BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL) (ALLOCATION OF TIME).

HC Deb 01 December 1927 vol 211 cc739-856

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin)

I beg to move: That the remainder of the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:

(1) Committee Stage.

The Committee stage shall be proceeded with on three allotted days, and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion as follows:

1. (a) The proceedings on the remainder of the Clauses of the Bill shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on the first allotted day; and
2. (b) The proceedings on new Clauses shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on the second allotted day; and
3. (c) The proceedings on the Schedules of the Bill, new Schedules, and any other business necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 7.30 p.m. on the third allotted day.

(2) Report Stage.

One allotted day shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.

(3) Third Reading.

One allotted day shall foe given to the Third Reading, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.

On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.

After this Order comes into operation, any day after the day on which this Order is passed shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day and then proceeded with, and the Bill may be put down as the first Order of the Day on any Thursday notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply.

Provided that, where an allotted day is a Friday, this Order shall have effect as if for references to 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. there were respectively substituted references to 1 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules; and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Orders relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

1. (a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
2. (b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of."

4.0 p.m.

[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Those cheers are the best testimonial to the Motion. Before I proceed to make any observations on the details of the Motion which I have to submit to the House, I wish to remind the House of the position of business and the proximity of Christmas. After this week there are three Parliamentary weeks, and, apart from the Bill which has been for some time under discussion in the House, we have the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Public Works Loans (No. 2) Bill, the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill, Supplementary Estimates for the Army, for the cost of the forces in China and for the sugar beet industry, and the consequent Consolidated Fund Bill; the Lords Amendments, whatever they may be, to the Bills proceeding; the Prayer Book Measure, the Motion regarding the appointment of additional Judges, the Motion of Censure, and, we hope very much, that there may be time for the discussion which the Liberal Opposition wish to initiate on agriculture. It is perfectly plain that at the present rate of progress in Committee on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, if these, or only a portion of these Measures are to become law and the Unemployment Insurance Bill is to become law soon, not only shall we have to sit up late every night, but we shall have to meet again in Christmas week. I invited the House earlier in the year to consider the use to which this process called the Guillotine had been put by this Government. The Unionist party have been in power in two Governments for four years. This is the second time that they are putting it in force. The Liberal Government of 1906 put it in force 33 or 34 times, an average of three or three-and-a-half times every year during which they were in power.

Mr. W. THORNE

How many times did the Labour party put it in force?

The PRIME MINISTER

I am coming to that. There were obvious reasons, which the hon. Member will, be the first to recognise, why it was rather difficult to put it into force at that time. [An HON. MEMBER: "The time is coming!"] The last time that we moved this Motion the Opposition did not debate it. This time, "I gather from the Amendment put down, they do desire to debate it, and I shall, I hope, be able to give some information to the House that will facilitate the task of the right hon. Gentleman who is moving the Amendment. The Committee has already sat for the equivalent of 7½ normal sitting, days, and they have got to the end of Clause 5, leaving nine Clauses and five Schedules yet to be debated with 95 Amendments on the Paper, and those numbers are not likely to grow less. Clause 5 has been under consideration for 29 hours, equal to four normal sittings. In all, 7½ ordinary sittings, or, if count be taken of late sittings, the equivalent of 9½ ordinary sittings have been occupied in considering the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. The Motion before the House allocates three further days for Committee, one for Report and one for Third Reading, which, together with the nine already occupied, make a total of about 14 sittings for the consideration of all stages of the Bill, and, I may say at this point, that if the Opposition think fit to let this Motion go through unopposed, they will have the whole of to-day on which to debate it.

I am always anxious to do what I can to help any party in this House. I know what a busy man the right hon. Gentleman who is going to move the Amendment is, and I think he may be glad, for the purpose of debate, to be reminded of the procedure which took place in this House under his Act of 1924. That was a Bill of 17 Clauses and 14½ pages. Our Bill is 14 Clauses and 10½ pages. [An HON. MEMBER: "This is more controversial!"] Let us see. The subjects comprised the right of persons to benefit, and the tests imposed—that was three pages longer than the present Bill—conditions as to seeking employment, a trades' dispute Clause, provision for men in the Army, Navy and Air Force, the question of trade union administration, and there was a Clause as to special schemes, and if anything be said about the complexity and difficulties of understanding this Bill, I suggest a reference to Section 3, paragraph (b). If hon. Members will look at that Bill they will find quite as many, or more, difficulties than have been raised by any portions of this Bill.

How long did that Measure take in this House? The Second Reading took one day. We have given two days. The Committee stage took 16 hours. We have already had 50 hours, and we are going to have a good many more. The Report and Third Reading occupied one day. We suggest two. That makes the total for that Bill, which descended from the blue, whereas hon. Members have had the opportunity of studying our Bill for some months—that Bill in 1924 took four days; this Bill, even under the Guillotine Resolution, will take 14, or 3½ times as long. I think it rests with the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the House what has come over the mentality of hon. Members that they should now desire 3½ times as long to debate what they were able to debate in four days three years ago.

Mr. T. SHAW

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" in line 1, to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words this House declines to assent to any limitation of debate, other than that provided by Standing Orders, in respect of a Bill which will admittedly deprive many thousands of unemployed persons of unemployment insurance benefit, in many other cases will reduce the amount of benefit now payable, and, unless its complexities are carefully considered, may inflict further hardships without the knowledge and consent of this House. When the Members of an Opposition are to be deprived of their right to discuss matters under the Standing Orders of the House there ought to be a definite case made against them to show that they have been improperly using their position as Members of the House, either wilfully to obstruct or in any other way to prevent the House getting quickly and effectively through its business. The Prime Minister has offered no word of reproach to the Members of the Opposition that they have used their position for factious opposition, that they have used their time in vain repetition or that their criticism has been either ill-founded or wide of the point, so I think we may take it for granted that if the Prime Minister could not find any of those grounds on which to base his case, it must, indeed, be a very weak one and obviously it can scarcely be expected that we, who after all, have as much respect for the traditions of this House as hon. Members opposite, who have perhaps a keener historical appreciation of the sacrifices made to win the liberties of the House, who are determined that we will not sacrifice any of those liberties—with all our love of these fine traditions of the House we are scarcely likely to consent to a Motion that asks us to give up our rights when no allegation is made against us that those rights have been improperly used.

The first argument of the Prime Minister in favour of this extraordinary Motion is that business is in a congested state. Whose fault is that? It is not the fault of the Opposition that the Bill is presented on such a date and in such a way. It is not the fault of the Opposition that the Government has managed its business—I do not want to use an offensive term—in such a way as to get itself in a hopeless mess. It is no business of the Opposition to say that because the Government has made a mess of its business the Opposition must come forward and voluntarily renounce its rights in order to help the Government out of the mess into which they have got. It would indeed be asking too much of any Parliamentary party to give up its rights in order to help its opponents, particularly in a case where the party itself feels that the Bill is one of the most dangerous that has been introduced in the sittings of this Parliament, and even the vague threat of a sitting during Christmas week leaves our withers unwrung and we must face, if need be, that regrettable necessity, and try to face it with a smile. We are told the Government will have only used the guillotine twice. It is no pleasure to the guillotined person that he is only the second man to be decapitated. Why should we hail with feelings of joy the guillotine because not many people before us have been executed by the same Government? That we can scarcely take as an argument. It may be a regrettable necessity that we should be guillotined but certainly we are not likely to be guillotined of our own free will.

Then we are told the length of time the Bill has taken in Committee. That again is not the fault of the Opposition. Think how the Bill was presented. Think of what it contains. Think of the fact that during its progress we had to have a White Paper to explain it, and that White Paper contained a mass of prophecy and very little facts. Think of the fact that all the criticism has been well founded and that the Minister has found himself in this regrettable position, that with the exception of one Member on his own side, who was more of an embarrassment than a help, he has received no assistance from any Member of his Government. As a matter of fact some of the most searching criticism of the Bill has come from the Government side. Why, under these circumstances, should we be asked to give up our rights of full discussion? Certainly there can be no justification on our side for giving them up, and there is no justification on the part of the Government to use its own embarrassment to deprive the Opposition of its right to discuss, without unnecessary obstruction, but thoroughly, everything that this Bill contains. We are told how many Amendments there are. No Member of Parliament, even the most erudite, even the most highly skilled and learned Member, can read this Bill and understand it. There is no man who, by reading the Bill, can understand what the law will be if it is carried into law. Is it any wonder that under these circumstances there are many Amendments. What I am saying is well within the knowledge of every Member of the House, and if there is any Member anywhere on any side of the House who can say honestly that by reading this Bill he or she can understand it I shall be glad to meet that paragon of all the excellencies.

Some of us have special knowledge of unemployment insurance because we have actually been in contact with its working, not that we have special knowledge and brains or anything of that kind, but we have been interested in the actual administration, and consequently have a specialised knowledge that other Members cannot be expected to have, but not one of us can read the Bill and understand it. I could not read it and pretend to understand it. I am making that open confession for the benefit of the side opposite, and they can use it in the best way they like. There is a great difference between the Bill of 1924 and this Bill. The Bill of 1924 went' through this House without even a suspicion of an attempt to introduce the Guillotine, and though the Labour party was not in a majority, if the Opposition had become factious and unreasonable there were sufficient Members at that time to apply the Guillotine had it been needed. The fact of the matter is that they let it go through comparatively without a fight because it appealed to their generous instincts, and they could not oppose it because they were convinced of the justice of it. On the other hand, this Bill contains what we and many Members on the other side consider is the grossest injustice, and one cannot wonder that it is to be discussed, has been discussed, and ought to be discussed at length. In spite of every desire to help in every possible way to do the business of the House, we cannot accept the principle of giving up our rights when we consider that no case has been made out why we should give up those rights, and I am rather surprised that the Prime Minister himself, full as he is— I am saying this in a most respectful way—of sympathy with our own traditions and of the finest sentiment for those old institutions which we are proud to call the Mother of Parliaments, should ask us to break the old traditions simply because the Government has been unable to carry out its business properly.

Let us see what we are being asked to do. The Prime Minister has told us how many Clauses there still remain to be discussed. What he proposes is that we should finish the Clauses in Committee at one sitting. Can any hon. Member opposite say with any degree of fair play that it is reasonable to ask that nine Clauses of the most vital importance, with all the Amendments to them of which the Prime Minister speaks, shall be finished in a Friday sitting? Is that really showing that respect to the Opposition to which it is entitled? Is that treating us, after all, as the equals of the gentlemen on the opposite side? The right hon. Gentleman is a very mild-mannered English gentleman. His speeches are the essence of kindness. I am told that Nietzsche was a very mild-mannered man, but his philosophy was very ruthless. But, in spite of that, when the right hon. Gentleman gets to grips, there is little difference between his action and the philosophy of Nietzsche. They are pretty much the same. But, really, we are not German soldiers on this side of the House, and the Prime Minister is not a Prussian officer. Not even if he tries to use Prussian methods in the most generous possible way can we accept the meek and mild attitude of the German soldier who is bound to respond to the orders that are given. We cannot be expected to do it.

Let us look at what has taken place on the Bill in order to consider whether the opposition to this Bill has in any way exceeded, not the hounds of the right of Parliamentary debate but even an implication of any kind that opposition has become obstruction. We are asked, to accept a Bill which, on the showing of its promoter, will, when it becomes operative, throw 56,000 poor people to the wolves. That is on the showing of the Minister himself, and this 56,000 is based on an assumption that a miracle is going to happen before the Act comes into operation. Is it any wonder that we have tried to explain what this means? Is it any wonder that we have tried to amend it in ©very possible way. Can the party opposite really blame us for insisting, so far as we are able to insist, that we must have the right, without factious opposition, of dealing thoroughly with every Clause that the Bill yet contains.

We finished by the use of the Closure at Clause 5 last night. Let us see what is contained in the other Clauses that we are asked to deal with, to amend, to discuss and to get explanations on in the course of a Friday sitting. Clause 6 makes an alteration which in the opinion of most of us will be an alteration for the worse. Clause 6 will, in our opinion, put a premium on employers who deliberately try to break through an agreement made generally in their trade. Cases have occurred already, in Lancashire, in which an employer has broken through a general agreement applying in the trade, and, if he does it again under the provisions contained in Clause 6, the people who refuse to break the agreement may find themselves deprived of unemployment benefit in consequence. Can the Prime Minister ask us to forgo our right thoroughly to discuss this question in order to get to know where we are? We come to Clause 7. There, again, there are many details that ought to be discussed. It is no fault of ours that the Bill is arranged in such a way by cross references that it is impossible thoroughly to understand it. Really, I want to call the attention, if I may, of the Prime Minister to the fact that even if the Government of 1924 did commit errors, that it is no reason why the present Government should commit errors. I never could understand the argument which says: "It does not matter whether it is right or wrong. Provided we can prove that you have done it, it is bound to be right." I never could understand the argument, and I am not going to pretend to understand it.

We have put down Amendments that ought unquestionably to be discussed. They cannot be discussed if we have to submit to the guillotine which will chop off the heads of our Amendments and give; us no opportunity of making them felt and leave them dead on the floor without a chance of giving an account of themselves. Take Clause 8. There you have a long Clause dealing with all kinds of conditions which deserve the very fullest consideration. As a matter of fact, skilfully amended, Clause 8 could be made to remove a great deal of the difficulties that will exist if the Bill, as it now stands, becomes an Act of Parliament. If we had had, on the Second Reading, an explanation of what these things meant, the Government would have been justified in saying, "We thoroughly explained our scheme. You have had the explanation, and there is no need for you to have it again. You have no right to ask for it again." I will read a few passages from the Minister's speech in introducing the Bill in order to try to show exactly how he explained the difficult and involved Clauses of this Bill. That they are difficult and involved, I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree. He begins by making a very long, and, if I may say so, a very interesting historical survey, and he tells us, among other things: You may drive out nature with a fork, but it always comes back again."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th November, 1927; col. 206, Vol. 210.] That is a very nice way, perhaps, of putting things, but it does not explain anything about the Bill. Listen to this: The Report suggested a periodic investigation into the Fund. We introduce that in Clause 3. The Committee ask for certain changes in the classification of the dependants in respect of whom the 7s. might be paid. We deal with that in Clause 4. There are the two very important recommendations as regards trade disputes. They are dealt with in Clause 6, again following the Report. There is the Clause that deals with the administration by trade unions, in which case, again, we follow the Report. In Clause 7 we abolish the power to set up special schemes, as the Report wished, and in Clause 12 we set out the transi- tional provisions based on the recommendations of the Report as to the transition from the existing scheme to the future permanent scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1927; col. 212, Vol. 210.]

Not a word of explanation of what all this means or a word of justification for it. We have been placed, as an Opposition, in a most extraordinary position. The Minister of Labour has, figuratively speaking, sat at that Box, and every time we have raised an objection he has spoken of the "Gospel according to St. Blanesburgh," and if "St. Blanesburgh" in Chapter 6, Verse 3, said a certain thing he has looked upon us with an air of injured innocence if we have complained that Chapter 6, Verse 3 was not really Holy Writ. Even when we have called attention to "St. Blanesburgh" and pointed out that there were things the "Gospel" did not contain he has looked upon us with holy horror, as if to say: "I am the Political Pope, and I am the interpreter of 'St. Blanesburgh' and you may hold your peace." That really is not the way to deal with a serious Bill, which means either the guardians or starvation. The Minister admitted in his speech that what he had been saying had not been lively, and said that when he dealt with the finance he thought it would be as dry as a diet of cracknels in the Sahara! Well, the Minister has the gift of expression. He perfectly described what he said on finance in a way that left nothing more to be said. But we cannot understand it. It may be our fault, but really it is the business of the Minister to be kind to us and to explain these things. Listen to this as an explanation of a very serious matter: On the other hand, we defer for the time being accepting the Committee's recommendations as regards reduction. If the "Gospel" does not please, we do not accept it. The 6 per cent. figure of a normal average of unemployment is being criticcised. And so it ought to be. I have taken all the extraneous expert advice I could, and I, personally, have come to the conclusion that it is at least as reasonable to take 6 per cent. for a continuing cycle as any other figure. And then another passage. If anyone were to say that it should be 5 per cent. or 7 per cent., I should say it was more likely to be 6 per cent. And then the most extraordinary passage of all: Hon. Members opposite laugh at me fox speaking thus cautiously."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1927; col. 214, Vol. 210.] He talks of a state of things that means that the live register is going to drop at least by 400,000, and then he says: Hon. Members opposite laugh at me for speaking thus cautiously. What would I give to be able to see visions like that. What a pleasure it ought to be. What a pleasure it would be, even to convince myself that in some way 400,000 of our unemployed workers were going to get work. I wish I could believe myself in that way, because it would give me much pleasure if I could. That is the way that the discussion is proceeding!

Take the financial provisions of the Bill. Surely, the time of this House would be well spent in discussing the figures and the proportions that ought to be paid for Unemployment Insurance. "But, say the Government," you must finish your Clauses to-morrow. What you may have to say may be interesting, but you must finish to-morrow." That is literally the ultimatum. Then we get the advantage of a little more time for other items of the Bill. The Schedules and the Report stage chop off another chunk without any reference at all to the necessities of the case. "That is the time we can give you, and you must be satisfied." Really, to us, that is not quite satisfactory, to say nothing stronger. I believe, with temptation, that I could have said something stronger, but I will leave the words as they stand.

I am not wasting the time of the House. I am leaving innumerable details of the Bill unmentioned, and taking an item here and there to show the necessity for a thorough discussion; a necessity which is admitted just as much by hon. Members opposite as by hon. Members on this side. I do not blame hon. Members on the Government side or hon. Members on my own side for wanting to know what the Bill means. I do not blame the Minister for not being able to explain it. No man short of a Philadelphia lawyer could explain it. This legislation by reference has got to such a point that the probability is that not more than three men in the whole country could sit down and write a fair précis of what the law in regard to unemployment insurance is today. There may be more than three, but I have in my mind three extremely capable servants of the Department who might be able to do it. I might add the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary; that makes five. I will say six men could do it; but I question whether any other man in the land could sit down with this Bill before him and tell us what the law in regard to unemployment insurance will be when the Bill becomes an Act. I am not saying this for the purpose of raising a laugh. I say it because it is the cold and frigid truth. Frankly, I have sympathised with the Minister. He has brought in a Bill by reference, and his own party have sat there helpless and could not defend him against the attacks, simply because they could not understand the Bill. With the exception of one hon. Member who has stood by him, trying to prompt him with information which he did not want, he has not been supported by hon. Members opposite.

Let us take another matter of vital importance to the unemployed person. Surely, the question of the transitional period between the present conditions and the new conditions demands careful consideration line by line and careful amendment where amendment may be necessary. Is it fair to the House, is it fair to this Parliament to ask us to take this great thing amongst a bundle of others and put it through on a Friday afternoon, obviously without consideration? No man on the Government Benches could get up and say that this thing can be properly considered under the proposals made by the Government to-day. When we have gone through the very vexed and vital principles as to the amount of benefit, we find ourselves again limited strictly to time; limited not to the necessities of the case, but to the necessities of the clock. The importance of the matter is nothing. Under this Motion of the Prime Minister the importance of the matter is like the flowers that bloom, in the spring; it has nothing to do with the case.

There is another little item which I would mention in passing, just to show what this Bill means. Somebody has thought out a brilliant scheme for putting the unemployed man on oath when an inquiry is to be held. That suggestion does require very careful consideration. Whether we like it or not, and I am speaking from the full knowledge of a man who has gone through it, the ordinary working man in this country still leaves school so imperfectly educated that a thing like an oath is to him a thing of terror. I was not one of the worst educated men who left an elementary school. I was fully up to the average of the scholars who left school, but I tell the House frankly that the thought of an oath to me as a young man, with my lack of knowledge of the world and my lack of knowledge of these things, would have been a terrible thing. To find the oath patch worked into a Bill like this is a serious matter; yet it is to go through under the Motion moved by the Prime Minister.

I do not wish to take up any time which might be available to my hon. Friends behind me or to hon. Members on the Government side who feel keenly about this matter, but I do wish finally to make an appeal. It is a very serious thing that the rights of the Opposition to full discussion should be taken away. I could understand the desire to take those rights away if it could be alleged that the bounds of ordinary discussion and the bounds of ordinary criticism had been overstepped, but in this case I assert that the criticism has been well founded, it has been well grounded, and it has been well informed. The criticism which has come from this side has been the criticism of people who have worked the Acts up to now and know what they mean. Our criticism has been criticism which has not been faced up to, now by the Minister. It is not enough for us to be confronted by the Blanesburgh Report. With all due respect to the Blanesburgh Committee, or anyone else, the responsibility in this House for a Bill which is to become an Act of Parliament is the responsibility of all Members of this House, and none of us can hide ourselves behind any Committee. We are responsible and we alone. Why should we be asked in a Bill which so vitally affects the unemployed to be content to have our rights of criticism taken away? There is just a chance of melting even the stony heart of the Government, although it takes a very high temperature to melt stone. I wish we could apply that heat to the heart of the right hon. Gentle- man and melt it. It is possible even yet by adequate discussion in Committee so to modify the provisions of the transitional Clause as to avoid the great danger which many of us see in this Bill. We cannot voluntarily give up our right of criticism.

We see in this Bill a calamity which is as certain to happen as that the sun will rise to-morrow. We see a possibility in this Bill of nearly a quarter of a million people being cast adrift to make their way as best they can. We see the danger of the distressed areas becoming more distressed. We see a picture of local authorities drifting to bankruptcy and despair. We see the loss of morale, we see deterioration and we see the degradation of the working part of our population coming in the trail of a Bill like this. Believing that these things are true, it would be a base betrayal of every ideal we have on this side to venture even to consent for a moment to the suggestion to give up voluntarily any right we have to criticise and amend and, if possible, improve the Bill now before us. I move the Amendment in the hope that the Committee will rise above party prejudices, and on the merits of the case deal with the situation.

Mr. HAYDAY

In supporting the Amendment, I wish to submit a few cogent reasons why the guillotine should not be applied to the present Measure. The Prime Minister in introducing the motion mentioned the large number of Amendments on the Order Paper. The reason why so many Amendments have been found necessary is because there never was a Bill so full of complexity or framed in such a manner as to defy real understanding of all its implications as this Bill, which breaks away from the long sequence of Bills which have become Acts of Parliament in connection with unemployment insurance. It is a Bill which introduces new principles which are likely to have a very serious effect upon the working-class population. Were it not for the tragedy behind the Bill, one might feel inclined to look with amusement upon the Prime Minister's request that we should further complicate the position by referring to Section 3 (6) of the Act of 1924. We have had so many cross references in the Bill during the Committee stage that we feel sufficiently bewildered without complicating the issue further by hunting up Sub-sections relating to an Act of Parliament not mentioned in the present Bill.

I should like to say something with respect to the magnitude of the Bill. The Bill affects—this is why I suggest the guillotine is unwarranted at this stage— 12,000,000 of insured persons. It will set up conditions under which these 12,000,000 of people shall pay contributions or receive benefits. Of the 12,000,000, it deals with about 1 ¼ millions of a very unfortunate section of the industrial population, who at the moment happen to be unemployed. It deals with their contributions, with their measure of benefit, and creates such a position as has never been previously created during the discussion of the 17 Unemployment Inusurance Acts which have preceded the present Bill. It proposes a rate of benefit for young persons in a new class from 18 to 21 years of age. That proposal in itself would warrant a whole day's discussion in order to demonstrate the reactionary sentiments that are embodied in such a proposal.

5.0 p.m.

Never in the whole history of unemployment insurance has there been such a class as that which is created by this Bill—the class between the ages of 18 and 21—with all the consequences which such a class involves. If it took all the remaining period of Parliamentary time between now and Christmas, even if we had to prolong the Parliamentary Session, in order properly to consider this proposal that would be preferable to restricting and curtailing our discussions and deliberations in any way. In introducing the Guillotine at this stage the Government have confessed their inability to deal adequately with the problem of unemployment insurance. It is also a sign of fear at the rising storm of public opinion, which seems to be increasing as the Press of the land conveys to the public the discussions and decisions on this Bill with all the implications they carry. The Government, I feel sure, must be receiving from many boards of guardians resolutions expressing a fear as to the results of this Bill, if it goes through without amendment or alteration. It will mean that many local authorities, which are now on the verge of bankruptcy, will become absolutely bankrupt, or contain within their boundaries numbers of unemployed workers, who will suffer to such an extent that any epidemic disease might well be feared in the near future owing to their weakened physical constitution and low resistance power. I believe a resolution expressing this very fear has already been received from one board of guardians. And these are the fears of local administrators, who cannot be called street corner tub-thumpers, or propagandists, attempting to arouse the feelings of the people on party lines. They are really seriously minded men and women who are fearful of the consequences of this Bill.

No hon. Member on the Government side appears to be able to understand the Bill because of its cross references. If the Prime Minister has read the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that the Chairman of Committees on one occasion said that it would have been much better if it had been a consolidating Bill rather than a Measure containing so many cross references to other Acts.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS

In fairness to the Chairman of Committees he said that his remarks would apply to all Bills; not to this particular Bill.

Mr. HAYDAY

The Chairman of Committees was quite right. With all his knowledge he found it difficult at times to follow the trend of the Debate because of the cross references in the Bill, and after the Minister of Labour, or the Parliamentary Secretary, have explained matters we have been more confused than we were before we had their explanation. The fault for the slow progress of the Bill does not lie with the Opposition; it is not due to any attempt to take up Parliamentary time. If you read the OFFICIAL REPORT you will find that much of the time has been taken by hon. Members opposite, who have urged that the proposals should be made clearer, and, therefore, I think the last thing the Prime Minister should have dome was to introduce the guillotine. The Prime Minister has said that this is the second occasion upon which it has been considered necessary to introduce the guillotine during the present Parliament. It is very significant that the two occasions on which it has been introduced have been of such a character as to impede the development of a peaceful understanding in the industrial world. The first time was on the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, and the second occasion is on another Bill affecting the industrialists of this country. On a Bill full of reactionary proposals and restrictive influences, full of added burdens to the already over-burdened industrialists, and harnessed with a proposal for the guillotine, we get a request for peace in industry. Surely this is an occasion when labour should have an opportunity of declaring in measured terms its objection to the various proposals, believing as we do that they will be most harmful and will inflict injury upon the most unfortunate of our citizens.

Involved in the subsequent Clauses of this Measure, which have yet to be discussed, is the transitional period, which is in Clause 12. That will not be discussed at all if this Motion is carried, because all the intervening Clauses must come up for discussion before Clause 12 is reached. When we get to Clause 12 we have, on the Minister of Labour's own statement, 56,000 persons whom it is intended to clear off unemployment benefit by the end of 1929, or by the 19th of April, 1930. That was the figure given in the White Paper, but, after allowing for certain eventualities and deductions, the Minister said the figure would be reduced to 30,000. That matter has never yet been fully discussed. It comes up on Clause 12, and it deserves a day for itself. I put the number who will be affected, if the principles of this Bill were applied at the moment, at 138,000; that is those who will be unable to fulfil the statutory conditions as laid down. You have the Minister's first estimate of 56,000, then his estimate of 30,000, some of his own supporters put the number at 100,000; I say the number will be 138,000.

Surely, with all this difference of opinion you ought not to introduce the guillotine on such a Clause and pass it without any explanation from the Minister and without any debate by those who question the accuracy of the figures of the Department. You might as well, as the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) has said, use the guillotine in its full physical sense. The Minister says that only 30,000 will be slung off unemployment benefit on to boards of guardians. Where these boards of guardians are bankrupt these people will be slung on to the industrial deadheap. You had far better use the guillotine in its full physical significance than say that these 30,000 are to be sacrificed without rhyme or reason because the Prime Minister of the country has made up his mind that the business of Parliament will not permit of an extra day's discussion being given so that their case might be thrashed out before they are condemned. And if that 30,000 is 138,000, as well it might be, then the crime becomes even more enormous. I am the last person to hope that the rest of the Prime Minister will be disturbed by nightmares, but when we are speaking in terms of the guillotine in its present connection let us try to think of the guillotine in its worst form and all that it means.

By its introduction to-day the Prime Minister is condemning thousands of the best of the land. He is putting thousands outside the range of human consideration; considerations of common humanity must give place to political expediency. The demand from Conservative supporters of the Government that certain Measures must be rushed through is to have precedence over the lives of men who did more towards building up Great Britain and maintaining her honour than many of those who are behind the Prime Minister to-day, and who are forcing him, because of political expediency, to sacrifice the workers of this country. I suppose the decision is irrevocable. It is forced by Cabinet considerations. It is felt that it will never do to let practical men apply themselves to a thorough search of the philosophical phrasing in this Bill. Under all the intricate and bewildering cross references and wording of this Bill there lies tragedy, and the tragedy is beginning to expose itself, with all its ugly monstrosities. The Government are afraid of it; they are afraid that the people outside are beginning to understand it. If the Prime Minister ever has conveyed to him the mutterings of his own supporters in the Lobbies, in the Corridors, in the Reading Rooms and Dining Rooms, then I am sure he would think twice before introducing the guillotine at this moment upon this particular Measure.

I have heard many remarks coming from supporters of the present Govern- ment, and I think that if they had been free to exercise their own free will and to apply their minds in a humane way in coming to decisions, during the Divisions that have taken place on this Bill they would have walked into a different Lobby from that which they entered. One need not walk about as an eavesdropper to get this information, for such Members openly state that they are disgruntled with their own Government, with the futility and the lack of ability properly to explain the Clauses of the Bill which have been shown by their own Minister. That has left them in such a state of mind that they would like to see the Bill altered in order that all the sooner we may get something like a humane instrument for dealing with the less fortunate people of the nation. It hurts very much to imagine that the introduction of this guillotine Motion might convey the impression that there has been deliberate waste of time and an attempt to impede Government business or the business of the House. There have been no such things. If this matter were under discussion for another three months we should not exhaust all the possibilities of reasoning with a view of protecting that class which, after all, we represent far more than do hon. Members opposite, for we work with those who are affected by this Bill, we are associated with them, and we belong to the same class; the suffering is in our own homes. I never care to make personal references, but I remember an occasion when I had 17 weeks of unemployment.

Major COLFOX

One for each child.

HON. MEMBERS

Withdraw, withdraw!

Mr. HAYDAY

I would not ask one with so low a level of mentality to withdraw anything. If it will give any satisfaction to the hon. and gallant Member I will tell him that one of my children, because of that period of unemployment, was born in a place little better than a hayloft. Does that give him any satisfaction? Does it give anyone any satisfaction to know that as a result of this Bill there may be thousands of children born under even worse circumstances than those, because the most elementary provisions are denied to their parents under the Clauses of this Bill. It stands ill that there should be any man in this House who could find satisfaction in such a state of affairs. We think very little of the Conservative party as a whole, but it comes ill that there should be a member of that party who can hurl such low-browed insults across the Floor of the House. Let me tell the hon. and gallant Member this: I learned during that period to have less respect for constitutionalism and law. I have not been able to appreciate and respect constitutionalism as much because of that experience. Do hon. Members opposite want thousands of men, ex-service men, to have that feeling eating its way into their hearts, not taking thought for the maintenance of constitutional procedure and feeling almost compelled to resort to unconstitutional methods. If I had my life to go through again, and if society warred against me, I would war against society, so that my children should not go short of food, whatever the consequences might be.

This guillotine Motion is moved to help a Bill which will not add to respect for constitutionalism but will create the very atmosphere that we all desire to avoid. I urge the Prime Minister to consider the proposal more seriously than he has done up to the moment. I do not want him to have troubled rest at night because of the feeling that his act to-day is not the act of a British statesman. The right hon. Gentleman's action is not the action that should be taken by a Prime Minister, unless he puts political considerations before the condition of more than 1,000,000 unemployed. It is all very well to say that between now and 1930 there will be an improvement and that unemployment will be brought down to 6 per cent. Who knows? It may be 12 per cent., as against the 9 per cent. at the moment. Of course it is possible to bring down the percentage by cutting men off the unemployment register and so misleading the people of the country.

I was hopeful that we should have more time to discuss the Bill, more time to try to bring home to the Ministry the enormity of the crime they are about to commit in carrying this Bill through in its present form. Whatever may be the financial emergency that the Government have to face, whatever may be other considerations, let us start from the only true basis which deserves consideration, and that is the helping of the lame dog over the stile, the bringing forth of humane instincts, the giving of a helping hand to those who require it in times of diversity; not the wet-nurse position but the tiding over of the difficult time of the men and women who want to do good by the nation and the race to which they are proud to belong— men and women who, if this Bill becomes an Act, will have less consideration and respect for their race and nation, for they will find themselves condemned to starvation or distress.

Major COLFOX

I look upon this Motion as a great tribute to the Opposition, because it shows that the Opposition, whose duty it is to oppose, have managed so far to delay the proceedings on a Bill of importance as to make the guillotine a necessity. But now that the Opposition have had the tribute and the compliment paid to them by the Prime Minister, I would like to make a suggestion to them. If there be any sincerity in the speeches to which we have listened —to the effect that more time is necessary for consideration of the Bill—if, in fact, the Opposition wish to amend the Bill so that in their judgment it will be a more suitable and a better Bill, let them cease this discussion on this Motion and get on with the discussion of the Bill, since the Prime Minister has said that if the Motion be disposed of early the rest of the day can be devoted to the discussion of the Bill.

Mr. THURTLE

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman forgive me intervening for a moment?

Major COLFOX

No, I will not. Every speech delivered on this Motion by the Opposition can have no real or lasting effect, but speeches delivered on the Bill may very likely have some effect in moulding the Bill into the form in which it will leave the House. Therefore, since this Motion will be carried, whatever the Opposition may say, and since discussion can be of no good to anyone, I suggest to the Opposition that they allow the Motion to go through in order that discussion of the Bill may continue.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

I wish to support the Amendment. It has been suggested to me by my colleagues that I should "go for" the individual who has just sat down, but I must honestly confess to the House that I consider him a foe-man not worthy of my foil. We view very seriously this guillotine Motion, because we who represent the workers in this House are very much interested in the Bill, and the Motion will thwart our criticism of the Bill. If it were an ordinary Government that brought forward a guillotine on a Measure of this kind it would not hurt us so much, but this Government, from the Prime Minister down, has posed and is always posing as a body of nice, kind, philanthropic, Christian gentlemen. They are bringing in a Bill which will be the most brutal Measure on the Statute Book. Moreover, they are doing it in cold blood. When they come, as they will come, before the Judgment Seat, the great Bar, when they have to give an account of their deeds done unto the people of this country, they will not be able to stand forth and say that they did not know. The Author and Finisher of the Christian faith said:

Father, forgive them, for they know-not what they do, when they were crucifying him. Members of this Government will not be able to stand forth and say that they did not know, because we from these Benches have told them. We have done our best to tell them of the hellish life lived by the working-classes of this country as a result of unemployment. They have sneered at us; the back benchers opposite have sneered at us and tried to belittle those who have risen on this side to explain their point of view to the best of their ability. My comrades here have risen and paid compliments to the other side, but the words that were spoken across the Floor a few minutes ago prove that we ought not to pay compliments to the other side at all. They do not treat the working folk of this country as human beings like themselves. The guillotine in this case is being used in order to thwart us and to prevent us from letting the country know the type of men who are ruling us at the moment. Madame Roland, who was among the first to be guillotined, said as she looked at the statue of liberty: Oh, Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name! It is the same thing here to-day. The Government usher in this Motion pretending that it is for the good of the country, but such is not the case. What is it they are trying to rush through? Take Clause 4 of the Bill and what do we find? The Minister of Labour, who comes to this House with a great record as a decent. Christian gentleman, and who stands at that Box representing the richest and most powerful Government in the world, is in Clause 4 using all that power, to what end? Is it to ameliorate the awful conditions of poverty in our country? It is not. What is being done by this powerful Government in Clause 4 of the Bill, not to Germans, not to Russians, but to Englishwomen, Scotswomen, Welshwomen and women of Northern Ireland? I ask the House to look at the proposals of Clause 4 concerning young women at the age of 18 to 21—the young women of my class. There is nothing more wonderful and nothing more beautiful in the world than a good young woman. They are far away beyond any of your wonderful works of art. Those are as ashes compared with a good woman. What is the Government proposing to do? The Government propose to offer these young women the sum of 10 shillings a week when they are unemployed, and the Government admit the possibility of tens of thousands of them being unemployed.

Clause 4 offers these young women from 18 years to 21 years eight shilling to 12 shillings per week! I ask the House to note the age. It is just at that period in life when womanhood is blossoming forth and when it is the most natural thing in the world for a young woman to desire to be as well dressed as possible and to look her very best. No women in this country, including Prineesses or Duchesses, have any better right to be well dressed than these young women who are unemployed. Here is this Government, which pays reverences to the Royal Family, &c., and who believe that they have a right to a good living, and I believe, I honestly believe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—Mr. Deputy Speaker will tell me if I am out of order. Do not think you will put me off because you cannot. You cannot put me off to-day. I will drill you before I am finished. I will get right under your skin. You are treating my class in this fashion, and this day I am going to go for you. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] There is no withdrawing for me to-day. I have taken the highest authority on this matter. I made sure this time. You, Sir, may have been right last time, but I am right now in what I have said. I was discussing Clause 4 when Members opposite at tempted to put me off—but they are not fit for that job. I say that this Clause 4 is going to condemn tens of thousands of these young women to misery and drive them on to the streets. That is some thing of which this Government ought to be proud. Why should the Prime Minister be part and parcel of an organisation which is going to force these young women on the streets? There is no other way given among men whereby these women can live. Tell me, Sir, how is it possible for a young woman, here in London, never mind in Glasgow—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)

The hon. Member is entitled, up to a certain point, to discuss the Bill, but he must not deal with it as if this were the Second Reading of the Bill. The question now before the House is the Motion for the allocation of time.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

I know that perfectly well but that is why we are so anxious that the Guillotine should not operate. I think you will agree with me that it is perfectly in order to show why the Guillotine should not operate and I am busy doing so. As I was saying, I put it to any man here—I put it to the Prime Minister: "Do you honestly believe, before God, that ten shillings a week can keep a young woman in London?" [Interruption.] I am addressing the Chair!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member must address me, but he must do so in an orderly manner and he must not refer to questions which I have told him are not in order in this discussion. He is not entitled to discuss the Bill in detail.

Mr. THURTLE

May I submit a point of Order. This Motion is intended to facilitate the passage of the Bill through all its stages. Therefore, in resisting the Motion we are, in fact, attempting to resist the Measure as a whole, and surely in doing so we are entitled to discuss the nature of the Measure.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Up to a point that is true, but hon. Members cannot develop this discussion into another Second Reading Debate on the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Is it not in order for the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to argue that the Guillotine is being applied because the Prime Minister does not want a discussion on certain points? If so, is he not then entitled to bring out the points on which, in his opinion, it is being sought to prevent discussion?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It would be quite in order for the hon. Member to use, as an argument, that the Government did not want certain points to be discussed but it does not follow that we need discuss all those points now.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Is it not in order that the hon. Member should bring out the points on which he says the Government do not want discussion?. If the hon. Member says that the avoidance of discussion on this matter relating to the young woman is one of the purposes of the Prime Minister in this Motion, is he not in order in bringing out that point and in suggesting reasons why the Government do not want it to be discussed?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

He can do so to a certain extent, but I repeat what I have said. I will not allow a Second Reading Debate on the Bill.

Mr. MACLEAN

This Motion is brought forward to stop discussion on a certain Bill and is it not the case that objectors to such a Motion should give their reasons against it? My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is giving certain reasons why the Motion ought not to be put into operation and why a free and unfettered discussion should be allowed on all the Clauses and Schedules of the Bill. I submit he is in order in giving his reasons.

Mr. STEPHEN

Is it not the case, Sir, that under your ruling the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is only precluded from making Second Reading references to these matters? He is not precluded from referring to them, as long as he does so in such a way as to show that inadequate discussion of these Clauses will lead to great hardship to the people concerned. I think that is all the hon. Member wants to do.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Exactly so, and with your consent, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will now proceed. I will leave the young women. I will leave that part of the Bill, because I think I have said as much upon it as will make the Government think. I have said as much upon it as will worry them. We were sent here not to make friends with the other side, but for the express purpose of worrying this Government out of their lives if we possibly could. That is what we are here for and not to make friends with them at all. I now come to the young men. Under Clause 4 young men are going to get 12s. per week.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is a point which I have already told the hon. Member would not be in order in this Debate, and he must not continue to deal with it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

I want to be perfectly clear with you, Mr. Deputy- Speaker. You say I am not in order because the guillotine does not affect that, but I hold a point of order there for you. We are not past the Report stage yet, and therefore the guillotine will apply to every Clause. You will agree that I got the best of you that time. As I was saying, you have the young men being offered from 10s. to 14s. a week, and just think what that means for a young man—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If the hon. Member persists in disregarding my ruling, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

I will take Clause 5, and try to accommodate you. That is the Clause dealing with the question of "genuinely seeking work." This is another Clause that affects my constituency and the trade at which I worked before I was a Member of this House. It affects shipbuilding and engineering very much, and particularly the skilled artisans. It will affect miners, because they are highly skilled men, engineers, joiners, plumbers, shipwrights, rivetters, platers, coppersmiths, blacksmiths—all the tradesmen. I take this phrase "genuinely seeking work" as a direct attack on the standard of life of the artisan section of the community. It means that if a highly skilled man is unemployed, he is sent by the employment exchange to take what is commonly called an unskilled man's job, although we, as Socialists, do not believe there is such a thing as unskilled labour; the only individuals who are unskilled are those who do not do any work, and we are not interested in them; but it means that the tradesman will be sent to what is commonly called unskilled work, and that would not be so bad, but it means that he will have to accept the unskilled man's wages, which means a reduction in his wages. If he does not accept the job, it means that he is cut off, and that is one of the worst things that could possibly happen.

Think of the dignity of labour and of the struggle. The Government do not understand what is at stake here. Think of a young man who has finished his time in the shipbuilding or the engineering trade and is now a journeyman. Probably he is the son of one of those individuals commonly called unskilled and of a mother who had a great ambition in life that her boy would be a tradesman. It was her dream that her boy would be a fitter, a turner, or a joiner. Oh, if she could only get him a tradesman —her darling, clean boy, the greatest asset any country can possibly have. When he finishes his time, what happens?

It has happened in thousands of cases in every big shipbuilding and engineering centre in this country. He is turned adrift. The word "journeyman" has been put into operation because it means that when their time is out they have to journey. It has been put into operation these last two years in a manner never seen before. They are forced to journey out on the street, and all that mother's sacrifice and all her ambitions go to the winds. Think what it costs everyone included in the community to make the young man who was specially trained into a highly skilled man, and then this dirty Government—because they are a dirty Government—will not give adequate time in order that we might discuss the pros and cons of the business.

It is all right for people with £100 a day, like the Attorney-General, to sit there, to "smile, and smile, and be a villain" all the while. But it is a different matter for the family that is being put right up against it by this Clause. In constituencies where you have factories where there is a great amount of what is, called semi-skilled labour employed—that simply means skilled labour with a cheap wage, skilled labour only getting unskilled labourers' wages—there may be alongside big works where there are skilled men, and it means that those highly skilled men, when they are unemployed, will be sent to take the place of the semi-skilled men; and we are going to get no adequate discussion of a situation such as that. Such a hypocritical, unchristian Government never held sway in this country to treat our people in that fashion. Further, it really means a scientific method, designed by subtle brains, to crush the workers of this country further down the scale of human degradation. Instead of those outstanding abilities that these men have being used as they ought to be used, as they were given to them by an all-wise and loving Father in heaven to use, namely, to defend those who are not able to defend themselves, they are using them to crush those people down further in order that some of the Government might get honour and become rich. They have sold themselves, the British Government at the moment, like Esau of old, for a mess of pottage.

There is another point that I wish to deal with before I have finished, and that is the question of the 30 stamps. When this point was under review we did roast the Minister of Labour; there is no doubt about that. Both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary were made to sit up, because it means that there will be thousands of men and women who will be cut off as a result of this provision and who will never get on to benefit again—both men and women, and ex-service men at that. It was not only our own benches that drew the Minister's attention to that fact, for from the Government's own benches the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) distinctly pointed out that this would mean that there would be thousands in his own constituency who would be cut off, and hundreds of them were ex-service men. Could anything go further than that? Yet the Guillotine is being used in order to prevent us from having adequate discussion of that question also, trying to cover it up, trying to get away with this before the country will know it. We are satisfied that when once the British people understand the part that the Government are playing, as soon as they get an opportunity, they will never send back this Government again.

6.0 p.m.

With whom are they dealing thus inhumanely? It is the unemployed, and how did they come to be unemployed? Does that question never dawn on the Tory Members of this House? Why did they become unemployed, and what section is it that is being dealt with here? It is the poor unemployed, and it is the poorest of the poor who are going to be the most heavily hit. Fancy this wonderful, powerful Government using all that great following that they possess to attack the poorest of the poor in our own country! Who are the unemployed, and why are they unemployed? They are unemployed because there is no work for them to do. Is that their fault? No. The lories say they have no right to starve, but why do they not agree with our proposal, that is, that when the workers are denied the right to work, they ought to be given full maintenance as far as this country can give it? I know what it is to be unemployed. I never was lazy. There is not a lazy inch in my body, but I know what it is to go from day to day with a wife and family dependent on me, a highly skilled man with the best of credentials and yet turned adrift. This Government says that a man of that description is only to get a mere pittance. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) drew attention to the fact that the money the Government were going to give to the young women was not enough to keep body and soul together, and the Minister of Labour said that it was never intended it should keep them. He went further. You have to remember he is a human being—he appears to be, at any rate, and it was human beings he was talking about, young women who are as good as his own daughters, and I know he has two. He said he hoped that the Government never would give an allowance that would maintain these women. Could anything be more inhuman? It appears to me that the reason this Guillotine is being put into operation is because the ruling class in Britain would treat the unemployed as they would an army of criminals. They are not criminals, these men who are going here, there and everywhere looking for a job. In the words of our national bard: See yonder poor o'erlaboured wight, Sae abject, mean and vile Who begs a brother of the earth To give him leave to toil. And see his lowly fellow-worm His poor petition spurn, Unmindful the a weeping wife And helpless offspring mourn. But he went further and put into me the spirit that is animating me to-day, when he said: If I'm designed yon lording's slave By nature's law designed, Why was an independent wish E'er planted in my mind? If not, why am I subject To his cruelty and scorn And why has man the will and power To make his fellow mourn?

Captain A. EVANS

Whenever the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) intervenes in Debates in this House, he introduces a wealth of sincerity and a knowledge of matters such as this, which the whole House respects; but after the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, it is difficult for Members on this side of the House to appreciate the sincerity of Members of the Socialist party in supporting this Amendment, because they propose to waste six hours of Parliamentary time which could be usefully employed in discussing the very difficult Clauses in which they are interested in this Bill.

Mr. STEPHEN

I would like to ask the hon. Member what he means by that?

Does he mean to say that this Debate may not influence Members on the other side to support us in getting this programme extended, and that they are absolutely impervious to reason?

Captain EVANS

The hon. Member's knowledge of Parliamentary procedure is surely enough for him to realise, whether he likes it or not, that this Amendment is going to be defeated before the night is over. Therefore, surely they would be much better advised to allow the House to get back to the Bill and discuss line by line and word by word the Clauses in which they are really interested. As one who has endeavoured modestly to support the Government in debate on this Bill, I would like to make an appeal to the Minister of Labour. There cannot be the slightest doubt in the mind of the House that the point that is worrying not only the Opposition, but hon. Friends of mine on these benches, is the one dealing with depressed areas. My hon. Friends and I feel that that is a question that should not be discussed when you are discussing a contributory insurance scheme. We believe that is a state of affairs that should be discussed apart, and introduced by the appropriate Minister. There is no doubt that that is the chief anxiety, at least in the minds of the Opposition, and I feel that if the Minister or a responsible representative pf the Government were in a position to make a pronouncement on this matter it would go far to facilitate the passage of this Bill. There is not the slightest doubt in the judgment of the Government that the gloomy picture of the industrial future which has been drawn by Members of the Opposition parties will happily not be realised, but if, for instance, in April, 1930, the industrial prospects of this country are not what we on this side of the House feel they will be, and the conditions in necessitous areas are such as to call for Government intervention, it would relieve the minds of some of us if the Government would say that, if such were the case, they would take whatever steps were necessary, through boards of guardians or other machinery, to deal with the situation. Every Member knows that whatever party is represented on the Government Front Bench it cannot afford to see men and women who are genuinely seeking work through no fault of their own—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Member appears to be discussing the Bill. We must dispose of this Motion before we can get back to the Bill.

Captain EVANS

I must apologise for not keeping within your ruling, and I apologise to the House for intervening in this Debate at all. My only reason was that if the Minister of Health will get up and say that if the conditions are not altered at such time as he thinks necessary, steps to deal with the situation will be taken, I venture to think that this Debate will be ended sooner, and the passage of the Bill will be facilitated.

Mr. THURTLE

I rise to a point of Order in regard to the range of this Debate. As I understand it now, we are discussing the Amendment which was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw). May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the terms of the Amendment, which says that the Bill will admittedly deprive many thousands of unemployed persons of unemployment insurance benefit. May I submit that on that phrase it is competent for us to discuss the effect on the unemployed? Then the Amendment goes on to say, in many other cases will reduce the amount of benefit now payable. May I submit on that, that it is competent for us to discuss the scales of benefit that will be paid Further, it says, unless its complexities are carefully considered, may inflict further hardships without the knowledge and consent of this House. Does not that general phrase enable us to discuss the whole ramifications of the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER

It enables hon. Members to emphasise the importance of these points, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) said in opening the Debate, but it certainly does not enable hon. Members to argue the pros and cons, which can only be done on the Bill itself. There is a clear line between the two things.

Miss LAWRENCE

Bearing in mind your ruling, I desire to give some reasons why we imperatively desire more time to discuss the Clauses of the Bill. We have not yet really done half the Bill, and many of the most difficult and intricate subjects lay before us. We are on the threshold of Clause 6. I will not say anything about the merits or demerits of Clause 6. I would only remind the House of the very long history which had to be gone through and the amount of Parliamentary time that had to be taken before this Section referred to in the Clause came into existence. The Prime Minister gave a sort of time table of the Act of 1924. If I followed his example and distributed that time table into subjects, we should find a very large proportion of the time, both on Second Reading and in Committee upstairs, and, above all, on the Report stage, was taken in arguing out what should be done to meet certain difficulties in trade disputes. That problem was originally believed to be insoluble. I am not dealing with the merits, but the amount of Parliamentary time needed to deal with it. In 1911, when it was discussed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) pronounced the question to be insoluble. In an analysis of some length he said that a provision of that kind might enable a trade union to call out the key-men and allow the rest of the members of the union to draw unemployment benefit. After discussing that point of view, he came to the conclusion that nothing could be done with a Clause like the Clause it is proposed to amend in Clause 6. As late as 1924 the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health said: Throughout the whole of the time this matter has been confronting the House and the country, the difficulty has proved insurmountable."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1924; col. 2397, Vol. 175.] Then a curious thing happened, a thing that does sometimes happen in Parliament. In the processes of discussion all parties came gradually together, and in the first Debate on Report we had the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley approaching the question. He did not get there all at once. In the course of that Debate, after his words in 1911 had been quoted, he said that the passage of time, and particularly the occurrence of the mouders' dispute, had caused him to direct his mind to the question again. The moulders' dispute, as will be remembered, was one in which the skilled men struck and the labourers were out of work four weary months, and in a condition of extreme poverty—all through a dispute in which not one of them had any interest, nor from which he could gain anything. After his meditation upon this subject, we bad what I call a creative speech from the right hon. Member for Spen Valley. He said: It may be—and I have been puzzled on this subject and have been much interested in it for years— it takes a great deal to puzzle that eminent gentleman— that it is not easy to devise a more satisfactory arrangement, but it is no good beginning as though the present situation was one which worked manifest justice for everyone."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July 1924; col. 2402. Vol. 175.] Then there was a good deal of the sort of conversation that happens sometimes and then the Debate was adjourned. The Debate was resumed on the 18th July, and was mainly occupied with hammering out a formula, and finally, after these two discussions, and after reflection by every person concerned for more than 20 years, the right hon. Member for Spen Valley struck out a formula. So happy was the formula that the House was nearly united upon it. There were very few dissentients. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Very few. I would like to recall the names of the few of those who agreed to that Clause. As I look down the list these are some of the names that strike me among those who voted for the Clause: Baldwin, right hon. Stanley; Betterton, Henry B. Bridgeman, right hon. William Clive"; and fraternally mixed with those names were some of our own names: Shaw, right hon. Thomas, Macdonald, R. I should think it was the only Division in the House where I could read among the Ayes the names of the Leaders of the House all fraternally voting together on one Clause. It is not very often that such lions and such lambs lie down together. After having thus decided upon an arrangement we are going to amend it in what I and other Members here regard as a violently controversial manner. I am perfectly certain that if we had time enough to talk round and round this new Clause as we talked round the original Act, it would end with the Government dropping it, because, in a matter which is so intricate and so technical, when you have once arrived at a working arrangement and harmony amongst the Members of the House everybody who has any business sense knows that it is a very bad thing to disturb it. If that arrangement is to be upset we shall need a great deal of time to consider what is being done. We may well take another 20 years before resettling the point again if we upset it.

There are many other provisions in the Bill which need a great deal of time, though I will not go through them all. Clause 8 is an exceedingly difficult one, and needs to be thoroughly explored and examined. Clause 10 though, as the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) said, a small thing, is a controversial one. Having got so far, we have done with one Insurance Bill and we begin a new one, because with Clause 12 we enter on the provision for the interim period cases. That is, in all essentials, a new Insurance Bill, to apply to the next two years. No one knows better than the Minister in charge how technical, complicated and controversial many of these proposals are. The Prime Minister spoke of the 95 Amendments that remain on the Paper. They are not frivolous Amendments. They are technical Amendments dealing with excessively difficult points, matters on which, in ordinary circumstances, we should spend eight or nine days in Committee upstairs. They are not Amendments of the kind ordinarily dealt with on the Floor of the House; they are essentially upstairs Amendments. This Bill is being considered on the Floor of the House because it involves important points of principle, and matters which the House as a whole must settle. But it also involves matters which, I say it with all respect, are hardly suitable for the House itself, many of them being so technical and complicated that they usually go upstairs. Everybody knows that when we are dealing with business of this sort, time in Committee upstairs goes much further than time on the Floor of the House.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)

indicated dissent.

Miss LAWRENCE

The Minister shakes his head, but when it comes to these details you can get at them in Committee in a way in which you cannot get at them in a great House, with hundreds of Members. How are we to do justice to the business side of this problem—I put aside the principles involved, and consider only the excessively intricate problems which Clause 6 raises, and which the Clause relating to the carryover period raises? I have a great deal of sympathy with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans). I wish we could press the Government a little more about the Clauses which ought to be in this Bill but which are not in it. Anyone can see how the feelings of hon. Members opposite are touched in this matter. Anyone who is in communication with any manufacturing district knows that the alarm and the anxiety over this Bill are not confined to the Members on this side of the House. All classes in the industrial districts look upon the Bill with nearly as much fear and as much alarm as we do.

I have spoken before of the feelings of employers. It is not to be wondered at that employers look upon this legislation with anxiety, in view of what has been said about the 56,000 cases which will be affected. In the industrial districts those who support hon. Members opposite are not thinking in terms of cases, but they are thinking of the workmen whom they have known, all their lives, perhaps, for whom they now have no work and for whom they are unlikely to have any work. There is a feeling of remorse. Employers do not like continually to refuse the requests of men who have lived by their trade and worked in their trade for so many years. They are feeling very unhappy about the business. I do not know whether I am going beyond the bounds of order, but I am not going beyond the words of our Amendment when I join with the hon. Member opposite in asking whether we cannot persuade the Government to give us some indication of what else they propose to do. Order or no Order, that is the point. If this were an Unemployment Insurance Bill to deal with the classes to which it is applicable, we could sit down and knock it into shape and come, perhaps, to as happy a conclusion as was come to in 1924. What causes alarm and bitterness is that this Bill throws out of court a great number of insured persons, and we do not know what is to become of them, because we do not know what other Measures the Government intend to bring forward. We are very much afraid they will not want to bring anything else forward.

If we had a list of Measures dealing with people who will not come under any Unemployment Insurance Bill, then we could settle down to this Bill without spending very much more time. We could send it upstairs, as the 1924 Bill was sent upstairs, and we could get on with the details of an insurance scheme. What is hanging this Bill up, and why every Clause needs debating, is that the situation is much beyond an Insurance Bill. This is not an Unemployment Insurance Bill; this is an Unemployment Dis-insurance Bill, and that is precisely why we need so much time for it, that is what causes passions to rise and makes it almost impossible for us to settle down, to a discussion of insurance details. The Prime Minister could secure a passage for this Bill much more quickly, even than under the Guillotine Resolution, if we could have from him a declaration of policy with respect to what are called the distressed areas and with regard to local burdens, and, further, as to what is to happen to the men who are cut off unemployment insurance. If he would do that, I believe we could all agree with him that the time offered was ample— if that dreadful consideration were taken off our minds. If we are to get the Bill through and to waste no more words, we ought to have a statement of policy. That is what the House asks for, and has a right to expect.

Sir JOHN SIMON

I intervene for a few moments to join in the very sincere appeal which has been made from the Opposition side of the House. Of course I have been in this House long enough to know that a controversial Bill of this kind affords scope for a very large number of Amendments, and such a Measure has often to be brought under some timetable. It is always a matter of regret when that has to be done, but it has been done by many Governments. I, for one, do not join in this appeal merely because we find ourselves on the Opposition side, and consequently are expected to denounce the time-table as a thing which is intolerable. It is always a temptation to Chief Whips to try to secure that the Government business is got through with the shortest possible consumption of Parliamentary time. I am quite aware that the majority of those who support the Government can carry this time-table in spite of any demonstration on the part of the Opposition, but no good is going to be done as a result of the Division, and I am not really interested in the demonstration.

For a long time I have had a very close association with questions affecting unemployment insurance. I have read a good deal of the Debate, and I am familiar with the main points which have been raised. I happen to be one of the Ministers chiefly responsible for the original Unemployment Insurance Act and the hon. Lady the Member for North East Ham (Miss Lawrence) has referred to the small part I took in regard to that Measure. Therefore, I can. claim to have taken a continuous and a serious interest in this subject. I want to ask, are we really going to be asked to dispose of the rest of the-Clauses of this Bill at a single sitting when the sitting in question is to be a Friday sitting of five hours? Even a full sitting would be a matter of only seven hours. I think that is a very serious proposition even for a powerful Government to put forward. I am not in a position to say whether there has been in the course of these debates anything which could be fairly described as actual obstruction. Very often a Government thinks that things are obstructive which the Opposition thinks are quite justifiable. I know that on this Measure there has been a very great deal of useful debate. I am aware, also, that some of the declarations made by the Minister of Labour and by the Parliamentary Secretary have been of real value, because those speeches have put on record the view which the Government have, and as such they are a source of satisfaction to all of us.

Nobody can say that these debates have been a waste of time from any point of view. Every hon. Member is aware that of all the questions with which a Member of Parliament has to deal in his correspondence with his constituents, to whatever party he belongs, there are no questions that involve more detailed consideration than those connected with the Unemployed Insurance Act. I have learned a great deal from listening to the debates on this subject. Therefore, of all subjects, this is the sort which the ordinary Member of Parliament feels it worth spending time to follow in order to understand the details. In this Measure you have one of the most unhappy examples of legislation by reference, and one needs to be a most accomplished master of the Statute Book and have the advantage of the explanations of everybody before he can follow it. I think one is entitled, in considering questions like these, not to an extravagant or unlimited amount of time, but at any rate to sufficient time. Here we have a proposal that in five hours we are, willy-nilly, to dispose of every Clause remaining in the Bill.

I do not say that all the questions raised in the Amendments on the Papers are equally difficult or important. But the Clause referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for North East Ham is one in which I take a special interest. I cannot believe that you can justify the possible changes, revision and alterations in that most difficult Clause about the relations between trade stoppages and unemployment insurance being disposed of between 11 o'clock on Friday and the time hon. Members go to luncheon. Take Clause 12. I am not at all certain that there may not be complete justification for amending it, but at any rate, it is right that we should do all we can to understand what it means. Looking back upon what has taken place, I cannot believe that five hours is enough to dispose of all these Clauses. Then there are the new Clauses which during the Committee stage offer every possible opportunity for putting forward misguided suggestions. No doubt many of the new Clauses will be found to be out of order. But I notice that there is a new Clause down in the name of the Minister of Labour which deals with vocational training. This is a question which affects Conservatives just as much as the Members of other parties, and we can hardly be expected to get through the discussion of an important question like that at a single sitting. I do not agree that that is a reasonable suggestion.

I willingly admit that I have not taken, from moment to moment, the part which I sometimes take in these discussions, and to that extent perhaps I am open to some criticism, but my reason is that I have had a rather heavy task to arrange for during the last few days. Nevertheless my interest is not in the least abated. I agree that you cannot abandon your whole idea of a limitation of time, and nobody expects that anybody is going to abandon that idea. I do ask the Prime Minister to take the advice of those in his service as regards the new Clauses, because I think that there should be some extension of time which will give a better opportunity of having an intelligent and reasonable discussion upon them. I may be criticised for being halfhearted and mealy-mouthed, but I would far sooner see the House of Commons putting itself to the inconvenience of sitting for another couple of days than anyone should be able to say that we have got through this Bill without a fair consideration of the complicated issues that remain to be discussed in regard to this Measure.

Mr. CLYNES

The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House has emphasised in terms which, I am sure, every part of the House will welcome, some of the points submitted earlier to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw). The right hon. Member for Preston drew special attention to the terms and nature of a number of the Clauses yet to be disposed of, and as both the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary are present, and have heard the appeal which has been addressed to the House by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), I would like to emphasise that appeal, and invite some statement, before the Debate is very much prolonged, on the question whether the House is to be called upon to dispose of the remaining Clauses of the Committee stage during one short sitting. Those of us who have had some years' experience will be ready to accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley has just stated, namely, that there must come a time in the life of almost every Government when some form of Closure is necessary for the purpose of concluding necessary business.

We are now considering the extremest form of Closure which it is possible to submit to the House of Commons, and the question we are entitled to ask is, whether that extreme form is justifiable in relation to the business which we are now considering. We answer that question in the negative. If there had been any degree of obstruction, or any sort of obstruction that could possibly be called indefensible, then some rigid form of Closure could be defended, but I doubt whether even the Minister of Labour, who has attended these Debates throughout, would assert that there has been any real obstruction from any quarter of the House. Some of these criticisms have come from hon. Members opposite representing working-class electors, and, consequently, they take almost a personal interest in this question, no doubt due to the fact that they have received many letters referring to the details of this Measure. The Prime Minister did not even imply, in the course of his rather perfunctory speech, that there had been any obstruction, but at any rate there has been nothing to justify such an extreme form of Closure as this Motion will impose upon the Opposition, should it be carried. I have listened to a good part of these Debates on the days when the Bill has been considered in Committee, and I cannot recall, in the course of a fairly long experience, speeches of a more constructive character, more definitely designed to be helpful as speeches of exposition and suggestion than those which have been delivered in the course of these discussions.

One of the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) emphasises the underlying motive which prompts us in appealing for more time to deal with the details of this Measure. My hon. Friend said that which is true, namely, that this is a matter which touches, not only human considerations, but real and deep matters affecting actual privation, conditions of privation which often make a man choose between the guardians and prison. This Measure deals with human and intimate matters which ought not to be dismissed with a statement like that which has been made by the Prime Minister, who said that shortly we shall be approaching Christmas. I suggest that if this subject is not adequately dealt with, the Christmas of a few hundred thousands of men affected by it will be a very gloomy and unsatisfying Christmas indeed. Our own tables will be heavily laden, and we shall have the usual festivities of the season to please us. We should remember that we are now dealing with the homes of the very poorest people who have suffered for years through unemployment, and in these circumstances we ought to give unusual consideration and an unusual amount of time to a Bill of this nature.

The character of the Bill, then, is our justification for demanding not less than the usual time, but much more than what would be the normal amount of time given to an ordinary Bill in this House. The Prime Minister did try to adduce some little argument by comparing this Bill with the Bill of a like name considered by the House in 1924, but there is all the difference in the world between the two. The Bill of 1924 secured an easy passage for itself through the House because of its general acceptability, because it was differently drafted; and in that case, by the way, the Committee stage of the Bill was dealt with upstairs, so that there is scarcely any point of likeness, and there is no real ground for comparison between the two Measures, although they deal with the same subject. The only other argument which I can trace in the speech of the Prime Minister, and to which I will briefly allude, was the argument that, in this remaining period of the life of this Session, there is no time to deal adequately with this matter. Who is to blame for that? Let the Government throw their mind back to the earlier months of the Session, when weeks of precious Parliamentary time were wasted by unnecessarily forcing through a Bill attacking the trade unions. I say that that was a deliberate waste of time which might well have been reserved for the much more human Measure that we are now considering.

This Bill deals with the most baffling of all our domestic problems. It is not a matter which ought in any circumstances to be dealt with in any scamped manner; it is work which should be given the fullest possible Parliamentary time; it is not work that we can sub-let to anyone else. It is true that the Bill does not deal with the problem, but it deals with an essential aspect of the relief which men must receive who are suffering acutely because the problem continues to be with us. Indeed, the figures in recent months show us that, in spite of the platform forecasts of leading Ministers of the Government, the clouds do not disappear, and every prophecy of a leading member of the Government is belied by the statistics which the Ministry of Labour must continue to publish. If anything, the condition is being hardened, and the difficulties for the masses of the workers are being increased. I would, therefore, join my appeal to that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House, and would again ask the Prime Minister, while he is here, is it really intended to compel the Opposition to get through the larger number of the Clauses of this Bill in one day of Parliamentary time, and that a short day? If that be the intention of the Government, I say that it is the worst of the Parliamentary outrages which have been committed by those who are now charged with the destinies of our country.

Mr. MACKINDER

As one who has been almost silent during the Committee stage of this Bill, I was very interested to note that at all events we have to thank the Prime Minister for one gracious act, and that is that he did not accuse us of wasting the time of the Committee, or deliberately holding up and obstructing the work of the Committee. I would like, however, to say to the Prime Minister that the reason for the introduction of this guillotine Motion is very largely the action of the Minister of Labour himself. I have sat quietly during these Debates, and if the Minister had given, us the least little bit of help, if he had offered any little concession, I should have been glad; but he has been hard, he has been adamantine, and he has not helped in the passage of this Bill. We have asked for things of very urgent importance, we have tried to discuss matters in a fair way, but even the Closure has been applied on Clauses which we considered ought to have been argued for many hours longer. I think the worst feeling I had during the whole course of the debates on this Bill was at about half-past three on Tuesday morning, when the Minister said that he never intended that the sum of eight shillings a week would be able to keep a girl between the ages of 18 and 21. I think there were more indignant Members on the other side, or almost as many, as there were on this side; but, despite the fact that only seven speeches were delivered on the question of the payment to a girl of eight shillings to keep her body and soul together and keep her virtue, the Minister got up and asked for, and got, the Closure.

I do submit to the House that that was not an adequate discussion of so important a subject, and one which so closely affects the flower of our country, our girls between the ages of 18 and 21, who are dismissed so airily by the Minister with the statement that he never intended that the sum allowed for them in unemployment pay should be able to keep them. We asked where, if eight shillings will not keep them, are they going to get the remainder? The Minister would not answer. That is one example of how inadequately the Bill has been discussed. There were Members here who wanted to raise questions of training. We wanted to show to the Minister that a boy of 16 or 17 who has gone wrong can be sent away to a school and get an exceptionally good training which would enable him to be a useful citizen in this society of ours —a training under good conditions, with good food, and his body and his mind educated, so that when he came back from the school he would be useful; but the boys between 18 and 21, the boys whom we know and for whom we fear, are left, as has been said during the Debate, to hold up the street corners, and nothing is done for them. Nothing is done to help to keep the moral of these boys, and, when we see boys who have never worked since they left school, I fear and I tremble for what is going to happen in the future.

Again, I submit that it is quite impossible to say that the question of ex-service men has had either an adequate debate or an adequate reply from the Minister. When I think of ex-service whom I know, who cannot get a job, who have but a miserable pension, who are going through torment owing to what they have done for their country, and when I think of the callous reply of the Minister that they must at least work 10 weeks and have 10 stamps as a qualification, I wonder what is going to happen to those who cannot obtain that qualification. I have in my mind a soldier whom I know very well. He lost an eye at Lady smith, but he joined up in the Great War in 1914, and served in the trenches for nine months, although he was blind in one eye. He came home, and a year after his discharge found that he had rheumatism; and, while he was being treated for rheumatism, a cancer was discovered on his tongue, and his tongue was taken out; but, because he could not prove that that was due to his army service, he got no pension. How is he going to get a job? That man is my brother. With rheumatism and cancer, how is he going to get a job? Nobody can give him a job, and he cannot get enough food into his system to enable him to work. I say seriously and sincerely that it is harsh to impose any qualification on this kind of man which will prevent him from getting relief. Who, if he cannot work, wants to go to the guardians? Why should you put our best men to the degradation of going to the guardians?

Some of us feel that, even without the Guillotine, the Clauses already passed were not adequately discussed, and that the Clauses which are to follow will be discussed even less adequately. Tomorrow, in four hours, nine Clauses are going to be disposed of. I wonder how many Members who are listening to this Debate, and who will vote for the Guillotine, will vote for, say, Clause 6. You cannot adequately discuss Clause 6 to-morrow. Section 4 of the Act of 1924 says that the disqualification shall not apply where the stoppage is due to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms or provisions of any agreement, and so on. Those words are going to be deleted by Clause 6. It may be that the Minister has an adequate reason, but I really cannot understand why those words are being taken out. At present the law is that, if a dispute takes place because of an employer contravening an agreement, the workpeople will be allowed unemployment benefit, but that is now going to be taken out, and no reason is given for doing so. The Minister has not given us any reason, and no reason is stated in the White Paper. A Clause like that requires at least half-a-dozen hours' discussion, because it is an important Clause to those in this House, and it is an important Clause to the people in the country. I submit very sincerely that, if the Government are short of time, they ought to have brought us back a little earlier in the year, instead of insisting on the three months' holiday which some of did not relish. These matters of State ought to be discussed in the House of Commons.

Then we have the Schedules. There are five Schedules to this Bill, dealing with the rate of contribution, the rate of benefit, and other matters, and we are going to discuss those five Schedules on the last day of the Debate in four hours. I submit to hon. Members opposite that, when they next meet their constituents, and are asked how they voted on this or that subject, they will know how they voted, but they will not know why they voted. I feel that the lack of assistance which the Minister has got from the other side ought to indicate to the Government that they are not doing the thing which in the opinion of their own supporters they ought to do. There is any number of cases which ought to be discussed. Many a man cannot get his benefit because he has not the 30 stamps, and he cannot get Poor Law relief owing to the instructions of the Minister of Health. What is he going to do? There is the casual ward. I wonder how many Members opposite have been unemployed, not to mention having to go to the casual ward. If there is one thing that is enough to break the heart of any man, and make him sorry he is an Englishman, it is to be unemployed, to be hungry, and then find that he has to go to the casual ward, where he gets treatment that is worse than being in prison. We find that guardians are asking people to go inside. It costs 32s. a week to keep a pauper, and 8s. is to be paid in the case of bonny girls between the ages of 18 and 21. I submit that this is not the proper way to deal with the matter, and that some of us are prepared to forego our Christmas holidays if we can only have adequate consideration of something that affects the lives and the interests of millions of people.

I do not want to make the question of unemployment a party matter; I would accept the assistance of any party or any man who would find some method of helping these people, who cannot help themselves. For God's sake, think of the man who is unemployed, with his wife and bairns. If some hon. Members opposite had had to go out and leave a piece of dry bread in the House, when they were hungry themselves, for the sake of their kiddies, they would not be so ready to closure these discussions, and would at least show a little more sympathy with the unemployed men and women, and the dependants of the unemployed men and women of this country. I ask the Prime Minister, I ask the Minister of Labour, to reconsider their decision and let us have a discussion and consideration of this Bill. For Heaven's sake, let us have some sympathy for the unemployed man or woman. The Minister of Labour has shown not a scrap of sympathy, and I do not think he understands his Bill. I ask Members on the other side to give us some sympathy in the opposition that we are trying to put up, and to let us have consideration of the Bill, let us have the sympathy and support of people inside this House, and, at all events, let us give the people whom we represent outside at least the prospect of a decent time in the New Year that is coming.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. SEXTON

I desire respectfully, but none the less vigorously, to enter my protest against such a monstrous imposition upon the liberties of the House generally as is represented by this Motion. I wish to go much further than that. The Prime Minister has spoken of the mentality of the Opposition, but what can be the mentality which accepts such a suggestion as is made here? Mentality is a question of degree. The Prime Minister's mentality lives in a particular sphere, while ours lives in an entirely different one. I have sat in this House, and I do not think I have intervened more than once or twice in the Whole of the Debate, because I was reserving myself for a special occasion which is now threatened. It is on a question which affects a body of men with whom I am closely associated. This Motion excludes me from intervening in the general Debate. I did not see during the whole of the Debate any justification whatever for the introduction of this monstrous imposition on the rights and privileges of people like myself on this side of the House. I do not want to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, but I do want to use a phrase which fits the case. He jests at scars that never felt a wound. We on this side of the House have felt the wounds for years and have borne the scars. We strongly object to more wounds being added, and having more scars to carry. If the Prime Minister would only study the Bill, he would see that one of the great causes of the waste of time—if he likes to call it a waste of time—or at any rate one of the reasons the Debates have been lengthened, is this. I will give one example. We, as laymen in the House, are expected to sit on these benches and have an Order Paper put into our hands in the morning, take a Bill from the Vote Office, and, with no other guide than the mere printed matter, to endeavour to unravel a legal scheme which is thrown at us without any explanation at all. Let me give one example. In Clause 7, Sub-section (2), are these words: (2) Section 13 of the Unemployment Insurance No. 2) Act, 1921, shall have effect as if a reference to Sub-section (1) of this Section were substituted therein for the reference to Sub-section (o) of Section twenty-two of the principal Act. In the name of commonsense and logic, how can any layman be expected to sit down on these benches and unravel that legal rigmarole which is placed before us without any explanation as to its meaning? I have seen some of my colleagues trying to do it. I, myself, have been to the Library, and I could not find books there or Acts of Parliament to interpret what that particular Section means. Yet we are expected to accept the words of the Minister of Labour when even he could not tell us what the thing meant. That is not the only one Section, or illustration in the Bill. In every Clause of the Bill, from beginning to end, there is some unnecessary rigmarole. No one can understand it and I venture to doubt whether even the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) could understand it, and everybody knows that his legal acumen is superior to anyone's.

I am very much afraid that the limits placed on the remainder of the Clauses —and on the one in which I am particularly interested, Clause 9—will not give an opportunity for me or for the Minister of Labour to deal with the matter, if I can induce him to accept the Amendment. I hope I shall be excused if I deal particularly with this phase of the situation, and if I do repeat myself, at least I will try not to do so. From the beginning of this legislation I have endeavoured to point out that the position of the casual labourer who is employed by more than one employer, sometimes by five or six during the week, is entirely different from that of the man who is employed by one employer, though perhaps not employed always. Our difficulty has been to endeavour to fix this round peg into a square hole, because this legislation was never intended for men situated as casual labourers are. For 40 years I and my colleagues have endeavoured to raise them up out of the slough of despond in which they are. Personal experience has taught us and I have sat here, and, I think I may say, with exemplary patience have listened to the sneers and gibes thrown across the House by young Members of this House who have never had any experience in the matter at all, until I have felt my blood boil. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley will come back, because I want to refer to him and the assistance he gave us during the time of our trouble. For 40 years what did we find? Chaos and confusion! You talk about genuinely seeking work. You have only to go down to the docks and see the men standing behind one another pushing one another in the back, trying to get a miserable day or half day a week.

For 40 years we have struggled and fought to bring these men nearer human civilisation in industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley will remember it. For seven months we travelled all over this country and at every seaport tried to get—and eventually did get with his assistance—some kind of legislation to protect the lives and interests of the men who were asking for it. They wanted a ready-money job, for men will work an hour to get paid at the end of the hour. We found men not looking for work once, but four and five times, day and night, even at midnight, or two o'clock in the morning. We found no organisation, but bit by bit we brought them up to this position, and with the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour to-day we have got a machinery—not quite complete or all that we would wish it to be—but at least which puts a man on a human level with his fellows in more fortunate conditions. Having done that, and got so far, we want to put the coping-stone on the edifice. What do we find? The right hon. Gentleman has issued 12 commandments on the very eve of the possibility of our success. Even Moses was satisfied with 10, but the Government, by the introduction of this Guillotine and this Bill, has broken one of the most important.

What we ask is an opportunity now to finish the job which hate taken 50 years of hard labour and personal sacrifice. We want to help the Minister of Labour. We have a machinery in Liverpool the existence of which, thanks to the assistance of good employers like Sir Alfred Booth and Mr. Laurence Holt, and my- self and my colleagues, has brought about a wonderful revolution. A man used to be paid for the half-day and had to collect his wages. We have done away with all that. Where a man used to have to travel about from Saturday morning to Sunday midday hunting his boss to collect his few coppers or shillings, the right hon. Gentleman has a machinery which he has put into our hands, and which gives the men a chance of finding the jobs. The Minister collects the wages from the employer, and pays our men over the counter in a lump sum instead of their having to travel all over the docks. Further, he takes the man's national health insurance card and, instead of the man having to take this card in the morning to one employer and, when he gets the sack at dinner time, to take it to another, the Minister of Labour keeps it for him for six months, and automatically deducts from his full week's earnings his contribution to the national health insurance. All these things he has done, but we are asking him to help us to do one more thing.

At present we are one of the most costly elements—I frankly admit that— inside unemployment insurance. We are drawing more than twice over what we are putting in, and that is because of the unfortunate eccentric nature of our employment. Other trades are paying our benefit, and we are being subsidised by more fortunate trades in the country. We frankly recognise that. We say to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not want to get outside the legislation. We want to keep in, but we want it to be uniform and we will do our best not to be any more a burden on other organised trades of the country. We say that this legislation was never intended to apply to our situation. We say it was only intended for men in constant employment. Our employment is not constant. It is intermittent. Therefore we want him to accept the principle. Under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman again we appointed a Committee known as the MacLean Committee to go into all the details of this scheme of de-casualisation and administration. What we ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to suspend judgment until the MacLean Committee makes its Report and, when it makes its Report, to reserve his right to make a scheme which will keep us within the law and enable us to control and administer the unemployed benefit of our own men. That is all we ask, and I hope you, Sir, will allow us to put this down as a new Clause so as to let the right hon. Gentleman take it into consideration and help us who have struggled for 40 long years, at great sacrifice and with some energy, to bring our poor chaps whom we have brought so far out of the land of bondage at least within sight of the promised land.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I have listened throughout the Debate to the reasons that have been given by Members of the Opposition why this Motion should not be carried. As I listened, I wondered whether they themselves have the same confidence in their statements that would appear from their outward bearing. I think there is no one on any side of the House who in his heart of hearts does not think that there has been obstruction; that is to say, a lengthening out of debate far beyond the time necessary to reach a sensible conclusion on the points at issue. If anyone doubts it, I would ask him to cast his mind back to what happened either on Clause 1 or Clause 3. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) referred to mutterings in the Lobby that he heard from Members usually sitting on this side of the House. I am not certain whether anyone ought to take mutterings in the Lobby as evidence one way or the other, but, if they are to be taken as evidence, there are many of us who can testify to mutterings, also in the Lobby, not by people on this side of the House, as to how successfully they had spun out the discussion beyond ordinary limits. I take Clause 3. It was a point so ordinary, so right, so necessary, that no one could doubt the propriety of it. The meaning of it was perfectly clear. I think it is because that was so generally admitted that there was no Amendment put down during the first days after the Bill was printed, and, yet there were hours of debate, and over that business of Clause 3 an hour and a half was consumed before we could get to a Debate of any substance whatever.

The hon. Member for West Nottingham said that he was hurt very much to imagine that there had been deliberate obstruction. The answer was given a little later by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who said, "We consider that we are here for the express purpose of worrying the life out of the Government." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

That sentiment is cheered. At any rate, it does not give the impression that hon. Members come here with a desire for conciseness in debate. At the same time, the Prime Minister has no wish to say that discussion should be burked or unduly shortened if time be really necessary. The most remarkable speech that has been made, at any rate in favour of any lengthened Debate, was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley Sir J. Simon). I certainly did not wholly agree with him about the new Clauses, but, if it be thought that for the remaining Clauses of the Bill some extension of Debate is necessary in order to allow an adequate expression of opinion for two Clauses of importance, like Clauses 6 and 12, I think we should be prepared, if the House desires, to give for the discussion of the remaining Clauses an extra half-day, in which much can be said by those who wish to keep concisely to the point. The existing time table is this. For the re mainder of the Clauses of the Bill, Friday; for new Clauses, Monday; and for the Schedules, Tuesday up to 7.30. The revised time table, if it be accepted by hon. Members opposite, would be as follows: Clauses 6 to 9 on Friday, Clauses 10 to 14 to be completed by Monday at 7.30, new Clauses from 7.30 Monday to 7.30 Tuesday, and Schedules by 10.30 on Tuesday evening. If that meets the wishes of hon. Members opposite, we are willing to give it, but no more. We consider that no more, in the light of circumstances, is either necessary or desirable, and, if hon. Members wish it, the way in which it can be obtained is that at a suitable time they should be willing, if they like under protest, to withdraw their Amendments and allow the necessary Amendment to achieve this alteration of the time table to be put down.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD

At the very outset, I wish to say we reject this compromise. It is even more offensive than the original suggestion. To ask on a Bill of this character that we shall be satisfied with three more hours than we are already getting is not meeting us in any spirit of compromise at all. We are driven to the position now that the Schedules are to be disposed of in three hours. Even with the utmost conciseness, you could not fairly discuss the Schedules in three days, because they are among the most complicated portions of the Bill. The Government can therefore take their guillotine and use it as they like. I have no fundamental objection at all to the application on the Closure on a Bill of this kind. To all Oppositions all Governments are tyrannical. That, I think, is a general rule that everyone would accept. I am not, on principle, against the guillotine. If the Government, acting with the mandate of the people behind them, are deliberately obstructed by an Opposition and determine that they are going to have their will they are entitled to do so, but that is not the case here. This is a first-class Measure. The Government had no right to introduce it in an Autumn Session at all. There was no urgency in the matter. The Government themselves are not at all sure that they will adopt the Bill this year. They have taken the precaution of extending the operation of the present Bill in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. There is no reason why they should not withdraw the Bill to-night. The point is the complexity of the Bill. The Prime Minister referred to Clauses 1 and 3 of the Act of 1924. I admit its meaning is a little obscure, but almost the whole of the present Bill is obscure. The Prime Minister quoted one instance of the obscurity of the Act of 1924. I am prepared to quote 20 from this Measure. Clause 2 reads: Nothing in this Section shall be taken to prejudice the operation of Section 15 and Section 16 of the principal Act. I imagine, if the Minister of Labour were deprived of his skilled assistance and put through a viva voce examination as to what that meant, he would be ploughed, and that would be so on many parts of the Bill. This obscure Sub-section is one of very considerable importance. It is safeguarding the right hon. Gentleman's right to alter without further legislation contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act. That point has never been mentioned in the course of the Debates on the Bill. That is because Clause 2 was passed by the operation of the Closure before we had an opportunity of dealing with it. It is unfortunate that we have never been able to consider the reactions and the possible developments of the right hon. Gentleman's administrative action on Sections 15 and 16 of the principal Act in relation, to the operation of this Bill. We do not know, and we ought to have been able to ask him, whether if all his hopes are falsified he intends to increase the contributions or not. That is a very important point, and we shall not get another opportunity of discussing it in Committee because there are so many equally important points that it is likely to be crowded out.

The Prime Minister told us that 29 hours had been devoted to the discussion of Clause 5. The right hon. Gentleman himself regarded that Clause as one on which many questions could be raised. I have tried unsuccessfully time after time to raise important financial considerations, and have always been told by the Chairman that it would be more appropriate to deal with the matter on Clause 5. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour when he found himself, on earlier Clauses, driven into an awkward corner, invoke the aid of Clause 5. These things were to be discussed on Clause 5, and when we arrived at Clause 5 we found ourselves unable to discuss all the implications of Clause 5. I take one particular point which is of very great importance. There was some discussion as to the effect of the statutory conditions relating to the receipt of benefit. It is a most complicated Clause and a good deal depends, in our view, on what is a reasonable period before a man can be driven from his normal craft into a job of another kind. The whole of the discussion, I remember, was on an early Amendment, and we never had any discussion about what was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind as to the meaning of the term "reasonable." As far as I can see, under the operation of the Guillotine, we are not likely to get a discussion.

This point is one of very considerable substance. I know that it is difficult to put definite periods of time into an Act of Parliament. You may create difficulties, but this point about a reasonable interval created a certain perturbation in the minds of hon. Members opposite, and they had Amendments down to insert a definite period, because they saw a difficulty. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman an illustration of what I mean. Sup- pose a miner happens to have been employed in a pit, and has fallen out of work. It is perfectly clear that in the coalfields to-day there is no reasonable prospect of that man, and other unemployed men, getting employment again within any short period of time, and the Insurance Officer might well say after a coalminer had been unemployed for three days, "That is a reasonable time. If you are here three months, you will never get any work. You may be here three years and you will never get any work." On that, the Insurance Officer would be perfectly justified in compelling this man to take a job in a different industry at a very short period of time.

The right hon. Gentleman dealt with one particular case, but that was the only illustration that he really made. This has created a good deal of apprehension in the minds of Members on this side of the House, and other Members of the House will bear me out when I say that this question of what is a reasonable interval was not discussed when this Clause was under discussion in Committee. And one could go on. We passed a Clause last night referring to partially disabled ex-service men, and all the information that we were given by the right hon. Gentleman was that there were between 17,000 and 18,000 of them out of work. We know nothing about them. We do not know what their past occupations were. He told us that unemployment had declined among partially disabled' ex-service men, but he did not tell us the kind of occupation to which the men had gone. I suggested that in many cases these men had gone to uninsured trades, and the right hon. Gentleman had no information either to confirm it or deny it. Here we were dealing with 17,000 to 18,000 partially disabled ex-service men and the Committee were entitled to have a sufficiently full discussion to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman all the facts relating to partially disabled ex-service men, and we never had it.

These questions refer to matters that have already passed beyond the realm of Committee discussion, and it is suggested that we have been guilty of deliberate obstruction in having devoted 29 hours to Clause 5; that we have gone beyond the due limits of discussion. Personally, I deny that, but if that be true, it is the right hon. Gentleman's own fault. Why did he not move the Closure earlier if we had passed beyond the bounds of legitimate discussion? The Chairman would certainly have granted it. If there has been any waste of time, which I deny, then part of the responsibility rests upon the right hon. Gentleman himself. He referred specially to the discussion on Clause 3, where he said there was wilful obstruction, but the question of the financial condition of the Fund and the frequency which reports on it were to be made were matters of very substantial importance in this Bill. After all, the amount of discussion on that was relatively short as compared with the importance of the subject.

We are faced with a number of new Clauses. This Bill, we have repeatedly been told, is a Bill to put unemployment insurance on a permanent basis. That is the purpose of the Bill. It ought, therefore, to be regarded as a comprehensive Measure of unemployment insurance, but as a permanent Measure it is the most incomplete Unemployment Insurance Bill that has ever been put before the House. It omits a very large number of questions of first-rate importance, and it has been necessary, therefore, to submit a number of new Clauses. Some of these new Clauses are very vital in unemployment insurance schemes, and to say that you may have half a day more to discuss them is simply playing with the problem, which is one of far greater importance than the right hon. Gentleman appears to think. Now we are left with three hours of Parliamentary time at the end of the day next Tuesday in which to discuss the Schedules to the Bill. I think that the allocation of the time is bad, but no part of it is worse than the allocation of three hours to the Schedules to the Bill. The Fourth Schedule, which deals with what are called minor Amendments, raises some points of very real substance. I am not at all sure that certain alterations of the law made in that Schedule can rightly be described as minor Amendments, and certainly some of the questions raised in the Schedule are questions of very fair-reaching importance from our point of view. I refer, for example, to the alteration which is to be made to Section 47 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, dealing with the arrangements by which Poor Law authorities and local authorities provide actual work. That raises a question which is worth three hours' discussion in itself, apart from any other question on Schedule 4, and yet for the whole of the Schedules we are to be limited to a three hours' discussion.

I say that, with the utmost brevity, with the greatest possible conciseness for which the right hon. Gentleman has asked, it is humanly impossible to discuss one tenth of Schedule 4, let alone all four Schedules in three hours of Parliamentary time. I submit that this proposal is not treating the House fairly. There are Members on the other side of the House who know perfectly well that this Bill is going to be a very serious matter for a large number of people. To say that we have had so many days and we are going to have so many more days in order that we may get it through because of a crowded Parliamentary programme leaves me cold, when I remember that in the right hon. Gentleman's own admission he is going to cast off the unemployment insurance problem 56,000 people in addition to those who are already not in receipt of unemployment benefit and are unemployed and others who are not on the register. That is a very serious action to take, and I think no time ought to be grudged the House to discuss fully the implications of a Bill of this kind. The Bill is so complicated that nobody fully realises what the implications of the provisions are when taken in relation to the various other Acts of Parliament since 1920.

The right thing to have done would have been for the Government first to have introduced a Consolidation Bill and then, next year, to have proceeded with their new legislation. They have chosen however, to bring in an unwieldy and incomprehensible mass of legislation which very few people in this country understand. The implications of the new Measure, and the remaining part of the legislation which still stands, are so far-reaching and so complicated that the House has not yet had an opportunity of appreciating the importance of those implications. That makes it all the more important that there should have been, subject, of course, to the Standing Orders of the House, unfettered discussion on the Bill. This Bill is not a Bill for which hon. Members opposite are clamouring loudly. The majority of hon. Members opposite would have preferred that the Government had left this question alone. They did not desire it. One can see what the feeling of the Government supporters is about this Bill when the real army supporting this Bill and supporting the right hon. Gentleman has consisted of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams; the hon. member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) and the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans). They have brought all their intellectual powers and all their great experience of unemployment insurance to bear to assist the Government. But, apart from these three hon. Members, there has hardly been a voice raised on the other side of the House in support of the Bill. Why? It is not that they do not regard this Bill as being a Bill of importance.

Mr. BUCHANAN

My hon. Friend says there were three hon. Gentlemen. Does he forget that last night there wa6 a very important speech made by an hon. Member for one of the Birmingham Divisions?

Mr. GREENWOOD

I apologise to the hon. Member: I had forgotten that. Even then the articulate support which has been given to this Bill in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters is small in volume as it has been small in value. I put it to hon. Members that it is because they feel that the Government ought not to have touched this question in the Autumn Session, and, secondly, that, having touched it, they have made a most awful mess of it, and their feelings are feelings of disgust. They realise, I am quite sure, that the Bill is important enough to warrant a much fuller discussion and more deliberation than it is likely to get. Every minute that has been spent on the consideration of the Bill up to the end of Clause 5 can be justified. If that be so, we are simply going to skimp the rest of the Bill in an unseemly fashion, not in the interests of the unemployed, not in the interests of unemployment insurance legislation but in the interests of the right hon. Gentleman's Christmas dinner. I received a tentative invitation last night to lunch in the House on Christmas Day, on the assumption that the House would be sitting. I should be glad to come if this Bill were under consideration, and I think that is the view of most hon. Members in Opposition.

I do suggest in all seriousness that so far from the right hon. Gentleman's new suggestion being an offer and a compromise it really increases the indignation of those who sit on this side of the House. Having landed himself in this most unfortunate position through his own act, deliberately, he ought to stay the course and give the House full opportunity of improving his Bill. We are most anxious to improve the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had accepted all our Amendments the Bill might have been through Committee by now and well on its way to the House of Lords. The Amendments have been put down in every case either for the purpose of elucidation or for the purpose of improvement. I ask any hon. Member to point to any single Amendment which is of an obstructive nature. All the Amendments have been put down either with the view of raising discussion on some of the obscurities in the Bill or with the definite intention of improving it; but we are to be left with a large number of those Amendments undiscussed or inadequately discussed.

We are to be left, even with the three extra hours, with a number of important new Clauses receiving no word of explanation. We are to be rushed through the Report stage, notwithstanding the fact that large sections of the Bill have never been discussed. This Measure is to receive the maledictions of the House on the Third Reading after another short day's debate, merely 4 1/2 hours on a Friday. That is treating the House unfairly; it is treating the Opposition unfairly and it is treating the unemployed unfairly. If the right hon. Gentleman were to take off the Whips in the Division on the Guillotine Motion and hon. Members opposite were to act honestly and in accordance with their own wishes the Guillotine Motion would never be passed, because I am sure that many hon. Members opposite feel with us that this Bill, affecting nearly 12,000,000 of people in this country any one of whom may come within its provisions, is a Measure which deserves to receive the fullest amount of Parliamentary time. We would not willingly obstruct the Bill did we not feel that we have a right in the interests of the unemployed and in the interests of the insured workers to say that a Bill of this importance intended to be the model of permanent legislation affecting them should receive unfettered discussion in this House.

Sir J. SIMON

On a point of Order. May I ask whether the suggested extension of time, however inadequate it may be, could be moved if the Amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is put to the vote, or whether on the other hand, supposing that Amendment were put to the vote and not carried, it would be possible for Amendments to be moved to extend the time?

Mr. SPEAKER

With regard to the suggestion that more time should be given to the Clauses of the Bill, that could only be done if the present Amendment were withdrawn and we go back to earlier words in the Resolution than those I have put to the House. Hon. Members could then vote against the Motion as a whole, with the Amendment in it. The suggestion made from the Government bench with regard to an extension of time cannot go further without the leave of the Opposition, who have moved their Amendment. That is the position.

Sir J. SIMON

Further to that point of order, does your ruling mean that the only opportunity of getting further time for discussing the Clauses depends upon whether the present Amendment is withdrawn?

Mr. SPEAKER

That is so as far as the Clauses of the Bill are concerned. I have promised that, if the present Amendment be disposed of in reasonable time, I will select the Amendment next on the Paper, which would give an extra three hours on the third day. That would affect the Schedules, but not the new Clauses. I think I have put the matter clearly as far as the new Clauses are concerned.

Mr. SHAW

I am in doubt as to the forms of order, but if I am allowed now to make a statement, I say here and now, after hearing the Minister of Labour, quite definitely, that we shall press our Amendment to a Division.

Mr. BUCHANAN

On a point of Order. In connection with the Government of Ireland Bill, a similar Motion allocating time was put down by the Government of the day, and moved by the Prime Minister, and an Amendment was moved on behalf of the Conservative Opposition, under the late Mr. Bonar Law, by Lord Robert Cecil. That Amendment was in terms somewhat similar to our Amendment, and I think the Speaker on that occasion allowed Amendments to be made to each part of the Motion, holding that the original Motion could be amended. I respectfully ask whether any part of the Motion cannot be amended.

Mr. SPEAKER

Not any part of it, because I preserved the first Amendment on the Paper by the way I put the Question from the Chair. I put the Question "That the words proposed to be left out, down to '7.30' in line 15, stand part of the Question."

Mr. STEPHEN

Could the difficulty not be resolved by the Question put reading simply from the word "That," and that it should not be taken as down to line 15? If an alteration could be made in the form of the Question put from the Chair, it might be that it could be simply from the word "That." On a previous occasion when a guillotine Motion was put, the Question was put from the word "That," and in that form it allowed Amendments to be made.

Mr. SPEAKER

It depends what the second Amendment on the Paper is. In the usual course I put the Question that the words of the Motion stand part down to the first Amendment, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Hayday).

Sir J. SIMON

If someone handed in an Amendment to the Prime Minister's Motion, in line 6, to omit the words "the remainder of the" and to insert after the word "Clauses," the words "six and nine," would you not consider it within your discretion to put the question on the present Amendment "That the words stand part" down to a point which would enable that manuscript Amendment afterwards to be moved?

Mr. SPEAKER

No, I could not do that. That would lead me to make a precedent for the future which I do not desire to do. The House has been for four hours debating the Question, "That the words down to '7.30,' in line 15, stand part," and therefore I cannot go back unless the present Amendment be withdrawn.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN

I wish to say something in regard to our Amendment. One hon. Member stated that he does not, in principle, object to the Guillotine. Others of us take the same attitude that we do not object in principle to the Guillotine. It all depends on the circumstances of the case. We say that if the Guillotine is proposed, it ought to be proposed in a rational and not in an irrational manner. Hon. Members opposite object to the principles of the Guillotine. On a former occasion Lord Robert Cecil, on behalf of his party, moved a Motion which said: This House declines to continue the practice of passing Procedure Resolutions to deal with the later stages of particular Bills, and calls upon the Government to lay before it proposals for settling the procedure of this House upon a permanent basis. That would appear to me to show that hon. Members opposite are now going against their own principles, in bringing forward a Guillotine Resolution. They are against the principles, and yet this is the second occasion within their most modern term of office that they have thought fit to bring forward a Guillotine Resolution.

One of the complaints which I have in connection with the Resolution is the irrational manner in which it has been proposed. Evidently, this Government has such a belief in symmetry that they proceed in accordance with their love of symmetry, quite apart from the importance of the various parts of any particular Measure. They allocate one day for this, one day for that, one day for the remaining Clauses, a day for the new Clauses, part of a day for the Schedules, part of a day for the Third Reading. That is their arithmetical method of dealing with the matter, quite apart from the substance of the proposals contained in the Measure. I am strengthened in my contention by the way in which the Prime Minister introduced the Motion. For him it was simply a question of arithmetic. If the Labour Government in 1924 introduced an Unemployment Insurance Bill and a certain number of days were taken for it and! a certain number of hours, then if the Conservative Government in 1927 introduce an Unemployment Insurance Bill it must be done in a certain number of days or hours. The Prime Minister based himself on the question of proportions in arithmetic quite apart from the substance of the Measure. There is no sense in debating in such a way. It is not a question of what has taken place in the past; it is the amount of time that will allow for adequate discussion. After this discussion had gone on for some time there came the intervention of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I am reminded] of what happened last year. In 1926 there was a great crisis, and the right hon. and learned Member made a speech which the Government felt must be answered at once. They felt that they must do something, in answer to that speech, to settle the differences between the contending parties, the miners and the mine-owners, who were engaged in a deadly struggle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made an important speech in connection with the general strike, and the Government said, "We have to do something to settle the differences between the contending forces. We must arrive at a mediating policy "; and so they passed the Eight Hours Act. That was their idea of a compromise as between the mineowners and the miners.

To-day, when we are discussing the fortunes of over 1,000,000 unemployed people, the Government say, again after a speech by the right hon. and learned Member: "Well, we shall have to agree upon a compromise. We have been impressed by what he has said. His speech is a notable one, unlike the other speeches which have been made, and we must have a compromise." Just as the Government were anxious to be reasonable last year, and added to the hours of labour in the mines, so their idea of being reasonable on this occasion is to give three more hours for discussion. I do not agree with all that has been said by hon. and right hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench. I do not think it is an insult to the Opposition. I think it is an insult to the right hon. and learned Member, whom the Government have appointed as Chairman of their Indian Commission. It is an insult to him, after the case he put forward. To my mind the Government would have treated the right hon. and learned Member more reasonably if they had said that they must stand by what the Prime Minister had said, that there was only a, limited amount of time, they wanted to get the Bill on the Statute Book, and they were sorry they could not do anything to met his request. The suggestion that three hours more discussion will really meet the case put forward by the right hon. and learned Member was simply to treat the right hon. and learned Member contemptibly. I have no objection to the Minister of Labour treating the right hon. and learned Member in that fashion. Possibly it is the due reward for the assistance which on occasions he renders to the Government. It is what one might expect from the Government; but it does not meet the situation he put forward.

Whilst this is an amending Bill, a continuation of the principle of legislation by reference—and possibly the worst example we have ever had of that kind of legislation during the three Parliaments of which I have been a Member—it involves the introduction of new principles. It is a Measure which is to put unemployment insurance upon its final basis in this country. One cannot contend that the 1924 Act was the final form of unemployment insurance. Quite obviously, it was a Measure to tide over a period, and gave the Government power at any time to waive certain parts of it until there came a time more suitable for its definite adoption. This Measure is to put employment insurance in its final form, and yet this House is to be denied the opportunities it ought to have for a full discussion of proposals so important to so many members of the working class. I do not think any hon. Member can have any sense of comfort in accepting this Guillotine Motion. The Minister of Labour said that every hon. Member in the House, even the Labour party, knows that there has been a certain amount of obstruction on this Measure. I may not be so intelligent as some hon. Members, perhaps I am not so intelligent as the Minister of Labour, although I think differently myself. I hope I am as intelligent as the Minister of Labour, even if I am not as intelligent as the Home Secretary, who is now the representative of the Government on the Front Bench. So far as we have had instances of the intelligence of the Minister of Labour, it is no great standard for anyone to set.

I have not observed, and I have sat through all the discussions on this Bill with the exception of a couple of hours, that there has been any obstruction. There has been a lot of legitimate criticism, and practically no Amendment has been discussed which hon. Members on the Government side, as well as hon. Members on the Opposition side, have not pressed the Minister to accept, or some modified form of it. Surely that is a point of great importance when dealing with the legitimacy of the action of the Government in trying to force this Bill through by means of the Guillotine. There has not been a single Amendment on which some hon. Member on the other side has not felt it necessary to plead with the Minister to try and meet the case put forward because of the interest some of his constituents have in unemployment. No one can say that the Amendments have not been well founded.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Should I be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in moving the adjournment of the Debate because the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary, who are responsible for this Measure, are not present?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

No, the hon. Member would not be in order. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) must be allowed to proceed undisturbed with his speech.

Mr. STEPHEN

I thank you, Mr. Hope, for your protection. I also appreciate the kindness of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in desiring to move the adjournment of the Debate in order to draw attention to the discourtesy of the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary—

Mr. BUCHANAN

I am surprised at the Home Secretary taking the place of the Minister of Labour.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I must ask the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to allow the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) to resume his speech without interruption.

Mr. STEPHEN

Again I take advantage of the protection you have afforded me, and will continue my argument. I was pointing out that the Amendments which have been moved to this Bill have been so well founded that they have received support in all parts of the Committee. There has been just as much pressure from hon. Members on the Conservative Benches to persuade the Government to accept them as there has been from the Opposition. On Clause 3 only one Amendment was taken, and there was a good deal of discussion on it. The Minister of Labour said it was not an important matter, and that it was only some time after the Second Beading had been carried that the Amendment to that Clause was put down. Still, that does not say that it is not an important Clause, and the Minister of Labour always had means in his power to deal with any lengthy discussion on what was evidently not a matter of importance. He had to fall back on the suggestion that there was a revolt in the ranks of the Opposition in regard to this Bill. There is not a single Member of the Opposition who is not in accord with the majority in trying to make this a far better Measure than it is at the moment. There have been mutterings on the other side, and to some extent they have found expression in the Committee. The mutterings, possibly, have taken place in the Dining Boom, but sometimes they have found expression in the Committee. The Minister of Labour has referred to a speech which has been made to-day. After trying to make full use of the allegation that there have been mutterings in the Opposition in regard to this Bill, he said, "Well, one does not want to deal with mutterings in the House." After having extracted the last ounce he could, he then tried to qualify it, and said he did not want to make anything of it. I do not want to use an unparliamentary expression in connection with that just now; I may have occasion to use it before this Bill is concluded.

Referring to a speech made to-day by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) the Minister of Labour said that it was a notable instance of the fact that the Opposition had come there with the definite intention of worrying the Government. So we are put into the position that if the Opposition worry the Government they are guilty of obstruction. If there be necessity for this guillotine Motion, it is not due to obstruction on the part of the Opposition. The instance I have given shows that, if it is due to anything, it is due to the obstruction of the mental processes of the Minister of Labour. Our worrying may be absolutely concise, pointed and definite, but it is called obstruction. The fact is that the need for this guillotine Motion has been caused by the way in which the Minister of Labour has handled the whole business from the Second Beading onward. I have here the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate on the Second Beading, and I find that the Minister, in seeking to explain the Bill, gave us a retrospect of insurance legislation, a historical resume of the subject, and then he practically read to us the Memorandum in front of the Bill. We did not get very far in the Committee stage before it was pointed out by the Chairman of Committee and others that we should not pay much attention to the Memorandum^ because it was so badly drafted.

The discussion of the Bill has taken a certain amount of time in Committee. The Minister has said, in effect, "Look how long we took over the first Clause and the first Amendment." As the Debate has gone on it has become more apparent that we have hot had nearly enough time on the first Clause. Then take Clause 5 and consider the time spent on the 30 contributions proposal. The Prime Minister has complained that we spent 29 hours on it. Yes, and after two Amendments from this side had been disposed of, hon. Members on the Government side felt that the position to be created by the Bill would cause so much discomfort and suffering to their people that they brought forward another Amendment to save the situation for the Government, but the Minister had not the sense to take the help that was offered, and we had to spend more hours in discussing the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson) and seconded by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson). Much of this 29 hours' discussion was due to the fact that there was a revolt in the Conservative party itself. To-day, evidently, the Government are not going to allow free discussion of the Bill, because Members opposite are beginning to know what the Bill means, and if the discussion goes on a few days longer, what is at present a minority in the ranks of the Government party might become a majority, and we might have a new Minister of Labour, a new Prime Minister and new men on the Treasury Bench.

As I have said, this is only the second time in the three Parliaments of which I have been a Member that I have had experience of a Guillotine Motion. I must add that in those three Parliaments I have never seen a greater exhibition of unrest, and of dislike on the part of Members supporting a Government of their own Government's policy, as is shown in connection with this Bill. With regard to the allocation of time, the Government have said "Yes, the right hon. Member for Spen Valley is right. We should give a little more time to the remaining Clauses of the Bill. We are wrong. We did not think and we did not know. We will give a little time longer. We will take half-an-hour off the time for the Schedules. We have been allowing far too long for the Schedules." Three-and-a-half hours for five Schedules, which are spread over ever so many pages! I wish hon. Members would look at the Fourth Schedule and see the alterations that are involved. The Minister of Labour in drafting the Bill did not put them under the heading of minor Amendments. They seem to me to be anything but minor Amendments, but we are to get only three hours for their discussion. That is to play fast-and-loose with the House and with free discussion. This most important part of a Measure affecting the fortunes of a million poor people is to be allowed only three hours for discussion. It is an intolerable position into which the Government has put us. The Prime Minister's capacity for addition has, obviously led him astray.

I can understand that the Minister of Labour has found it difficult to meet the arguments of people on his own Benches, not to speak of the arguments of those on this side of the House. He has been obviously in the position of one who has not understood his own Bill. He has not been able to meet the arguments of those in his own party who are interested in unemployment insurance. So he has proceeded by this method of giving one day for the remaining Clauses, one day for the New Clauses, part of a day for the Schedules, a day for the Report stage and part of a day for the Third Beading. Some attempt ought to have been made by the Government to deal with the most important part of this subject which has yet to be discussed. But this arithmetical Government must keep to the arithmetical form. It is dangerous for them to get away from arithmetic and into the world of ideas, because they seem to be destitute of ideas.

I cannot help recalling the occasions in the past when the guillotine method has been used and when hon. Members, now on the other side, have spent themselves in fury against it. When a less important Measure and a Measure affecting fewer people was under discussion they demanded and they got a certain number of days under a Guillotine Motion. Those were in the days when the present Home Secretary was ready to use bad language, when Members of his party were ready to "damn the consequences" and when one of them who is now a Noble Lord, was ready to throw a volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT at one who is now a fellow-member of his own Government. Hon. Members opposite would be grievously affronted if some of us were to follow their example. There would be the utmost indignation in their minds. I feel the utmost indignation at the action of the Government. I have seen more time devoted to a paragraph or two in the Finance Bill affecting the Income Tax payments of rich people, than is now being allowed for all the Clauses all the New Clauses and all the Schedules in connection with this Bill. The Government in this Motion is true to its faith in the fact that there is a war of classes and that their business is to protect the rich and the well-to-do and put the burden on the shoulders of the poor.

Most Members on these benches, if they have not had personal experience of unemployment, have kinship with those who have had that experience, and know what suffering it entails. It is because we know that this Measure is going to cost our people great sacrifices that we protest most vehemently against the Government's action. The Prime Minister said that when the Labour party's Unemployment Insurance Bill came before the House it came out of the blue. What was probably in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, though it was not in his mouth, was that the Measure now about to be guillotined on to the Statute Book was born in the nether regions. It has all the characteristics of Sheol or Hades or that region which goes under various names—the most easily stated of which it is not in order to pronounce in this House. I believe the policy embodied in this Motion belonge to those regions. I believe it is a Bill out of those regions which is being put on the Statute Book by the method of the Guillotine and I believe that method applied to such a Measure is a method of those regions. The Bill is being put on the Statute Book by a Government which, no doubt, came out of those regions itself and will, I believe, soon go into those regions again leaving only a wretched memory among the people of thi6 country. There are already indications. The Canterbury bells have sounded a knell—it may be a little before its time—over the Government which is imposing this intolerable Measure upon the unemployed people of this country.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Can I not move the adjournment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

No.

Mr. RILEY

The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), earlier in this discussion, said the Motion ought not to be accepted because the Bill might affect the security of 12,000,000 people. That ie a consideration sufficiently serious to warrant the most careful attention being given to the Measure, but I think the hon. Member did not state the objections as strongly as they might have been stated. This is not merely a matter affecting 12,000,000 working people, it affects the whole nation because of its reactions in regard to the burdens resting upon the community. It is not disputed, even by the Minister, that a substantial number of those who are now protected in their unemployment benefits by the existing laws will lose that protection. As to the extent of that effect, there is a good deal of difference of opinion. If I may suggest an additional reason why this Motion ought not to be carried it is that neither the Government themselves nor hon. Members in any part of the House know what the effect of the Bill will be.

There is a general uncertainty as to how far-reaching the effects of the Bill will be. The Minister of Labour ad- mitted the other day that from 56,000 to 60,000 people who are now entitled to protection would cease to be protected when this Bill became law. On the other hand, we had from the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) the other day evidence, based on an actual examination of figures taken this month in his own constituency, that so far as Sunderland was concerned the number who would be affected by the Bill and would lose their protection, upon the test case taken, amounted to no less than 56 per cent. of the total persons who were receiving unemployment benefit. I am not going to say that one could apply that high percentage to the whole country; no doubt that is not the case, but

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member should not devote time to discussing Clauses that have already been discussed.

Mr. RILEY

I am trying to suggest the seriousness of what is involved without discussing the merits of the Clauses, and I am suggesting that the reason why this Motion should not be carried is because of the serious consequences which are already anticipated and which are common ground of objection to the Bill. We have had testimony in his House that in one case as many as 56 per cent. of the people receiving benefit would be affected, and if it is not too extravagant to carry that argument to its logical conclusion, it means that, if that percentage prevailed throughout the country, we should have 500,000 people at least affected by the Bill. The right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) put the figure at 200,000, but, whatever the figure may be, it concerns a population which for years has been suffering keen deprivation, with economic conditions unbearable, and I submit that before taking any further step to accentuate that continuation of insecurity, adequate time ought to be given for the examination of the Bill.

Further, not only is this Bill admittedly going to have a very detrimental effect upon many thousands of working people, but it is also admitted that it is bound to have a detrimental effect in increasing the local burdens in all localities, because of the additional liability which will be thrown on them to provide for those deprived of benefit by this Bill. On more than one occasion I have gone to the trouble of trying to ascertain what are the burdens which are borne by localities at the pre sent time and which rest upon the trade and industry of a district, and—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I do not think that would be in order even on the Bill itself.

Mr. RILEY

I submit again, very respectfully, that I am giving a reason why this Motion should not be carried, because of its possible consequences, not only to the unemployed, but to the localities. I shall how to your ruling, but I submit that that is a sound reason against this Motion. I take it, therefore, that I am in order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

No. The hon. Member may say that large issues are raised, but he cannot debate those issues on this Motion.

Mr. RILEY

I am not debating them. I am only referring to the consequences which are likely to occur, which are not disputed, and which have been referred to over and over again. I am not discussing the merits of any particular Clause, but I am stating reasons why the House should afford adequate time, because of the seriousness of the consequences that will follow the passage of this Bill into law. I hope, for these reasons, that the Motion will be rejected.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL

I hope that what is left of the House will give some consideration to the terms of the Amendment to the Motion that has been submitted. I am not going to discuss the detailed allocation of time in the Government's proposals, but I am sure that any impartial witness of the proceedings here in the last few days would agree with us that there has been no waste of time and no obstruction, but that we have sat here discussing the Bill till the early hours of the morning with every desire to improve the Bill; and we find that we have only reached Clause 5 in a Bill of 14 or 15 Clauses. Now the Government propose to cut down the time and to curtail the possibilities of examination and of exposure, and it is very important that we should have an opportunity of exposing the Government's intentions and the shortcomings of the Bill. This Amendment protests against the limitation of the Debate in any degree, and we cannot afford to allow this Motion to pass unchallenged. I do not know if the Government are capable of offering any reply, but no attempt has yet been made to do so. The Amendment was moved three or four hours ago, and no speaker on the Government side has yet attempted to give any reply at all to the reasoned Amendment put forward from these benches. I do not know whether the Government are going to treat the House to-night with the same contempt that is implied in the Resolution. If to-night we are to divide at eleven o'clock after a Debate occupying several hours, and we find that while the great majority of the Tory supporters in this House are away, totally disregarding the matter under debate, they will come back at a stated hour to vote blindly in favour of the Resolution, that will be an even greater insult to the House than is the Motion itself.

How does the Government attempt to square their action in bringing this Bill forward with the growing extent of unemployment and the increasing alarm of the public in regard to the figures published by the Government in the last six or seven weeks. Constantly increasing numbers of people are shown to be unemployed. The regions of unemployment are sinking deeper into despondency and despair, bankruptcy is universal, individual persons and families are in the depths of despondency and misery, and yet the Government bring in a Bill under the title of an Unemployment Insurance Bill which is going to cut out from all possibility of insurance and benefit a number estimated by some at 50,000, by others at 200,000 and by others at a still greater number. What are the Government really going to do? Are they going to pass the remaining Clauses of the Bill which will determine what class of persons are going to get benefit? Even now I can imagine the possibility of this Bill being interpreted in a way that will deprive of benefit perhaps one half the persons now receiving benefit unless it is carefully examined and careful stipulations inserted. The real position of the country calls for something much more elaborate with much wider provisions than this Bill; and further opportunities of discussion would give an opportunity for the insertion of new Clauses in order to make the Bill, as near as it possibly can be made, into an Unemployment Insurance Act which will give benefit to all unemployed workmen.

We have been discussing the first five Clauses, and certain categories of un employed workpeople have been receiving the attention of the House, but Clause 6 and Clause 12 are in my opinion much more important than the whole of the first five Clauses put together. Clause 6 is of vital importance to every person connected with a trade union, and who recognises that here is a danger of men who have paid for benefit from 10 to 15 years and being deprived of it because of a technical insertion in the Bill. This Bill has been brought in to save money on the original benefits, which are to be reduced. The number of per sons qualifying for benefits is to be reduced in proportion, and we are given to understand in the White Paper that it is intended that the Government contribution to insurance shall be reduced by nearly £2,000,000 per annum. This is a very serious thing. That £2,000,000 reduction in benefit will not mean so very much to the Government; £2,000,000 of Treasury receipts each year is an in significant proportion, but £2,000,000 drawn from individuals will mean cutting out the whole of the income of perhaps 200,000 families, denying any relief at all from these sources to men who have been unemployed. The worst feature about the Bill is that the men who have been longest—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now going into the merits of the Bill.

Mr. GRENFELL

I am anxious not to go into the merits, but only to say that the merits should be properly examined. The demerits are more remarkable than any merits. There are very few merits in the Bill, because it is retrogressive legislation. I would urge the Government not to impose the weight of their majority against a minority of workmen's representatives. After all, we on this side do directly represent the working people of this country in this sense, that, wherever they have a collective voice, they consult us. We are the direct representatives of the working people, and we feel much more clearly than hon. Members on the other side can feel how much injury is going to be inflicted upon our people by the passage of this Bill. The injury is not going to be confined to individuals, but it is going to react upon local authorities. When the Government pay some attention to the reports issued by their own Departments, and when Members on the other side realise the true nature of the problem, I am sure they will not give their assistance to pass the Bill in its present form. Let the Bill be examined line by line. It makes references to more than a dozen previous Acts. Let all these references, let all the implications of the Bill be examined, and it will not be a wiste of time. This Motion to-day is a real waste of time. If the Government are really anxious, they would not have brought in a Measure which they know well enough that no party on this side of the House can accept. We protest with all sincerity against the decision to curtail discussion, and to make discussion absolutely ridiculous. The intention to pass through nine or 10 Clauses to-morrow in five hours makes debate a farce, and we protest against the lowering of Parliamentary standards and against the abuse of majority power. We protest against the injustices that will be pushed through by this means, reflecting on the people we represent.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON

The charges that have been frequently made to-night and repeated by the Minister of Labour, that our speeches have been in the nature of obstruction, are begging the question, because, after all, most of us who feel strongly about any subject tend to look upon the speeches of hon. Members on the opposite side, whatever may be our party, as very much beside the point, as very obstructive, and as failing to deal with the issues that we believe to be the main issues. As a matter of fact, we have come to the interesting point to-night when this charge that the speeches delivered against the Government's Bill are of an obstructive nature now rebounds against the supporters of the Government. I remember very well that when one of the Conservative Members, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. B. Hudson), was speaking—extremely well, I thought— on the merits of this Bill—naturally I thought it was a good speech, because it was delivered from my point of view, whereas Members opposite did not think it was a good speech—you found it necessary, acting from the Chair, to call him to order; and I observed when you did so how generally delighted Members on the other side were, probably feeling that it was purely an obstructive process, although we on this side felt that greater opportunity should have been allowed to him. I am not saying that as casting any reflection on your ruling, but rather to point out how readily people get into the habit of regarding the opposing point of view as an obstructive point of view when it suits their purpose so to do.

One reason why we ought to have had the maximum opportunity for discussing this question is because the issues have not only been under consideration in the last few days in Parliament, and in the month or two when the Blanesburgh Committee were examining them, but have been turned over and over for some two or three years, especially in the newspapers upon whose support the party opposite largely depend. For years past papers of the "Daily Mail" type have been making charges against the unemployed, saying the workers have been too much dependent upon what they have been pleased to call the "dole," until gradually the view has developed that most of the workers are not to be trusted, and in the long run will seek to get something from the State rather than to work for themselves. We knew all the time that those charges were wrong. They were based, possibly, upon one or two exceptional cases, for there always are exceptional cases, but exceptions were made an excuse for lodging a general charge against the workers which we hoped would at some time or other have been fully discussed in the House and backed up by those who made the charge. What have we found during this Debate? The Conservative Members who have made those charges, who have repeated on platforms the statements made in papers like the "Daily Mail," have sat absolutely quiet throughout this Debate. Even when they have spoken they have made no attempt to withdraw the charges. Certain hon. Members opposite, who now begin to realise the facts as we realise them, have been found playing their part in objecting to the proceedings of the Government, but the Conservatives who are most to blame for the introduction of this legislation and for the appointment of the Blanesburgh Committee have never said a word throughout the proceedings. They have shown a cowardly attitude, and on that account, too, I think the Government ought to give more opportunity for those of us who do know the facts to try to force those gentlemen to back up the charges they have made and to produce some sort of effective evidence, if they can do so.

We Labour Members, especially those who for years have taken part in the actual administration of unemployment benefit and have been constantly confronting these problems, have made speeches during this Debate which, in my humble opinion, have been better than almost any speeches made on these benches or on any benches for many months past. We know the truth of what we are putting forward. When I speak on this issue I have in mind the facts which are brought to me every third week when I go down to my constituency to hear the complaints of unemployed folk who have been driven off the registers or are being neglected by the Employment Exchange. There are people who have been driven stage by stage towards starvation. It is difficult to make a bad speech, it is difficult to waste time, when one knows what are the actual conditions amongst the people on whose behalf we are speaking. I have listened practically to every speech which the Minister of Labour has made while he has occupied that office, and I have felt every one of them to be an absolute waste of time in view of the situation confronting the country, and for him to suggest now that we are wasting time in bringing forward this issue is a charge which is quite intolerable.

9.0 p.m.

What is happening at this moment is this. Hon. Members opposite have discovered that the voice of the poor, who have been driven off the registers and who will be neglected when this Measure is running its course, is now reinforced by the voice of property. Property is realising that the burdens upon it will be very much increased by this legislation. Property is at last speaking in the ears of the Conservative Members, and I think greater opportunities ought to have been given to them to say what they know, which is that this legislation will place upon the community burdens which will react not only against the poor but against all other classes in the community. One of my hon. Friends has just reminded me that at the present moment the burden upon the rates of this country represented by Poor Law relief and other local activities is equivalent to Is. in the £ on all the wealth that the community annually produces — rather more than Is. in the £.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think the hon. Member is getting a little wide of the Amendment.

Mr. HUDSON

I respectfully submit that if it can be shown that a burden which is already intolerable will be greatly increased by this legislation, I ought to be allowed to claim that more time should be allowed us in which to emphasise that point. If hon. Members opposite have read the letters sent to them they will know that they, in common with us, have had communications from boards of guardians uttering warnings against the likely increase—the certain increase as they see it—of the rates if this legislation is passed. I have in mind a very powerful memorial from the Birmingham Board of Guardians—not a Labour board of guardians.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It is quite in order to say that this raises the whole question of local burdens, but we cannot go into details of what those burdens may be.

Mr. HUDSON

I must, of course, at once bow to your Ruling, but I was trying to show to you personally that I had good grounds for asking for more time for the consideration of this problem, as I felt that perhaps you, as well as hon. Members opposite, did not fully realise the nature of the demands being made by this board of guardians, that board of guardians and tie other board of guardians. I thought I had very good grounds for developing that argument, although I see I am mistaken; therefore I will leave that matter and pass on.

We are more concerned about the humanitarian claims that are constantly put to us as the result of the conditions into which the poor people are driven than the claims of property. At the present moment unemployment, perhaps more than any other factor, and even more than the brutality of the capitalist class, has helped to drive down the wages of the workers. I believe that the continuance of the hard lot of the unemployed will lead in its turn to driving the wages of the workers still lower. We are not now considering merely the one million or the million and a quarter who are unemployed; we are not considering even the 56,000 people referred to by the Minister of Labour as being driven off the insurance fund on to the local rates, but we are considering processes, as the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) so well showed last night, which, in the long run will lead to the breaking down of the health of the wage-earners of this land. We feel that the Government have definitely set out with a design to produce, those results. We know what was the attitude of the Government during the coal dispute. We believe that the Government, as was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, made themselves a sub-committee of that particular section of the capitalist class, and in their legislation regarding the unemployed the Government are still a sub-committee of the capitalist class. They are still working for the reduction of the wages of the worker, and we claim that more time ought to Eave been given to us to assail the fundamentals of the Government policy. I still hope that some further consideration will be given to our appeal for longer time to discuss this Bill.

Mr. JOHN

I have listened with interest to those who have spoken against the Motion put forward by the Government. We can understand on certain occasions the Government taking the extreme measures in order to facilitate the business of the House. There are occasions when the Government find that the opposition are obstructing, and then they are forced for want of time to introduce the Guillotine. I do not believe that any representative of the Government, neither the Minister of Labour nor the Parliamentary Secretary, nor anybody else, on this occasion can complain that there has been any obstruction from this side of the House. I do not think it can be argued that any of the Amendments on the Order Paper are frivolous or unnecessary, and every one of them has a close relation to the Bill under discussion. Under these circumstances, we must come to the conclusion that the real purpose of the Government in introducing this Motion is to burke discussion upon the very important Measure which is now before the House. The intention is to prevent hon. Members discussing the pros and cons of the Measure introduced by the Government, and to curtail and limit the amount of time for discussing the nine remaining Clauses.

The Government themselves have appointed a Committee to go into this question which has taken 12 months to consider the pros and cons of this problem and to advise ways and means to lay down a basis that is going to meet the perplexities of this problem. The real purpose of this Bill is to lay down some permanent basis upon which to meet the difficulties of the unemployment problem. This Measure is to have a certain permanency in its character, and will deal with the unemployment question for a considerable number of years, but nevertheless it is to be rushed through the House of Commons in the course of two or three days. Surely this question is of sufficient importance to warrant much more time being given for its discussion than that which is going to be allotted to it by the Government under this Motion. Some of the Clauses have been discussed already, but the remainder of the Clauses are of great importance. Is the work of the Blanes-burgh Committee and the calling of evidence to be counted for naught? Is all the money that has been expended by that Committee not to be considered at all, or is it a question that the recommendations of the Committee are such that this House has to pass legislation without discussion simply upon the recommendations of a certain Committee?

The worst recommendations of that Committee have been selected and inserted in the Bill. Take the transitional provisions which are incorporated in Clause 12. They mean that a large number of workpeople or unemployed will be prevented from coming upon the insurance fund for benefit purposes. They also mean that a large number who are at present receiving benefit when this Bill passes will be prevented from receiv- ing that benefit. Let me take as an example the case of the miners. This Bill is to be passed presumably on the ground that the percentage of unemployed will be reduced by the year 1930 to about 6 per cent. The people who believe that are very optimistic. Take, for example, the case of South Wales. You have three counties there where the percentage of unemployment is 28 per cent., 26 per cent., and 27 per cent. There is one county which has 71 per cent. Does the Minister of Labour really believe that in the course of the next three or four years those percentages are going to be reduced to 6 per cent.? Does he believe that the 28 per cent. in Glamorganshire is going to be reduced to 6 per cent.? If he does then he is very optimistic.

What is the position in the mining areas? You have large areas and whole villages of unemployed men. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament you have to face the fact that these men have been unemployed for the last 18 months. In the Rhondda Valley there has been an average of 8,000 men unemployed for over two years, and when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, through its operation in the Rhondda Valley alone 8,000 men will be prevented from receiving benefit. They cannot go to the board of guardians, because the boards of guardians are carrying out the Merthyr judgment, and refuse to give relief.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is not in order; it is really quite outside the scope of the Motion.

Miss WILKINSON

Before the hon. Member resumes, may I call attention to the fact that the temperature in this part of the House—I mean the physical temperature—is getting very low indeed? Is it possible for it to be increased?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It shall be seen to.

Mr. J. JONES

Let me speak; it will be warmed up then.

Mr. JOHN

My purpose was to point out the effects of the Bill upon certain areas, but, as that would appear to be outside the scope of this Motion, I should like to point out the absolute necessity for a longer time in which to discuss this Bill. In the first place, there is the differ- ence between certain Members of the House and the Minister of Labour with regard to the number of those who will be disentitled to receive benefit under the Bill. The Minister of Labour says that the number will be 56,000, and that in the course of three years that will be reduced to about 30,000. Members of the Conservative party, who have analysed the figures and have had expert evidence on this question, say that the number will be 100,000; and Members on this side of the House, who are equally well versed in the insurance question, say it is going to be 130,000. The very fact of there being that difference of opinion in regard to the number of people who are going to suffer in consequence of the introduction of this Bill, is sufficient to demonstrate the necessity for a longer time for the discussion of this important matter.

Again, the Minister of Labour said that, if it should be found that this Bill, after it had become an Act, would inflict greater hardship than was anticipated, the Minister of Labour would be prepared to consider those cases as the occasion arose and as the circumstances demanded. That in itself is an indication that the Minister has not fully realised the consequences of his own Bill. If he had, he would have taken cognisance of all these facts, he would have taken into consideration all the effects of the Bill and its real scope, and, in attempting to lay down a permanent Measure, he would have satisfied himself that that permanent Measure was going to meet all the conditions that could possibly arise. Instead of that, the Minister himself is doubtful as to whether this Bill is going to meet the eventualities of the future and cover all the circumstances that may arise, and he suggested the other night that, should it be found that the Act would not meet all the circumstances, it might possibly be incumbent upon him to discuss some other Measure or introduce some other suggestion. That demonstrates very clearly that the Minister of Labour himself had not fully considered this Bill before it was introduced, and it naturally follows that, in order to discuss all the pros and cons, in order to discuss all the effects of the Bill, not only during the coming year but in the future—because it is laid down as a fundamental basis to meet the problem of unemployment in the future—this House should devote much more time to-the discussion of this question.

The last time the Government asked for the introduction of the Guillotine was in the case of the Anti-Trade Union Bill. They introduced the Guillotine then because they were short of time, in order that they might make as much haste as possible to reach this Unemployment Insurance Bill. Possibly the objective that they have at the present time, in introducing the Guillotine, is to get rid of this Bill in order that they may reach the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill. Every time they introduce the Guillotine, it is upon Measures that are going to crush the working class lower. The Anti-Trade Union Bill took away the political liberty of the working class, and the Guillotine is again being introduced in order to weaken the economic condition of the unemployed. Therefore, this question is of sufficient importance to-cause us to press the Government to reconsider their Motion, and to give as much time for the discussion of the Bill as the importance of the question warrants.

Mr. J. JONES

Listening to the various speeches that have been delivered in this Debate, one is almost compelled to remark on the beggarly array of empty benches on the side of those who pretend to be the governors of this country. Here we have a Bill which goes right down into the homes of the people, which affects the lives, not merely of men, but of women and children; and, while we are discussing it and trying to get down to bedrock facts and conditions, we discover that nearly all those who are supposed to be in authority are conspicuous by their absence. This reasoned Amendment of ours raises the whole issue of the Bill, and I think it is not a tribute to the intelligence or the political honesty of the party opposite that their benches should so so deserted, particularly by those who are principally responsible. Moreover, there is not present a single representative of the great party that is going to be the dominating factor in the future; they have all gone, I suppose, to search where the funds are going to, and who is going to be in eventual control; and they have to depend, for giving them at least some semblance of respectability, on the presence on their benches, of one of our own Members.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is a considerable departure from the question of the reasons for this Motion.

Mr. JONES

There is no reason; that is why I did not refer to it. Most hon. Members are interested in the problem of unemployment, or, if they are not, they will have to be, and the object of this Bill is supposed to be to deal with the problem of unemployment from the insurance point of view. I understand insurance in this sense, that, when I join an insurance, I expect to receive certain benefits when I have joined; but the workers of this country have been compelled by law, if they work in certain trades and occupations, to pay whether they like it or not. Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to pay and hope— hope that they will draw their benefits when the time arrives. Every Bill that has been introduced since the original Measure was passed has been a Bill to rob the workers of their benefits, to cut down the original promises made to them; and, this Bill having now reached a certain stage, we are told that we must keep our mouths shut about it. You have robbed the Insurance Fund so far as the National Health side is concerned. You are not doing a direct robbery in this case, but you are committing a crime against the people who contribute.

I do not care much about figures, because I do not know much about them. The figures in the books I have never been able to understand; I have seen so many cases tried in the Courts, and have read about them, where figuring people have been at work, and the more you read about them the lees you understand them. But I know something about the figures in the streets; I know what is going to happen under this Bill to the people in my constituency. I know the casual worker, who will not be able to get 15 stamps in the year. Some people look upon it as though it were a joke. They muster at the docks twice a day on the off chance of getting half-a-day's work, men between the ages of 40 and 60, who go down for it when there is no hope for them. They can go on for the next two years, and they will not qualify for benefit. Where have they to go? They have to go to the relieving officer and, when they get there, they find themselves confronted by gentlemen who have been appointed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. When we get cases of hardship, we go to him, and all we get is, "I cannot interfere with the discretion of the appointed board." I claim that is absolutely false to what was originally proposed in the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is no longer an insurance against unemployment; it is an assurance that you are going to use one body of workers against the others for the purpose of reducing the general standard and conditions of labour. Then we are told that work was going in one part of the country and not in another. The manager of an Employment Exchange can suggest to a skilled or semi skilled man that there is work for him in another industry—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member is taking this discussion a little wide.

Mr. JONES

I was only referring to the time when the present Government will go out of existence like they are trying to put the unemployed.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It must have some relevance to the discussion on the Motion.

Mr. JONES

I was drawing the relationship between them and those people who under this Bill are going to be sent down to get work outside their own locality. This is in the Bill and is affected by the Amendment which we are supporting. Our Amendment is to cure that position. I do not pretend to be an expert in the technical sense—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with the time limit fixed for discussion on the whole Bill. The hon. Member is now introducing administration.

Mr. JONES

All I can say is that, when it comes to shifting men from one place to another without making proper provision for their maintenance, then you are not carrying out the provisions of the original Insurance Act.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I rise to support the Motion to deal with this Bill under the Guillotine system, not because I think it is a perfect Bill, but because I think there are a good many ways in which it can be amended. It is because of that that I say to my hon. Friends above the Gangway that we have been wasting far too much time on detailed matters that are not going to affect the working-class in the slightest degree and have been leaving the real essentials to be debated at the fag-end of the evening when everybody is tired and unable to devote their minds properly to them. I hope that those essential Amendments put down—many of them in the names of the Labour party—will be debated and that we may have a chance of supporting them if we think fit. There are certain anomalies in connection with unemployment insurance which I hope will be discussed, and if hon. Members, after passing this Motion, concentrated on those anomalies they would get a large amount of support from the whole House. Take the case of the man who, simply because he is desirous of work, goes into an un insurable occupation—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now going into the merits of the Bill.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I apologise, but I think I have pointed out to the hon. Members where they could have got a little support. I am suggesting that the Government ought to consider some of these Amendments of such importance that, I hope, we shall have an opportunity of debating them under the Guillotine system. It is because I want to see the minor Amendments, which could be described as obstructionist Amendments, out of the way so that we may get down to the real things that I support this Motion. There is an Amendment down in the names of several Members and myself dealing with the barring from benefit of a man who has accepted work in the nature of relief work. I hope it will be selected. If it be not, I shall be very disappointed. I should like to impress now the reason why I am supporting this Amendment. My experience is this. Before ever there was any such thing as unemployment insurance—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member is making a speech now which it appears he may be debarred from making later on.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I submit that that is not an unknown thing in this House. It has been done on many occasions. I should like to know if I am in order in discussing any Amendment that may be left out.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member may review what he hopes may be discussed; he cannot go into their merits but may indicate their nature.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

The Amendment I am very keen about is the question of debarring a man who has taken work partly in the nature of relief work from benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and, if, owing to the protracted nature of the Debates on this particular Bill, we are to be debarred from discussing that Amendment, I shall be very sorry indeed. I am absolutely certain that Mr. Speaker himself will select it as a very important Amendment, because it deals with a subject which is of great importance to the men who will be affected if this particular Clause be passed. My point of view is that these men who have accepted work—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member has made his point and seems now to be rather too ingenious.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I am supporting this Motion, because I am certain that it will do away with a large number of Amendments which have been placed on the Order Paper, not with the idea of improving this Bill or of making it more useful to the unemployed, but simply with the idea of blocking progress and defeating the Bill altogether. It is because I am so keenly interested in certain Amendments, put down not only by Members of my own party but by Members of the Labour party, that I wish to see this Motion carried, so that we may get to the essential part of the Bill and make it a real workable Bill, if possible.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to '7.30' in line 15, stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 107.

Division No. 421.]	AYES.	[9.36 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Balniel, Lord
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Albery, Irving James	Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Berry, Sir George
Betterton, Henry B.	Haslam, Henry C.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Pitcher, G.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.	Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxl'd, Henley)	Pilditch, Sir Philip
Blundell, F. N.	Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)	Price, Major C. W. M.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Raine, Sir Walter
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Hilton, Cecil	Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Remer, J. R.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy	Rentoul, G. S.
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Holt, Captain H. P.	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Brooke. Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Hume, Sir G. H.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Burman, J. B.	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Rye, F. G.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Huntingfield, Lord	Salmon, Major I.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Hurd, Percy A.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Campbell, E. T.	Hurst, Gerald B.	Sandeman, N. Stewart
Cassels, J. D.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Sandon, Lord
Christie, J. A.	Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William	shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Clayton, G. C.	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Kindersley, Major Guy M.	Shepperson, E. W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George	King, Commodore Henry Douglas	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Skelton, A. N.
Colfox, Major Wm. Philip	Lamb, J. Q.	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Colman, N. C. D.	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cope. Major William	Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Little, Dr. E. Graham	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)	Long, Major Eric	Storry-Deans, R.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	streatfeild. Captain S. R.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Lumley, L. R.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Lynn, Sir R. J.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Dawson, Sir Phillip	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Tasker, R. Inigo.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Macdonald. Capt P. D. (I. of W.)	Templeton, W. P.
Drewe, C.	MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Maclntyre, Ian	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	McLean, Major A.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Tinne, J. A.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.	Macquisten, F. A.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Fielden, E. B.	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Ford, Sir P.	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Forrest, W.	Malone, Major P. B.	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Foster, Sir Harry S.	Margesson, Captain D.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Fraser, Captain Ian	Merriman, F. B.	Watts. Dr. T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E	Milne, J. S. Wardlaw	Wayland, Sir William A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Wells, S. R.
Ganzoni, sir John	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Gales, Percy	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Grace, John	Moreing, Captain A. H.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Nelson, Sir Frank	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Neville, Sir Reginald J.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Womersley, W. J.
Grotrian, H. Brent	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Oakley, T.	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Harland, A.	Penny, Frederick George	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Harrison, G. J. C.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Hartington, Marquess of	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Perring, Sir William George	Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain
		Bowyer.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Buxton. Rt. Hon. Noel	Gardner, J. P.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)	Charleton, H. C.	Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Clowes, S.	Gibbins, Joseph
Amnion, Charles George	Cluse, W. S.	Gillett, George M.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Gosling, Harry
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Connolly, M.	Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Baker, Waiter	Cove, W. G.	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Crawfurd, H. E.	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Barnes, A.	Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Groves, T.
Batey, Joseph	Day, Colonel Harry	Grundy, T. W.
Bondfield, Margaret	Dennison, R.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Duncan, C.	Hardie, George D.
Broad, F. A.	Edge, Sir William	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Bromfield, William	Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)	Hayday, Arthur
Buchanan, G.	Evans, Capt Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	Hayes, John Henry

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Palm, John Henry	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Paling, W.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Hirst, G. H.	Potts. John S.	Tinker, John Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Riley, Ben	Townend, A. E.
Hudson, J. H. (Hudderifield).	Ritson, J.	Varley, Frank B.
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)	Wallhead, Richard C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Rose, Frank H.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Kennedy, T.	Saklatvala, Shapurji	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Kirkwood, D.	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Wellock, Wilfred
Lawrence, Susan	Scurr, John	Westwood, J.
Livingstone, A. M.	Sexton, James	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Lowth, T.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Lunn, William	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Mackinder, W.	Snell, Harry	Windsor, Walter
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip	Wright, W.
March, S.	Stamford, T. W.	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Murnin, H.	Stephen, Campbell
Naylor, T. E.	Strauss, E. A.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Oliver, George Harold	Sullivan, J.	Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B. Smith.
Owen, Major G.	Sutton, J. E.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Mr. Hayday.

Mr. MACLEAN

On a point of Order. I submitted two manuscript Amendments, one dealing with line 9 and the other with the succeeding paragraphs. I wish to know whether they have been ruled out of Order, because they were drafted in the same form as the original Order that appeared in 1911 for the same class of Motion on the National Insurance Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I put the Question on the last Amendment down to "7.30" in line 15, and that prevents the hon. Member's Amendments on lines 9 and 12 being discussed.

Mr. MACLEAN

Has it not been the custom where an Amendment has been handed in, that the Amendment before it is put down to the line preceding the one to which the manuscript Amendment is to be proposed?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Not neces-sarily—not if the hon. Member does not call the attention of the Chair and ask that the Amendment shall be saved. Even so, Mr. Speaker is by no means bound to save it.

Mr. MACLEAN

I am not saying that Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker was bound to do so. I was simply saying that this had been the custom in the past. As these two Amendments are very important Amendments, I was under the impression that they would naturally come within the particular form of the original Order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I cannot say what view Mr. Speaker would have taken. The hon. Member should have raised this point when the last Amendment was first moved. It is too late now.

Mr. HAYDAY

I beg to move, in line 15, to leave out "7.30," and to insert instead thereof "10.30."

This, as the House will know, deals with the time allotted to the Schedules. I do not think there should be any difficulty in the right hon. Gentleman accept ing—

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

If the hon. Member is anxious for this Amendment, and from what I have heard of it from the opposite side of the Floor, I should be willing to accept it.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Miss BONDFIELD

I beg to move, in line 17, to leave out the words "One allotted day," and to insert instead thereof the words "Three allotted days." This has reference to the Report stage of the Bill, and it is perfectly clear from the discussions which have already taken place in this House that one day for the Report stage of the Bill will not merely be inadequate but positively farcical in view of the points liable to be raised when the Bill emerges out of Committee; points that ought to be raised in order to try to make this Bill intelligible and workable when it becomes an Act. We have heard frequent references to the Blanesburgh Report, and the great criticism I have to offer in regard to this Bill is not with regard to its substance, but with regard to the time of its introduction. It has been, introduced out of its right order. It has been introduced without the necessary accompaniment of a general programme, without which the Bill is, obviously, utterly inadequate to deal with the situation with which we are confronted. I direct the attention of the House to the Blanesburgh Report, in page 23, where they lay down one chapter in the historical survey and deal with the principles of unemployment insurance. They start, in paragraph 42, with "The origin of Unemployment." I can say for the Members of that Committee that there was no side of the question that impressed us with such dramatic force as the aspect which presented itself to us when we had to make a survey of the origin of unemployment.

We discovered that it was divided roughly into three cycles. In the first cycle we saw this country plunged from a peasant people into a manufacturing people. That was bad enough. The second cycle was worse, not merely in its gravity but in the nature of the changes created in the environment and lives of the workers. But this aspect with which we are dealing is the cycle which began when, in 1911, the attention of the country was called to the problem of unemployment. It shows that we were faced with new forces which were of our own creation, new forces of steam power and the development of mechanical science which created not merely an intensification of the problem in the matter of science but in the matter of speed. Things happen to-day, disaster overtakes the workers' lives and families to-day with such rapidity that it is simply impossible for the old ideas of thrift to put by for a rainy day to operate under modern conditions. That has created an entirely new situation with which Governments must deal. The Report, after sketching this period of the development of the unemployment problem, goes on to deal with measures to reduce unemployment, and I venture to urge that this is one of the sides of the whole problem upon which we need time on the Report stage of the Bill in order that the attention of the country as a whole may be drawn to the nature of the neglect of the Government to deal with this in the proper sequence. The Report goes on to say: It would be unfortunate if pre-occupation with the task of ascertaining how best such unemployment can be insured against were to weaken any concerted effort to get rid of unemployment itself. Then on page 24, paragraph 46, it says: We are, however, of opinion that organised and unremitted effort to reduce the volume of unemployment should always be a leading feature of the industrial policy of the country. With the limitations described above we believe that, if the right arrangements can only be devised, useful work can be found for a very large population of capable and willing workers. Going to the summary of recommendations, what do we find? Although it was outside the terms of reference, the Poor Law authorities' representative, the employers' representative, and the workers' representative on that committee, all affected from three separate angles, were so impressed with the overshadowing importance of this question that they put it in the forefront, as No. 1 of the Recommendations in the Summary. It was never intended to dissociate the constant and unremitting effort on the part of the central authority to tackle the problem of unemployment. It was never intended that they should be dissociated from the proposals dealing with insurance, and unremitting effort on the part of the Government for 18 months would at least give us some indication as to whether the hope expressed in this Report that there is work in the country to be done, and that work can be organised, and ought to be organised, would be falsified. What do we find? We find that subsection of the Report dealing with insurance has been acted upon with indecent haste. A Bill has been introduced which contains only certain features of the Report, and which, if there had been an unremitting effort to get rid of unemployment, would be very largely satisfactory in its working, but we find that that section of the Report, which has been taken out, is now brought before the House and is to be hustled through the House, while there is no attempt on the part of the Government to see that any of the other relevant matters that should take precedence of this are going to have any time spent upon them at all. We have no guarantee of what the Government programme is going to be to fill in the gaps in the plan which alone can get this country out of the difficulty in which it finds itself.

It seems to me a most amazing situation. We have in the Report itself atten- tion called to the overworked condition of the Employment Exchanges. Attention is specifically called to the fact that those Exchanges were set up for the expressed purpose of finding work for people, but they have been overwhelmed with the details of paying benefit to people out of work and have been largely prevented from carrying out the statutory duties for which they were primarily set up, namely, that of finding work. It is pointed out that greater co-operation is needed between the employers and the Exchanges. We urged that committees should be set up to investigate different industries and to ascertain the degree to which in each industry efforts could be made to absorb the unemployed into industry, or, at least, to give us some indication to what extent they are to be permanently shut out from industries. What has been done on those sides of the question which would help to prepare the ground for dealing with a permanent scheme of insurance which in its largest application was intended as an assistance to the normally unemployed man in conditions where normal industry is restored.

Here we are faced with a situation of abnormality. We are faced with a situation of grave national emergency, and the Government bring in a Bill shorn of many of the provisions which ought to be in it, even on the strength of the Report, and expecte us to agree to its passage through this House in the few days that have already been devoted to it. On behalf of the party to which I belong I move the Amendment and ask the Government seriously to consider that on the Report stage there will be a great desire, I think in all parts of the House, still further to explore the ground, to see if we can understand what has emerged from the Committee stage and see if we can understand the extent to which the Amendments that have been agreed upon will in any way affect the situation, and to what extent it may be possible even on the Report stage to find out what other parts of the Government policy can be) counted upon to fill up the obvious gaps which are left as a result of the drafting of this Bill.

Reference has been made to the Poor Law authorities. I think the evidence shows perfectly clearly that the Poor Law authorities were anticipating a further pronouncement from the Government with regard to what the Government were going to do, particularly in the distressed areas. The Poor Law authorities are, quite obviously, disappointed to find that their expectations have been dashed to the ground. There is no hope for relief for the Poor Law authorities in distressed areas under this Bill. There can be no hope for the Poor Law authorities in distressed areas until the Government are prepared to say that unemployment is a national responsibility, and until this House is prepared to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is a matter of such grave emergency that every question must stand aside and the necessary expenditure must be incurred, so that not only- will the unemployed people be kept in a state of physical and mental efficiency but also that that part of our Government to-day of which we are all very proud, that Local Government machinery which has been built up in this country, shall not break down under the great load which it is asked to carry at the present time. I do urge very definitely that the Amendment which I move shall receive the support of the House, and be carried.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN

I beg to second the Amendment.

There is need for a fuller discussion on the Report stage than is contemplated by the Government in their Resolution. I would like the Minister of Labour to tell me what kind of guarantee he can give me that I shall have an opportunity of discussing the question of the married men between the ages of 18 and 21. He will remember that in the Committee stage he promised that there would be no prejudice to my right to raise the subject again, as he was going to look into the matter. I hope that when the Report stage comes on under the guillotine Motion I shall not be put in a worse position than I should have been had the discussion been allowed to go to its full length in the Committee stage and had been thoroughly thrashed out at that time. I take it that the Minister of Labour will make some arrangement whereby my rights in regard to that Amendment will not be prejudiced. I have not very much faith in the right hon. Gentleman but I have sufficient faith in him that he will see that my rights in respect to the Amendment are not prejudiced by the guillotine being applied to the Report stage. I would be prepared to make a bargain with the right hon. Gentleman. If he will accept our Amendment and give the two additional days for the Report stage I shall be prepared to say that if I do not get time to raise the matter during the Report stage I shall not feel such a great grievance against him as I might otherwise do in respect to my having been cut out of my rights on the Amendment.

The proposals of the Government in the Bill will have a very harmful effect upon that section of the working class who have had to bear the brunt of the time of depression, and have had to suffer unemployment, and I do not think it is asking too much of the Members of the Government and their supporters to give an extra two days at this part of the Session in order that as much of the wisdom of the House as possible may be devoted to trying to make this Measure less harmful than it is as the Bill is now drafted. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) smiles when I say that. I have no doubt that he thinks that the Measure is practically almost beyond improvement, because it is such a horribly bad Bill. If it is as bad as he seemed to suggest during the Committee stage, and as his smile of derision just now indicates, then I am sure it is all the more necessary that we should have these two days in order to put some little good into the Measure.

It is not a big sacrifice which we are asking from the supporters of the Government. It is only to add two more days to the Session. There might be a little hurry in their going to their Christmas dinners, but they at least have the prospect of a Christmas dinner. This Bill deals with people who have very little hope of any good cheer at Christmas time; they have been living in the midst of dire circumstances for so long. The shadow of want has been over their homes all the time, and for people in comfortable positions to refuse adequate discussion to a Measure like this, because it is going to prevent their plans being realised in connection with their Christmas festivities, seems to be a very grave reflection upon the type of individual who is now responsible for the govern- ment of this country. The Opposition have stated definitely that they are quite prepared to undergo this sacrifice of giving two more days to this Bill. They are willing to come back for as many days as the Government desire. Surely it is not too much for the Government to accept this offer.

This Bill, as I have said before, is to be the permanent form of unemployment insurance in this country. It is going to affect the people unemployed at the present time and in 1929, and 1930, and for a longer period than that; and we are not asking too much in proposing three days for the Report stage of such an important Measure. When I spoke on a previous Amendment, I had not the advantage of the presence of the Minister of Labour or the Parliamentary Secretary. I made a complaint, as did some of my friends, about the lack of courtesy. I have a clear conscience so far as taking up the time of the Committee is concerned. Many of the arguments I have put forward have not been answered by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, and I have been "Closured" in the middle of a speech by the Minister, because he was unable to answer the argument. I accept the description of the Prime Minister. He made a contrast with the Bill of 1924, and said that that Bill came out of the blue. This Bill did not come out of the blue; it came out of the nether regions, and the proposal of the Government in attempting to put it through Report stage in one day is a further indication as to its place of origin. I hope that, ultimately, it will take this Government to the place where the Bill came from.

I have no objection myself to the principle of the guillotine. I hope we shall be able to apply it in the future to hon. Members who are now forcing this proposal upon us, and that they will then have sufficient rectitude left to admit that what they did to others should be done to them. I hope we shall not have such an exhibition as when we asked for the White Paper, when the Minister of Labour became almost frantic with excitement that anyone should ask for the White Paper. He himself was white with excitement when he wanted a White Paper in connection with the Russian Treaty, brought forward by the Labour Government. The records of Parliament in connection with this guillotine Motion are interesting, as they show the rage of hon. Members opposite when they have been in the position of having to face its effects. I hope the time is not far distant when we shall be able to apply this instrument ruthlessly and with effect to those people who are now by its means forcing this imperfect Measure upon the Statute Book; a Measure which will cause much misery and suffering to the people of the land.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has made a touching appeal to me which was somewhat spoilt by his concluding remarks. He besought us, under a mistaken idea of our purpose, to forgo the idea of our Christmas dinner, because he was willing and able to hibernate himself. I can assure him that he was mistaken in his impression of our intention. In the next place, in connection with the discussion of the position of married men, he evinces a faith in me which is somewhat of a tender plant, but which I hope, by the careful attention of his kind wishes, will grow. If his faith in me is not great, I am sure that his confidence in his own friends is sufficiently well-established to make it certain that he will get a chance in the time that is allotted to this part of the subject.

Mr. STEPHEN

My friends did not promise me a place. The Minister promised me an opportunity. I hope that he is not going to fling me back on my friends now.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

As far as I have been able, I have always been very precise in my speeches. Unfortunately, the hon. Member's prolixity has contributed to the present situation. His own friends, no doubt, will be able to give him the opportunity that he deserves. At the end of his speech, on the other hand, having besought us to treat these requests in a reasonable spirit, the hon. Member said that he hoped some day to be in a position to deal with an Opposition ruthlessly in return. In other words he indicated that if he got the chance he wouldadopt the same method to meet the situation. However, let me deal with the statement made by the hon. Member who preceded him, who dealt lightly with the question of the three days for the Report stage. She based her speech mainly on references to paragraph 47 of the Blanesburgh Re- port. I admit at once that she ought to know that Report better than I do, but at the same time I think her reference to it was either somewhat mistaken or somewhat misleading. Section 47 of the Blanesburgh Report deals with" some detailed suggestions ' for dealing with the problem of unemployment.

Miss BONDFIELD

I referred to paragraph 46.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The hon. Member dealt also with some items in paragraph 47. Paragraph 46 is a general exhortation to see whether the Volume of unemployment can be reduced, and paragraph 47 goes on to amplify that subject in detail. But I am not sure whether the hon. Member gave her adherence to paragraph 47 or not.

Miss BONDFIELD

Paragraph 46 deals with the general principle, and paragraph 47 gathers up recommendations which some Members of the Committee thought might be passed on.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Whereas the hon. Member is all in favour of the general principle, she is not so much in favour of specific application of the general principle to meet the situation.

Miss BONDFIELD

That is a quibble.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

With all respect it is not quibble. Take one specific recommendation in paragraph 47: Some of us have been impressed by the difficulty which certain growing industries experienced in meeting their labour requirements, even though there are unemployed men in other industries where their services are not likely again to be required, at any rate for a considerable time. Employers in the expanding industries, or portions of an industry, are anxious for larger numbers of skilled men and would readily employ workers from other trades, even though their experience is confined to their previous work. Where, however, they are not possessed of the requisite experience to make their work at once of adequate value, employers have difficulty in paying immediately to these men wages at the full standard rates. What is desired is that such men should be willing and should be permitted to work at a wage somewhat less than the standard rate, in the assurance that by the end of that time they will become sufficiently experienced to be worth the full wage. There can, we think, be no doubt that, if arrangements were made on the lines indicated, they would be found to be to the benefit of the men and of the industry as a whole. I do not know if the hon. Member would give her adherence to that, which was the expression of opinion of some of the Committee.

Miss BONDFIELD

The position which I took up in the Committee in that connection was that a suggestion of that kind could never be carried out except through the trade unions who would have to make arrangements with the employers. The paragraph to which I did call attention was: We are, however, of opinion that an organised and unremitted effort to reduce the volume of unemployment should always be a leading feature of the industrial policy of the country.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

That illustrates exactly what I said a minute ago. The first paragraph lays down a general principle and the second indicates different ways in which effect can be given to that general principle. When it comes to the actual question of giving effect to the general principle, then I do not gather that there is precisely the same adherence on the part of the hon. Member to the suggestions made. I am only dealing with this subject because the hon. Member addressed herself to little else in her speech. That is my only reason for travelling what seems to be a considerable distance from the question of three days instead of one. But I must point out that to refuse to accept this Bill and to complain that the Bill has been brought in because we did not accept a general principle of that kind is a position which cannot be sustained. As far as I can gather the critic who makes that criticism has not expressed her complete adherence to the methods by which some people on the Committee thought effect should be given to the principle, and I think her argument constitutes a very weak criticism of the of the Bill as a whole.

The point with regard to the three days is that we have divided the time table for the Committee stage into three sections—one for the remaining Clauses of the Bill, one for the new Clauses and the third for the Schedules. We made an offer to extend the time for the remaining Clauses by an extra half-day in response to the urgent appeal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). Had hon. Members opposite been willing at an earlier stage to curtail to-day's Debate—in which not a large number of new points have been raised—they could have had the best part of another half-day for dealing with these remaining Clauses. Not only did they refuse to take that course, but when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member fop Spen Valley appealed to them to make it possible for him to move an Amendment to allow for an extra day, by withdrawing their own previous Amendment, they ruled him out although they could have done what he suggested under protest in order to get the half-day. Not only did they not accept the half-day themselves, but they made it impossible for anyone else to accept it. As far as the Schedules are concerned, I said to the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) that we were perfectly ready to give an extra half-day, and we have extended the time for the Schedules.

As regards the subject matter of the Bill, I am within the memory or the reading of anyone who has taken cognisance of these Debates, in saying that the main questions in the first part of the Bill have been very fully discussed. The rates of contribution, the rates of benefit, the tests by which it is ascertained, whether a person is in the insurance field or not, have been fully discussed. The 30 contributions rule, the question of genuinely seeking work and other points of importance have been fully discussed. We have now offered in addition an extension of time for the remaining Clauses of the Bill, which offer has been refused. We have given an extension on the Schedules and, in these circumstances, I say it is not reasonable to ask us to extend the time for the Report stage, and I regret I am unable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. T.SHAW

I do not want to enter into the passage of arms between the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and the Minister. I suspect that in that passage of arms there was hidden away some of that subtle Scottish humour that my Scottish friends assure me exists, for I was afraid that in the Minister's handling of the Bill there was a subtlety that was removed beyond the comprehension of a mere Sassenach, and I asked my Scottish friends if that were the case, hoping that, if it were so, they would enlighten the poor heathen, but I found that that was not the case and that the Minister really was not using a subtlety that was beyond the comprehension of the Sassenach. I take it for granted that the argument of the Minister is, without decoration and trimmings, that this Bill has been thoroughly explored and that three days are quite unnecessary for the Report stage. That conclusion is scarcely justified by the facts and less justified by the arguments, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is under no great necessity to rush this Bill through the House. No cataclysm, of which he spoke, can arise if he gives a fair amount of time for the discussion of the Bill on Report, though in any case I understand that he has safeguarded himself by having his Bill in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and consequently nothing wrong could happen.

The only thing that is at stake is the question as to whether or not the Opposition have had a fair exercise of the rules of discussion on this Bill. That is the point at which we come into conflict. Our contention is that we have not had a fair opportunity thoroughly to discuss this Bill in all its bearings, that the question of what the Minister is going to do, for instance, with the transition period is of tremendous importance, that by his own action in presenting this Guillotine Motion to the House he has absolutely prevented any full discussion of that vitally important question amongst others, and that we are asking for the merest justice in requesting that at any rate on Report we should have a full or at least a better opportunity than he is prepared to give us. There does not need to be any whipping of a dead horse in connection with this Bill. Everybody, I think, will admit that the Opposition have reasonable grounds for complaint, the first ground being that the Minister, sheltering himself behind the Blanesburgh Report, never even attempted to explain why a thing should be done. He simply treated us to a reading of passages, and if a certain Report said this thing, that was his justification, without any explanation whatever.

I say nothing about the way in which the Bill has been drawn. I have been an unfortunate Minister myself, with a Bill by reference, and I can sympathise pro- foundly with him, although his case has been much worse than my own, but it is a fact, which no one in the House can contradict, that on this Bill the House for three-quarters of its time has been arguing in the dark. Scarcely any person in the House, except those with actual day-to-day connection with the administration of unemployment insurance, has known really what the discussions were about. The Minister must know that his own party would not have allowed him to fight the Bill absolutely on his lone hand if they had understood the Bill. The fact of the matter is, and it is notorious in the House, and everybody who has sat in Committee knows it, that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have had to bear the brunt of this Bill, with all its intricate details and important principles. We have pointed out over and over again that certain things on which the Minister based his Bill are not true at the present moment and are highly improbable for the future.

It might be possible, with a reasonable amount of time in discussing the other Clauses, even to convince the Minister that it is better for him under his transitional Clauses, for instance, to adopt a certain line which, in view of certain eventualities, will, at any rate, prevent a catastrophe happening. But no one can say that, with a Bill full of intricate details, to which there are scores of technical Amendments, all of them of substance, technical Amendments that in many cases are supported by Members of the Minister's own party, the Opposition are getting a fair chance. I am not appealing to the goodness of heart of the Minister, but to the sense of justice of the Government, who themselves some day may expect justice from others, to realise that the Opposition have a right for which they ought not to have to appeal, and that the breaking of the traditional rights of the Opposition to fair play is a serious matter. I do not look forward, like the hon. Member for Camlachie, to the time when it may be a Labour Government that will apply these things mercilessly. I detest the idea of any important Bill in this House going through without a reasonable chance of discussion, whatever the Government and whatever the Opposition. I do not myself believe in obstruction, and never have believed in it. I believe that the first Opposition that is big enough to say that it will have nothing to do with it will be an Opposition that will be a credit to the country. Therefore, I am not speaking from the point of view of one who believes in Parliamentary obstruction, for I detest it. With this Bill there has been no obstruction at all. There has been plenty of opposition, but no obstruction in the real sense of the term.

If the discussions have taken a long time, that is not the fault of His Majesty's Opposition; it is the fault of the Minister in not taking the trouble to explain the Bill, in not accepting the responsibility for the principles in the Bill and in sheltering himself behind four or five people who have signed the Blanesburgh Report. It is the fault also of the fact that the Bill itself is so drawn as to make it impossible to understand it. The Opposition have a right to expect fair play and fair dealing. If the Conservative party ever happens to be in Opposition when a Bill is proposed, which, in its opinion, hits at certain vital interests of what it considers to be its constituents, the Conservative party will fight as keenly as any party to have the right of full discussion of the provisions, so long as that discussion is not wilful obstruction. If it does so it will be right. We on our side have the right, by virtue of the fact that we are His Majesty's Opposition, to say that, in the case of a Bill like this, which is of tremendous importance, which is dealing with intricate and difficult details, which is introducing absolutely new principles in insurance, we are entitled, not to ask as a favour, but to demand as a right a reasoned, fair and adequate discussion. I am not going to appeal to the generosity of the Minister, but to ask him as a mere effort at justice to give us, at any rate, this small concession of three days for the Report stage, in order that the Government, if they cannot argue in support of the Bill, may at any rate preserve a semblance of fair play towards the Opposition.

Mr. SCURR

I have heard in my time of the peace which passeth all understanding. To-night the effrontery of the Minister passes all understanding, for he complains of the Opposition discussing a Motion which his own Government have themselves put down. If the Minister had been anxious to get his Bill through he would not have put down this Motion, and we would have been discussing the details of the Bill, and yet he has the effrontery to complain because we have dared to assert our right to discuss the Motion. I think that after all, the Debate has been most useful, because it has shown the country, if there is still any illusion as to what the Government stand for, that the Government are really in every sense of the word standing for the starvation of the poorest of the poor. They come forward and talk about the Blanesburgh Committee, a Committee which did not in any sense of the word satisfy us who sit on this side of the House, and they want to make out that everything in the Bill is in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee. The Bill is a farce. Every essential recommendation of that Committee which was of benefit to the unemployed they have left out; but if there was anything to the disadvantage of the unemployed, then the Government welcomed it with open arms and included it. I have listened to this discussion with a very sore heart indeed. No matter what sympathy there may be on their lips, I feel that the majority of the Members of the House have nothing in common with the unemployed. None of the hon. Members or right hon. Members who sit on the opposite side of the House have any knowledge of what it is to be unemployed. Most of us who sit on these benches have had to go through that painful experience in the course of our working career.

If I may, I will relate a personal experience which I had some years ago when, though I was qualified as an accountant in every possible way, I found myself out of a situation because the firm by whom I was employed were unable to carry on, one of the great trusts in the iron and steel trade having killed it. For seven months I walked the streets of this city of London in a vain endeavour to get a job. Day after day I was replying to advertisements in the "Daily Telegraph" newspaper, with never an answer coming to me. Day after day did I wander to the employment agencies, begging and praying of them to get me something to do, because I had three children at home for whom I was responsible. Aye, Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, I think that perhaps my dear wife might be with me to-day if it had not been for some of the sufferings which she had to undergo during that time. And now we have this Government coming forward with this miserable Bill, all the time treating the unemployed workman as if he were a fraud and a rogue, all the time asking, "Ah, yes, but are you genuinely seeking employment?" Is there a single hon. Member opposite who has genuinely endeavoured to seek employment? These are the men who built up your country, who in your factories and workshops built up this great nation, and now you are treating them as frauds. You did not do that when a member of your own class made a false declaration to the effect that he could not keep up his position as an ex-Cabinet Minister. You paid the late Lord George Hamilton a pension of £2,000 a year under those circumstances without asking him whether he was "genuinely seeking work," and you did not ask if he had 30 stamps on his card. I am told that Lord George Hamilton died worth £50,000.

This is a Bill for the starvation of the workmen, and it is one of the worst examples of class legislation that was ever introduced into the House of Commons. As a matter of fact it is worse in many respects than the Trade Unions Bill because all the time this Measure deals with the poorest of the poor. In considering the procedure of this House what is the Report stage for? It is for the purpose of giving further consideration to the arguments used during the Committee stage when the Minister has refused to accept certain Amendments. We are going to have six days in Committee, and one day for the Report stage is absolutely insufficient. I think we ought to have at least three days for the Report stage. The Government know that they are committing a crime by pushing forward this Bill, and they are doing all they can to injure the poorest of the poor. I know the Government will use their mechanical majority to vote us down, but let them do it. The time is coming when Members sitting on the Government Benches will be sitting on these benches, and when that time comes we will take care to work for the class which we represent.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON

I was very much disappointed with the reply given by the Minister of Labour to the very modest request that there should be an extension from one day to three days for the Report stage. I had a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman would at least be prepared to compromise on this point. I think the very important arguments which have been used in the discussion fully justify our claim for an extended period to consider the important proposals which are embodied in this Measure. I had the experience of taking a very active interest in the 1924 Measure, and if there is anything we could learn from that year as to the necessity for a revision of unemployment insurance on a contributory basis the eight years which have elapsed have shown us the difficulties which have arisen. The complicated nature of the Unemployment Insurance Acts have been emphasised by the experience of the past three years. Many hon. Members in years gone by have had experience on rota committees dealing with the claims of men who have, through unforeseen circumstances, been deprived of their employment, and they have to go through the process of making applications for claims so that they may receive their benefit. The experience of those years has only proved to us time and again that we must have a simplified system, under which we can appreciate definitely and fully the conditions under which unemployed people are entitled to benefits, when they are able to make application, and when those benefits should be paid.

When we come to the more important portion of this Bill, dealing with the rate of contributions, the conditions under which benefits will be paid, and the very diverse Regulations that will deprive men and women of benefits under certain conditions, on all these things, even during the Committee stage, we were closured time after time, before many of us had an opportunity of expressing our views, and at least we should have, on the Report stage, the opportunity of trying to amend in many material directions things that will be essential if we are going to deal with this problem. This Measure, when it comes into operation in two years' time, will go on through a decade of uncertainty as regards the conditions of industry. It is all very well to be optimistic and hope that employment may gradually diminish until it reaches the percentage estimated by the Minister of Labour, but those of us who have had experience in industry know that, by the very development of the scientific methods applied in industry, we are not merely de-skilling the craftsmanship of the skilled worker, but establishing the position of the unskilled worker, and even making it possible that the unskilled worker will become a mere automatic part of the machinery. This simplification of industry is likely to cause ultimately, in the case of thousands of people, even greater unemployment than has existed in the past.

Many claims have been made from the Conservative side of the House, in other spheres of industry, for the discussion of unification and the wiping out of various agencies in industry, and we cannot but recognise that, as a result of these methods of gradual unification or trustification, the workers are going to suffer, and they must demand protection to meet the position that we are bound to face until these things are established, either under the control of private interests for the protection of private interests, or for the development of the side of the protection of the worker. Many of these things will arise from this Measure as it stands to-day, after having passed through part of its Committee stage, and we appeal to the Minister at least to give us the opportunity of discussing those developments and possibilities which will arise in the years which this Measure will cover, and will make essential and necessary those steps to protect the workers equally with the employers, so that, in this contributory

method of insurance, the interests of the workers may be safeguarded from some of the worst evils that are likely to overtake us in those years.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS

Twice during this afternoon the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) has taunted the Government with the fact that they have not received support on this Motion from those who sit upon the Back Benches. I would remind him that sometimes the best support that can be given is silence, and that they also serve who only wait and vote. I would like to say, on behalf of the Back Benchers, that I hope the Government will not make any further concessions as to time. Any concessions that are made are only thrown back at them. I have been thinking a good deal this afternoon, after reading through the Motion, that it goes to the extreme limits of generosity, and then, seeing the time hon. Gentlemen take in discussing it and the apparent bitterness which they feel towards it, it rather throws me back to the days of my childhood, when one, like all children do, sometimes cried for nothing. I remember my nurse saying to me, "If you do not stop crying I will give you something to cry for." I want to say to the Government that, next time they put down a Motion of this sort, after the exhibition which we have had this afternoon, they should give them something to cry for.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes,112.

Division No. 422.]	AYES.	[10.54 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Campbell, E. T.
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Blundell, F. N.	Carver, Major W. H.
Albery, Irving James	Boothby, R. J. G.	Cassels, J. D.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A.	B. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Atholl, Duchess of	Brassey, Sir Leonard	Christie, J. A.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve	Clayton, G. C.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Brittain, Sir Harry	Cobb, Sir Cyril
Balniel, Lord	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R.	I. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Barnett, Major Sir R.	Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Colman, N. C. D.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Conway, Sir W. Martin
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Buchan, John	Cooper, A. Duff
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Buckingham, Sir H.	Cope, Major William
Bethel, A.	Burman, J. B.	Couper, J. B.
Betterton, Henry B.	Burton, Colonel H. W.	Courtauld, Major J. S.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert	King, Commodore Henry Douglas	Rye, F. G.
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Salmon, Major I.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Lamb, J. Q.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Davies, Ma). Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Loder, J. de V.	Sandeman, N. Stewart
Dawson, Sir Philip	Long, Major Eric	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Looker, Herbert William	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Drewe, C.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Sandon, Lord
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Ellis, R. G.	Lumley, L. R.	Shepperson, E. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Lynn, Sir R. J.	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Skelton, A. N.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Fielden, E. B.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ford, Sir P. J.	Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Smithers, Waldron
Forrest, W.	Maclntyre, Ian	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Foster, Sir Harry S.	Maclean, Major A.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Macmillan, Captain H.	Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel
Fraser, Captain Ian	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Macquisten, F. A.	Storry-Deans, R.
Galbraith, J. F. W.	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Ganzoni, Sir John	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel	Streatfield, Captain S. R.
Gates, Percy	Malone. Major P. B.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Margesson, Captain D.	Sugden, Sir Wilfird
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Tasker, R. Inigo
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Merriman, F. B.	Templeton, W. P.
Gower, Sir Robert	Meyer, Sir Frank	Thom, Lt.-Col. JG. (Dumbarton)
Grace, John	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Tinne, J. A.
Grotrian, H. Brent	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Moreing, captain A. H.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Morrsion, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Morrison, Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Harland, A	Nelson, Sir Frank	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carilsle)
Harrison G. J. C.	Neville, Sir Reginald J	Watts, Dr. T
Hartington, Marquess of	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Wayland, Sir William A.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Wells, S. R.
Haslam, Henry C.	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Hawke, John Anthony	Oakley, T.	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Norhtern)
Headlam, Lieut. Colonel C. M.	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	William, Herbert G. (Reading)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L.(Bootle)	Penny, Frederick George	Willson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Hilton, Cecil	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Wolmer. Viscount
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Perring, Sir William George	Womersley, W. J.
Holt, Capt. H. P.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Hopkinson, J. W. W.	Pilcher, G.	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M (Hackney, N.)	Pildich, Sir Phillp	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.	Price, Major C. W. M	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Raine, Sir Walter	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Huntingfield, Lord	Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Hurd, Percy A.	Remer, J. R.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Rhys, J R.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)	Major Sir George Hennessy and
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William		Major the Marquess of Titchfield.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Cove, W. G.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Adamson, W. M, (Staff. Cannock)	Crawfurd, H. E.	Hardie, George D.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Dalton, Hugh	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Ammon, Charles George	Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Hayday, Arthur
Attlee, Clement Richard	Day, Colonel Harry	Hayes, John Henry
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Dennison, R.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Barnes, A.	Duncan, C.	Hirst, G. H.
Batey, Joseph	Dunnico, H.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Bondfield, Margaret	Edge, Sir William	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	John, William (Rhondda, West)
Broad, F. A.	Gardner, J. P.	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Bromfield, William	Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Buchanan, G.	Gibbins, Joseph	Kennedy, T.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel	Gillett, George M.	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Charleton, H. C.	Gosling, Harry	Kirkwood, D.
Clowes, S.	Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Lansbury, George
Cluse, W. S.	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Lawrence, Susan
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Lowth, T.
Compton, Joseph	Groves, T.	Lunn, William
Connolly, M.	Grundy, T. W.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

Mackinder, W	Scurr. John	Viant, S. P.
MacLaren, Andrew	Sexton, James	Wallhead, Richard C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
March, S.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Murnin, H.	Sitch, Charles H.	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Naylor, T. E.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	Wellock, Wilfred
Oliver, George Harold	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)	Westwood, J.
Palin, John Henry	Snell, Harry	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Paling. W.	Stamford, T. W.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)	Stephen, Campbell	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Strauss, E. A.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Potts, John S.	Sullivan, Joseph	Windsor, Walter
Riley, Ben	Sutton, J. E.	Wright, W.
Ritson, J.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Robinson. W. C. (Yorks. W. R., Elland)	Tinker, John Joseph	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Rose, Frank H.	Townend, A. E.	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.	Henderson
Salter, Dr. Alfred	Varley, Frank B.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 110.

Division No. 423.]>	AYES.	[11.2 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hume, Sir G. H.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)	Huntingfield. Lord
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)
Albery, Irving James	Crookshank, Cpt. H,(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Cunliffe, Sir Herbert	Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Atholl, Duchess of	Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Kindersley, Major G. M.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Davies, Dr. Vernon	King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Dawson, Sir Philip	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Balniel, Lord	Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Lamb, J. 0.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Drewe, C.	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Loder, J. de V.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Ellis, R. G.	Long, Major Eric
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Looker, Herbert William
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Bethel, A.	Fanshawe, Captain G. D.	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Betterton, Henry B.	Fielden, E. B.	Lumley, L. R.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Ford, sir P. J.	Lynn, Sir R. J.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Forrest, W.	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Blundell, F. N.	Foster, Sir Harry S.	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Fraser, Captain Ian	Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Macintyre, Ian
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.	Galbraith, J. F. W.	McLean, Major A.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Ganzoni, Sir John	Macmillan, Captain H.
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Gates, Percy	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Macquisten, F. A.
Brittain, Sir Harry	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	MacRobert, Alexander M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Goff, sir Park	Malone, Major P. B.
Broun-Lindsay. Major H.	Gower, Sir Robert	Margesson, Captain D.
Brown, Brig-Gen. H. c.(Berks, Newb'y)	Grace, John	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Buchan, John	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Merriman, F. B.
Buckingham, Sir H.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Meyer, Sir Frank
Burman, J. B.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Grotrian, H. Brent	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Campbell, E. T.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Carver. Major W. H.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
cassels, J. D	Hall Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Moore, Sir Newton J.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Harland, A.	Moreing, Captain A. H.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Harrison, G. J. C.	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Hartington, Marquess of	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cilve
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Nelson, Sir Frank
Christie. J. A.	Haslam, Henry C.	Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Hawke, John Anthony	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Clayton, G. C.	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George	Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)	Oakley, T.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Hilton, Cecil	Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Colman. N. C. D.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Penny, Frederick George
Cooper, A. Duff	Holt, Capt. H. P.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Cope, Major William	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Couper, J. B.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)	Perring, Sir William George
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Pilcher, G.	Skelton, A. N.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Pilditch, Sir Philip	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Price, Major C. W. M.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Watts, Dr. T.
Raine, Sir Walter	Smithers, Waldron	Wayland, Sir William A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Wells, S. R.
Renter, J. R.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)	Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)	Storry-Deans, R.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Rye, F. G.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Salmon, Major I.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid	Wolmer, Viscount
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Tasker, R. Inigo.	Womersley, W J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Templeton, W. P.	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Sandeman, N. Stewart	Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Sandon, Lord	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Tinne, J. A.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks. W.R., Sowerby)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.	Major Sir George Hennessy and
Shepperson, E. W.	Wallace, Captain D. E.	Major the Marquess of Titchfield.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Groves, T.	Rose, Frank H.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Grundy, T. W.	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Ammon, Charles George	Hardie, George D.	Scurr, John
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Sexton, James
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Hayday, Arthur	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Barnes, A.	Hayes, John Henry	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Batey, Joseph	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Sitch, Charles H.
Bondfield, Margaret	Hirst, G. H.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Snell, Harry
Broad. F. A.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Stamford, T. W.
Bromfield, William	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Stephen, Campbell
Buchanan, G.	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Strauss, E. A.
Cape, Thomas	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Sullivan, J.
Charleton, H. C.	Kennedy, T.	Sutton, J. E.
Clowes, S.	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Cluse, W. S.	Kirkwood, D.	Tinker, John Joseph
Clynes. Rt. Hon. John R.	Lansbury, George	Townend, A. E.
Compton, Joseph	Lawrence, Susan	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Connolly, M.	Lowth, T.	Varley, Frank B.
Cove, W. G.	Lunn. William	Viant, S. P.
Crawfurd, H. E.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Wallhead, Richard C.
Dalton, Hugh	Mackinder, W.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	MacLaren Andrew	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda;
Day, Colonel Harry	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Dennison, R.	March, S.	Wellock, Wilfred
Duncan, C.	Murnin, H.	Westwood, J.
Dunnico. H.	Naylor, T. E.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Edge, Sir William	Oliver, George Harold	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	Palin, John Henry	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Gardner, J. P.	Paling, W.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Windsor, Walter
Gibbins, Joseph	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Wright, W.
Gillett, George M.	Potts, John S.	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Gosling, Harry	Riley, Ben
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Ritson, J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)	Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Charle
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)	Edwards.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That the remainder of the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:

(1) Committee Stage.

The Committee stage shall be proceeded with on three allotted days, and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion as follows:

1. (a) The procedings on the remainder of the Clauses of the Bill shall, if not pre- 854 viously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on the first allotted day; and
2. (b) The proceedings on new Clauses shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on the second allotted day; and
3. (c) The proceedings on the Schedules of the Bill, new Schedules, and any other business necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on the third allotted day.

(2) Report Stage.

One allotted day shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.

(3) Third Reading.

One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.

On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.

After this Order comes into operation, any day after the day on which this Order is passed shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day and then proceeded with, and the Bill may be put down as the first Order of the Day on any Thursday notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply.

Provided that, where an allotted day is a Friday, this Order shall have effect as if for references to 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. there were respectively substituted references to 1 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules; and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Orders relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order proceedings for that purpose shall not be; interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

1. (a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
2. (b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of."