 20s.? That 20s. is made up not only from their own contributions, but from two other sources, namely, the contributions from the employer and the contributions from the State. My experience, as far as regards the workpeople in the two or three indus- tries with which I am more or less connected, is that there is no desire on the part of the workmen to contribute to the unemployment fund. On the contrary, I have found a great desire to have nothing whatever to do with it, and they are being compelled to do something which they themselves would much rather not do. I think that the very powerful speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) shows that it is not in the interest of the workmen, because it will prevent the revival of business and trade, and the only possible chance for the workman to live comfortably, happily, and prosperously is when trade and industry is good. Trade and industry cannot be good unless that trade or industry is able to produce articles at such a cost as will enable them to find a purchaser at a profit to the workmen and employers concerned in the industry. I am not for a moment doubting the humanity of those who desire the conditions with which I disagree, and I hope that hon. Members do not doubt my humanity because I happen to take up what is perhaps an unpopular attitude. I do so because I believe that in the interest of humanity itself you have to recognise the position. You cannot rely upon payments of this sort, because, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) said, they cannot go on. There is no chest into which you can put your hand and pick out sovereigns and throw them about, and therefore we have to recognise the economic fact that people can only live by their production. If what they produce cannot be sold at a profit, there is an end of everything. I agree with the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) that the Government has shown a tendency to adopt the line of least resistance, and concede the demands of the Labour party—demands which are certainly, in the majority of instances, made in all sincerity, but which are put with a wrong conception of what is the real state of affairs. Attempts of this sort have been tried over and over again in past years in other countries, and have always failed, and I felt that, however much I might be misrepresented, however much it may be said that I take one attitude on one day and another attitude on another day—which I venture to deny—it was my duty to make this protest. I love my country just as much as hon. Members opposite, but I believe that, in the interest of my country, it is absolutely essential that the facts to which I have referred should be recognised.

Mr. CLYNES

Personally I do not join in any reproach which has been directed against the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Banbury) with regard to his attitude during this discussion. He is quite consistent in the line that he is following, and he is following the line which I quite expected him to follow. I think, however, that he is not exhibiting anything like a fair attitude of mind as between one class and another in the support which he is giving to this Amendment. I do not think that he would support the principle of this Amendment in relation to any other than a working class family. Let me give my reason for that conclusion. The right hon. Baronet is a very strong and consistent defender of the rights of the individual, as he sees those rights. What is the situation here? Two persons, man and wife, both contribute to the insurance fund. They may do it reluctantly, but they are compelled by law to do it. They have both thereby secured a certain legal right, namely, the right to benefit during a state of unemployment. This Amendment proposes that, should it happen in this working-class household that one of the workers is compulsorily unemployed and entitled to benefit, he or she shall not get that benefit if the other worker happens to be earning wages amounting to 40s. a week. I say that that is depriving one of the two individuals of the amount to which he or she is legally entitled by the contributions which the law compels them to make. Let us see how easy it would be to evade the effect of this Amendment if it were passed. The man is out of work, but the law says that he is not to have his benefit because his wife is in employment. How easy it is for the wife to put herself in a state of unemployment, so that both might receive a total sum of £2 a week. This Amendment would abrogate the personal rights of the insured individual, and even the right hon. Baronet himself ought not to be found supporting it. I object to it most of all on the ground that it embodies the principle of fixing a maximum household income for a working-class family in a manner in which no one would think of fixing a maximum income in the case of any other family. If we are to avoid class legislation and the class view, no Amendment of this kind ought to be seriously pressed. So long as you compel separate persons separately to insure and separately to pay their contributions, they have a perfect right to the benefits which the law provides when they are in a condition to claim those benefits, and no one's claim should be denied on the ground that some other person in the house happens to remain at work and is earning a sum up to 40s. a week. Seriously, the Lords have not taken into account the rights of the individual and the contributions, which come more from the employers and from the insured person than they come from the State, for the purpose of the unemployment insurance funds, and I look to the House unanimously to reject this Amendment.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON

I think the fallacy of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said lies in this, that he starts, like the Labour Minister, from the supposition that the insured person is paying the premiums and is therefore entitled to the benefits quite apart from any conditions of this sort. If the insured person were paying all the benefits that argument would be perfectly valid, but actually other people are paying a very considerable proportion of these premiums and therefore the benefit under the Insurance Act is exactly analogous to Poor Law relief. It is compelling the majority of the people of this country to supply benefits to those who have fallen into misfortune by Act of Parliament, which is exactly analogous to Poor Law relief. In questions of Poor Law relief consideration is taken of the family income invariably, and therefore, what the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has submitted is a perfectly fair and just argument and probably much more correct than what the Labour Minister or the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) said. In cases like this of forcible charity, that is of Poor Law relief and nothing else, it is quite logical and quite justifiable to take into consideration the family income, and, therefore, to my mind, the arguments, both of the Labour Minister himself and the right hon. Gentleman, fall to the ground entirely.

Major BARNES

I never expected to hear the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) advocating a policy which would lead to immorality or the breaking up of family life and to idleness and waste. Let us see if that is not exactly what the Amendment would lead to. A person who has a wife or husband in receipt of wages or an annuity is the person who would be imperilled by the Amendment. If they were not married, if they were living together without the sanction of the law and the Church, this Amendment would not touch them. Again, if they were married they could evade this law by residing apart, because the Amendment only affects those people whose wives or husbands are resident in the same house.

Sir F. BANBURY

Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman support me when I wished to differentiate in the incidence of the Income Tax, which compels a man and wife to join their incomes together?

Major BARNES

When I heard of this Amendment I noted on my Paper that it was a curious Amendment to come from people who were supporters of differentiation in the matter of the Income Tax. I do not know whether the argument I am submitting would or should lead me to become a supporter of the right hon. Baronet. I will consider it from that point of view, and if it appears to do so I will endeavour to face even that possibility. Then, certainly, it would lead to idleness, and it is rather curious to hear the right hon. Baronet speaking in the same breath about increased production and then proposing by this Amendment to penalise families in which both husband and wife go out to work. Normally, I do not believe in the wife going out to work. I think she can find a great deal more work inside the house than she is likely to find outside, but there are a number of cases where married people carry on separate occupations, and those are just the kind of people who are engaged in increasing production, which would be imperilled by the Amendment. Certainly, it would lead to waste, because this penalises not only people who are in receipt of wages, but who are in receipt of annuities or other income, and that is certainly a very surprising doctrine to come from the other side, that people who by the exercise of industry and thrift have secured some other income than that in which they are earning wages should by an Amendment of this sort be placed in a disadvantageous position as compared with people who have not exercised those qualities. I hope the arguments I have addressed to the House may lead the right hon. Baronet to reconsider his position and withdraw his support of the Amendment.

Mr. MYERS

On numerous occasions during the last few days we have heard it argued that the continued payment of unemployment benefit is uneconomic in its effect, and on that point we agree with the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). We have asserted in season and out of season that it would be far better to utilise national expenditure in reproductive work than to apply it to the payment of what have been termed "doles." But when we present that point of view we run up against the hostility of the right hon. Baronet from another point of view. If we urge that the State should put into operation work of a reproductive character, and organise labour on that work, we are at once met with the opposition of the right hon. Baronet and his friends that we are encroaching upon the preserves of private enterprise in a direction which we ought not to. While we are very definite upon this attitude, and say reproductive work should be instituted, we claim that so long as that is not done the employed workman has a claim upon the community, and the contribution that he makes is the basis of the claim that he has upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and to limit his income to 40s. a week, and if it exceeds that amount to put a person out of benefit on that account, is an altogether unfair position to take up, because in these days 40s. a week income in an ordinary working-class family is not very far removed from the poverty line, and to put an arbitrary sum of that character will not enable the working-class population to maintain themselves in that standard of efficiency that they are entitled to. I can quite understand the right hon. hon. Baronet considering that 40s. is quite sufficient in these days. It is notorious that the industrial connection with which he is associated up to a year or two ago was one of the lowest paid industries in the country. There were scores of thousands of people working on the railways at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 17s. a week, and it has often been said that over 100,000 men upon the railways were working for £1 a week.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

This is introducing matter which is irrelevant to the question before the House. On these Lords Amendments we keep with special care to the actual matter of the Amendment.

Mr. MYERS

I am suggesting that 40s. a week, which is proposed as the point at which claims can be made for unemployed benefit, is an altogether inadequate and arbitrary figure and I am comparing it with the fact that the right hon. Baronet may take the opposite view because his experience comes close up with the facts I have indicated. Also I think the argument used by the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson) is one that ought not to enter into a discussion of this character. I believe the term "doles" has been used in days gone by as a sort of stigma.

Mr. HOPKINSON

I did not say doles, I said Poor Law relief.

Mr. MYERS

I will accept the correction. The expression "doles" has been used to indicate the taking of this benefit and the term "dole," or Poor Law relief, is used for the express purpose of conveying a stigma upon the individual who holds his hand out for this benefit. But the ordinary worker contributes the larger proportion of this sum and it is a mutual arrangement between him and the employer. It hardly comes within the category of what is expressed by the hon. Member. It has, I know, upset the feeling of some hon. Members that we are ready to accept the declaration that is put upon us by hon. Members, and the fact that we are willing to give expression ourselves to the same term has rather unsettled those who wanted to apply that scheme to the industrial workers. The whole discussion surrounding this matter is an indication of the temper of the House upon these matters which are moving in the direction of bringing wages down. What does it matter to the workers what the wages are if they bring an adequate standard of life? Therefore while the tendency is for wages to come down, those organisations which are working in the direction of artificially maintaining prices—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

No such general economic considerations are relevant on this occasion. I must again ask the hon. Member to direct himself to the Amendment.

Mr. MYERS

While Mr. Speaker was in the Chair we had the philosophy of the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) and the economics of the hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Oman), and I can quite see that if the House accepts a combination of those two things, hon. Members opposite may well go astray, and we will take no responsibility for their going astray if they do, but blame the economics of the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson) and the philosophy of the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton). I shall oppose the Amendment on the ground that it attempts to express a tendency which finds favour in this House and in another place that the one line of attack which is to be made in this exceptional crisis of our country's history is always upon the worker and his standard of subsistence.

6.0 P.M.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS

I should not have intervened if it had not been for the phrase used by the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson) that this payment which had to be made was in the nature of Poor Law relief. The whole object of the Act has been to remove the payment from any stigma of the Poor Law. It is a contributory insurance. It is a payment which is enforced by law. It is true that the contributions come from three sources, but it is obligatory upon all three. Therefore it is entirely removed from the nature of Poor Law relief. I cannot imagine the common sense of the argument that such a term can reasonably be used at all. The argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) seemed to me to be absolutely unanswerable. Here you have a case which is really a case of contract. Here is a man who has made his payment, with the help of the employer and the State, and has contracted to receive, when he is out of employment, that which the Act entitled him to have, and I am surprised when I find the right hon. Baronet, the invariable and effective champion of the rights of contract, can be found to suggest that in a case of this kind a man is not entitled to that which he has contracted to have by the payment which he has made. I can imagine nothing more disastrous than for this Amendment to be adopted. Think what will happen. Suppose a husband and wife are living together in the same house. The husband is out of employment. He has paid his contribution and is entitled to payment under the Act. The wife happens to be earning 40s. a week, or, at any rate, she has an income of that amount, and the man, who has been paying perhaps for years, is to lose that which he has earned and which the Act of Parliament says he is entitled to have. It would be unjust and disastrous to adopt any such course, and if the opposition to this Amendment is pressed to a Division it will have my entire support.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (3) leave out the words "the foregoing provision" ["Committee under the foregoing provision"] and insert "this Section";

Leave out the word "the" ["the condition"] and insert "a";

Leave out the word "Sub-section" ["this Sub-section shall"] and insert "Section."

Agreed to.