§ Mr. SPEAKER
With regard to the further Amendments to Clause 4 which appear upon the Paper, I would point out that we had considerable discussion on this Clause when the Bill was last under consideration. There are two main points to be considered—the proposition of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) in one direction, and the proposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in another direction. As will he seen from the Order Paper, the proposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is covered by three Amendments, and I think that a decision on the first one may be taken to cover the other two. In view of the fact that there was considerable discussion on the Clause as a whole when we last considered the Bill, I trust the House may be willing to take a decision as to these two proposals—on that of the hon. Member for Govan first, and afterwards on that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley—without going over the ground covered on the previous occasion.
§ Mr. G. SPENCER
I have an Amendment down to Clause 4, which is not covered by either of the two propositions to which you, Sir, have referred. I submit that my Amendment contains a different point of principle from the other two, and I sincerely hope that you will not pass it over without giving me an opportunity of moving it.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I have not decided at present to pass it over. If my suggestion he accepted by the House that there should be a short Debate and a decision on the other two propositions, I should hope to he able to call upon the hon. Member to move his Amendment.
§ Mr. N. MACLEAN
In view of the fact that we now have the Amendment of the 762 right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley on the Order Paper, I wish to be clear as to the procedure. Are we to debate the whole question and take a Division on my Amendment and on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment after that Debate, or is the discussion to be limited to one particular Amendment? It will be seen that the Amendments to some extent overlap. If I make the suggestion with all deference, I would say that there should be a general discussion on the merits of both propositions followed by Divisions on the two, which would save time, and avoid going over some of the ground twice.
§ Sir K. WOOD
May I support that, suggestion When we were last dealing with this Bill we were really dealing with an Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley which the Minister of Labour intimated ho was prepared to accept. If hon. Members refer to the Official Report of the Debate which took place on that occasion, they will see that we were right in the middle of a discussion on that Amendment when the Debate was interrupted at the suggestion of the Lord Privy Seal. It seems inconvenient to have to turn now to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Govan, and I think we should have a general Debate on the whole issue.
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw)
May I call attention to the fact that one part of the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley is quite distinct from the other, and I ask that a separate Vote should be taken on his proposed Amendment in page 5, line 18, to insert the words "trade union or." [HON. MEMBERS: "Why!"] Because it is a different point from the other point.
§ Mr. LUKE THOMPSON
In view of the fact that I have an Amendment down to Clause 4, may I ask what the position of that Amendment will be?
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member are covered by the Amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley and deal with exactly the same point. On the point as to whether we can have a discussion covering these two propositions, followed by two successive 763 divisions, has the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley anything to say to that suggestion?
§ Sir JOHN SIMON
I had put down these three Amendments on the Paper in pursuance of a request which was made to me at a late hour on Wednesday night after the Minister of Labour had said he accepted my Amendment. My Amendment was then, of course, one Amendment, and the Minister of Labour, after considering the matter with those who advise, him and reading the Clause, came to the conclusion that there were separate points involved and therefore what I have put down I am bound to tell the House is a proposal which has to be split up in this way, but which represents that single Amendment which the Minister of Labour thought he could deal with and said he would accept. As far as I am concerned that was my intention, but if there is any distinction between the different parts I am not going to put any obstacle in the way of their being separately dealt with.
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes)
I am glad of the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend, because two very different issues are raised by the three parts of what was originally one Amendment—one issue being the responsibility of the individual workman, and the other the responsibility of the trade union. On those two points I think the House is entitled to have a separate vote.
§ Sir PHILIP LLOYD - GREAME
I think the House should be clear as to exactly how we are to discuss this proposal. We discussed it on the last occasion as one specific proposal and the right hon. and learned gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, read out to the House the exact form in which he proposed the Clause should stand. That was treated throughout the debate as one single proposition and it was that proposition which the Minister of Labour, in terms, accepted, and which the Lord Privy Seal endorsed.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
I hope to have an opportunity of arguing that 764 when the proper time comes, but if we are to divide on three points, is it your proposal, Mr. Speaker—and it seems to me, if I may say so, to he convenient—that we should discuss the whole thing upon whatever Amendment is moved first, and then that we should take the necessary divisions? At present, I am bound to say that I am very much in the dark as to what is the position taken by the Government.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
It appears to be the desire of the House to follow the suggestion of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean)—that the two alternatives should be discussed on the one Amendment, and, of course, separate decisions would necessarily be taken. The Amendments standing on the Paper are not exactly the same as the words read out on the last occasion. They could not be, because the words which were then suggested were dependent on the Amendment to leave out the Clause having been withdrawn. But the withdrawal was not permitted by the House, and it is for that reason that the right hon. Gentleman put down this Amendment in a new form as being a proposition in three parts. It is not for me to say what the effect of the words is as they stand. Then I propose to call the Amendment of the hon. Member for Govan, on which the alternative proposals can be discussed, and then the House will take a decision, at any rate, as far as the first part of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley is concerned, following a Division, if there be one, on that of the hon. Member for Govan.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
I beg to move, in page 5, line 16, to leave out from the word "not" to the end of Sub-section (1), and to insert instead thereof the wordsdirectly participating in the strike which caused the stoppage of work nor shall it apply in any case where the insured contributor has been locked out by his employer, or by the action of any federation or group of employers.The Debate which ended on Wednesday of last week left quite a number of Members in the House in a peculiar state of mind. They heard an Amendment read out and accepted, but they could not follow the implications of the words read out. I do not intend to go over much of the ground that I travelled on Wednesday week, because I think the issue is par- 765 ticularly clear on this Amendment. During any trade dispute we find employers locally dismissing men who are working probably in the same establishment, belonging, it may be, to the same grade or class, and sometimes belonging to the same trade union, but who have not been directly associated or connected with the particular dispute that may have caused the strike in one of the small departments in the workshop. Immediately those men are dismissed they make applications to the employment exchange, but on the card that they receive from the employer it is stated that those men are dismissed because of a trade dispute. They are locked out, in fact, and in consequence of the strike that is going on in the workshops where they were previously employed, the exchange officials, acting according to the terms of the original Act, immediately decide that those men have lost their employment owing to a trade dispute, and are not entitled to draw unemployment benefit.
The same thing can be taken on a wider scale. You can have men who are on strike in one locality, who have been out on strike for a considerable period, and you may have employers in a federation or in a group meeting together and deciding that they are going to assist the particular employer who is having trouble with his men, and this group of employers lock out the members of that particular union or the workers in that particular grade or class, from one end of Great Britain to the other. That is what is commonly called a general lock-out. In consequence of the lock-out it comes within the term "trade dispute," and those men, like those to whom I have already referred, when they make application to the Employment Exchange are denied benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That, I am willing to admit, is the reading of the Act as it presently exists. No one can dispute that, and we are endeavouring to amend that Act and to remedy a number of anomalies and injustices that have developed since the passing of that Act owing to the use of the term "trade dispute."
I heard the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) on Wednesday week saying that none of us surely intended an unemployment insurance scheme to be used to assist men who are out on strike. Those Members on these benches who are 766 intimately associated with trade unions will at once agree. It is the function of the trade union which brings the men out on strike to maintain those men when it brings them out, but I submit that, where an employer considers that he is going to assist a brother employer by locking out men in his particular shop, those men so locked out are victims of a trade dispute and are entitled to unemployment benefit. They are not participating in a strike, and, consequently, I submit, with all due deference to the views and intentions of those who promoted the original Act, that it has caused many hardships, and my Amendment is an attempt to remove those hardships, which we have experienced in our constituencies, when lock-outs have taken place either of a local or a national character. I do not think anyone will deny the injustice or dispute the grievance of individuals, men or women, paying into an unemployment insurance scheme having had no voice in determining a strike and no say whatever in the voting to go upon strike, and, because a group of workers in the same grade or class to which they belong, belonging, it may be, even to the same union, are out on dispute, either in one part of a town or in another part of the country altogether, being denied benefit because of the whim or caprice of the employer desiring to assist a brother employer and locking them out on the street. My Amendment is a desire to cover those cases and not to give strike benefit to men or women on strike. It is merely to safeguard and to cover cases where they have been arbitrarily locked out by employers and are, I maintain, victims of a trade dispute.
Having made that statement regarding nay own Amendment, I should like to refer to the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). When that Amendment was first moved, some of us jotted down as much of it as we could, and we thought we had the hang of the phrase which he desired to incorporate in the Minister's Bill. Even as it appeared to us then, we were greatly concerned with what its effect would be. The right hon. Member endeavoured to assure the House that he did not convey the impression which was left upon our minds. Since he has placed the words upon the Order Paper, I am 767 even more concerned about its effect than I was when he sprang it upon us. The wording is so peculiar that it means a more rigid application of refusal to pay unemployment benefit to people when a dispute is taking place. I am not questioning the right hon. Gentleman's motives. The best intentioned Member in this House may bring forward a phrase, which he thinks is going to affect beneficially a class of people who have hitherto suffered injustice, but the moment it is incorporated in a Bill it can at once be seen, by those with experience of the operation of these Measures, how far it is going to carry the administration of the Measure, and what effect it is going to have upon those on whom the Act is administered. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would make this Subsection read:Sub-section (1) of Section Eight of the principal Act (which imposes a disqualification for the receipt of benefit during a stoppage of work) shall not apply in any case in which the insured contributor proves that he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and that he dose not belong to a trade union or a grade or class of workers members of which are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute.That means that the man who is unemployed, if he is not on strike, and applies to the employment exchange for benefit, he has to prove, first, that he is not participating in the dispute, that as an individual he is not financing or directly interested in the dispute. Further than that, he has to prove that he does not belong to a trade union members of which are participating in the dispute, and that he does not belong to a trade union or to a grade or class of workers members of which are financing the dispute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I knew those cheers would come from the other side. The trade union wreckers will be in strength in the Lobby to support this. There may be in a workshop a section of men on strike. It may be that another section of men, knowing that those individuals have no trade union, knowing they have no finances to carry them through a dispute, send round a collection sheet to aid the men on strike. A week or two later, because work has ceased to come forward 768 to their particular part of the shop, those men are dismissed. They go to the employment exchange and ask for unemployment benefit. The exchange people say, "But you subscribed to this strike. You were members of the trade union, or a class of workers which has financed this strike, and you are not entitled to benefit." Does the right hon. Gentleman wish that to be the effect of his Amendment? I am not going to read motives into the right hon. Gentleman's mind. I am willing to give him the benefit of having the best intentions in the world in moving the Amendment. I am willing to concede that his desire is to bring within the scope of the new Bill people who were outside, because of a trade dispute. But I would submit to him, that while he has the experience his eminence as a lawyer gives him in framing language to incorporate in a Bill, he may have the experience and all the expert knowledge on laws that have been passed, but when this provision is passed, a lawyer—it may be not equally as eminent as the right hon. Gentleman, but at least an eminent lawyer—may come along and read into this Bill the exact opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman says, and we shall have the wonderful spectacle of two eminent lawyers arguing different sides of the case, which, the right hon. Gentleman has submitted, is a perfectly clear exposition of what he desires.
I am not an eminent lawyer; I have not had any legal training. That may be something I have lost; it may be something I have gained, but I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that there are men on these benches who have had many years' experience in the administration of Acts of Parliament dealing with trade unions. There are men on these Benches who have had years of experience in administering the unemployment and trade dispute section of the original Act, and I submit that, eminent lawyers as he and others may be, there are men on these Benches with the practical experience of administering the Acts, who can give him and others points as to what the effect of these words is going to be. We are not finding fault with the desire to bring in any man at present excluded, but we are finding fault with the form of words, which will not have the effect the right hon. Gentleman suggests. We object to a form of 769 words which will make more rigid than at present the position with regard to trade unionists getting benefits when a dispute is in existence. We want to extend that, and the Minister wants to extend it. He has told us that is the purpose of the Clause. People who are unemployed when a trade dispute is going on, and who have nothing to do with it, will not get benefit if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment be carried. This to rue, and to many others on these benches, will be a complete smashing up of many of the Unions now in existence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" "That is the object!" and "Not at all!"] I have given the right hon. Gentleman credit for the best intentions in the world in bringing this forward, but I am suggesting what the effect is likely to be, and I am speaking as I am sure many others here can speak, as one who is an executive member of a very large trade union which has organized men and women in over 100 trades in this country.
What is going to happen is this. If one section of a factory is out on strike, and another section, not involved in the dispute, continues working, and later on, any members of that section which has continued working, becomes unemployed, then any individual will be refused benefit, because the union of which he or she is a member has been financing a strike. Whatever else may be the object, the effect will be as I have stated. I am sorry the Minister of Labour accepted the Amendment. I regret very much that a Labour Government, or a Labour Minister, should have accepted it. The Minister may have done so on the advice of his colleague, but I, for one, am not going to be pledged by his acceptance. I am perfectly open. I have the interests, not only of scores and hundreds of thousands of trade unionists in my organization, but I have the interests of thousand of trade unionists in my constituency to safeguard. I am determined to safeguard these so far as I can in this House. It is the duty of every Member of this House to do so, and I am determined to go as far as I can in the matter. I, for one, even though I can only find another Member to act with me, shall divide in favour, of the Amendment, and even if there should be only the two of us in favour of it.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to call attention to the various Amendments and to make some general remarks upon them. I should like to remind the House that the Clause in the principal Act has perhaps led to more appeals, greater difficulty and dissatisfaction, and a larger number of different interpretations as to its meaning than any Clause in an Act of Parliament ever passed by this House—and no one knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). In 1911 the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in charge in Committee of the original Bill, and he himself, I think, was very much disturbed as to the meaning of the various phraseology used in the framing of the Clause. Right away from 1911 the matter has been aggravated, and it was still further aggravated by the inclusion of amendments in the 1920 Act, so that now we have the principal Act, with all these opinions, which had originally to do with 4 millions of people, spread over 7 or 8 millions. For the purpose of endeavouring to clear away the obvious injustice inflicted in the Clause of the principal Act the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) was able to secure the withdrawal of an Amendment, in Committee, in 1920, submitted by Members of his own party, the Liberal party, on the promise that he would set up a Committee to see if it was not possible to find some form of words that would meet the case. The fears of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley earlier have been amply justified, and the desire of his party to strengthen this Clause and make it less an injustice than it was.
When the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell was Minister of Labour he was, I say, able to secure the withdrawal of the Amendment to which I have referred in order that he might set up the promised Committee. It is now for a Labour Minister and a Labour Government to introduce into the Amending Bill a. Clause weaker than the suggested Clause of the Liberal party itself in the 1920 Committee, and now the Liberal party still further desire to weaken an already weak Clause in this Amending Bill put forward by the Labour Minister. I 771 am certainly at a loss to understand all these changes that the whirligig of time has brought about. Indeed when the Committee was set up we had 16 meetings covering a period of one year and nine months. What is proposed to be inserted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley might well have been taken from the suggested words of the employers' section, words to which the industrial side of the Committee will not agree. Words were suggested, as has been stated before, and opinions were expressed by the employers' side during the conferences of that Departmental Committee, but their interpretation was far different to the interpretation that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has been able to give, and certainly quite different, I believe, from the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley. For indeed it was desired that the disqualification be added to meet the situation caused in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute. That means that a trade society going to the aid or assistance under a section of this Bill of another society, granting them a loan to assist them in their dispute, should be placed in a different position to that of a body of employers federated together, and who from a pool are assisting different employers during a struggle in which they may be engaged. Why we should single out the trade unions for this particular restriction I for the life of me cannot understand. It certainly will have a very adverse effect. It is no use saying that all it implies must be taken in conjunction with the wording of the Clause in the principal Act. It does restrict the action of a particular shop, or grade, or department. We could give to this House at least 50 to 60 different umpires' decisions that vary in degree in every case. There is the case where, it is said, men may be thrown out because of the moulders in a particular department and are not entitled to benefit because it is at their place of employment. There is another case of the same class and the same type who would be qualified by the umpire's decision; and it certainly does seem to me that, taking into account the attempt made by the Committee that met on 16 occasions, and their failure to find words, it ill behoves the Labour party to try to insert—though it may not be their 772 desire—such words as would make this Clause more restricted in its operations, and certainly capable of many more interpretations. To my mind, judging from the practical experience of the administration of the Acts since 1911, it will lead to a larger number of appeals than are even at the moment made necessary by the restricted clause of the principal Act.
I would urge that whatever else may be done in respect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), for which there is much to be said because of recent developments, it should be given careful consideration. You may have an employer in dispute with a section of his men, as you had in the case of Southampton; you may have the trade organisation, far from supporting these men in dispute, urging them to return to work in order that the case may be properly gone into; and because they are unable, having done all they could to get the men back to work—as in the case of Southampton—you may have the whole of the employers, through their Federation, coming to the aid of the Southampton employers and saying; "Very well, we will help you by locking out all the other classes of workpeople in the engineering and shipbuiding industry. We will bring pressure through those people who are innocent of the trouble and are using the machinery of their, organisation in the way they are, because they have not done all that we wanted, or desired, we are going through them to inflict a hardship sufficient in character and a punishment sufficiently severe that will enable us to impress our will, through them, to compel the Southampton people to return to work." That is going to be the result of those words. I know the Minister of Labour does not agree, but would urge him to consider whether in the interests of being able to so rectify the injustices to do what we have suggested. It is true that we do expect some to be anti-trade unionists, and some are definitely in industrial antagonism too the Federation of Employers. We expect opposition from that direction to the period of time, and previous discussion open this Measure has shown that to be the ease, but we do not expect the Liberal party to do anything else than support even an enlargement of the facilities for removing the hardships 773 of those who are the victims of other people's trouble, and who do not participate in them, except by contribution.
During the discussion on the Joint Committee, it was said that a man would be looked upon as financially suporting a strike if he, as a member of the Union giving consent to a small section in the dispute, happened to be out of work, but if he was a contributor he is going to be automatically struck off because he was a member of the trade union that was financing the dispute. I urge the House to do this one measure of justice to those who everybody agrees have been innocent victims of other people's trouble, and I do not think we ought to press further restrictions upon them.
§ Sir J. SIMON
I am obliged to my two lion. Friends for the reasonable terms in which they have spoken of my own proposal the other night, because they are perfectly right when they say that the last thing which is in my mind is a failure to see that justice is clone to the innocent victim of a trade dispute. Occasionally a distinction is drawn between lawyers and those who are not lawyers. I am afraid this is a case where a lawyer has "rushed in where angels fear to tread." Ever since 1911 the question that we are now trying to solve has been an ever present difficulty and problem in connection with organised industry, and nobody, not even among the ranks of the angels or amongst persons of an inferior order, has ever proposed a definite change other than that pot into this Bill and the proposal which I made the other night.
That being so, I would like the House to see where this matter stands, and I want to be treated as somebody who is not claiming to speak from the lawyers' point of view, because in that connection I care nothing about it, but I am trying to help the House to come to the best form of words in order to see that while this unemployment insurance fund is not called upon in circumstances which actually finance a trade dispute, on the other hand the workman thrown out through no manner of his connection with a trade dispute, and who is merely the victim of it, should not suffer a hardship. It is very important to draw the distinction between what we are trying to do and the words which various people propose to accomplish it. May I correct an 774 impression which has been formed by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) on this point? I think my proposal, at any rate, makes things better from the point of view of the innocent victim. The hon. Member for Gorbals the other night was under the impression that this was not so, and he said he would sooner have the law as it is now than have the improvement which I suggested. The Clause we are now considering is not the Clause which defines the cases in which a person who is unemployed gets unemployment benefit, but it is a Clause which modifies, and modifies in favour of the workman, the existing law which disqualifies people who are in the same factory.
Supposing you have a great establishment which carries on, in the same factory, branches of work normally carried on in different establishments, and that you treat each branch as a separate factory. The law as it stands says, and it has said this ever since 1911, that if you are an unemployed man and lose your job in a factory owing to a trade dispute in that factory, the fact that you were working in that factory, and that you are out of work because of the trade dispute will be sufficient to disqualify you for benefit. There is no law that if you are working in another factory, and are an innocent victim of a trade dispute which has arisen somewhere else, you lose your unemployment benefit, and there is nothing in this new proposal which alters that in the least degree. If hon. Members will follow me they will see that what I have asserted is so, because Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act which provides that a disqualification for the receipt of benefit during a stoppage of work shall not apply in certain cases, and the result is that the Clause we are now discussing, however we amend it, cannot add to the list of people who are disqualified, but it reduces that number because it allows some persons who are in the factory where the trade dispute is going on to get unemployment benefit where none of them can get it now. That is really absolutely plain, and there ought not to be any distinction between the angels and the lawyers about it.
775 The next point is this: We have to remember, and I am sure that hon. Members above the Gangway wish to remember, that we are dealing with the use which is to be made of an unemployment fund which is the result of contributions not only from the workmen but also from the employers and from the State. We are dealing with a fund to which premiums have been paid by three parties, and while, for my part, I certainly will not take any course which either attacks or undermines trade unionism, or deals unfairly with any man, whether a trade unionist or not, I say that we are bound to bear in mind that this is a fund to which these three different elements contribute. That being so borne in mind, I venture to think that there must be a common purpose which they are all trying to serve. The purpose is this: We are not trying to provide that there is to be a compassionate allowance out of a State fund for individuals who may be unfortunate in their industrial history or opportunities; we are trying to secure under what conditions an insurance fund, which is built up by a calculation as to certain risks and which is fed by contributions from three sources, ought to be made available for individuals at work in the very factory where a trade dispute has broken out. That is the question, and I do not think that there can really be any dispute between honest people that what we desire to do is to improve the existing law—I do from the bottom of my heart—in this respect, so as to provide for the case of the innocent victim, without at the same time doing what we none of us desire to do, namely, making this land available so that one side in an industrial controversy may rely upon it in fighting its opponent. That is the point, and the sole question therefore is what is the best way to do it.
I am not myself going to turn on the Minister of Labour and rend him, because at a late hour on the previous night he, in the most explicit terms and after full consultation with those who advise him, got up and said that he was going to accept my Amendment. I had not the slightest desire to spring an Amendment on the House of Commons and still less had I the smallest desire to rush hon. Members into accepting by word of mouth something which was not 776 on paper. It is much too important to do that. We want to do the thing fairly and squarely. It did seem to me, and it does now seem to me, that the words of the Clause, as proposed by the Government, are words which, to say the least of it, are capable, in the stress of an industrial conflict, of giving opportunities for misuse, and, if I may use the word without offence, even for manipulation, which I am sure responsible leaders of trade unions in the country, thinking of it calmly today, must realise is not a proper use to make of the fund. The sole question, therefore, comes to this. What is the modification which ought to be made in the words of the Bill in order that we may avoid that result?
The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) said that I knew something about this subject because long ago I happened to be one of the Ministers responsible for carrying the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am proud of it; I am glad to think that the people remember that it was the Government of that day which established this system. I must not, however, allow him, if he was saying it of me in the way of commendation to treat me as the author of the Bill. The author of the Bill was Mr. Sydney Buxton who was then President of the Board of Trade. He was the skilled workman, and I was merely his labourer. [An HON. MEMBER: "You were in charge!"] I do not think that was so. Sometimes I was allowed to explain something, and I scene to have brought a pretty peck of trouble on my head for doing it. At any rate, I have taken a continuous interest in this subject, and this is how I feel about it. if you leave the Clause as it stands, you raise an entirely new question for the umpire or referee: What exactly do you mean by participating? I am sure it cannot be the desire of the House that there should be this sort of logic chopping which is quite as common among laymen as it is among lawyers. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not make a living out of it!"] I am not quite sure that the trade union leader does not make a living out of it, though I am quite sure, in the one case as in the other, that he is making an honest living and doing what he thinks is right.
Let us get back to the point. I do not myself think that the House of Commons 777 can believe it would be at all wise or safe to leave the word "participating" unqualified or unexplained, because it is obvious that in the pinch of a dispute you might have endless controversy as to whether John Jones was participating or not. [Interruption.] Really, the change that ought to be made in the law of England is not that the trade union leaders ought to be lawyers, but that they ought to be judges. They would then be able to decide the thing without any difficulty at all. But practical people do find a difficulty. Therefore, my object was to secure that you really did define the innocent victim fairly, and I thought he would be more fairly defined in the terms which the House will find in Col. 2,422 of the Official Report of Thursday, because it was late at night on Wednesday when it really happened, so that it shall be provided that whereas everybody retains his present rights if he is working somewhere else than in the factory where the dispute is going on a workman even in the factory where the dispute is going on may get his unemployment benefit as long asneither he nor the trade union to which he belongs is participating in, or financing, or is directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work.It is no good any section in the House sweeping aside a difficulty which may arise. It is an old difficulty pointed out ever since 1911. If you were to have certain individuals selected for the purpose of being called out with the result that you were really calling out the pivotal or key men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] What is the good of trying to prevent such a point being put by interrupting? It is perfectly obvious to fair-minded men, that, as a matter of fact, that could be done, and the result, in conceivable cases, might be that other persons who technically were not participating were none the less persons who had a direct interest in the success of the strike and were persons who, through their trade unions or otherwise, were really supporting it. Let me say, frankly, that I do not think that would be a fair use of the fund. It seems to me that is not what the fund is for, and while, therefore, I want to meet with all my heart the case of the innocent victim, I thought it was desirable to suggest those additional words. It cannot seriously be disputed by those who are following the Government Bench 778 that those words would have effected a very great improvement. Let me read to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway the language of the Minister of Labour. He did not use it in a hurry. He went and consulted his own experts under the Gallery, and he had a considerable opportunity of considering the words before. It was not the first speech that he made on the subject in the Debate. My right hon. Friend speaking, therefore, with the greatest deliberation, said:This, at any rate, seems to me to offer this possibility. Take the moulders' dispute as an example. Every man who was refused benefit will be granted benefit if this"—and here the right hon. Gentleman is referring to my Amendment—is accepted That is the position of affairs, and as I am more interested in getting honest men who are out of work through no fault of their own paid, then I am in declaration of principle. I am going to accept the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1924; col. 2419, Vol. 175.]I think, at any rate, I am exonerated from the suspicion of having introduced a piece of lawyer's cunning for indirect purposes. I am the unfortunate man who has made an honest attempt to suggest how the case of the innocent victim can be properly dealt with in a form of words. The Minister consulted those on whom he relied for advice and so far from thinking there is a trap in that form of words—and of course there is not—he came to the conclusion that he could accept them. It is perfectly right that the House of Commons should reconsider the matter, but I am bound to point out the reasons why some such change as I now suggest should be made in the Clause. There only remains this point. It is a misfortune, because it is a pure Parliamentary technicality, that owing to the fact that the House has already carried the Clause down to the word "participating" it will be necessary to distribute my Amendment into three parts. Naturally I would prefer to see the thing stated once and for all, instead of at three different points. But that is simply due to the purely technical circumstance that the House has already passed the words of the Clause down to the word "participating," and therefore, my proposal has to be distributed. I have honestly tried to keep my mind open on this question. If anyone can show how the words can be improved I 779 shall be glad. I ask other hon. Members also to keep an open mind on this question because we are doing something far more important than insisting on an agreement made by the Front Bench or on assurances given by Ministers. There are hundreds of thousands of men and tens of thousands of employers whose interests may be affected by the words we put in. I would be the last to say that merely because the Minister of Labour said "I accept" therefore an injustice should be committed or a mistake made by the House of Commons.
There is one conceivable point of doubt, and it is whether or not the introduction of the words "that he does not belong to a trade union or" may not lead in practice and in working out to a new set of inquiries which are really not in the interest of the fair working of the Clause. I confess I have not a very clear view on that point. At this time I would deprecate, if I may say so, the attitude so easy to be taken up on the trade union side or by the employers' side—the attitude of saying, "I am certain this is wrong" or "I am certain this is right." We have really to find out how this is going to work. The difficulty to my mind is this. I can quite see that such inquiries at the Employment Exchange as "What trade union do you belong to?" would be a new kind of inquiry. I am quite willing to admit that I do not think that is very desirable. Is the Minister able to satisfy himself that the thing which I, at least, am aiming at—and I am trying to define it in the plainest terms—will be secured by retaining the words "or financing or directly interested in" and by omitting the words "trade union or"? There is undoubtedly another kind of difficulty which these new inquiries will create. You bring in the words at the end about a man belonging to a grade or class of workers the members of which are participating. I apprehend that those words are really intended to secure that the non-unionist who may automatically be thrown out of work, because the unionist working at his side is on strike, shall not himself be able to draw unemployment benefit while his colleague the trade unionist cannot do so. I think that is quite right. I do not think a man ought to be put in a better position because he is a non-unionist; neither do 780 I think he ought to be in a better position because he is a trade unionist, so far as the unemployment benefit is concerned. The one point is, whether the Minister of Labour can show us that these words "trade union or" can safely be omitted from my Amendment without changing the substance of the purpose which the House desires to serve. If we are to insist on the test that there is no financing, no interest and no direct participation, then I am satisfied. There is no question of this Amendment making things worse for anybody. It is simply an attempt to secure that some individuals employed in a factory where there is a trade dispute shall not automatically because of the working of the factory laws be deprived of their unemployment benefit. I am perfectly willing to co-operate in getting a form of words which will secure that result. I must make it quite plain to the Minister that in our view the substance of the thing is not secured unless words like "financing or directly interested in" are put into this Clause.
§ Sir J. SIMON
I have made it as clear as I can, and I am sure the Minister will bear me out. This proposed new Clause does not take the place of the Section in the main Act, but merely reduces the cases in which there is disqualification. The only disqualification in the Section that we are altering in the original Act is the disqualification where the man is working in the same factory. Therefore, this Amendment, whatever it is for, does not touch anyone working in a factory other than the factory where a trade dispute is in progress.
§ Mr. SHAW
I will deal, if I may, with the question which has just been asked, and will make a perfectly categorical statement on it. I held strongly that it was impossible for these words, even if they remained in the Clause, to affect the case of any worker who worked or had worked at a place where no dispute was 781 in progress, and that there was no danger of his being refused benefit, because he belonged to a union that was financing a strike at another place. There is, in my opinion, absolutely no doubt as to the soundness of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, and, in order to make myself more certain still, I consulted the solicitors of the Ministry of Labour, who have a very wide experience of the administration of this Act. Their opinion confirmed my own. Not satisfied with that, I submitted the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown, and their opinion coincides with the opinion of the solicitors to the Department, my own opinion, and, what is more valuable than my own opinion, the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I venture to suggest, therefore, that, if a contrary opinion be held, there ought to be some substantial ground for it—there ought to be some substantial ground for disagreement with everyone who has been connected with any Bill on this subject, and with all the legal assistance that we can get. I venture to put the authorities that: I have against any authority that may be quoted in contradiction of the opinion expressed.
Now, with regard to the matter itself. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow these words "trade union or" to be deleted. There is no question, and I make no question, about the position that existed at our last discussion. There was a Motion for the deletion of the Clause, and I had to choose between what I thought was a certainty of losing my Clause or saving what I could, and I took the line of saving what I could. About that there is no question whatever. But I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that these words do not help in his desire, or at any rate do not give him any guarantee that the other words do not give, but do introduce certainly a danger that we want to avoid at the Ministry of Labour. If at the Ministry of Labour we have to take sides in any branch of our work, and to make inquiries as to trade unionism and non-trade unionism, it cannot be a good thing for us, and I myself fail to see any case of any trade unionist directly interested, participating in a dispute, who, if these words were out, could possibly get benefit in that dispute. I do see difficulties if the words remain in—difficulties of interpretation, difficulties of inquiry, and a 782 state of things arising in our exchanges that I think would be highly undesirable from an administrative point of view. I make a strong appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that he is positively safeguarded against any case that I can see by the words he has already inserted and the words of the original Clause, to withdraw his Amendment to insert these words, which give him no further guarantee, but do give us a guarantee of certain trouble and a possibility of difference as to opinion and law, and possibly a difference of treatment of men according to whether they are trade unionists or not. That would be absolutely fatal if it arose, and I think it would be better to avoid the possibility of its arising, seeing that every safeguard is given in the other words of the Clause.
§ Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN
Would the right hon. Gentleman read the Clause as he proposes it, omitting the words he proposes to leave out?
§ Mr. SHAW
It would then read:Sub-section (1) of Section Eight of the principal Act (which imposes a disqualification for the receipt of benefit during a stoppage of work) shall not apply in any case in which the insured contributor proves that he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers members of 'which a re participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute.Those would be the words if these three words were left out. I venture to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has every safeguard that he could have even if these words were in, and that we should avoid the difficulty and danger of discrimination if the words are left out.
Now may I deal with my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean)? I cannot accept his Amendment, for this simple reason, that, without any doubt, in my mind at least, the acceptance of his Amendment simply means the conditions remaining as they are, so that no man working at a place where a dispute takes place, however innocent he may be, can get benefit at all; and, believing as I do that the best thing to do is to get benefits for as many innocent people as I can, I cannot accept the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley will withdraw his three 783 words I think we might easily come to a decision on the matter. I do not want to cripple argument but the case was argued at our last discussion, and I am making my remarks as brief as I can, not out of discourtesy to the House, but because it is vital to me that I should get this Bill to-day. At the end of this month people will be falling out of employment unless I get my Bill through another place. The desire has been expressed to me, and I think it is a perfectly reasonable desire, that at any rate a certain length of time should be left for the Third Reading in order to review the circumstances. Not only am I being brief myself, without, I hope, discourtesy to the House, but I am going to venture to make an appeal to other Members, in view of the peculiar circumstances, to follow the same example and try and let me have the Bill in order that it may go to another place, and that on the 30th July I may be able to rest satisfied that 100,000 people will not be falling out of benefit.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
I readily respond to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal to put the issue as briefly as possible, but it is an issue of great importance, and it is one upon which I think the majority of the House want to do a perfectly fair and simple thing. There is no Clause upon which it is more easy to raise prejudice than this, and there is no Clause, if I may respectfully say so, which it is more easy to misunderstand. After the very clear exposition of my right hon. Friend, probably the House is fairly satisfied as to its legal import. The very simple issue which we want to decide is that in no circumstances whatever is this Insurance Fund to be used to finance or to assist any form of trade dispute. That is the simple position. It would be as outrageous to use that fund in any way to advance a strike in the interests of people who are interested in the strike as it would be to use that fund to finance employers in a lock-out. Both sides are contributing to the fund, and you would cut at the root of the whole principle of contributory insurance if you allowed it to be touched in the interests of employers or employed. The great majority of the House want that, and the issue between us is what words are necessary in order to do it. I thought last time that the words pro- 784 posed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley were the necessary ones, and I am still of that opinion, because you have to cover two things. You have to cover the personal participation, or financing, which is unusual, and you have to cover the normal case, that the Union of which the man is a member, is participating or financing. The words read over last time by the right hon. Gentleman exactly met what I had in mind, that neither he nor the Union to which he belonged is participating in financing or directly interested in the trade dispute. It was necessary to put that in the form of three Amendments. Now we are asked really to discard the case of the Union. I believe that to be impossible. I believe if we are to do what the majority of the House want you must provide in terms both for the personal participation or financing of the man himself and for the participation or financing by means of the Union. Unless that is done in such terms as are put either by the right hon. Gentleman or by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson), you are going to permit this fund to be used for a trade dispute. I do not really follow what was said by the Minister about the difficulty of inquiry, because, if it is a case of a trade union financing a dispute, surely you have to find out whether the trade union is financing the dispute, and whether the man is a member of the trade union.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
Does not that show that the real issue is the issue of whether you are directly or indirectly to cover financing completely or whether you are going to leave the thing at large. The only case that occurred to me as possibly requiring to be met, and which would have been met by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland, and perhaps, is not completely met by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, was the case, not where the union is acting. Where the union is acting the members cannot claim the benefit, and I am quite clear that they ought not to be able to. This is the case of someone who had given some purely charitable donation to help a man who is out of work which it was thought might be covered by this. I really doubt whether the words the right hon. Gentleman has 785 put in would really cover a, case of that sort. I do not believe they would. If there is any doubt about it it would be completely met by making the last words read, "does not belong to a grade or class of workers the members of which are participating in the dispute or to a society or union which is financing or directly interested in the dispute."
§ Sir J. SIMON
We have been asked, if possible, not to have too long a discussion on these words. The Minister has made a suggestion. I feel the force of the difficulty about the words "trade union or" but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think the real object of the Clause is secured, and I should like to say I accept the offer of the Minister of Labour. I need hardly say I regard that as agreed between the Government and ourselves.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
The right hon. gentleman has accepted that without giving any explanation to the House. The whole stress of his argument last time was that the member of a trade union which was financing a dispute ought not to be permitted to come in and draw this benefit from the fund to which employers and employed are contributing. He now proposes to discard the words "trade union." The issue lies in a very narrow compass. I have heard no explanation which would satisfy me that if these words "trade union" are left out it will not be possible for a union to finance a strike and its members to take advantage of it. That seems to be going right to the root of the whole question, and to violate everything the right hon. Gentleman contended for before, and I hope it will be carried in the form in which it stands on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I think it is right that the House should have an opportunity of dealing with that question. If it be
§ not moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley—I mean his second Amendment, "trade union or"—I propose to give the hon. Member for Sunderland an opportunity. In that case, perhaps the House might be willing to come to a decision on the first two questions.
§ Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS
There are some of us who think the Minister's Clause is satisfactory as it stands, and should not be altered. This is not a permanent Bill. By the Amendment we put in Clause 1 it only lasts for two years, and before the end of the two years this House has to pass another Unemployment Insurance Bill. Now the Minister puts in a Clause which will remove an undoubted grievance. It is an experiment. It is bound to be reconsidered in two years' time. If it is satisfactory, if it gets rid of the bulk of the grievance, there will be no demand for an alteration of it. If, on the other hand, the horrible things that certain hon. Members anticipate occur, it will be reconsidered and put right by the House. I strongly maintain that the Clause as it stands is a sufficient safeguard for the Insurance Fund. It does not put unnecessary obstacles in the way of the man who is thrown out of work through no fault of his own in putting his case for benefit to the umpire. The umpire has to decide the case. He will take all considerations into his view and he will give, his decision, I have no doubt, in a fair and impartial manner. The risk we are running is a very small one, because, after all, if a man is denied benefit from the insurance fund all he has to do is to walk across to the Board of Guardians and draw his benefit from them.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'the' in line 16, stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 295; Noes, 44.789
|Division No. 168.]||AYES.||[12.45 p.m.|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Baldwin, Rt. Han. Stanley||Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke||Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Berkeley, Captain Reginald|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Banton, G.||Berry, Sir George|
|Ainsworth, Captain Charles||Barclay, R. Noton||Betterton, Henry B.|
|Alden, Percy||Barnes, A.||Birchall, Major J. Dearman|
|Alstead, R.||Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Blades, Sir George Rowland|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)||Blundell, F. N.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Beamish, Captain T. P. H||Bondfield, Margaret|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Beckett, Sir Gervase||Bonwick, A.|
|Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.||Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Bourne, Robert Croft|
|Baker, Walter||Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Phillipps, Vivian|
|Briant, Frank||Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)||Pielou, D. P.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hillary, A. E.||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Briscoe, Captain Richard George||Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel||Pringle, W. M. R.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Hindle, F.||Raffety, F. W.|
|Broad, F. A.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Rathbone, Hugh H.|
|Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)||Hoffman, P. C.||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peek|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hogbin, Henry Cairns||Rea, W. Russell|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Calne, Gordon Hall||Hood, Sir Joseph||Remnant, Sir James|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)||Howard, Hon. D.(Cumberland,North)||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)||Robertson, T. A|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hughes, Collingwood||Romeril, H. G.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Ropner, Major L.|
|Chapple, Dr. William A.||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||Isaacs, G. A.||Royle, C.|
|Church, Major A. G.||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Clayton, G. C.||Jewson, Dorothea||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cluse, W. S.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)||Savery, S. S.|
|Cope, Major William||Kay, Sir R. Newbald||Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Kedward, R. M.||Sexton, James|
|Kindersley, Major G. M.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)||King, Capt. Henry Douglas||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||Lane-Fox, George R.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Law, A.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Crittall, V. G.||Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)||Simon, E. D. (Manchester,Withingtn.)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)||Lawson, John James||Smillie, Robert|
|Leach, W.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lessing, E.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Darbishire, C. W.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)||Linfield, F. C.||Snell, Harry|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)||Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Dawson Sir Philip||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Deans, Richard Storry||Lowth, T.||Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)|
|Dodds, S. R.||Lumley, L. R.||Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.|
|Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Lunn, William||Spero, Dr. G. E.|
|Duckworth, John||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Starmer, Sir Charles|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||McCrae, Sir George||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Dukes, C.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Stranger, Innes Harold|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||MacDonald, R.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Ednam, Viscount||McEntee, V. L.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Mackinder, W.||Sutcliffe, T.|
|Egan, W. H.||McLean, Major A.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Elliot, Walter E.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Elveden, Viscount||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Terrington, Lady|
|Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Maden, H.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Thompson, Piors G. (Torquay)|
|Forestier-Walker, L.||Makins, Brigadler-General E.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Franklin, L. B.||Mansel, Sir Courtenay||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|Gates, Percy||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)|
|Gavan-Duffy, Thomas||Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Thornton, Maxwell R.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Meller, R. J.||Thurtle, E.|
|Gillett, George M.||Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John||Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)||Tout, W. J.|
|Gosling, Harry||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)||Montague, Frederick||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Morris, R. H.||Turner, Ben|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Varley, Frank B.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Morrison-Bell,Major Sir A. C.(Honiton)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Gretton, Colonel John||Moulton, Major Fletcher||Vivian, H.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Murrell, Frank||Ward, Lt.-Col A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Naylor, T. E.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Oliver, George Harold||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Harbison, Thomas James S.||Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)||Wells, S. R.|
|Harland, A.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William||White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Harney, E. A.||Palmer, E. T.||Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)|
|Harris, John (Hackney, North)||Pease, William Edwin||Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Williams, Maj. A.S. (Kent,Sevenoaks)|
|Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)||Perring, William George||Willison, H.|
|Hemmerde, E. G.||Perry, S. F.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Windsor, Walter||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)||Mr. Warne and Mr. Allen|
|Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward||Parkinson.|
|Wintringham, Margaret||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Wise, Sir Fredric||Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)|
|Ayles, W. H.||Hogge, James Myles||Smith, T. (Pontefract)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hudson, J. H.||Spence, R.|
|Buchanan, G.||Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)||Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)|
|Buckle, J.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Clarke, A.||Lansbury, George||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Climie, R.||March, S.||Viant, S. P.|
|Cove, W. G.||Marley, James||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Maxton, James||Welsh, J. C.|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)||Middleton, G.||Westwood, J.|
|Greenall, T.||Mills, J. E.||Whiteley, W.|
|Groves, T.||Paling, W.||Wignall, James|
|Grundy, T. W.||Potts, John S.||Wright, W.|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Ritson, J.|
|Hardle, George D.||Scrymgeour, E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Haycock, A. W.||Scurr, John||Mr. Nell Maclean and Mr. A.|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Sherwood, George Henry||Short.|
Amendment proposed: In page 5, line 16, after the word "in" to insert the words
or financing or directly interested in."—[Sir J. Simon.]
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 74.791
|Division No. 169.]||AYES.||[12.56 p.m.|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke||Chapple, Dr. William A.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Chilcott, Sir Warden||Harbison, Thomas James S.|
|Ainsworth, Captain Charles||Church, Major A. G.||Harland, A.|
|Alden, Percy||Clarry, Reginald George||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)|
|Alstead, R.||Clayton, G. C.||Harney, E. A.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Harris, John (Hackney, North)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Cope, Major William||Hemmerde, E. G.|
|Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Henn, Sir Sydney H.|
|Baker, Walter||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Hillary, A. E.|
|Banton, G.||Crittall, V. G.||Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel|
|Barclay, R. Noton||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hindle, F.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)||Darbishire, C. W.||Hogbin, Henry Cairns|
|Beamish, Captain T. P. K.||Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Deans, Richard Storry||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Dodds, S. R.||Howard, Hon. D.(Cumberland,North)|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Berkeley, Captain Reginald||Duckworth, John||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.|
|Berry, Sir George||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Hughes, Collingwood|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Dukes, C.||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Dunn, J. Freeman||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Eden, Captain Anthony||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Ednam, Viscount||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Bonwick, A.||Elliot, Walter E.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.).|
|Bourne, Robert Croft||Elveden, Viscount||Kay, Sir R. Newbald|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Kedward, R. M.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Kindersley, Major G. M.|
|Briant, Frank||Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.||King, Capt. Henry Douglas|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Forestier-Walker, L.||Lane-Fox, George R.|
|Briscoe, Captain Richard George||Franklin, L. B.||Law, A.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Gates, Percy||Lawson, John James|
|Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)||George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)||Leach, W.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Gillett, George M.||Lessing, E.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John||Linfield, F. C.|
|Calne, Gordon Hall||Gosling, Harry||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)||Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Lowth, T.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Gretton, Colonel John||Lumley, L. R.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Lunn, William|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Lynn, Sir R. J.|
|McCrae, Sir George||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel||Sykes, Major-den. Sir Frederick H.|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Rea, W. Russell||Terrington, Lady|
|Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Reid, D. D. (County Down)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|MacDonald, B.||Remer, J. R.||Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)|
|McEntee, V. L.||Remnant, Sir James||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Mackinder, W.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)|
|McLean. Major A.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)|
|Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Thornton, Maxwell R.|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Robertson, T. A.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Robinson, Sir T (Lancs., Stretford)||Tout, W. J.|
|Maden, H.||Romeril, H. G.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Ropner, Major L.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Rose, Frank H.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Mansel, Sir Courtenay||Roundell, Colonel R. F.||Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.|
|Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.||Vivian, H.|
|Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Meller, R. J.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)||Sandeman, A. Stewart||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Waiden)||Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustave D,||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Savery, S. S.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Morris, R. H.||Sexton, James||Wells, S. R.|
|Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.|
|Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A.C. (Honlton)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Mouiton. Major Fletcher||Shepperson, E. W.||Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)|
|Murrell, Frank||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Williams, Maj. A.S. (Kent,Sevenoaks)|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Simon, E. D. (Manchester,Withingtn.)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Windsor, Waiter|
|Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Palmer, E. T.||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Pease, William Edwin||Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Perring, William George||Spero, Dr. G. E.||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Perry, S. F.||Starmer, Sir Charles||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward|
|Phillipps. Vivian||Steel, Samuel Strang||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Pielou, O. P.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)|
|Pilditch, Sir Philip||Stranger, Innes Harold|
|Pringle, W. M. R.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Raffety, F. W.||Sutcliffe, T.||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.|
|Rathbone, Hugh H.||Sutton, J. E.||Warne.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Hoffman, P. C.||Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)|
|Barnes, A.||Hogge, James Myles||Sherwood, George Henry|
|Batey, Joseph||Hudson, J. H.||Smillie, Robert|
|Buchanan, G.||Isaacs, G. A.||Smith, T. (Pontefract)|
|Buckle, J.||Jackson, R. P. (Ipswich)||Snell, Harry|
|Clarke, A.||Jewson, Dorothea||Spence, R.|
|Climie, R.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lansbury, George||Sullivan. J|
|Cove, W. G.||Laverack, F. J.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Egan, W. H.||Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)||Thurtle, E.|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Gardner, J. P, (Hammersmith, North)||March, S.||Turner, Ben|
|Gavan-Duffy, Thomas||Marley, James||Varley, Frank B.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Maxton, James||Viant, S. P.|
|Greenall, T.||Middleton, G.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Mills, J. E.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Groves, T.||Montague, Frederick||Westwood. J.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Naylor, T. E.||Whiteley. W.|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Oliver, George Harold||Wignall, James|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)||Paling. W.||Williams, Col. P. (Middiesbrough, E.)|
|Hardle, George D.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Willison, H.|
|Haycock, A. W.||Potts, John S.||Wright. W.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Ritson, J.|
|Hayes, John Henry||Royle, C.||TELLERS. FOR THE NOES—|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Scrymgeour, E.||Mr. A Short and Mr. Georga|
|Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex,Enfield)||Scurr, John||Spencer.|
§ Mr. L. THOMPSON
I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, after the word "a," to insert the words "trade union or."
I move this Amendment in as sincere a spirit as that which has characterised the whole of our proceedings, and with a desire to get a final solution of this 792 vexed problem. I move it neither as a lawyer nor as an angel, but as a plain Member of Parliament who served his time in the shipbuilding industry, who has been associated with the movements of the workers ever since, who has taken a particular interest in this particular Clause not only for months but for years, 793 and as one who would Wish to eliminate any possibility of a perpetuation of the hardships that exist now. Can the Minister say what he means by a grade or class as specified in the latter part of the Clause? I have stood astride and have adjusted many ships' frames. Can the Minister define whether a frame turner and a frame adjuster are in the same grade or class, whether the helpers who help the turner or adjuster are in the same class, whether the riveter or the holder-up is in the same grade or class, and whether the platers' labourers are in the same grade or class as the ordinary labourer? At present everyone in a specific factory or workshop who loses his work through a trade dispute is disqualified from benefit. Under this Clause you have to define every man in a trade dispute or factory. Every individual case will not go through the ordinary channel, that is to say, through the insurance officer, and, if need be, through the Court of Referees and finally to the Umpire.
While there has been a great deal of discussion to-day on the legal position, the difficulty is that you can get no legal definition at all in this Bill. The finality rests with the Umpire. As to the words "grade or class," if you take a dispute in any shipyard, every man in that dispute will claim the right under this Bill to have defined in which grade or class he is. In the interests not only of the workers but of all classes I want the Minister to try to find a line of clear demarcation, showing who is in a dispute and who is not. The words of the Clause as they stand will create a worse state of anomalies and hardships than that which exists to-day. We want a clear definition by the insertion of the words of the Amendment. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) up to a certain point. As a matter of fact I suppose I could claim the credit of having first put down the words "trade union" so as to raise the whole issue of this Clause. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the first part of the Clause in a certain sense defines the attitude of any worker to a dispute, but the latter part of the Clause does not do so; it does not define his position towards a grade or class, specifically or definitely. I hope the House will agree to the Amendment.
§ Mr. SHAW
I cannot accept the Amendment.[HON. MEMBERS "Why not?"] Discussion has been wide and the points have been covered, and I thought we were going to vote without further discussion. The ordinary dispute is on some specific subject and it is easy if a trade dispute exists, to know which trades are affected. It is quite easy under this Clause not to pay benefits to those directly participating in this dispute. It is quite true cases would arise which the umpire would have to decide but there are cases at present in which the umpire has to decide and it is peculiarly fitting that in such cases, involving a decision in law, an umpire should decide. The words "grade or class" are easily understood.
§ Mr. THOMPSON
Would the right hon Gentleman give a definition in this case? I have erected many ships' frames and would he reckon me in the same grade in the iron section of the shipyard as the man who was caulking ships' decks?
§ Mr. SHAW
I should not take a hypothetical case at all; I should take the cases which happened and if any doubt arose I should submit it to the Umpire. Does anyone doubt that cases will have to be submitted to the Umpire? Cases are submitted now, and the principle administrative objection which we have is that, up to the present, it has been no part of the work of an Employment Exchange to inquire whether a man is a trade unionist or not and that once you begin that inquiry you are likely to go ahead on towards difficulty. In addition, there is the danger, if these words are put in, that two men working at the same place may be treated differently because one is a trade unionist and the other is not. That is a danger to be avoided and I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
On a point of Order. In the earlier stages of the Debate the point was raised as to whether we should have a general discussion covering this whole question or discuss each Amendment separately and the suggestion put from the Chair was that there should he a general discussion covering the whole point raised in the first Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). I submit that the sense of the House was in favour of that procedure and that we should proceed to the Divisions on the further Amendments concerning the same point without more discussion.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
I should have been perfectly prepared to proceed with the Debate in the way which was anticipated, but what has happened? Three Amendments were down in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), all of which were intended to carry out a specific proposal but without the faintest explanation the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suddenly withdrawn one of those Amendments. [HON. MEMBERS: "He spoke on it."]
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Entwistle)
The point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is not a point of Order, It may be, and often is the case, that discussion takes place on a particular Amendment, with the general understanding that such discussion covers other Amendments, but if a Member rise in his place to discuss an Amendment which is before the House, in the absence of the Closure, the Chair cannot interfere.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
On a point of Order. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Thompson) has already been the subject of general discussions in this House on two occasions and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) has taken part in those discussions. In the view of the fact that an understanding and an agreement was come to when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair I ask is it carrying out an honourable undertaking for the right hon. Gentleman who has already spoken on the subject in the general Debate to intervene again?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Whether or not there is an honourable undertaking is not a matter for the Chair; that is for hon. Members themselves to decide.
§ Mr. MARLEY
When the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) was under discussion the question of whether or not these particular words should be included was debated and the right hon. Gentleman then spoke on that Amendment.
§ Mr. G. SPENCER
Can the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon speak again on the same question?
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
I would only instance what has happened and I am within the recollection of the House. This is a very important Amendment, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, without a word of explanation, drew in, and did not move his Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: ''No!"]
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
We are entitled to give our seasons why we consider the Amendment essential. Not one word has been advanced by any speaker who opposes it to show why these words should not be inserted, and if these words are not inserted will it not be clearly possible for trade unions to finance trade disputes and enable their members who are concerned to draw benefit? Nothing has been said to explain why that should not be the case, nor has there been a word from the Minister on that point. He says it is going to create administrative difficulties but he did not tell us that on the last occasion. The whole point was put by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley in the last discussion, when he suggested the wordsIn any ease in which an inured contributor proves that neither he nor the rade union to which he belongs is participating in or financing … the trade dispute.The undertaking which was given by the Minister, after a very long discussion then, was that it should not apply in any case in which an insured contributor 797 proved that neither he nor the trade union to which he belonged was participating in or financing or was directly interested in the dispute, and he went on to say, "I am going to accept that Amendment." We have not had a single word from anybody to show us that, if these words, which were regarded by the hon. Members below the Gangway
§ opposite as essential, and were accepted by the Minister as essential last time, are deleted, the very evils which the hon. Members say they are so anxious to prevent will not take place.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 209.799
|Division 170.]||AYES.||[1.29 p.m.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Elveden, Viscount||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W||Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Perring, William George|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John||Philipson, Mabel|
|Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Pielou, D. P.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk Peel|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Harland, A.||Romer, J. R.|
|Beamish, Captain T. P. H.||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Remnant, Sir James|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase||Hartington, Marquess of||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Berry, Sir George||Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Blundell, F. N.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Bourne, Robert Croft||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Savery, S. S.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Hood, Sir Joseph||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Briscoe, Captain Richard George||Horilck, Lieut. Colonel J. N.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland,Northn.)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.||Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.|
|Calne. Gordon Hall||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Steel, Samuel Strang|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Sutcliffe, T.|
|Cayzar, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S)||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Lane-Fox, George R.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W).||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Lumley, L. R.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Clayton, G. C.||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||McLean, Major A.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Cope, Major William||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Wells, S. R.|
|Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granvilie C. H.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)||Morrison-Bell,Major Sir A.C.(Honiton)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward|
|Deans, Richard Storry||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Norton-Griffiths, Sir John|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Ednam, Viscount||Pease, William Edwin||Commander B. Eyres-Monseil and|
|Elliot, Walter E.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Captain Douglas King.|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Broad, F. A.||Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke||Bromfield, William||Dodds, S. R.|
|Adamson, W. M. (staff., Cannock)||Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)||Dudgeon, Major C. R.|
|Alden, Percy||Brunner, Sir J.||Dukes, C.|
|Alstead, R.||Buchanan, G.||Dunn, J. Freeman|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Buckle, J.||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)|
|Ayles, W. H.||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Edwards, John H. (Accrington)|
|Baker, Walter||Chapple, Dr. William A.||Egan, W. H.|
|Banton, G.||Church, Major A. G.||Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.|
|Barclay, R. Noton||Clarke, A.||Franklin, L. B.|
|Barnes, A.||Climie, R.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)|
|Batey, Joseph||Cluse, W. S.||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Gavan-Duffy, Thomas|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Cove, W. G.||George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Bonwick, A.||Crittail, V. G.||Gillett, George M.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Darbishire. C. W.||Gosling, Harry|
|Briant, Frank||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)|
|Greenall, T.||Mansel, Sir Courtenay||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||March, S.||Smith, T. (Pontefract)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Marley, James||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)||Snell, Harry|
|Groves, T.||Maxton, James||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Grundy, T. W.||Meller, R. J.||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.||Spence, R.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Middleton, G.||Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mills. J. E.||Spero, Dr. G. E.|
|Harblson, Thomas James S.||Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)||Starmer, Sir Charles|
|Hardle, George D.||Montague, Frederick||Stephen, Campbell|
|Harney, E. A.||Morris, R. H.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Harris, John (Hackney, North)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Stranger, Innes Harold|
|Harris, Percy A.||Mosley, Oswald||Sullivan, J.|
|Haycock, A. W.||Moulton, Major Fletcher||Sutton, J. E.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Murrell, Frank||Terrington, Lady|
|Hayes, John Henry||Naylor, T. E.||Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex,Enfield)||Nichol, Robert||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Hillary, A. E.||O'Grady, Captain James||Thornton, Maxwell R.|
|Hindle, F.||Oliver, George Harold||Thurtle, E.|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Hogbin, Henry Cairns||Paling, W.||Tout, W. J.|
|Hogge, James Myles||Palmer, E. T.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Hudson, J. H.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Turner, Ben|
|Hughes, Collingwood||Perry, S. F.||Turner-Samuels, M|
|Isaacs, G. A.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Varley, Frank B.|
|Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)||Phillipps, Vivian||Viant, S. P.|
|Jenkins, w. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Potts, John S.||Vivian, H.|
|Jewson, Dorothea||Pringle, W. M. R.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Raffety, F. W.||Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Rathbone, Hugh H.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Raynes, W. R.||Welsh, J. C|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)||Rea, W. Russell||Westwood, J.|
|Kedward, R. M.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Kenworthy, Lt.Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Ritson, J.||Whiteley, W.|
|Lansbury, George||Robertson, T. A.||Wignall, James|
|Laverack, F. J.||Romeril, H. G.||Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)|
|Law, A.||Ropner, Major L.||Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)|
|Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)||Rose, Frank H.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Lawson, John James||Royle, C.||Willison, H.|
|Leach, W.||Rudkin, Lieut-Colonel C. M. C.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Lessing, E.||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Linfield, F. C.||Scrymgeour, E.||Windsor, Walter|
|Lowth, T.||Scurr, John||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Lunn, William||Seely, K. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|McCrae, Sir George||Sexton, James||Wright, W.|
|Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)|
|McEntee, V. L.||Sherwood, George Henry|
|Mackinder, W.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Simon, E. D. (Manchester,Withingtn.)||Mr. Warne and Mr. John Robertson.|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Maden, H.||Smillie, Robert|
§ Sir J. SIMON
I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, after the word "in," to insert the words "or financing or directly interested in."
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 77.803
|Division 171.]||AYES.||[1.38 p.m.|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Cautley, Sir Henry S.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke||Blades, Sir George Rowland||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Blundell, F. N.||Chapple, Dr. William A.|
|Alden, Percy||Bondfield, Margaret||Church, Major A. G.|
|Alstead, R.||Bonwick, A.||Clarry, Reginald George|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Bourne, Robert Croft||Clayton, G. C.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.|
|Baker, Walter||Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Briant, Frank||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Brittain, Sir Harry||Cope, Major William|
|Banton, G.||Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)|
|Barclay, R. Noton||Brunner, Sir J.||Crittall, V. G.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Buckingham, Sir H.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)|
|Beamish, Captain T. P. H.||Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Curzon, Captain Viscount|
|Berry, Sir George||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Calne, Gordon Hall||Darbishire, C. W.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)||Lessing, E.||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Linfield, F. C.||Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Dodds, S. R.||Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)|
|Duckworth, John||Lowth, T.||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Lumley, L. R.||Savery, S. S.|
|Dukes, C.||Lunn, William||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Dunn, J. Freeman||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||McCrae, Sir George||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Elliot, Walter E.||MacDonald, R.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||M'Entee, V. L.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||McLean, Major A.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Franklin, L. B.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)|
|Gillett, George M.||Maden, H.||Spero, Dr. G. E.|
|Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Starmer, Sir Charles|
|Gosling, Harry||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Steel, Samuel Strang|
|Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)||Mansel, Sir Courtenay||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Stranger, Innes Harold|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Meller, R. J.||Sutcliffe, T.|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)||Terrington, Lady|
|Harbison, Thomas James S.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Harland, A.||Morris, R. H.||Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)|
|Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Moulton, Major Fletcher||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Harney, E. A.||Murrell, Frank||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)|
|Harris, John (Hackney, North)||Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)|
|Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Thornton, Maxwell R.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Norton-Griffiths, Sir John||Tout, W. J.|
|Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Hillary, A. E.||Palmer, E. T.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Hindle, F.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Hogbin, Henry Cairns||Pease, William Edwin||Vivian, H.|
|Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Hood, Sir Joseph||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)||Perry, S. F.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Horlick, Lieut-Colonel J. N.||Philipson, Mabel||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Phillipps, Vivian||Wells, S. R.|
|Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)||Pringle, W. M. R.||Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.|
|Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.||Raffety, F. W.||White, H G. (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Hughes, Collingwood||Rathbone, Hugh R.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Raynes, W. R.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Rea, W. Russell||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Reid, D. D. (County Down)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Remer, J. R.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Remnant, Sir James||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Kay, Sir R. Newbald||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Kedward, R. M.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward|
|Kindersley, Major G. M.||Robertson, T. A.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|King, Captain Henry Douglas||Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)||Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)|
|Laverack, F. J.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)|
|Lawson, John James||Romeril, H. G.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Leach, W.||Ropner, Major L.||Mr. Warne and Mr. John Robert son.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Barnes, A.||Hardle, George D.||Nichol, Robert|
|Batey, Joseph||Haycock, A. W.||Oliver, George Harold|
|Bromfield, William||Hayes, John Henry||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Buchanan, G.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Potts, John S.|
|Buckle, J.||Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)||Ritson, J.|
|Clarke, A.||Hoffman, P. C.||Rose, Frank H.|
|Climie, R.||Hudson, J. H.||Royle, C.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Cove, W. G.||Jewson, Dorothea||Scurr, John|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Jones, T, I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)|
|Egan, W. H.||Lansbury, George||Sexton, James|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)||Sherwood, George Henry|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Smillie, Robert|
|Gavan-Duffy, Thomas||March, S.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Greenall, T.||Marley, James||Snell, Harry|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Maxton, James||Spence, R.|
|Groves, T.||Mills, J. E.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Grundy, T. W.||Montague, Frederick||Sullivan, J.|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham N.)||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Thurtle, E.||Welsh, J. C.||Wilson, C. H (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Tillett, Benjamin||Westwood, J.||Windsor, Walter|
|Tinker, John Joseph||Whiteley, W.||Wright, W.|
|Turner, Ben||Wignall, James|
|Varley, Frank B.||Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Viant S. P.||Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)||Mr. George Spencer and Mr. A.|
|Wallhead, Richard C.||Willison, H.||Short.|
Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. G. SPENCER
I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, at the end, to insert the wordsor that the stoppage is due to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms or provisions of any agreement existing between a group of employers where the stoppage takes place, or of a national agreement, to either of which the employers and employés are contracting parties.This Amendment has been designed for the purpose of making agreements more sacred between employers and employés, so that where an agreement has been made by the two parties, whether by a group or a national agreement, and any employer is desirous to break through that agreement, it shall not become a trade dispute if he offers terms other than those insisted upon in the agreement. If this Amendment were left to the free vote of the House I should have, if not a majority voting with me, at least a very great measure of sympathy. The reason why this Amendment has been put down is because in the mining community we have just entered into a national agreement to which all the parties contracting at the time agreed. Now we have employers in Kent, in Somerset, and in the Bristol district seeking to break through that agreement. If an employer thus desirous puts up a notice stating that he is going to close down his works, and that he cannot continue working, his men get unemployment benefit; but if he throws the works open and offers terms other than those included in the agreement, no matter what those terms are, whether or not they are sufficient for maintenance, it is a trade dispute if the men refuse to accept, and they cannot get unemployment pay.
I think I have clearly stated the few facts, and I do not want to detain the House; but what we are asking for is no more than this; that when an agreement has been made with the employers, and some employer may think it operates to his advantage to seek to break through, then it shall not become a trade dispute if the men object. Hon. Members on all sides of the House who wish on a matter of this sort to work 804 honestly in regard to agreements between employers and employed will, I am sure, appreciate the point I am putting forward. I ask the Minister to accept this Amendment, because I feel if he leaves it to the House the House will accept it, and protect the workman who has entered into an agreement with the employer.
§ Mr. WHITELEY
I beg to second the Amendment.
I have an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the same point, but you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have passed it over in favour of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. G. Spencer). Might I suggest to the Minister that among the arguments for the passing of this Bill is one that where the workman can show that the employer is offering less than the current district rate that such a man would not have to be without unemployment benefit? Apart from the national side, I want to point out that in the county of Durham we have had many cases, particularly after the lamentable dispute of 1921 in the coal trade, where many collieries could not resume work, and men were receiving unemployment benefit. But because they refused such offers, benefit was stopped. This Amendment is the outcome of the experiences through which we have passed, and I appeal to the House to accept it, in order that the insured persons shall receive proper treatment in the future. Sonic of the owners, or the management of the collieries, sent word to the trade union officials, and asked them to arrange a meeting with a view to discussing whether they could not come to some kind of terms. When the meeting took place it was found that the management's offer was undercutting the district arrangement, as well as the national arrangement, and because the men at the colliery refused to accept anything which undercut their local or national agreements the management informed the Employment Exchange that they had offered the men work and consequently the men's unemployment benefit was stopped. We think that that cause of annoyance or irritation ought to be re- 805 moved from the existing Act; that the matter should be made clear in this Bill, so that if men refuse to accept other than the current rates or conditions of the local or national agreements then the unemployment benefit to these men should be continued, and that the employer should not have the power, just because he is prepared to come along and offer something else, to go to the Employment Exchange and say he has offered work and get the men's unemployment benefit stopped. Two years ago at one of our collieries we were in this position: The local manager offered conditions which were less than the conditions in the district, and were contrary to the national agreement, and the colliery of men refused. These men were stopped their unemployment benefit for nine weeks. We were put to the trouble of coming up to London, appearing before the Umpire, and spending a couple of hours arguing the situation. Eventually we proved to the Umpire that the owners were wrong and that the men were entitled to benefit. Therefore, we say that this Clause needs strengthening to prevent irritation and annoyance of that kind so that these men can receive their benefit under such circumstances.
§ Mr. MILLS
I desire to support the protest which has been made by the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment. In my own division in Kent we have this spectacle: that men have been refused unemployment benefit, and being skilled men and having been out of work for periods ranging from one to 2½ years, they are practically too poor to resist a rate of wages less than current in the district for skilled men. I have in my hand a list with names and addresses, which I could read if necessary; but we do not want a Bill passed through which is going to make conditions worse than they are. Here are cases, undoubtedly in our own divisions, where men are being absolutely victimised, not because of lack of skill, but because of political opinions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have the list, as I say, containing the names and addresses. I got it from the engineering secretary who is at the moment in the Gallery watching on behalf of the men that he represents, men from 15 to 20 years' experience, with the finest mechanics' experience in the whole of Britain, who have been turned down by 806 Messrs. Vickers. I do submit that there is real ground behind the case that has been put forward, and I hope the Minister will see his way some way or other to meet it. If we have men who, because of the slump in the engineering industry, are denied employment, there is no reason for assuming that they should be paid the wages of semi-skilled workmen because their ability has depreciated.
We have a number of men in this industry between 55 and 60 years of age and between 63 and 65, and it is asserted that they are not seeking work when the real reason is that they are debarred on the ground that they are never likely to get work again until ordinary conditions in the industry are resumed. I sent a letter to the Minister of Labour on this point, and I got the usual departmental point of view, which was that the instruction to the local rota committee is not definite enough. All these instructions are generally involved in a plethora of words, and the result is that they come to decisions which the Minister never intended. I hope the resolution which has been sent from Croydon will be dealt with in such a way that men who are likely to secure employment in normal industrial conditions shall have a definition of what that is at a time when the engineering industry is in its present state.
§ Captain BOWYER
In the statement which the hon. Member who has just sat down has made he has not made it clear whether he was talking about cases where the employers have been parties to some agreement.
§ Mr. MILLS
Quite recently it used to be different in the case of a Bristol engineer from those who were employed at Sheffield and other places. Now there are agreements specifying minimum wages and the employer, because the men have been out of work a couple of years are offered wages below the minimum rate, the contention being that they are not skilled, and this is due to unemployment.
§ 2.0 P.M.
§ Captain BOWYER
The Mover and Seconder limited their proposal clearly to places where the employers had an agreement. As far as I understood, the hon. Member was dealing with cases of men who after a certain lapse of time found 807 themselves being offered depreciated wages.
§ Captain BOWYER
I want to know whether this Amendment deals with cases where there is an agreement. The Amendment applies to a case where there is a stoppagedue to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms of provisions existing between a group of employers.I am suggesting that the Amendment requires some additional words to make it read.
§ Mr. G. SPENCER
Very often we have a national agreement covering the whole country, and then there are local agreements dealing with some other class of workman not included in the national agreement.
§ Mr. J. GUEST
I regret that the phrase "group of employers" has been introduced into this Amendment, because under that wording it is possible for the large employer to have his individual agreement and prices operating at his works amongst 2,000 men who might suffer all the injustices which the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. G. Spencer) wishes to remove.
§ Mr. SPENCER
The agreement is one between a group of employers, and if one member of that group seeks to break through the agreement then the men would be penalised.
§ Mr. J. GUEST
That is not the point. There are many agreements in the mining world with individual employers, and therefore I think it is inconvenient to insert the words "group of employers." I think the Amendment should read "employer or group of employers."
§ Mr. BETTERTON
I wish to have cleared up a point which is not very clear at the present moment. Why does the hon. Member who moved this Amendment think that the position he has visualised is not covered under the existing law?
§ Mr. SPENCER
Because the umpires have decided against us on that point. Supposing there is an agreement between a group of men belonging, say, to six pits, and the employers have agreed to terms. Afterwards one of those employers says, "I cannot carry on under this 808 agreement," and if he puts up a notice terminating the contract the men get unemployment pay, but if this particular employer offers them other terms and they refuse them, then they do not get unemployment pay.
§ Mr. SHAW
I am in doubt as to whether this proposal would work. It was moved in Committee, and defeated there. Since then I have been able to give consideration to it, and I am going to try and put one or two arguments to show that it would be extremely difficult to work the Clause, and then we may be able to come to some conclusion as to which way to vote. If this Clause were accepted, it is difficult to say whether the insurance officer and the court of referees and the umpire would not have the duty of deciding whether a stoppage of work was or was not due to an employer contravening an agreement.
It seems to me that the Clause ought to be drawn so carefully as to make it perfectly plain what it means. The idea underlying the Clause is particularly illustrated by a condition of affairs which now exists or has existed quite recently. A body of employers organised in a national association make an agreement with a body of workmen also organised in a national association. At one of the places of work of one of the Members of the National Organisation of Employers, the employer puts up a notice that he cannot carry on his work owing to the agreement. If those works close then obviously every man is genuinely out of work and will be paid unemployment benefit. But the day before the notice is due to expire the employer puts up a notice equivalent to saying to the men that if they will work below the terms agreed upon he will continue his works. The men therefore have the alternative either of blacklegging both the employers and workers in the trade or of risking the loss of their unemployment pay. In a word, the men can either be dishonourable both to the other employers or their own fellow workers in the industry, or they can suffer. That is the position as it applies at the present day. I am extremely doubtful as to what the full effect of this Amendment would be. The modification in the addition I have never seen and never been consulted upon.
§ Mr. SPENCER
May I say that it was the right hon. Gentleman himself who 809 drew my attention to this defect. He must therefore have thought about it, and it was because he approached me that I made the addition.
§ Mr. SHAW
I repeat that I have never seen these words, have never been consulted about them, and never heard of them until they were read out. That is the position of affairs. On balance, I am going to concede the demand of my hon. Friends, and I am going to let them have a free vote of the House. I will neither put the Government Whips on nor make the Government responsible for the Amendment. It can have a free vote of the House.
§ Sir K. WOOD
The right hon. Gentleman must have some responsibility in the matter. It is his Bill. I am prepared to take his advice in the matter. What is he going to advise us to do? He has to work this Bill, and I hope he is going to continue in office a few weeks longer. I would like to know what he advises the House to do.
§ Mr. REMER
I do invite the right hon. Gentleman to give us some explanation as to where we stand. I have not seen these words, and I think in regard to a Bill, which I understand cannot be amended in another place, we do want some clearer explanation than has yet been given. So far as I am concerned, I do not know whether I am or am not in favour of the Amendment, and I cannot know until I know exactly what is proposed. I think it is monstrous that words should come before us at a minute's notice, and that the Minister of Labour should come for- 810 ward and say that he is prepared either to put the Government Whips on or not just as the House of Commons pleases.
§ Mr. REMER
But certain additions have been made to that Amendment. I do not know what they are, and I object very strongly, particularly as the Bill, I understand, cannot be amended in another place and, if passed here, may mean great difficulty and litigation. The words may be loosely drawn, and we have had no legal explanation as to what they mean. I must enter my strong protest against the attitude of the Minister.
§ Mr. L. THOMPSON
I rise for the purpose of securing a little information if the Minister of Labour will be good enough to give it me. Up to a point I should say that I have some sympathy with these cases arising out of the breaking of any contract, but I am not satisfied that this Amendment in the way in which it is drawn will meet the circumstances. The statutory conditions for the receipt of benefit are given in a proviso of Section 7 of the principal Act. The proviso says:That a person shall not be deemed to have failed to fulfil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined:—It seems to me that this proviso should go the whole way.
- (a) an offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work duo to a trade dispute; or
- (b) an offer of employment in the district whore he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than these which he habitually obtained in his usual employment in that district; or which he obtained had he continued to be so employed; or
- (c) an offer of employment in any other district at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those generally observed in that district by agreement between associations of employers and of employés, or, failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in the district by good employers."
§ Mr. THOMPSON
The question arises whether an alteration to Section 8 would be enough, or whether, if this hardship exists, there should be an alteration of the proviso in paragraph (b) of Section 7 of the principal Act.
§ Mr. B. SMITH
I cannot understand the attitude of mind of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have had a good deal to do with making agreements, and the great complaint that I have always had has been that when an agreement has been made some employer will endeavour to break it.
§ Mr. SMITH
Surely there can be no difference between the two sides of the House that if an agreement is made it ought to be honoured. That is the claim that is made on this side of the House. Agreements are made that are dishonoured by employers, and, when the workpeople have gone to the Umpire under Section 7 of the principal Act they have been turned down. That is the whole case. Therefore, the previous Act does not cover the case, and we are asking that where agreements are definitely made they shall be carried out by the employers.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I have not the slightest conception what is going on, and in the statement I think I am voicing the opinion of 9 out of 10 in the House. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spencer) who moved the Amendment says that the Minister of Labour approached him to produce the Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman tells us in the politest terms possible that is quite untrue.
§ Mr. G. SPENCER
The right hon. Gentleman said that he had never seen these additional words of the Amendment. I quite agree that he has not seen them, but, when I spoke to him about the matter, he told me the defect of the Amendment, and I have put these words in to meet the difficulty.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
All I know is that the Minister of Labour states that he is going to give no guidance to the House, and that this was an Amendment that was defeated in Committee, but he personally proceeds to vote for it. Under these circumstances, I personally propose to take the only rational action any Member can take, and that is not to vote at all.
§ Mr. G. SPENCER
But I have another Amendment down. It is a very important Amendment dealing with the question of weekly payments, and I am very anxious to raise it.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
It was understood that of the two Amendments down in the name of the hon. Member, only one should be taken, and the one which has been dealt with was deemed to he of the most importance.
§ Mr. SPENCER
But we were promised in Committee by the Minister of Labour himself that he would accept this other Amendment of mine, and I think I ought to have an opportunity of moving it. It raises quite a different question, and involves a very important point.
§ Mr. SPENCER
I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, at the end, to insert the words:(3) Section five, Sub-section (1), of The Unemployment Act, 1923 (which defines the meaning of continuous period of unemployment), shall be deemed to mean either three full days' employment, or six part days or less, provided three days' work is not exceeded in any one week, and the said Section shall have effect accordingly.We are dealing this morning with an Unemployment Insurance Bill, and surely the first question we have to ask ourselves is, what exactly do we mean when we are speaking of unemployment. As the law now stands, if a man is on holiday for three days a week he can then get employment pay. The law has been changed independently on this Bill. He can get three days' holiday this week, he can then get three days' benefit, then he can go on working in next week for three days and get a further three days' unemployment pay. But there is another class of men who are working continually four or five half-days per week. They have to do that in the coal mining industry, and they go on doing it week after week and month after month, and yet can never quality for the unemployment benefit. Surely if a man can prove that over a period of six, eight or 10 weeks he has not been able to make more than two full days per week, and if this 813 Bill is to provide insurance against unemployment at all that man is entitled to get some out-of-work benefit. Yet, as the law now stands, he cannot qualify for a single payment. I do not want to make a long speech It is all right for those who do not suffer under the Bill to cry out "agreed," but the mining community is suffering. In. the past a good deal of sympathy has been expressed for it, but we want now something more than sympathy; we want the real thing. In Committee a caveat was entered against the statement that while the mining industry had paid £3,000,000 into this Insurance fund it had only drawn out £500,000. It may be suggested that this is practically our own fault, but I submit that we have a right, to equal treatment with other members of the community in regard to unemployment benefit, and it must be agreed that where a man can only get three half days' work per week, he should be entitled to some unemployment benefit. There might be difficulty in working out my proposal in regard to dockers and the men engaged in the cotton industry, but, as far as the coal industry is concerned, I think it could be easily applied. We are not here dealing with individual cases. We are dealing with a whole industry, and if the Minister cannot go the whole way with us I think he should give us an assurance that he will go as far as is consistent with proper administration.
§ Mr. EGAN
I beg to Second the Amendment.
I thoroughly agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. I particularly want to call attention to the case of the dock labourer, the transport worker and the casual ship repairer. These men are only able to get one, two or three days' work per week, but they are penalised under the administration of the law, because, although they may go on week after week, or month after month, they can never earn a full week's wage, and they can never get any assistance from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I believe the Minister of Labour has had all these cases before him and understands them. I had hoped that he was going to please the House by saying he was prepared to accept this Amendment. Without entering into the merits of the proposal or needs of the men who are 814 being penalised, I will ask him to give us an assurance this afternoon that this anomaly is going to be removed from the Statute Book.
§ Mr. SHAW
May I again respectfully call the attention of the Members of the House to the fact that this Bill has to go through another place, and that if it does not get through this House to-day its position will be endangered? If its position is really endangered and it suffers, 100,000 people will be out of benefit at the end of July, and we shall be responsible if we have talked so long that the Bill cannot be passed. What took place in the Committee on this Clause was this: I said that we could not at the Ministry of Labour devise any reasonable method of administration that would meet this particular case of short time. Various members of the Committee, imbued, as I was myself, with the idea that this was a case which ought to be dealt with, made an appeal, and I said to the Committee that I would take this Clause back, that I would accept the spirit of it, and that, if I found it possible administratively to work it, I would do it. I found it absolutely impossible. My skilled advisers advised me that it was practically impossible without tremendous expense and a tremendous amount of inquisition to attempt to work this Clause. I could not myself, although I tried, suggest any method at all as to how this Clause could be worked, and regretfully I came to the conclusion that the only way to deal with these cases is for the trades themselves to make an undertaking whereby a man, if he is required to go to work for a portion of the day, shall have something like a guarantee of a certain sum per day. That, I think, is the only way to settle the matter. I cannot accept the Clause, because we have not yet been able to devise a means of dealing with the general conditions. We cannot have a Clause that would deal with one factor only; we must have a Clause of general application; and we have failed to find a Clause that, at any rate with reasonable expense and certainty, will deal with these peculiar circumstances. Therefore I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.