§ The CHAIRMANIt will not be in order, on the Motion to postpone the Clause, to discuss the merits of the Clause.
§ Mr. T. SHAWI beg to move, "That the Clause be postponed."
I venture to move the postponement of this Clause for the very definite reason that it contains much more than the statement in the Memorandum, it, has never been explained to the House by the Minister, and the effect of it has never been laid before the House. If the Clause were what it purports to mean in the Memorandum, if it simply laid down the principle that when a genuine worker, man or woman, is unemployed, the benefits, should be paid as a statutory right, we should neither move the postponement of it nor object to it. It think, if I may say so in parenthesis, out Motion will give the Minister and opportunity that he will probable be very eager to seize to explain exactly what this Clause dose mean. It is said in the Memorandum simply that it means that benefits should be a statutory right.
§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSOn a point of Order. Is it competent on a Motion to postpone the Clause to discuss the merits of the Clause, or simple to give reasons for the postponement?
§ The CHAIRMANI have already ruled about that. But as I understand the right hon. Gentleman is not clear what the effect of it is, I do not think it would be out of order to ask the Minister to explain it. The right hon. Gentleman is not clear.
§ Mr. SHAWThat is exactly my pint, that the explanations given up to the present, particularly the one in the Memorandum, do not explain the Clause and do not tell us what the effect of it is. There is nothing except the casual 1444 statement in the Government Actuary's Report which gives us even the faintest inkling as to what this is intended to do. For instance, if we look at page 90 of the Blanesburgh Report, in the Addendum, we see something which is not mentioned in this Clause, and has not been mentioned by the Minister in his speeches. The Committee will see that the Government Actuary concludes that the combined effect on the waiting period of the changed conditions will be that 20 per cent. of unemployment would not be paid for at all. On the same page, paragraph 8, the assumption of the Actuary, on details supplied to him by the Ministry of Labour, is that if this principle had been applied in 1924–25, 20 per cent, of the claims would have been disallowed. Obviously, that is quite different from any explanation we have had of this Clause. Is it a fact, definitely, that there is an estimate that if this Clause is put into operation in connection with the rest of the Bill that 20 per cent. of the million unemployed are going to be put out of benefit?
§ The CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that that will not be the effect of the Clause, the postponement of which he is moving.
§ Mr. SHAWI am sorry if I am contravening the Rules. I was pointing out to the Minister that the statement of the Actuary is quite different from the statement he made when he was introducing the Bill, and quite different from the statement made in the Memorandum. We are entitled to know whether this Clause does really mean what the Actuary says; whether it does really mean that 200,000 people will be thrown on the scrap-heap, where they can either starve or steal or go to the guardians or do what they like. We wish to know these things, but I am afraid that if I continue I may again call forth the ruling of the Chair. I am moving the postponement of the Clause because it has never been explained that the statement in the Memorandum falls far short of the actual facts. There is a danger, if we allow the Clause to pass, that it will be passed under a misapprehension, and it may mean the striking off of a huge number of unemployed people from benefit, without finding them work, and making them a burden elsewhere. Will that be the result of a Clause which has been ex- 1445 plained to us as merely replacing the discretion of the Minister by a statutory right?
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)I shall be very glad to give the reason for which the right hon. Gentleman asks. The effect of Clause 1 is precisely what is given in the Memorandum attached to the Bill, and nothing more. So far as the conditions are concerned which attach to the benefit to which a statutory right is given, those conditions are determined by the subsequent Clauses, Clauses 2, 4, 5, and so on, and it will be open to the Committee to discuss those conditions on the subsequent Clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 only says that if the statutory conditions are fulfilled, etc., the unemployed insured contributor shall be entitled to benefit. I shall be glad to give the right hon Gentleman our estimate of the effect which each condition will have when it comes before the Committee for discussion on the appropriate Clause. Clause 1 only says that subject to these subsequent conditions being complied with, the claimant has a statutory right to benefit. That is all. In doing that, we are following no more and no less than the Act of 1920 in its second Section, as amended by the first Section of the right hon Gentleman's own Act. The second Section of the Act of 1920 gives a right, subject to the satisfaction of conditions which are dealt with subsequently, which it is open to the Committee to accept or amend as they wish. Section 1 of the right hon. Gentleman's own Act of 1924 did precisely the same thing. It gave the right to benefit subject to the conditions which were subsequently dealt with. This Clause does exactly the same thing It gives the right subject to conditions which are included in Clauses 2, 4, 5, and the other Clauses, which are open to the Committee to discuss and to accept or amend.
§ Mr. SHAWI am sure the right hon. Gentleman wishes to give full information. Is it a fact that if this Clause comes into operation the result will be that large numbers of people now drawing unemployment benefits will be unable to draw those benefits on precisely the conditions under which they draw them to-day?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDNo, that is not so. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes the information I will gladly give him any information which it is in my power to give, out of courtesy. Clause 1 does not of itself do anything of the kind. Any effect that is subsequently given to Clause 1 is given by the decisions that are reached subsequently on the discussion of the various Clauses. For that reason, I am prepared on the appropriate Clause to give our estimate of the effect of any one condition in that particular Clause. I hope that I have made myself clear. I am not wishing in any way to be obstructive.
§ Miss LAWRENCEIs the Memorandum correct in saying that Clause 1
abolishes the discretionary power of the Minister to place restrictions on the grant of benefit"?That is to say, it abolishes the Minister's power to interfere with benefit in any way or to place restrictions on the grant of benefit. In that case, I want to put reasons why we should postpone the Clause.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe abolition is carried out by Clause 1, together with the Section in the Schedule which abolishes the provisions which refer to this.
§ Miss LAWRENCEWould it be in order after we have passed Clause 1 to repeal the provisions of the Schedule with respect to extended benefit? Clause 1 really abolishes extended benefit and the Schedule repeals the appropriate Section of the Act. Would it be in order to raise the whole question again on the Schedule, if we pass Clause 1 now?
§ The CHAIRMANI do not see anything in this Clause which would prevent the subsequent Sections being enlarged.
§ Miss LAWRENCEClause 1 abolishes extended benefits. If we are to abolish extended benefit, it is obviously necessary that we should say what sort of benefit is—
§ The CHAIRMANI can see nothing in this Clause, as explained by the Memorandum, that does abolish extended benefit. It abolishes the discretionary power of the Minister. The Memorandum says:
abolishes the discretionary power of the Minister to place restrictions on the grant of benefit.1447 All that I am saying on the Clause is that it is in no way a disabling Clause; it is merely an affirming Clause, that the insured contributor shall, subject to certain conditions, be entitled to receive benefit.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Miss LAWRENCEMay I point out that the Minister's interpretation and your own interpretation are contradictory? The Minister, in answer to my question, said that this Clause, in conjunction with the provision in the Schedule, takes away the right to extended benefit. It is rather a difficult position for hon. Members when such great authorities as the Minister in charge of the Bill and the Chairman of Committees disagree. If a featherweight may turn the scale, may I say that I am inclined to think the Minister is right.
§ The CHAIRMANMay I point out for the convenience of the Committee that an Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) to insert the words:
Subject to the live register falling to a total of seven hundred thousand unemployed contributors—which I am prepared to accept although I have some doubts as to its being in Order—does raise the whole question, and would allow all the merits of this proposal to be thrashed out. For the moment I must ask hon. Members to give some reason why the discussion of this Clause should he postponed and not argue as to its merits.
§ Mr. JOHN BAKERI am in this difficulty, Mr. Chairman. The Minister has said that it will not prevent us doing something in the future, but if the Clause is carried as it is it will prevent us providing employment pay for men who have not contributed—
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a reason for getting on to the merits of the Clause rather than postponing it.
§ Mr. BATEYI want to support the postponement of this Clause in order to give the Minister an opportunity of stating the real position of the fund to-day.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Minister could not do that on the Motion for postponement. I should have to stop him.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI quite realise your point, Mr. Hope, with regard to taking a discussion on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Leith Boroughs (Mr. Brown), but our difficulty is the first words of this Clause. They are "an insured contributor." We fear that if we allow these words to pass, if the Clause is not postponed, that we shall rule out any opportunity of passing Amendments at a later stage to include people who are not insured.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think the passing of these words will prevent that. It is possible that such Amendments might be outside the scope of the Bill, but these words in Clause 1 do not make any difference as to that. This Clause is purely declaratory.
§ Sir HENRY CAUTLEYMight I call your attention to the definition Clause, in which an insured contributor is de-scribed as meaning a person who is insured under the principal Act.
§ Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOODIt seems to me that the speech of the Minister of Labour really gave us the best possible grounds for postponing this Clause. As it reads now, what it means really depends on the provisions of other Clauses which are to be passed later. This Clause, by abolishing the Minister's discretion and establishing an entirely new system of insurance administration, raises very important questions in our minds. Personally, I am against the Minister's discretion, and prefer the statutory right to benefit, but it may very well be, when the later Clauses in the Bill have been dealt with, that even with all its iniquities we should prefer the present system to the Bill as it will be when the Committee stage is finished. This is asking us to agree beforehand to the abolition of the Minister's discretion without being sure what are to be the statutory conditions which will govern benefit in the future. This is a very substantial point in our minds. We have often criticised the Minister for the way he has exercised his discretion in they past; but we may find that the conditions imposed for statutory benefit are so onerous that we shall prefer the present imperfect system. That is the whole point of my right hon. Friend's speech. He argued 1449 that this Clause was subject to later provisions in the Bill, which have not yet been fixed. Indeed, substantial alterations have been made in the Bill during the week-end. They are improvements, as it happens; and we do not know how many more new Amendments will be submitted by the Minister him-self. We do not know how far his heart may be softened towards some of our Amendments, but we are not now in a position to say that we can accept the abolition of extended benefit. We simply do not know, and I submit that the Committee should support us in moving the postponement of this Clause until we have considered the other Clauses of the Bill.
§ Mr. HAYDAYWhile I am anxious, of course, to get to the details of this Bill, my difficulty is created by the first words of this Clause, "insured contributor." That is a distinct departure from the system which obtains at the present time.
§ The CHAIRMANI have already ruled that the words "insured contributor" will not in any way fetter the discretion of the Committee in moving Amendments later on. It may be that those Amendments will be out of order as being outside the scope of the Bill, but these words do not prejudice hon. Members in any way.
§ Mr. HAYDAYI wanted to put this point; that the words "insured contributor" presumes the payment of contributions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not necessarily!"] I feel, "not necessarily"; but I am in some doubt. An insured contributor may mean a person in an insurable occupation, who is unemployed at the moment but able to come in under the Minister's discretion. He will be bound to pay when he goes back to work. In that sense he will become an actual contributor. If later on we were to propose an Amendment which would carry on the present provisions over a certain period, should we be quite safe from a statement from the Chair to the effect that we had already accepted the principle of insured contribution in the first Clause?
§ The CHAIRMANI have tried to make that quite clear. The hon. Member will be in no way prejudiced by these words in this Clause. The Amendment may or may not be in order on 1450 other grounds, but the fact of putting these words in does not hamper hon. Members in moving Amendments later in any way whatsoever.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSThe point submitted by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) justifies hon. Members on these benches and also hon. Members opposite in supporting the proposal to postpone this Clause until we know what the subsequent Clauses are going to contain. I need only remind hon. Members of the possible effect of passing this Clause, with subsequent Clauses as they now stand, and even with the Amendments put down by the Government. It may conceivably affect tens of thousands of mine workers who have been out of work for a long period and are not likely in existing circumstances to obtain work during such a period as would permit them, under the Bill as it now stands, to be entitled to any benefits at all. A day or two ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health told us that 240 mines have been closed down in 12 months, and we know that many mine workers have been out of work for 18 months and two years and are not likely to obtain work during the next six months.
§ The CHAIRMANThere is nothing really in this Clause which can possibly affect that question.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSMay I suggest that if the statutory condition referred to in Clause 1 is subsequently made one of the conditions, then a certain number of stamps must be in a man's book during the two years' period, and it will he utterly impossible for any miner or other unemployed worker who has been out of work for a certain period to obtain benefit.
§ The CHAIRMANThe time to discuss that will be when we get to that Clause. All that this says is that a contributor who satisfies certain conditions shall be entitled to benefit. It does not say that he shall not be allowed benefit. This Clause, so far as it goes, is declaratory, and there is nothing which will restrict further proposals for amending or widening the Bill.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSI am obliged to accept your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, but may I remind the Committee that unless 1451 drastic alterations take place in subsequent Clauses the fears which we ,entertain will be well founded, and this justifies us in seeking a postponement of the application of this Clause until we know what the conditions are to be. In view of the effect on a large number of people, I think we should appeal to the Minister to postpone the consideration of Clause 1 until we know what the statutory conditions are going to be.
§ Mr. STEPHENI take it that this Clause will abolish the discretion of the Minister. In the 1924 amending Act, the discretionary power of the Minister was abolished, but in the 1925 Act the present Minister of Pensions felt it necessary to amend the 1924 Act in order to take discretionary power again. That discretionary power has been exercised by the Minister ever since, some of us think to the great disadvantage of a lot of very decent young men and women, their parents and friends. I think we should postpone the consideration of this Clause until the Minister is a little more explicit with regard to its effect. The right hon. Gentleman might very properly tell us leis experience of the working of the discretionary principle.
§ The CHAIRMANHe could not do so on the Motion for postponement. He could do so on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown).
§ Mr. STEPHENIt seems to me that there is a very definite reason if this discretionary power of the Minister is to be abolished, and that the Committee is entitled to know beforehand, so that we may have the opportunity of postponing the Clause if it is going to have a bad effect.
§ The CHAIRMANThe explanation that the hon. Member seeks cannot be obtained until we get to the end of the Clause.
§ Mr. STEPHENI think this Clause is going to abolish the discretionary power of the Minister. Surely I am entitled to ask that the Minister should tell us the number of people—
§ The CHAIRMANNeither is the hon. Member entitled to ask nor is the Minister entitled to answer any such question.
§ Mr. STEPHENSurely I am entitled to suggest that this Clause should be postponed until we know the number of people who are coming within the ambit of the abolition of the discretionary power of the Minister?
§ The CHAIRMANThat statement cannot be made on the Motion to postpone the Clause. It can be made on a subsequent Amendment before we part with the Clause. If the hon. Member wishes to get that explanation, it can be given on a subsequent Amendment.
§ Mr. STEPHENWith all due respect, if I am not in order in supporting the Motion for postponement so as to discover the number of people who come within the ambit of the abolition of the discretionary power of the Minister, surely the Minister himself would be in order in telling me?
§ The CHAIRMANNeither the hon. Member nor the Minister would be in order, and the result of postponing the Clause only would be that we should go on immediately with other Clauses, and the Minister would be unable to make his statement till then.
§ Mr. STEPHENThere is this definite point I have been seeking which will not be covered on the next Amendment—in page 1, line 6, at the beginning, to insert the words:
Subject to the live register falling to a total of seven hundred thousand unemployed contributors
§ The CHAIRMANIt would not be on that Amendment but on the Amendment in page 1, line 11, after the word "receive," to insert the word "the," and the consequential Amendment next on the Amendment Paper.
§ Mr. STEPHENWith regard to that, I am afraid that, possibly, I might not be able to get the information I desire. I have been trying to get to this point in connection with the Minister, that there has been benefit of a standard kind which has been given under statutory conditions. There has been the extended benefit—
§ The CHAIRMANI must ask the hon. Member to observe my ruling. He is now going into matters of merit, which are very proper to discussion on a later Amendment, but are not relevant to the 1453 question of postponing the Clause. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) did give some valid reason, but the hon. Member is not doing so. I must ask him not to evade my ruling.
§ Mr. STEPHENI am not seeking in any way to evade your ruling, Mr. Hope, but I am taking up the position that, surely, it is legitimate for us to suggest the postponement of this Clause in order that the Minister in moving the Clause might give us some sort of idea of the experience—
§ The CHAIRMANThe Minister does not move a Clause, and on a Motion to postpone it he cannot make such a statement as the hon. Member desires. I have said that a few times, and the hon. Member must understand it by now.
§ Mr. BUCHANANAt a later stage, if the Clauses subsequently pass in the form they are now printed, I want in addition the Minister's discretion to operate with regard to the 30 stamps and other qualifications. The Memorandum says the Clause abolishes the discretionary power of the Minister. I want to give the Minister discretionary power—
§ The CHAIRMANIt abolishes the discretionary power of the Minister to place restrictions on the grant of benefit. That is all it does. If the hon. Member wishes to extend Clause 5, there is nothing in this Clause to prevent him from doing so.
§ Miss LAWRENCEThe Minister himself stated that the effect of the Clause, as carried out by a subsequent repeal of the Act, would be to take away from the Minister the power of giving extended benefit.
§ Mr. GREENWOODCould it not be dealt with on an Amendment to Clause 5? Is that what I understand you, Mr. Hope, to say?
§ The CHAIRMANWhat I said was that if the hon. Member wished to extend Clause 5, there is nothing in this Clause to prevent him.
§ Mr. GREENWOODThere is some misapprehension. Clause 5 really deals with the amendment of statutory conditions. Clause 1 abolishes the Minister's right of discretion to establish conditions 1454 of his own quite apart from the statutory conditions, and if we were to accept Clause 1, then quite clearly we should be out of order on Clause 5 in seeking to introduce conditions which were not statutory conditions, the decision on which had been taken on Clause 1.
§ The CHAIRMANIt would be out of order on Clause 5 in any case. It would be possible for the hon. Member to make these statutory conditions as wide as he liked. There is nothing in this Clause to prevent him doing it.
§ Mr. GREENWOODIs it in order for me to put down an amendment to Clause 5 to restore the Minister's discretion?
§ The CHAIRMANWhether this passes or not, in neither case would it be open to the hon. Member.
§ Mr. GREENWOODSurely if this Clause be passed in Committee, then we have definitely committed ourselves to the abolition of the Minister's discretion, and in no circumstances then would it be possible for us to move its reintroduction in a later Clause of the Bill.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDMight I suggest this with regard to the point raised by the hon. Member? On the abolition of the Minister's discretion, the Memorandum is perfectly clear. It says:
This Clause, together with certain of the repeals of existing enactments set out in the Fifth Schedule,does two things. Itmakes all unemployment benefit payable as of right, where the requisite conditions are satisfied, and abolishes the discretionary power of the Minister to place restrictions on the grant of benefit.Those two things are done by this Clause together with certain of the repeals of existing enactments set out in the Fifth Schedule. I submit that this Clause by itself is merely declaratory of a right.
§ The CHAIRMANThe question is whether this Clause should be postponed. The discussion must be confined to that, and so far, I think, only one hon. Member has kept to the point.
§ Mr. HAYDAYThis is the first time, I believe, where this declaration appears in the first Clause of an unemployment Measure. I have five Acts here, and in 1455 no case do I find such a declaration appearing in the first Section. If this Clause be operative in association with other Clauses, then I do suggest it would clear matters largely if it were postponed and its effect discussed in relation to Clauses associated with it. In view of one of the last sentences of the Minister, there is evidently ground for our fear, because while it is not now in order to take a larger range in discussion in relation to the merits of the Clause itself, there is room for doubt whether the Clause .should come as a first Clause, making a declaration of principle which must, more or less, prejudice discussion when the Clause becomes associated with other Clauses intended to carry out the declaration mentioned in the first Clause. If a principle is laid down at the start, there is the possibility of discussion becoming somewhat hampered, because of our not being able to submit any point of view that might enlarge and break away from the declaration contained in the first Clause.
§ Mr. HARRISIt seems to me that the case for postponement is a very simple one. You cannot pass this Clause until you have decided what the statutory conditions are. When you have decided that, then you are in a position to judge whether to pass this Clause. It seems that you have first to decide what are the statutory conditions entitling an insured person to a pension, and then you can pass Clause 1.
§ Mr. BUCHANANThis Clause in itself and the remarks of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) show that we are justified in asking for this Clause to be postponed. 'The Minister cannot deny that this Clause does not appear in any of the other Acts, and why it is introduced on
§ this occasion justifies the suspicion that it is introduced for some purpose other than that for which we think the Act was originally intended. If this Clause be not introduced for any wrong purpose, any ulterior motive, why does the Minister not assure the hon. Member for West Nottingham on that point? Further, it seems that once we accept this Clause, we are prejudicing any claim to have the Minister's discretion restored. There is this further point. It is a declaration that, the person must be an insured contributor. Under other Acts it was in the Minister's discretion to grant pensions to persons who were not insured, but who were looked upon as contributors. What we fear is that if we once accept this Clause, with the words "insured contributor," the old right of a person who was a contributor and yet not insured—
§ The CHAIRMANI have given a ruling, and the hon. Member must not try to pursue the point.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI do not wish to challenge your ruling, but it seems to me that the Minister, in introducing this Clause, is proposing a new thing in insurance which we oppose.
§ Mr. HARDIEThis Clause is a governing Clause, and for that reason we want it to be held back until other Clauses have been discussed. If this Clause is passed now the question of the Minister's discretion will be wiped out. That is the fear which compels us on this side to take up this stand. If the Clause is put through now the Minister will he able to tell us that just the things which we fear have taken place.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be postponed."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 195.
1459| Division No. 354.] | AYES. | [4.33 p.m. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Cluse, W. S. | Gosling, Harry |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Compton, Joseph | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Cove, W. G | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
| Baker, Walter | Dalton, Hugh | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Groves, T. |
| Barnes, A. | Day, Colonel Harry | Grundy, T. W. |
| Batey. Joseph | Dennison, R. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Dunnico, H. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer) | Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) |
| Broad, F. A. | Forrest, W. | Hardle, George D. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Gardner, J. P. | Harney, E. A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Harris, Percy A. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Gillett, George M. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon |
| Hayday, Arthur | Montague, Frederick | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Hayes, John Henry | Morris, R. H. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Thorne G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Naylor, T. E. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Hirst, G. H. | Oliver, George Harold | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Owen, Major G. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Paling, W. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Viant, S. P. |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Potts, John S. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| John William (Rhondda, West) | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Rose, Frank H. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Kelly, W. T. | Saklatvala, Shapurji | Westwood, J. |
| Kennedy, T. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Whiteley, W. |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Lansbury, George | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Lawrence, Susan | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness) | Windsor, Walter |
| Lowth, T. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Wright, W. |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Mackinder, W. | Snell, Harry | |
| MacLaren, Andrew | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | |
| MacNeill-Weir, L. | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| March, S. | Stephen, Campbell | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles |
| Maxton, James | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Edwards. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Gates, Percy | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Albery, Irving James | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Meyer, Sir Frank |
| Ashley, Lt -Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Goff, Sir Park | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) |
| Atkinson, C. | Grace, John | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Grant, Sir J. A. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Balniel, Lord | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Moore, Sir Newton J. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Grotrian, H. Brent | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Murchison, Sir Kenneth |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Berry, Sir George | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Hartington, Marquess of | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Haslam, Henry C. | Penny, Frederick George |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Hawke, John Anthony | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Briggs, J Harold | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Perring, Sir William George |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Philipson, Mabel |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Pitcher, G. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Hilton, Cecil | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Buchan, John | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Preston. William |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Holt, Capt. H. P. | Ramsden, E. |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Hopkins. J. W. W. | Remnant, Sir James |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Campbell. E. T. | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hume, Sir G. H. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A | Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hurd, Percy A. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Hiffe, Sir Edward M. | Rye, F. G. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Colfox, Major William Phillips | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Sandon, Lord |
| Cooper, A. Duff | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavs D. |
| Couper, J. B. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Savery, S. S. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Lamb, J. Q. | Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) |
| Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Loder, J. de V. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Davison. Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Drewe, C. | Lumley, L. R. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Lynn, Sir R. J. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Ellis, R. G. | MacIntyre, Ian | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | McLean, Major A. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Fielden, E. B. | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Fraser. Captain Ian | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Tinne, J. A. | Wells, S. R. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple- | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Wallace, Captain D. E. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich) |
| Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George | |
| Waterhouse, Captain Charles | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Major Cope and Captain Margesson |
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWNI beg to move, in page 1, line 6, at the beginning, to insert the words:
Subject to the live register falling to a total of seven hundred thousand unemployed contributorsI, and those associated with me, have put down this Amendment and two further Amendments because we do not believe that there is at the moment a condition of affairs, with regard to unemployment, to justify a Clause of this kind, which makes a new permanent basis for insurance. The Blanesburgh Report, on which this Clause is said to be founded, argued that there would be a normal period, and in connection with that normal period there should be a statutory right. There is no approach to the normal period. Instead of 700,000, that is 6 per cent. of unemployed, we have over 1,000,000 unemployed. Firstly, there is no adequate knowledge in the normal time to provide the basis of a permanent scheme as in this Clause. Secondly, there are no reliable figures to show how many insured persons will fail to qualify under this new statutory provision. Thirdly, you ought not to give the insured person a bare right as in this Clause when, in fact, he will be unable to claim that right. Fourthly, if the fears expressed by the leaders of industry and Poor Law workers are realised, this Clause will add to the, burdens of areas already overburdened and drive an incalculable number on to the Poor Law. Fifthly, the Clause ought not to be a permanent basis—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member seems to be arguing against the Clause as a whole.
§ Mr. BROWNWith all respect, I am trying to give reasons why, on the basis of the Amendment, 700,000 should be accepted as against the basis of the Clause, namely, 1,076,000. With all respect, I beg leave to hold that my arguments are germane to the Amendment. The Clause ought not, in our judgment, to become the permanent basis in an in- 1460 surance system until the contours of the problem are much more clearly defined, and its magnitude in certain areas of industry is appreciated not merely by the whole nation but by the Minister much more clearly than it seems to be in this Clause.
§ The CHAIRMANWould the reduction to 700,000 enable the Minister to appreciate the matter more fully?
§ Mr. BROWNUndoubtedly, because if and when the numbers come to be 700,000, there will be far less time taken up by the Minister and his supporters in exercising the discretionary rights, and they will be able to see the problem as a whole as they cannot do now, otherwise this Clause would never have been drafted. Since the Government themselves, in this Clause, have thrown over the actuarial basis of the Report, they should be the first to recognise the difficulties involved in the assumptions of this Clause—assumptions which make a new permanent basis for unemployment insurance in this country. The figure of 700,000 should be the basis, because the Blanesburgh Committee argued that if you were to have any permanent scheme of insurance it should be based on an average. Indeed, this was backed up by the. Minister himself on 6 per cent., which is 700,000. I believe the Clause is wrong in principle at the moment.
There are three points of view possible. There is the Departmental point of view. It is quite obvious that, with a million unemployed, that is 300,000 more than 700,000, it would he much easier for the Department to administer a Bill based on Clause 1 than to administer the present Act; it would be much easier for them to administer this Clause if there were 300,000 fewer men involved in the live register of unemployment. Then there is the extra-Departmental view, the point of view of those who will be involved in carrying the burden if this Clause goes through and the number is not presently reduced to 700,000 or thereabouts. Then there is the point of view 1461 of the insured contributor himself. The Clause ought not to go through with the figure of 1,000,000 unemployed until we have had more clearly stated by the Minister what the result of this new permanent basis will be upon insured persons who have been out of employment for many long months.
Let me put some facts before the Committee in support of my argument. I say that a figure of 1,000,000 unemployed ought not to be the permanent basis of a statutory right to benefit of this kind. I say so, first, because the assumptions underlying this Clause are without foundation. There is no foundation for assuming that we shall early arrive at a condition of unemployment in this country in which such a statutory right would do justice to the insured contributor employed or unemployed. In December, 1912, the number of unemployed was about 600,000, or 5.1 per cent. In December, 1913, it was 4.6 per cent. In 1914 it was 3.3 per cent. In 1915 it was 1.1 per cent. In 1916 it was 0.6 per cent. In 1917 it was 0.8 per cent. In 1919 no figures were available because of the out of work donation then in force, but in 1920 the figure was 7.9. We then went up as high as 18 per cent., and now we are at 9.3 per cent., representing a figure of 1,075,000. I argue that these figures provide no basis for the assumption by the Government that they can bring in at this time a Bill which will be permanent. In my judgment to pretend that you can carry out this paper statutory right, when you have unemployment at 9 per cent. and when, over seven years it has only dropped for six weeks below the figure of 1,000,000 or between 9 and 10 per cent., is to mock the unemployed and treat the House of Commons with contempt.
There are no figures to be found in the 1VIinistry of Labour journals or in the Poor Law statistics which will enable thoughtful Members of this House to vote for making this statutory right permanent at the level of over 1,000,000 unemployed on the live register. No figures are available to show how many insured contributors will fail to qualify under the rules. Questions have been put both to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health on this point and it has been admitted that there are no figures on which to base an argument for 1462 making a permanent insurance scheme, except on the assumption that between 150,000 and 200,000 persons will fail to qualify for benefit and will be pushed on to the Poor Law. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour only devoted one sentence to this subject at the end of his speech in the previous Debate. The loss was the House's, and I am not casting any reflection upon the hon. Gentleman because he had other subjects to deal with, but he denied that statement. Nevertheless I think the Committee before passing this statutory right, while unemployment is at the present level, should ask the Minister for more detailed information. If the required information' is not forthcoming, then we should refuse to pass the Clause in its present form but should accept my Amendment, which is based on the assumption contained in the Actuarial Report.
With regard to the point as to giving insured persons a paper right which, in fact, they cannot claim, the available figures are difficult to handle, but we find from an analysis made by the Minister of Labour with regard to certain poor relief claims that 9 per cent. were granted. These were sample cases, and if 9 per cent. receive poor relief under the present Acts, with the Minister's discretion applied to extended benefit, then we are entitled to ask if the Ministry have made any calculation as to the number who will fail to qualify for this paper statutory right. Our fears in this matter are not party fears. They are very real fears, especially to those who come from areas where unemployment has been long continued and constant—the areas known as the necessitous or the "black" areas. Some time ago I asked the Minister how many unemployed persons, at the present level of unemployment, were failing to qualify on the ground of the lack of proportional contributions, and I was told that no information was available on the point. That in itself is a powerful argument in favour of the Amendment. The Ministry have no definite figures on a vital problem of this kind. With regard to the analysis of adult males in connection with the question of employability, that is a problem which comes inside the 300,000—the difference between the 1,000,000 now unemployed and the 1463 700,000 which is the basis of my Amendment. The analysis is as follows:
Of persons who in normal times would be in steady employment, 5,439 only out of 8,683 qualified.
Of persons who, though not usually in steady employment, could in normal times obtain a fair amount of employment, the number was 2,059.
Of persons who would not in normal times obtain a fair amount of employment, but who were not considered to be verging on the unemployable, the number was 525.
Of persons considered to be verging on the unemployable, 314.
Of persons who left school during or since the War, and in consequence of abnormal conditions have not been able to get employment, 254.
§ The CHAIRMANIt seems to me that this is developing into an argument in relation to Clause 5 rather than in relation to the Amendment.
§ Mr. BROWNWith all respect I hope to convince you, Sir, that these figures are germane to the problem of whether or not we are entitled to lay down a permanent basis of the kind proposed in the Clause which will make the position of these individuals infinitely worse than it is now. We ought not to sanction the proposed basis while the level of unemployment is 300,000 more than the figure suggested by the Blanesburgh Report. We say that the words "an insured contributor" in the Clause, taken in con-junction with other Clauses, will render worse the condition of these people and we are entitled to argue that point until we have more information to meet it than has yet been given us by the Ministry. But the strongest argument for the Amendment is to be found in the Minister's own speech. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the allegory of the Pilgrim's Progress and said he felt like Christian losing his burden. If he is to lose his burden under the proposals of this Clause, while 1,000,000 unemployed are carrying their burden, I suggest that the fallacy of his argument is twofold. In the first place, he will not lose his burden. He will temporarily drop it, wipe the sweat from his brow, possibly sing a song like Christian in the 1464 allegory—and then take up part of it again. The other fallacy is in regard to the fact that it is not a personal burden which the Minister seeks by this Clause to cast on the shoulders of 1,000,000 unemployed persons. This is a social burden.
§ The CHAIRMANDo I understand that the argument of the hon. Member is that unless we make the restriction which he proposes the fund will become insolvent?
§ Mr. BROWNThe point I wish to put is that the Minister referred to the burden as being, not merely the financial burden, but the whole burden of the discretionary right which is involved in this Clause. The trouble about the discretionary right is not that the bulk of the men who are employed are qualified for standard benefit; the real problem is the problem of the 300,000 who would not qualify under this statutory condition.
§ The CHAIRMANIt seems to me the hon. Member is arguing as to what would be the effect of making a change in the statutory conditions. That question surely is outside the present Clause.
§ Mr. BROWNWith all respect, Sir, I was not arguing on that point but on the Minister's claim to have got rid of the burden and I should like to point out it is not the statutory conditions alone which will relieve the Minister of the burden; it is this statutory right in Clause 1. With 1,000,000 unemployed, the Minister makes a new arrangement cutting away the basis of the present Acts. This enables him to rid himself of the burden but he pushes the burden off on to the community and the Poor Law.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HAYDAYI support the Amendment which represents the View of the Ministry in relation to what may be termed their estimate of normal unemployment. It is said that under the conditions imposed in the Bill, with a 6 per cent. unemployment, the solvency of the fund may be assured. I support the restrictive intention of the Amendment because, whilst it is true there are over 1,000,000. returned as unemployed, not more than 800,000 are able to qualify for benefit even with the Minister's discretion. Taking the present figure it will be found, I assume, that no more than about 600,000 or 650,000 will be enabled after the transition period has 1465 passed, on the present numbers of unemployed, to be in receipt of benefit. It seems to me that if we desire a permanent statutory condition establishing the insured person's claim as a right, that can best be put into operation when the circumstances are such as to permit the insured person to secure that right with a greater degree of certainty than is possible at present. I am sure the Minister is anxious to get rid of his discretion but, evidently, in working up to the conditions which it is proposed to impose, the Government have already anticipated the passage of this Clause. There appears to be an undue haste to disqualify large numbers and we may easily reach a position where, with 1,000,000 returned as unemployed, less than 700,000 will be drawing benefit. That is not to the good. That surely ought not to be the intention of Parliament and, as the register now shows over 1,000,000 unemployed, I suggest that the statutory condition proposed ought not to operate until that figure has been reduced to 700,000.
It will not mean that 700,000 would be able to qualify under the statutory right condition; in fact, if you took the same ratio as exists at the moment, that would be much less than 600,000, and that would appear to me to give a more normal aspect and a more justifiable reason for putting into operation your strictly statutory right condition and eliminating all other conditions of benefit. I would like to put another point that I am afraid cannot arise on any other Clause, but it certainly does arise here. A statutory right with a million unemployed is evidently the intention of the Clause, and I would like the Minister, for the peace of mind of large numbers of our unfortunate unemployed, as well as for the satisfaction not only of the House but of the country in general, to tell us Whether, in putting into operation his statutory right condition, any provision has been made to wipe out the accumulated arrears that have run up during the course of extended benefit against insured persons. He will quite appreciate what I mean. At the moment, persons drawing statutory right benefit—that is, standard benefit—and then going on to extended benefit have for every week they draw under the Minister's discretion a definite amount run- 1466 ning up against them, and some of them are in debt for anything from 50 to 100 stamps. If the statutory right has to be a clear right, unencumbered, will those debit arrears count to be wiped off before the statutory right can be established under this Clause?
§ The CHAIRMANThat is an important point, but I think it should come on the next and wider Amendments of the same hon. Member—[in page 1, line 11, after the word "receive," to insert the word "the"; and, in line 11, at the end, to insert the words "of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1926"]. I do not think the Minister could very well answer that question on this Amendment.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI do not know if I am right in assuming that this Amendment and the two subsequent Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), to which the Chairman has just referred, are intended to form together an alternative for the new Clause. I take it as being so.
§ The CHAIRMANIn that case, the discussion can take place on all three Amendments now, but, of course, if the first is rejected, the others will not be put.
§ Mr. HAYDAYIn that case, shall I be in order in pursuing the line of argument which I was about to put?
§ The CHAIRMANYes.
§ Mr. HAYDAYThe Minister will quite realise the intense .anxiety there is on that matter. As I said, there are some unemployed persons who have an entry on the debit side of their account, that is carried forward regularly every week, for extended benefit or benefit under the Minister's discretion. An hon. Member shakes his head, but I have been through Employment Exchanges, and I have had the method explained to me. I have seen the debit account actually carried forward on a man's card, showing that he owes the fund so many stamps, or certain values for which he has drawn benefit, apart from any provision he may have to his credit in stamp values. There is nothing in this Bill in association with the new conditions to show that, from 19th April or such period later than 1467 that after the transitional period, these men will not be confronted with the debt against them. If that debt is carried forward against them, then it looks as if they will have to requalify afresh and possibly wipe off their arrears before it can be said that they are in credit sufficiently to establish a statutory right, if by statutory right it ultimately follows that there is a given value that must stand to the credit of each person at the time of making application. That point has not been cleared up either in the Memorandum or in the Bill. Deficits are dealt with in neither case, and I would urge the Minister to inform us whether it is the intention of his Department to carry on that debit account and that heavy debt, or whether it is their intention to wipe it out on the establishment of the new statutory conditions, whatever they may be.
§ Mr. HARNEYI understand this Clause really to mean that an insured contributor who is unemployed shall, if he proves that the statutory conditions are fulfilled and that he is not disqualified, be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Bill, to benefit. One of the main provisions of this Bill is to put an end to extended benefit, and what the Amendment says is that this Clause shall be subject to the live register falling to a total of 700,000 unemployed contributors. Therefore, taking the two together, the point that arises on this Amendment is this: Ought we now to pass a Clause which gives effect to a provision doing away with extended benefit as long as the unemployment live register is as high as it is? I, for one, am no lover of extended benefit. I consider that it is illogical, that it is not insurance at all, and that the discretionary powers of the Minister attached to it renders it most uncertain and often creates feelings, unjustly, of the Ministry acting unfairly. I would like to see it done away with, but I approve of this Amendment, which says that the Clause is premature. The whole Bill is premature. If you are able to show me that on the present live register you can at the same time do away with extended benefit and gather all those who are then cut off under the benefit as of right, then I agree, but the facts which we have heard and what we know from our 1468 own constituencies satisfy us that the effect of doing away with extended benefit, having regard to the small enlargement that is given to standard benefit, must be that of driving hundreds of thousands of people on to they rates.
We are, therefore, opposed to this Clause, a Clause which says that persons henceforth are to be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Bill, one of which is the doing away with standard benefit, to benefit under the Act. If this Amendment is rejected, if the Clause as it stands is carried, then this Committee says: "We are in favour of closing up the door leading to the avenue of extended benefit and of driving these people on to the rates." That is really the question raised in this Amendment. It is true that the standard benefit channel is open, and I have no doubt the original draftsmen of the Bill thought that those they shut out from extended benefit they would let in through the enlarged standard benefit avenue. But they have not done so. I am told, in my own constituency, that if you strike off the live register those who now obtain benefit as extended, you strike off about 70 per cent, of them. Will that 70 per cent. find their way into the standard channel, enlarged as it may be under this Bill? How is it enlarged? At the present time, before you can get standard benefit, you must limit yourself to the rule of one in six, and you never can get more than 26 weeks. Even with that gone, I am told that very few indeed who are now on extended benefit would be able to show the 30 stamps in the previous two years.
I, therefore, think there is great force in the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because he asks the Committee simply to say that when a time arrives when unemployment is down to what is said to be the normal 6 per cent., then, and not till then, should we do away with this emergency extended benefit; but until that time arrives, if you do away with it, you are simply burdening the rates that are now breaking the back of the whole of the shopkeeping community throughout the industrial areas. I come from these areas and know of the distressing position of shopkeepers, business men, and even factory owners, with thousands of distress warrants out for rates in order to meet the unemployment demand, and it 1469 is unthinkable to say to these people that, so far from relieving them of this strain—a strain which involves immense overdrafts at the banks that cannot be paid off, a strain which has necessitated area after area coming to the Minister of Health and saying: "For God's sake, give us £20,000, £30,000, £40,000, to tide us over these difficulties "—you will amend the insurance system by drying up one of the channels whereby the unemployed get relief from the Fund. You are not depriving them of relief, because you cannot do that—you cannot let men starve—but you are turning them away from the Employment Exchanges, where now they do get something, on to the doors of the boards of guardians. Anyone who lives in a necessitous area will agree that that is unthinkable, and, therefore, while I, for one, do not disguise for a moment that this extended benefit is a makeshift, that it has no scientific foundation, and that the sooner it is done away with the better, we are to have a thorough, actuarial insurance system—though I say all that—I say that the emergency that justified it four or five years ago is even stronger to-day than it was then. The Minister has his choice. His actuary could work out a system as I think he could, whereby under the name of standard benefit you would receive all those who are now getting it under the name of extended benefit; but it would be cruel upon the ratepayers of this country to allow the provisions of this Measure to come into operation until the live register is reduced to some reasonable amount.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDIf the Committee will allow me, I will deal with the exact effect of this Amendment. I am sure that any wider consideration on Clause 1 could be dealt with later on, on the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) to omit Clause 1. The effect of this Amendment would be this: It envisages two sets of systems, one when there is a figure of unemployed insured contributors of 700,000 or over, and another when it is under that number. If this Amendment were carried, there would be one system when the register was over that figure, and an entirely different system of dealing with the question when the register was under 700,000. The system would 1470 have to be changed from one to the other according as to when the register went above or below 700,000. It might be quite conceivable that the conditions that would be applied would jig about from one to the other from week to week.
§ Mr. HARNEYWhat I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say is that the effect of the Amendment would be that the provision would apply or not apply as the register rises above or below that figure. That is not so, because the Amendment is that the Provision shall have effect—it does not say for all time —"subject to the live register falling." Under the Amendment which follows the Provision becomes operative for all time.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDSupposing I take the interpretation of the hon. and learned Member. Let me ask him again to consider what would happen under the system as he states it. The words of the Amendment are, "Subject to the live register falling to a total of 700,000." He presupposes that in that case his system would apply.
§ Mr. HARNEYThe Bill would apply in that case.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDNo. Under his Amendment it is subject to the live register falling to a total of 700,000. Then, according to the words of the other Amendments, the contributor would be entitled to receive the benefit of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1926. That would mean that the benefit under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1926, including extended benefit and the rest of it, would apply when unemployment was lower—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and not when unemployment was higher.
§ Mr. HARNEYThat is not so.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI can assure the hon. and learned Member that I have taken very careful advice on this point, and what I said is perfectly right, and that his more generous system—I am only attributing these words to him and his friends—apply when unemployment is lower and not when it is higher. At the same time there are two different sets of conditions. While he sets up his own more generous system, which would apply when unemployment was lower, you might at least imagine 1471 there would be some provision for when unemployment was higher; but by the Amendment he takes away the provision made in Clause 1.
§ Mr. E. BROWNIs the right hon. Gentleman not assuming that the other two Amendments are passed? The first Amendment has nothing to do with the other two.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Minister asked the hon. Member whether these two Amendments formed part of one Amendment.
§ Mr. BROWNI thought he was refer-ring to another Amendment. I only argued the case of the Amendment relating to the 700,000.
§ The CHAIRMANI think there has been a general misunderstanding in this matter. The following two Amendments are one, and I understood that he referred to the former one as well. As he did not intend this, the discussion must be con-fined to the question arising out of the 700,000.
§ Mr. HARNEYThe Minister was rather arguing as if the Amendment said that when the live register is below that number an insured contributor shall be subject to the provisions of this Bill. Once the live register does fall below, the provisions of the Acts of 1920–1926 apply.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThat is not precisely what the hon. Member said. I asked the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) whether his three Amendments formed part of one whole. I was then told by him distinctly that they did, but if he made a mistake I do not wish to press it. The Amendment cannot be accepted. The hon. Member who has just spoken has said the whole of Clause I is premature. I can only say that the Blanesburgh Committee which investigated the subject very closely indeed decided that the proposal was not premature. They made no reservation as to the time it should be brought into force; they proposed a transitional period, and the one slight departure from their recommendations, apart from the financial aspects, which were dealt with on Second Reading, has been to make the transitional period in the Bill rather longer than the period suggested in the Report 1472 itself. For this reason it is really not possible to say that the Clause is premature. The Blanesburgh Committee examined the subject in great detail and they did not see any reason at all why it was not right to bring in the system at the present time. I am not entitled at this moment under the rules of Order to debate the effects of the conditions that will follow afterwards. The effect of these conditions may vary the system enormously, and either make it more rigid or more elastic. The system should be introduced now, as the Blanesburgh Committee thought it right it should be, and we are following what they considered right; so we cannot accept the Amend-merit even if it be taken by itself and not in connection with the other two Amendments.
§ Mr. T. SHAWI shall ask my hon. Friends sitting behind me to vote for the Amendment. What is the position in which we find ourselves? We have to face this Clause as it is. In the action of the Minister we have a lack of the ordinary courtesies of the House which is surprising. I have not known a Bill on which definite statistical information has been asked for and where it has been refused as in this Bill. In this case the Minister has constantly refused to state what the effect of this Clause will be. We are entitled to know what the Minister means. The position of affairs is that we are asked to vote for a certain Clause which deals with over a million unemployed, which seems to us to imply—basing our opinions on what information we can get—that something in the region of 150,000 to 200,000 people who are now receiving unemployment pay will be in serious jeopardy of being thrown, not into work, but on to their own resources. Surely we are entitled to ask if that is or is not the case. According to the Actuary's statement, we can assume that that is a reasonably accurate statement, but the Minister has all the information at his hand and could, by frankly telling us what his own officials estimate, give us some idea of what the condition of affairs is likely to be. This Amendment states, in fact, that this position shall not he faced until the unemployment figures are such as will indicate that trade has changed so rapidly that it is now possible for a number of men, who are un- 1473 employed and with no chance of getting work, to get work, and that it is possible to have a scheme which can be based on some solid actuarial calculation which will give us a definite result that one can expect to work as inevitably as the tides. But at present there is no indication that if this Bill becomes an Act that genuine decline in unemployment is going to take place at all. All we have to face, if the Act be applied to a million unemployed workers, is a tremendous increase in the rates of over-burdened localities.
The fear that we have is not simply a fear that we have ourselves. Even in Birmingham, the Mecca of the Conservative party, the union has issued a long circular to everybody pointing out the dangers they foresee if this method of dealing with the unemployment problem is adopted. Surely in these circumstances there ought to be a method of dealing with this matter in which the Government can provide against their expectations not being realised. Everyone who has been at the Ministry of Labour for the last six or seven years knows that every Minister has hoped to make a permanent system, but he has had to provide in some way or other that if his expectations were not realised, a calamity could not occur, and that these people should not go out of benefit. Now the Minister is trying to formulate a definite scheme under far less favourable conditions than prevailed when other somewhat similar schemes were under consideration. The country is not ready for a Bill which inevitably, as far as we can foresee, will throw men and women now getting benefits on to the Poor Law, or something worse, and I shall advise all my hon. Friends to vote for this Amendment, which at any rate will postpone the evil day until trade has improved to such an extent as to show that there is a possibility of these hundreds of thousands of skilled men getting work. At present they have no more chance of getting work at their own trade than I have of flying—and I am a very unlikely flier.
There seems no hope for them in the immediate future. What are you going to say to the men in the shipyards who have been unemployed for so long that it is almost inevitable that they cannot fufil the qualifications for unemployment benefit? What are you going to say to 1474 the miners in those places where the pits have been definitely closed down? Are you going to say, "You can either go to the guardians or you can starve"? That is what you will say if this Clause is passed in its present form. This Amendment will not do all that it might do, but at any rate it will postpone the operation of this Clause. If the Clause had said that any genuinely unemployed person should be entitled to benefit as a statutory right we should all have agreed. The statutory right would have pleased us. We should have been better pleased with that than with the Minister's discretion, but when the Minister says, "I am going to withdraw my discretion at the expense of the unemployed," we protest, and we shall vote for this Amendment, and vote also for the dropping of this Clause out of the Bill altogether.
§ Miss LAWRENCEMy right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) has complained of the want of courtesy of the Minister in not giving us any statistical information. I am a more charitable person than my right hon. Friend; I know perfectly well that the Minister is not in a position to give that information. When I pressed him about the actuary's figures, he took refuge in complete silence. All he has to say to-day is that the Blanesburgh Committee did not see any reason why this Bill should not be put into force at once. I shall come back to the evidence given to the Blanesburgh Committee, because I think no body of persons ever treated financial considerations with more levity and carelessness than they did. The auditor explained that he had no basis whatever on which to forecast the course of employment. He said so definitely before the Blanesburgh Committee—that he had no information either before the War or after the War which would enable him to forecast the course of employment. I have pointed out before that the figures available before the War were insufficient, according to the actuary, and that the figures supplied by the Minister in 1920 were ludicrously insufficient, because at that time the Minister actually supplied the Government auditor with a solemn calculation that the percentage of unemployment in the mining industry would not be more than 1½ per cent. Now, 1475 again, the auditor has told the Blanesburgh Committee that there is no data on which to estimate the course of employment. The Minister will not answer these considerations, but I do not want to complain of discourtesy, because I can see that neither he nor anyone else can estimate the course of employment. That being the case, it is little less than a crime to pretend to introduce a permanent insurance scheme.
In his original speech the Minister said he was of opinion that in normal times this scheme would be a satisfactory arrangement. The times are not normal, and the Minister does not know when they will be. There may be three possible consequences of the action he is taking. The first may be that the scheme will go bankrupt, which is something to which we are quite accustomed with insurance Measures. In that case—the second consequence—we may do as we have done in the past, that is put up contributions from the employers and the employed in order to stave off bankruptcy, although this is very undesirable, because it means that at a time when industry is in trouble it is loaded with the cost of extra contributions. In the third place, the Minister may take the line of so restricting benefits that they become quite inadequate for the unemployed, in which case the insurance becomes ridiculous. That is the course which is being taken now. We are pushing forward with a scheme of insurance on the basis of 6 per cent of unemployment, although we know that the figure of unemployment is much higher to-day. The result of going forward with a strict scheme of insurance on a perfectly fallacious basis and administering it in the way suggested will be to throw vast numbers of the unemployed on to the local rates.
It has been very difficult indeed to extort any general figures from the Ministry, but we have got one or two figures for particular localities. It appears that the proportion of those who have been disallowed unemployment benefit on the ground that they have not had a reasonable period of insurable employment during the past two years has been very high indeed in the constituencies where information has been obtained. In some cases it has been 1476 nearly 10 per cent.; in other cases rather more. The Liverpool figures show that the total number of cases in which it was recommended that benefit should be disallowed was 6,000 odd, and 3,453 of these were persons who had not had a reasonable period of insurable employment during the last two years. All such persons will inevitably fall upon the Poor Law. What we are doing by proceeding with an insurance scheme founded on an entirely illusory basis is to load upon the localities very nearly the whole of the expense of what has up to now been paid as extended benefit.
Hon. Members do not seem to care. There appears to be extraordinary apathy among hon. Members opposite with regard to the effect of throwing more and more out of the unemployed on to the Poor Law. It is not at all a light matter. It is bad that employers and employed should bear a charge of £43,000,000 for unemployment insurance benefit—it is a bad thing for industry, and I have never defended it; but the effect of the £23,000,000 raised by rates which is spent on out-relief is worse and even more crippling for industry. We cannot estimate how much of the burden of rates falls upon industry. We can only say that the burden of out-relief is concentrated in the industrial districts, and that the possessors of fixed industrial capital pay a very great portion of those rates. That is triply bad for industry for this reason. This is a charge which must be paid good year and bad year alike. Whether a firm is on the verge of bankruptcy—
§ The CHAIRMANI think the incidence of rating as compared with taxation is a consideration which is irrelevant on the consideration of this Amendment.
§ Miss LAWRENCEI want to put it to you that if we have a sham insurance scheme somebody will have to foot the bill. You have allowed two hon. Members to point out that the effect of a faulty scheme would be to throw an extra burden on the rates, and I am only saying that such a proceeding increases unemployment, which, I submit, is a reason-able deduction to make. I say that the greater the burden cast upon the rates, the more unemployed we shall have; that we shall only increase the number of unemployed by making the rates a residuary legatee for all the expenses 1477 which the unemployment scheme does not shoulder. I say it is strictly relevant to point out that by doing it in that way we actually increase the number of unemployed, because we depress trade and industry. That is my point. Extended benefit comes partly out of the resources of the State and partly out of the contributions from the workers and employers; very much too much comes from them, but, anyhow, part comes from the State. The expenses of all the people who are thrown upon the rates depresses industry—industry which every wise Minister ought to do his best to foster; and I say to you, Mr. Hope, that such an argument is quite relevant when we are discussing a sham insurance scheme without a proper actuarial basis. The evils which follow upon it are almost infinite. They have a prejudicial effect upon the whole circle -of our trade and upon the whole of our finance. I have pointed out again and again that the Minister has no basis—no figures, no prophecies, no responsible officials' reports—on which to forecast what the future of unemployment is likely to be. All we know is that at present the figure of unemployment is very far from the arbitrary figure on which this insurance scheme is based. If we, persist in this course we shall be heading for disaster, either the bankruptcy of the scheme, or an increase of contributions from the employers and the employed, or, what I believe will be the case, the throwing of the burden upon the local rates; and of all the ways of providing for the maintenance of the unemployed the very worst is to load the expenditure on the industrial districts. The Minister brings forward a great, solid insurance scheme without any estimate on which to base it. All he knows is that the figures of unemployment are far removed at present from his imaginary basis. I shall vote for the Amendment as a protest against this most careless, most reckless finance.
§ Mr. J. BAKERI am going to vote in favour of this Amendment. In my view, neither the Minister of Labour nor any other man ought to have the power that the Minister was given in 1925. This is not a proposal to give the Minister discretion or to take away his discretion, .as it was established under the 1924 Act. The argument in 1925 was that 1478 somebody should have a discretion because the 1924 Act was being imposed upon. That was the first step not in the direction of proper administration or cautious checking of claims, but for the indiscriminate throwing off the register of men who, in my opinion, ought to have had continued benefit. To-night we are taking the second step. This is not a proposal to take away the Minister's discretion to do something which he himself believed was necessary in 1925. Really, it is a proposal for throwing hundreds of thousands of people off the funds without any regard whatever to what is going to happen to them.
We have been talking here about 6 per cent. and 7 per cent., and the actuaries state that this scheme will be insolvent if you get 10 per cent. of unemployed. May I point out that in the iron and steel trade the percentage is over 16 per cent., and in some branches of that trade the percentage is even more than that. When one of your basic industries has over 16 per cent. of its workers idle, that is not a time to be considering schemes which ought to be applied only under normal conditions. If this 16 per cent. to which I have referred consisted of men who are never likely to be employed in the iron and steel industry, again the economists in this House might have some reason for saying, "We cannot treat the Insurance Acts as a form of pensions for ex-steel workers." I do not take that view myself, but I can assure hon. Members that that is not the case. If you take any notice of the Press reports you will read about a blast furnace being started on one day while two are stopped somewhere else. In the tinplate trade and many other branches of the iron and steel industry, the men who are thrown out of work are generally those who have exhausted their right to standard benefit, men with immense arrears of contributions piled up against them; and if this Bill goes through as drafted, there will be nothing for them but to have recourse to the Poor Law.
What does that mean to the iron and steel trade? I have heard it stated here by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), who appears to be well informed on this subject, that in some cases the local rates paid by some firms amount to £1 per ton of steel produced. I have heard it put at as 1479 much as £1 1s. per ton. I do not know the basis of that calculation, but if it applies to the production of one ton of steel ingots, that constitutes a greater cost to the employer than the total wages paid for the, production of a ton of steel. The employers say they cannot pay ordinary wages under the pressure of such heavy rates, and a government of business men should think twice before attempting to get rid of a national burden by throwing it upon the manufacturers of iron and steel, and other commodities in the North of England and the Midlands. I am much more concerned with the human element than with pounds, shillings and pence. I do not know how far it is in order for me to show what all this unemployment has done.
§ The CHAIRMANThat question does not really arise on this Amendment. The hon. Member, and hon. Members generally, are perfectly entitled to argue that the time has not yet come for putting unemployment insurance on a permanent basis.
§ Mr. BAKERI am taking the view that we have not arrived at the time when unemployment insurance can be put on a basis like that which is suggested in this Bill, because the rate of unemployment is much too high to consider it in that way. To my mind we shall not be able to consider normality until we get unemployment down to a point approximating to the rate obtaining when unemployment insurance was first established under the National Health Insurance Act, 1911. In those days we never dreamt of having anything like 15 per cent. or 16 per cent. of unemployed, and all this emergency legislation has been forced upon us by the conditions which followed after the Great War. After the War, we embarked upon heavy expenditure extending shipbuilding, engineering and the iron and steel trade. Some of us at that time pointed out that we should not be able to maintain that rate of production, and the more reasonable amongst us said, "What are we going to do with the men who will be thrown out of employment? We must make some provision for them."
Of course, I am not imputing motives to anybody. Some employers did make provision for their workers because they did not want to see humanity suffer, and 1480 they did not want to see the workers degraded. Many of them took this course because they saw that there was danger of revolution, and you are not out of that danger yet. I wish to say, however, that if you are going to drive 200,000 people off the Unemployment Fund they will not take it quietly. If I were among those men I would not take it quietly, but I hope we shall not come to that. I hope we are going to remodel this Bill, not on the basis laid down in the speech of the Minister of Labour that we must have tests and money tests. We must not proceed on the basis of restricting benefit. I hope we are going to remodel this Bill on the basis of the treatment we should like to receive if we were in the position of the poor devils who will be thrown out of benefit. For these reasons I shall vote for the Amendment, although it does not meet my peculiar case. I believe in work or maintenance. I contend that recent legislation has changed the tenour of these Acts.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now going beyond this Amendment.
§ Mr. BAKERI thought 1 might he allowed to put the case where we have changed the whole spirit of these proposals in order to show that we are following the bad spirit which was set up in 1925. The first of these Acts provided some income when the insured person was out of work, and also provided machinery for setting up places where they could go to be registered.
§ The CHAIRMANThe question of the machinery of the Employment Ex-changes is not in order on this Amendment. The question is whether there should be a permanent basis for insurance or not.
§ Mr. BAKERWhat is now proposed is on a basis which ought not to be accepted as permanent. We have placed all the responsibility on the shoulders of the workmen for finding a Job. I think provision should be made in this Bill for finding jobs for these workmen.
§ The CHAIRMANThat cannot be done under this Amendment. That argument is really outside the scope of the Amendment.
§ Mr. BAKERPerhaps I shall be able to get that part of my argument in later on. This Clause, in my view, endorses a set of conditions which I, for one, do not accept, and against which I desire to protest. I think we are proceeding on entirely wrong lines. I am going to vote for this Amendment, although it does not go quite as far as I would like.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Mr. VIANTI desire to support this Amendment. Listening to the Debate, the thought has occurred to me that the Government, in seeking to stabilise these conditions, must have come to the conclusion that their attempts to reduce unemployment are not likely to meet with much success. In seeking to pass this Bill it does appear to me that the Government have made up their minds that the number of unemployed is not going to be reduced. It seems to me to be the deliberate intention to put as many people as possible into a category where they cannot possibly receive unemployment benefit. That is what this Bill will do, and it will simply mean that more and more men and women will find it impossible to qualify for unemployment benefit. As I said in the Debate on the Second Reading, that is a most unfair attitude to take up. Even this Amendment is but a compromise, and the thought suggested itself to me that the Government at least might have been prepared to meet us in this compromise by being prepared to accept the Amendment, and so to prove at least that they were not desirous of making the conditions of the unemployed any more arduous than they are at the present time. It needs no evidence from Members of the House of Commons to confirm our doubts in regard to the effect of this Bill. The ex-Minister of Labour quoted the statements and opinions of the Poor Law authority in Birmingham. There there was a large meeting of men and women whose experience of the Poor Law has convinced them that this Bill will do no other than increase the number who will be claiming Poor Law relief. I think it unfair to the ratepayers of this country that the Government should introduce a Bill which, in its ultimate effect, will mean that the expense and the burden of unemployment will be thrown upon the ratepayers, whereas it is a burden which should be borne by the taxpayers. The effect, as has been said already, is bound 1482 to be felt in the industries of this country, and that in itself must have the effect of again depressing trade and increasing the number of people unemployed. The Minister has offered no reason for this change in the Bill. I and others have sat here expecting at least that the Minister in charge would have attempted to give some justification for the Bill, but no such attempt has been made. I would suggest that it is not too late, even now, for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to offer some reasons to justify the' introduction of this Bill. I hope that the Committee is going to be treated in a courteous manner, and that some justification will be attempted by the Government for the introduction of this Bill. As far as I can see, it cannot be justified, and I hope that the Government will be prepared to give some consideration to this Amendment which is offered as a compromise.
§ Mr. STEPHENI wish to support this Amendment. Like one of my colleagues, I do not like the discretionary power of the Minister; I do not think that any individual should be placed in that position. But one has to recognise the circumstances in which we are living to-day, and, if the Bill were to pass without any qualification whatsoever, it would mean a great deal of suffering among the working class. Also I would like to say to the Committee that, after the little misunderstanding between the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) with regard to this and the two following Amendments, the Minister did not suggest any reason whatsoever why he should not be able to accept this Amendment. I have often heard Ministers defending difficult positions in this Chamber, but I never heard anything so lame as the position that was taken up by the Minister of Labour in connection with this Amendment. He based his whole objection on the misunderstanding, but, when it was cleared up, he had nothing at all to say as to what the effect of this Amendment would be. It is true that he stated that the Blanesburgh Committee did expect that their Report was going to be put into early effect through legislation, and he conceived that, if this Amendment were accepted, it would mean that the Report would not come into operation. The members of the Committee themselves appeared to be somewhat uncertain as to 1483 whether a permanent system should come into operation. Possibly, at the time when they were holding their meetings, the present Government had not been in office sufficiently long for the Committee really to understand that the hopes they were placing on that Government were going to be so much disappointed by results, because the members of the Committee, speaking of the transitional arrangements, say:
But if a period of good trade is at hand, and there is hope of it, the number will clearly be negligible; but it must be remembered that, if the new scheme starts, as we hope it will, in the near future, nothing can alter the fact that just before its inauguration there had existed a prolonged trade depression of unexampled severity. This fact, in our view, justifies an arrangement which would remove any sense of injustice insured contributors might otherwise feel as a result of the winding up of the present scheme.The members of the Committee had their hopes that a period of good trade was going to come, but no one can say that those hopes have been justified, and that really there is anything in the present situation to suggest that we are coming to a position of normality with regard to unemployment in this country. The Actuary, who was responsible for advising the Committee, was very much more cautious than the members of the Comittee; possibly he had had more experience of Governments, and what Governments might do. In his financial statement, which is included as an Appendix to the Report, it is quite obvious that he was putting through his job. He had to give some financial statement, and I believe he did as well as could have been expected; but he points out in regard to this matter that:Taking the broad view of the problem to which I am limited by the actual conditions, I am led to conclude that in, arranging the finance of the permanent scheme it would be advisable to provide for a rate of unemployment of 6 per cent., on the average, throughout the whole of the period commonly regarded as a 'trade ' cycle. I have accordingly framed any estimates on this basis.He is assuming that we are in a trade cycle. I do not think, however, that the opinion of the Government is that we are in a cyclical period at the present time, but that we are in a thoroughly abnormal period, and, however much hope may come to the hearts of indi- 1484 viduals who would like to see things better in this country, there is nothing to suggest that, by the time this Measure is placed upon the Statute Book and will be coming into operation, there is any probability of the figures being such as is suggested. I want also to say this, that the ex-Minister of Labour complained of the same lack of courtesy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in not giving us the statistical information that was being asked for. Throughout the whole of the proceedings in connection with this Measure, it has been perfectly evident that there has been no disposition on the part of the Government really to come forward with statistics which would enable this Committee to decide. There has been a great lack of information. Possibly the Minister himself is not able to get statistics, but, if he cannot give us the information, that, surely, is an additional reason why this Amendment should be accepted, and why we should go on on the basis of an unemployment figure of 700,000 before the change is made.We want to know how the necessitous areas are going to be affected, and I want to put this point before the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I expect, will reply; I do not think it has really been put in the course of the discussion. When you think of the present figure of 9.4 per cent., which is the percentage of unemployment according to the Ministry's statistics, and when you visualise a number of unemployed amounting to over a million, as is the case at present, within that area of unemployment there are parts of the country which are very much worse than others; and, in those parts where unemployment is so much worse than in others, you find that the percentage of those who are in receipt of extended benefit is very much higher than in other parts, where unemployment has not been so bad. If you were to take some districts in the South, where there has been this growing development of industry, you would find, probably, that the number of people in receipt of standard benefit might be 60 or 70 per cent.; but when you take a district like that from which I myself come, where there has been unemployment for a long period and on a wide scale, you find that the percentage of people in receipt of extended 1485 benefit is very much higher, and the percentage in receipt of standard benefit very much lower. Taking the country as a whole, I think the Minister will agree with me that the average is about 50 per cent. receiving standard benefit and 50 per cent. receiving extended benefit, but when you begin to get down to particular areas, then you find that, as in the Glasgow district, the figures may run to 30–70 or 40–60. That means that, if we are going on with this Measure without the qualification involved in this Amendment, an additional burden is going to be placed on those districts where already so much more suffering has been experienced through unemployment than in other districts. There are going to be very many people who cannot come into the scheme, who cannot get the 30 contributions, who, if they get a spell of employment are thrown out again, and who, although they may try to get into the scheme, are unable to do so and cannot get benefit at all. The result is that, in those districts, an increasing number will be thrown upon the rates, whereas in other districts, where unemployment has not been so bad, there may possibly be some lessening of the burden. Therefore, this will make it more difficult for the worse hit districts in the country.
I do not think that this Committee really believes that to be sound policy at all, in view of the Minister's refusal to give us any estimate and his inability to find any justification for refusing this Amendment. The people responsible for financial considerations all regard the present period as abnormal. A time of abnormality is not the time to set up your permanent scheme. I, myself, would much prefer the present scheme, and I hope the Minister will see his way to meet the criticism and accept the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary on the Second Reading hoped there would be the same spirit of compromise as there was in the Committee. There will be no compromise if they are going to give away something that is vital to the interests of the unemployed members of the working class. At the same time, if the Minister is coming forward in a spirit of compromise, this Amendment offers him an instance where he can show what he is willing to do in this respect.
1486 The Minister expressed doubt as to whether the Amendment would have the effect intended, and suggested that it would tend to introduce a sort of sliding system, that when it came under 700,000 the arrangement under the Bill would apply, and when it went over 700,000 the arrangement under the Bill would not apply. If the Minister is prepared to take that figure instead of a million odd, the Committee will be in a position to appreciate it, and if these words would not effect that, other words could be put in. It is a very lame defence to say that the Amendment will not do because it has not been thoroughly considered by a skilled draftsman. The Minister has to be aware now at least of what the hon. Member for Leith and other Members desire, that the period when this attempt at permanency may be set up should be a period when unemployment is much less than it is to-day—when the figure on the live register has been greatly reduced. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some more information on the matter. If he will be frank and say he cannot get it, and that the whole Measure is a leap in the dark, we shall know where we are, but he sometimes presents an appearance as if he had it and when the psychological moment arrives he will take the rabbit out of the hat. If he has the information I hope he will give it to us at the beginning of our discussions so that we may make a much more effective contribution towards remoulding this Measure into something much more satisfactory than it is now.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSI hope the Minister will accept the Amendment not only to satisfy the desire of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) but to try to give some satisfaction to the Birmingham Union. I understand he is one of the 11 Members from the Birmingham district. I have received a circular to-day from the Union Offices in Edmund Street, Birmingham. They say:
In the opinion of this Board the pro-visions of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, if adopted by Parliament, will ultimately add to the already grievous financial burden borne by Poor Law authorities in areas where considerable unemployment exists.They further suggest:That as the causation of unemployment is national in origin and in effect it should be a national liability, and as Poor Law authorities for the areas where 1487 there is pronounced unemployment have raised and locally expended large sums of money, and in some instances have incurred huge debts in bearing the unequal incidence of expenditure on relief to the unemployed.This is not a question of an appeal by Members from these benches, but an appeal probably 'by some of the electors who put the Minister on the bench where he sits now, so I hope it will have some effect upon him. Probably he read during the week-end that Guest, Keen and Nettlefold are proposing to close down their collieries at Cwmbran, where something like 500 miners will be thrown out of employment. This Amendment will not affect the 500 men, but there are at least 700 men in the district who have not done a day's work since 1921. I can give even a harder case, and that is the men at Blaenavon. I am sure he will find that at Cwmbran 90 per cent. of those drawing benefit are drawing ex-tended benefit and some of the people at the steel works at Blaenavon have not worked since the slump of 1920, and there is no hope of their doing a day's work for a very long time. I want to know how it is going to affect them. If the Minister cannot listen to the appeal made from this side of the Committee,. I hope he will listen to the appeal in the circular from which I have read.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI rise to support the Amendment, but with certain misgivings'. It is assumed by everyone who has spoken so far that the Minister's discretion is bad, but are my colleagues sure that they are abolishing discretion? It is true they are abolishing the Minister's discretion, but they are substituting in its place a little lawyer who will be chairman of the Court of Referees, and his discretion will not be subject to Parliamentary criticism. The lawyer will be chosen for his activity in political circles and his influence in some form of politics.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy)This does not seem to me to have reference to this Amendment.
§ Mr. BUCHANANIf that is your ruling, Captain FitzRoy, I will depart from the point, but I was only arguing that the Amendment is based on the fact that the Minister's discretion is to be brought back if the number of persons is 1488 above 700,000. Some of my colleagues have been arguing, particularly before you came in, that the Minister's discretion was bad and they were not sure whether they would support the Amendment or not. I am arguing that they need have no doubt in supporting it, because the Minister's discretion is much preferable to the discretion that is to be imposed in the Bill.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThere may be some other Clause on which the merits of the Minister's discretion may be challenged, but it would not be in order on this Clause.
§ Mr. BUCHANANThis is a thing about which I feel very keen. The hon. Member for Leith was not enthusiastic over the Amendment because it was the lesser of two evils, and several of my colleagues proceeded to argue that the Minister's discretion was bad and, there-fore, they were not sure whether they would support the Amendment. I am only assuring them that they need have no doubt.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat may be a reason in some hon. Members' minds for not supporting the Amendment, but it does not occur to me to be germane at all.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI should have thought that everything which would convince Members to support an Amendment would be germane and in order.
§ Mr. MAXTONI am very anxious about your ruling, Captain FitzRoy, on this matter, because while the hon. Member may be satisfied to accept your ruling, there are other Members who wish to participate in the Debate at a subsequent stage. I want to ask you if it be not a fact that under this Bill discretion is taken away from the Minister entirely. The effect of this Amendment is to re-establish the Minister's discretion over the whole field and for all time, because nobody on these benches believes that the unemployment figure is going to be brought down to 700,000, assuming that the present system of society continues. Therefore, the whole matter is under discussion as to whether the Minister should or should not have discretion.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think it is. The question raised by this 1489 Amendment is as to whether the time is opportune for altering the system of the Acts of 1920–26 and making the receipt of benefits a statutory right. That seems to me to be the object of this Clause, and the object of the Amendment seems to me to be—or rather the argument behind the Amendment—that the time is not ripe for that, and that it should not come into operation until a certain state of affairs exists—until when there are fewer unemployed. It has nothing whatever to do, as far as I can see, with the merits of the discretionary powers of the Minister;. it does not arise on this Amendment.
§ Mr. HARDIEOn a point of Order. Seeing that Clause 1 is the governing Clause, and seeks to take away the discretionary power—and by that it takes away the right of claim at any time to a review of a case of extended benefit—how can the argument be wrong dealing with that point?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member may be quite right as regards the Clause, but I do not think the argument will apply to this Amendment. They are two different things.
§ Mr. HARDIEIf an Amendment be passed by the Chair, or even by Mr. Speaker himself, as being competent to meet some amendment of a Clause, how can it be distinguished from the Clause and be said not to be in order?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWe cannot discuss the merits of the whole Clause on every Amendment.
§ Mr. HARDIEI was not discussing the whole Clause. I was just using the whole Clause to show the relation of the Amendment to it and how the argument was in direct line with everything that was meant by the Amendment.
§ Mr. MAXTONDo I take it then, that a discussion of the Minister's discretion would be in order on the Motion that the Clause stand part?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI should say that it was in order. The Minister will be able to tell you more whether this particular Clause does deal with the merits or otherwise of the Minister's discretion.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI would submit that the question of the Minister's discretion does not really arise on this Clause. This Clause does one thing, and one thing only. It declares a right. It does not itself take away any Ministerial discretion. It declares a right to be conferred, and whether discretion shall be kept or shall not be kept will depend entirely on what happens to the remainder of the Measure.
§ Mr. MAXTONI apologise for delaying the Committee, but it seems to me that our attitude here will govern the whole future progress of the discussion, and I think it is only right that the Committee should be very clear before it proceeds further. I find the Clause says that:
An insured contributor who is unemployed shall, if he proves that the statutory conditions are fulfilled in his case and if he is not disqualified under the Unemployment Insurance Acts for the receipt of benefit, be entitled, subject to the provisions of those Acts, to receive benefit.The Acts referred to and the statutory conditions referred to include this one, and previous ones. Therefore, if we do not raise it when these Acts and the statutory conditions are being dealt with we shall be out of order if we attempt to do so at a subsequent stage of the discussion.
§ Mr. LAWSONMay I ask your attention, Captain FitzRoy, on this point? The Minister has just said Clause 1 does not abolish the Minister's discretion. As a matter of fact, the Memorandum itself says exactly that it does. The Memorandum says, in the notes on this Clause:
This Clause, together with certain of the repeals of existing enactments set out in the Fifth Schedule, makes all unemployment benefit payable as of right, where the requisite conditions are satisfied, and abolishes the discretionary power of the Minister to replace restrictions on the grant of benefit.I submit that the Minister's discretion is involved here.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDWhat happens is, that this Clause gives the right, and the Schedule abolishes the discretion, and as far as this Clause is concerned, the question of the abolition of the discretion is not in point.
§ Mr. MAXTONMay I ask you, Captain FitzRoy, to yourself rule on the statement that the Minister has given? He states in Clause 1 of his Memorandum exactly what he means, and then he tells us it is not on Clause 1 but on the Schdule. I wish you to apply your mind to this statement and see if there is a reasonable interpretation of our position there.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANClause 1 is largely governed by the Schedule, but the question of the Minister's discretion is in no way concerned with this particular Amendment.
§ Mr. HARDIEFurther to the point of order I put to the Committee. When you get a Memorandum giving the number of the Clause—Clause 1—and making a statement that is quite different from what is contained in that Clause, will you now rule what relation the Clause has to the Memorandum?
§ Miss WILKINSONMay I put another point following on that point? If this Amendment does in fact delay the operation of Clause 1, does it not therefore delay the time coming when the Minister's discretion is abolished and the question of right comes in? Therefore, if you are having an Amendment, purely a delaying Amendment, what it does actually delay is this very thing—the discretionary power of the Minister.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt may be that it delays it, but I do not think this is the time to discuss the Minister's discretionary power.
§ Mr. HARDIEMay I discuss the Memorandum—?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf I may say so, I think the Memorandum is rather misleading in regard to the Clause itself, but we are not really concerned with the Memorandum, but with the Clause of the Bill.
§ Mr. HARDIEHas it not been the practice of the House of Commons for a long time back that the Memorandum tries to condense what the Bill intends to carry out? If there be something which is irregular in the paragraph dealing with Clause 1, should we not now keep ourselves in order as a Committee by attempting to rectify the Memorandum in order to bring it into line with what is contained in Clause 1?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt has nothing to do with this Committee what is in the Memorandum.
§ Mr. LAWSONI should like to draw your attention, Captain FitzRoy, to the fact that the words in the Memorandum have been used throughout the Press of the country repeatedly since the Bill has been issued, and the average working man has been given to understand that he is being given the benefit by right. Now we understand that he has been told something which is wrong, and that he has been misled. I submit that we ought to have a full opportunity of discussing the Minister's discretion and all that is implied in the statement you have just made.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI said that the Memorandum was misleading, not that it was inaccurate.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI thank you for your ruling, Captain FitzRoy, and having put my point I desire to turn to another. Before, the point of Order was raised another point passed through my mind, and it was the one that has been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney), my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and by, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). The Minister of Labour was asked to give us a definite idea of the numbers that were going to be affected by this Bill. It is quite true that this Bill enlarges the scope of benefit. It is quite true that now a person who formerly drew standard benefit for 26 weeks will now be able to draw standard benefit for a much longer period. That is accepted on all hands. While we talk about extended benefit, we must not forget that extended benefit was a right in itself. The only thing that was in doubt was the Committee's right to grant that extended benefit from time to time as the matter arose.
I hope these discussions are not going to be carried on in an offensive manner if it is possible to get round them in any other way. The Parliamentary Secretary used words on the Second Reading of the Bill which were an appeal to reasonableness. I think the Amendment, with all due deference to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), is far too reasonable. I think the number ought to have 1493 been not 700,000, but 600,000. My reason for that is this. Amongst the most valuable evidence in the report of the Unemployment Insurance Committee is the evidence of Mr. Price, who no doubt was looked upon by all concerned—and I am sure the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) will agree with this—as being a very reliable witness. He is one who knew his work and whose figures were almost beyond question or dispute. My reason in suggesting that the figures should be 600,000 and not 700,000 is derived from his figures. In his addendum to the Report he points out clearly that you cannot accept a normal figure of much more than 600,000 persons. Therefore, this Amendment, far from being unreasonable, is one of the most reasonable Amendments, and it ought to appeal to the Minister of Labour. It is true that the insured person in receipt of standard benefit has his rights extended, but the person who has extended benefit is to suffer a curtailment of his rights. We are not discussing whether the Act is good or bad, we are only discussing a person's rights under the Act, and at the present time that person has a right to two, three and even four years' benefit. If a person can prove that he is genuinely seeking work, that he is an insured person and that in normal conditions he would be able and willing to follow his employment, he is entitled to draw benefit for a long period, even for two, three, four or five years as the case may be. That person's rights are being taken from him.
I am asking the Minister, as the right hon. Member for Preston, the hon. Member for Camlachie, and the hon. and learned Member for South Shields asked him, how many persons will be affected by this Bill; how many persons is he going to throw on the rates and the Poor Law? The hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. J. Baker) who made a plea in favour of the Amendment, said that this Bill will mean that the Poor Law will be more burdened than ever, and that thousands of people in localities already overburdened are going to be added to the existing burden. With due respect to the hon. Member and other hon. Members, I have a greater fear than that. The Poor Law is bad, high rates are intolerable, and the rates in certain localities are terrible; but there is a worse thing than high rates and a worse thing 1494 than being thrown upon the Poor Law, and that is to receive nothing at all, not even from the Poor Law. To be thrown upon the Poor Law means that you get an income, but to be deprived of all kinds of income is worse than the Poor Law.
I should not be so much shocked if this Bill merely meant a transference to the Poor Law. The hon. Member for Bilston said that he could not understand Conservative business men, men occupying positions on boards of directors of various companies from engineering to coal mining and from banking to cotton and wool, transferring the cost of a national problem to the local rates, because, he said, they would have to pay it in a much more vicious form in local rates than in national taxation. I do not think they are going to transfer the problem to the local rates. It would be bad if they were going to do that, but what appears to me to be much more shocking than that is that by supporting this Bill they are going to deprive people of any kind of income. That is at the back of the mind of the supporters of this Bill. In the main, they are as sensible as we are; they have as much knowledge of the problems of national and local rating as most hon. Members. They are not introducing this Bill in order, for instance, that in Govan the Fairfield Shipbuilding Company should pay more in rates or that Harland and Wolff should pay more in rates. They have not the slightest intention of doing that. What they mean by this Bill is that these poor people have no right to exist. They have fought for their country and protected their property, and they have only the right to die, and that the cruel death that the Conservative party can inflict upon them.
In the first-class document which I have quoted, Mr. Price says, and it is a point in favour of this Amendment, that the person who thinks that the unemployed do not look for work or are not genuine people, except in a very meagre percentage of cases, do not know the problem at all. Words to that effect are in the minutes of evidence given by Mr. Price. He says that the unemployed are genuine, that they are decent and that they are poor. The great mass of the unemployed fought for this country, and now this Government come along and say, by refusing to accept this Amendment, that 1495 they will deprive these poor people who have fought for their country of the rights they possess. They say, in effect, "What rights have they after fighting for their country? None. They have only the right to kill or be killed, and if they are not lucky enough to be killed, the Tory Government will kill them by starvation." That is the Government's plan. They know it better than I know it. The Blanesburgh Committee knew it. I could understand it if a Mussolini came along and said: "These people are brats. We will take them out and destroy them at once." That is a cruel doctrine, but I could understand it. I can understand the doctrine which I support, that we should feed them and clothe them; but I cannot understand the doctrine laid down by the Blanesburgh Report and laid down by the Government in their refusal to accept this Amendment, of neither a quick death nor feeding them, but the doctrine which says that these poor people shall be tortured and starved to death. That is the attitude of the Government in refusing this Amendment.
We ask them to accept this comparatively mild Amendment, which says that the Minister's discretion should not go by the board, bad as the Minister's discretion is, but that it shall remain, and the right to grant benefit for four years shall remain. People in this House sneer at men who have been idle for four years. They think there is something wrong with them. They think that they are not qualified to live. It is quite easy to sneer when one is well fed and well clothed; it is easy for a man in a position to sneer at a man out of a position. We ask in this Amendment that the Minister of Labour, Tory Minister of Labour though he may be, shall declare his intention to retain his discretion, so long as there are over 700,000 people idle, to grant to decent men and decent women and decent bairns, the potential army of the future, the small existence allowance that the unemployment legislation provides for them. That is all that is asked for by the Amendment. It is a mild and compromising Amendment; it is an evidence that we are trying to introduce into this Bill the small human note, and I hope for these reasons that the Minister will not resist the Amendment.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. LAWSONThe Amendment limits somewhat the harsh effects of this Bill. I have been wondering what is the mind not merely of the Department in connection with this Bill, not merely of the Cabinet but of the supporters of the Government. The only speeches that we heard during the Second Reading by hon. Members supporting the Government were antagonistic to the Bill, but it appears during the Committee stage that the supporters of the Government are going to show their enthusiasm for the Bill by silence. It is not good enough to the great mass of unemployed that the people who are going to vote for a Bill which will rob the great mass of people of their livelihood should sit quiet and make no defence of the Bill. A point has been made that this Amendment, mild as it is, will limit the operation of this Bill, which takes away altogether the Minister's discretion. I am not enamoured of the Minister' discretion, but bad as the position is at the present time it is infinitely better than it is going to be when this Bill gets into full operation. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) pointed out that half the men in benefit now are extended benefit cases. When you come to the mining areas it is much worse. I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that nine men out of every 10 who are getting benefit in mining areas are extended benefit cases. In common with other areas in the country, what kind of people are they who are getting extended benefit? I have not here the Minister's words on Second Reading, but he seemed to imply that if a man had been getting benefit for two years, he was a man who did not want work. That was the interpretation put upon that particular statement by one of his own supporters. There have been two special investigations by the representatives of the Ministry. One investigation was made in 1925 when 192,000 cases were examined in 78 offices by managers of the Exchanges. They went thoroughly into the cases, first in batches and then individually, and the result was that they paid the highest tribute to the type of men who could not get work. They said:
If we assume that one-half of the current claims are for extended benefit, no more than 7 per cent. of the approved claims for it were found open to question, and these only in the sense that on a strict 1497 interpretation of the Act they should, in the opinion of the investigators, have been refused.There was also an investigation into nearly 11,000 cases, and again it was definitely stated that 90 per cent. of the people concerned were not only genuine but were anxious for work, and that the great bulk of them in normal times would have been in steady employment. This has been supported by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who has pointed out that Mr. Price, in his evidence before the Blanesburgh Committee, in very definite words gave the lie to all those who say that the people who have been claiming unemployment benefit for long periods are questionable characters and do not want work. All the evidence points to the fact that the great bulk of extended benefit cases are deserving cases; and they are going to lose this extended benefit in spite of the transition Clauses. As the Report says, they are generally healthy men from 24 to 30 years of age, strong and of good character, they are people who are miserable because they cannot get work. And they are going to be robbed of the moral right which they have at the present time to enforce their claims. What is going to become of these men? Does the Government care? I live between two workmen who are unemployed. One is about 60 years of age, but strong and vigorous. The other is a younger man, and strong as you can make them. Both these men will lose their extended benefit under this Bill. They are good citizens. What is going to become of them? Are they to go on the rates? The Minister of Labour met a deputation from the north-east coast quite recently and heard our statement. We pointed out how burden after burden was going on local rates, that men losing their unemployment benefit were being put on to the Poor Law, and how this was damaging industry. The right hon. Gentleman said that he sympathised with us very much; there was a good deal in what we said, and he would submit what we had represented to the Cabinet.Is this the Cabinet's answer to the case put forward from the north-east coast? Is the Cabinet's answer to the north-east coast, and to the rest of the country, not only to refuse relief, but to 1498 dump thousands more men on to the rates and further burden industry. The policy of the Government, so I understand, is not to interfere with industry, but if great masses of men are put on the Poor Law rate, as the result of the operation of this Bill, it is the most effective way of interfering with industry that can possibly be imagined. I have often said that this policy of folding arms is the most effective interference with industry. These men will have to do without benefit. In the Chester-le-Street area the appointed nominees of the Government will refuse to give them, relief. What is the logic of that situation? The policy of the Government, supported by hon. Members opposite, is the policy of noble lords in the old days, when they said, "If you cannot get work, go out and eat grass." That is their answer to these people. I submit that our claim is reasonable. We suggest that the operation of this Clause should be limited to the time when the number on the unemployment register is not more than 700,000.
§ Mr. HARNEYSix per cent.
§ Mr. LAWSONThat is a reasonable request; but I am more concerned about its effect. This Bill has no defenders on the benches opposite; it has no defenders in the country. Some of its most eloquent opponents are behind the Government, and the only answer of the Government to these men, many of whom have served their country, is to rob them of any opportunity of unemployment benefit. I say quite frankly that I do not place too much value on the transition Clauses. I put it to the Minister of Labour and to the Government that they have to answer the questions which are being asked in the House of Commons. They have to defend their own Bill. They have to look after these people, whom they propose to rob, and give them some means of livelihood. Is this policy of the Government dictated because the power of labour has apparently been broken in industry? Is it because labour, as they think, has become so much weaker that they attack it in this way? The Minister says that he falls back on the Blanesburgh Report. He does not. That Committee used very scathing language about lack of initiative in facing the unemployment 1499 problem and made constructive proposals how to meet it. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to accept that part of the Report, and the other parts also? It is quite a new point of view for this Government to accept the Report of the Committee and argue that they ought to stand by it. I wish they had done that in 1926, when we had the Samuel Commission. I submit that the proposal of the Government is callous and cruel to decent men. It is showing a spirit of indifference to the sufferings of great masses of good citizens for the Government and its supporters to refuse Amendments of this kind, to refuse all compromises, and even to refuse to defend their own Bill. Such a policy is callously condemning to death great masses of people. In my own area I can take hon. Members to many good men and. women who are at the moment in an absolutely pitiable condition, and I fear to think what is going to happen after the operation of a Clause of this description. I think the Minister could quite reasonably give some consideration to the Amendment.
Captain CROOKSHANKMay I intervene for one moment in order to get back to the Amendment which is now under discussion? On the opening day of our struggle on this Bill, which I am sure will be carried on in the best of spirits, we had some indication, just as you have when you go to a concert and the instruments begin playing, as to the way the tune will develop. To-day we have already had some indication by the references which have been made to Poor Law relief and the discretion of the Minister, which no doubt will be argued at far greater length when these subjects are more closely connected with the Clauses under discussion. I must refer to one remark of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He referred to his dislike to the abolition of the discretionary power of the Minister, and certain other hon. Members of the Opposition have done so also. In the evidence produced before the Blanesburgh Committee on behalf of the entire trade union and Labour movement—
§ Mr. BUCHANANMight I intervene for one moment. I made it definitely clear that I differed from my colleagues 1500 on this point, and said that I preferred this method. I said at once that they differed from me.
Captain CROOKSHANKI sympathise with the hon. Member, and I dare say he is often in that position. Other hon. Members opposite who have touched upon the same point have connected the discretion of the Minister, somehow, with the suggestion that it should be subject to a certain number of unemployed being on the live register. The evidence submitted on behalf of the entire trade union and Labour movement, with the exception of the hon. Hember for Gorbals, said quite definitely:
Unemployment benefit should in all cases be a statutory right, not a discretionary power.As I understand the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee, and also the policy of His Majesty's Government, it is that the right to benefit should be made statutory quite irrespective of a quantitive number. Hon. Members opposite may argue that it may not be the time to introduce it now, that is a possible line of argument, and one way of dealing with it is, of course, to deal with it when you come to the question as to when the Bill is to come into operation, but that does not affect the correctness of laying down whether you should abolish extended benefit or not.
§ Mr. T. SHAW: Will the hon. and gallant Member forgive me one moment, it may possibly help his argument? The difference is between the abolition of the Minister's discretion and not giving a statutory right to all people, and the proposal that the statutory right should be given to all people.
Captain CROOKSHANKYes, but it has nothing to do with this Amendment. Clearly, the Amendment is that this new right to benefit will come in only subject to there being a quantitive number of unemployed.
§ Mr. HARNEYBecause the new right is not as broad as the discretionary power.
Captain CROOKSHANKThe Amendment is that this should be done when the register falls to a number of 700,000. The point I am trying to make is that whether it is right or wrong you should have this kind of Clause; it has nothing 1501 to do with the actual figures. It does not affect the inherent decision of the Committee as to whether it is right or wrong. If you accept the words of the Amendment, that it must be subject to the number falling below a total of 700,000, obviously you are at once up against the administrative difficulty of knowing when your Bill is to come into force. Surely the Bill should come into force at some date which may be considered reasonable. This is subject to the live register falling. What happens if it falls and rises again? That is the difficulty. It may rise in quite an unexpected trade dispute, which would have the result of increasing the size of the live register, and then how would you stand in regard to this legislation? The hon. Member who moved it probably meant to insert the words "having fallen."
§ Mr. E. BROWNindicated dissent.
Captain CROOKSHANKThe hon. Member shakes his head, and in that case I am afraid I cannot take the matter any further. The Committee will be well advised to reject this particular Amendment, which makes the live register subject to a certain arbitrary number. It will be quite impossible to work administratively, and for that reason it seems to me quite an impracticable suggestion.
§ Mr. GREENWOODAs a reference has been made to the evidence submitted by my hon. Friend and myself to the Blanesburgh Committee, I rise simply to put a point of view on this question of the abolition of the Minister's discretion. It is true that our evidence was in favour of making all benefit statutory benefit. It happens that, in all friendliness, my hon. Friend any myself have disagreed about that. It was our view that all benefits should be statutory under .certain conditions, the conditions being that no man who was genuinely seeking work and was unemployed should be deprived of benefit. The question that is arising to-day is this. We have never been told yet what is going to be the effect of the Measure on the number of people who are receiving benefit, and we are in very grave doubt on this matter. If the operation of this Bill is going to deprive 10 unemployed people of benefit, then I am in favour of extended benefit. Under .our principle, no genuine unemployed 1502 worker would stand in need of benefit; he would get it. Our fear is that large numbers of genuine unemployed persons may be deprived of benefit and that the number deprived of benefit may even be greater than it is to-day. If that be so, we are perfectly justified in asking for the continuance of extended benefit. The Minister has been asked time after time for the figures, but he has not chosen to give them.
The purpose of this Bill, as it was described to us by the right hon. Gentleman, is to establish a permanent scheme of unemployment insurance. I support this Amendment, not because I think that 700,000 unemployed ought to be regarded as normal, but because it is ridiculous and absurd to pretend to impose a permanent and normal scheme during a period of abnormal conditions. The situation to-day is that we have 50 per cent. more unemployed in this country than is visualised as the basis of a normal scheme by the Blanesburgh Report. The whole financial basis of that Report rests upon the assumption that over a trade cycle you have 6 per cent. unemployed. But we are not in a trade cycle. A trade cycle, a period of seven or eight years of rising and falling trade, is a thing that we do not know to-day. Conditions are entirely abnormal. We are down in a slough of despond and in a period of years of depression and, until there is a real sign of a trade cycle, a permanent Measure ought never to be put into operation. It is not as if the Government really believed that there is likely to be a trade cycle. The motif that ran through the whole of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading was that, although there was some improvement in trade, nobody could say that it was going to continue. His whole case was that we had to go warily in this matter, because nobody could foresee the direction of trade. If that be so, it is absurd and ridiculous to try to place upon the Statute Book an Act which pretends to be a permanent and normal scheme of unemployment insurance. It seems to me reasonable, having regard to the fact that the Government actually base their financial proposals upon a figure of 6 per cent. unemployed, that this Measure should be postponed until that situation has arisen.
1503 There has been a good deal of quibbling about the terms of the Amendment. If the words of the Amendment do not suit hon. Members opposite, I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would be very glad to fall in with their wishes. The principal of the Amendment is that there ought to be a postponement of the operation of this Bill until you get back to normality. There is no sign of that. This Bill, like all previous Bills, is going to be a temporary Measure. Even the right hon Gentleman himself does not regard it as a permanent Measure, so far as contributions are concerned. He said that he was prepared to consider equal thirds when trade was normal. In other words, he meant that, when trade is normal, this permanent Measure will be revised. It will be revised long before that stage is ever reached. It will be found that it is not a practicable Measure if, as it may, it results—and we have had no proof to the contrary—in disenfranchising a large number of unemployed people. It will not work. The local authorities and Poor Law authorities will exercise sufficient pressure upon the Government to make them change their minds, and it is therefore absurd to pretend that it is a permanent Measure. If the conditions prevailing to-day are not favourable to the success of a permanent Measure, it is reasonable to ask that this Measure should be postponed until the conditions are such as to enable the scheme to operate with a certain measure of success.
I am not satisfied that 700,000 is the right figure. I do not know from where it obtained its authority. It is a purely imaginary figure like all the figures of the Government Actuary. His figures change from year to year according to circumstances. There never has been any foundation for any figures given by him with regard to unemployment insurance. Time after time they have been disproved. This figure of 700,000 is a figure of his imagination. It is reached by the process of arguing that in certain industries in a past period unemployment averaged 4½ per cent. and that, as conditions are not the same as they used to be, a bit more should be added to make it up to six in round figures. That is its basis. It is the principle of the 1504 long pull, which has been abolished by law, that of giving a little bit more in order to make quite sure. That 6 per cent. is not a real figure at all, but a figure invented for the purpose of arithmetical calculation. I should like to have seen that figure replaced by a lower figure than 700,000. It is a monstrous thing that this country is going to expect a state of affairs where an average unemployed figure over a trade cycle of 6 per cent. is going to be regarded as normal; in other words, that six out of every 100 persons are going to be set aside. Though I support the Amendment, because it would postpone the operation of the Bill, I am sorry the figure has been placed so high.
The Government are changing their minds as the Bill proceeds through the House. We have already had a change during the week-end, and the Bill may be changed beyond recognition before it is through Committee. It may be as far away from the Blanesburgh Report as is possible. Already, it is drifting away. If that be so, and if that be the scheme which the Government believe to be the one permanent scheme to put before the country then the case for their Bill immediately falls to the ground, and they might as well face the situation and accept, if not the words, at least the intention of the Amendment, which is to postpone the operation of the Bill until at least times are sufficiently normal to provide a chance for calculation and to provide that the stamp qualification will be a real qualification. In a time of good trade the qualification suggested in this Bill would probably be all right, but the position is that to-day it would not be all right. I hope that hon. Members opposite will see the case that has been put from this side of the House, namely, that we ought to postpone the operation of the Bill until its statutory requirements can be fulfilled without thrusting people out of unemployment insurance benefit. If that were done, at least some little objection that we have to this Bill on this side might be removed. The right hon. Gentleman has already made things more difficult for us by not explaining what the Bill means. He will only make things even more difficult if he persists in regarding this Bill as a permanent Measure during a period of prolonged trade depression. I hope, therefore, that, even at this stage, the Government will 1505 consider whether they cannot in some way try to meet our point that the postponement of the Bill should be accepted, even if the figure be not 700,000. If they accept the principle, they will have gone at least a little way towards meeting the objections we have to the Bill now.
§ Mr. MAXTONFor the first time that I remember I feel sorry for the Minister of Labour. He has to fight and defend practically unaided a Clause which he knows to be wicked in the extreme. He has to defend it and try to pilot it through this House, although he knows that it is indefensible an humane grounds, on grounds of public policy or on grounds of public economy, and that it has no business justification. He sits still though knowing all these facts fully about this Clause in particular. If he were really a reponsible Minister of the Crown, he would refuse, in the face of the nation, to take the responsibilities imposed upon him by a Government department which he knows are absolutely foolish and unwise form every decent national consideration. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is prepared to swallow all his best knowledge for the sake of retaining his position as Minister of Labour.
I cannot defend the Amendment with any great enthusiasm. The hon. Member who moved it does not feel, I am sure, that it is expressing fully and adequately what he desires to be done in the way of treatment of the unemployed. He believes, as I and others believe, that to a small extent the Amendment mitigates the wicked effects of the Clause. That is the most that can be said for it. The Clause as drafted would be defensible only on the assumption that from the date of the operation of this Bill the unemployment figures of this country would be reduced to nothing, would remain at nothing for a period of more than six months, and then would never be higher than 600,000 or 700,000. On those conditions it would be justifiable to say that the only national responsibility that this country was prepared to take towards those unemployed was the responsibility that is laid down in subsequent Clauses of the Bill. The most shocking thing is that not one solitary voice from the other side of the House is raised in protest against the proposals of the Clause. Hon. Members opposite claim that they are the aristocracy.
§ Mr. MAXTONIf hon. Members do not put forward that justification, then they have no justification at all. They are "the aristocracy, the best." That was the appeal at the General Election. The Noble Lady who interrupted makes it for herself. It is priggish in the extreme, but it is done. Undoubtedly the aristocracy, the self-styled aristocracy in England, and yet there is not one hon. Member opposite who is prepared to get up and make a protest against a brutal crime against 1,000,000 citizens. I am deeply distressed that that should be the case. It is a bad lookout for the whole British nation in its relations with the other peoples of the world. The claim of the Labour party, already quoted in the Debate, is that every unemployed man should have maintenance. That was the claim that we wanted to be made statutory. The Minister says, "Yes, we will draft a Bill in which you will see that in the first Clause, that the insured contributor who is unemployed shall be entitled to receive benefit." Those are fine words, and I agree with them. I would say that any person who is unemployed is entitled to receive benefit. But assuming that you accept an insurance scheme against unemployment these words are sound words. But having laid down that principle in the first sentence, the Government then say, "But over a million of our people shall not be entitled to receive unemployment benefit." They say there are to be at least a million barred out, for they lay down conditions based on the assumption that they can reduce the unemployment numbers in this country to 700,000. The Minister knows and the Cabinet know that they cannot reduce the figures to 700,000. Every hon. Member opposite knows it.
Some of my hon. Friends have said that, we are not in a trade cycle now. I believe we are. I believe we are at the boom point. We have risen to it in the last three or four years, and we are getting ready to sink to depression again. Over 1,000,000 is the unemployment figure to-day, and it is a good figure relative to what is to be the normal unemployment in this country. I see that hon. Members opposite are inclined to doubt my prophecy. I am not prepared to claim that I have any more justification for saying that two years hence the 1507 unemployed will number 2½ millions than the Government Actuary has for saying that you can get the figure down to 6 per cent. of the total. I have only the same general capacity for viewing world affairs and the relation of British trade to the trade of other countries, and, having regard to all the relative considerations, form an estimate of what I think is likely to happen. I think that what is likely to happen, assuming that there is no change in trade and industrial policy on the part of those controlling the commercial and industrial affairs of the country, is that two years from now we shall have 2,500,000 unemployed. In this Clause you are laying it down that the 1,000,000 persons who now cannot get 30 weeks of employment and so secure the necessary 30 stamps, shall remain without any national right to relief while unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman's colleague the Minister of Health has said, in three or four cases of local authorities already, "Locally you will only be allowed to relieve the distress of the unemployed man and his family under conditions that we shall enforce." Therefore, the position now is that, while the Labour movement says "work or maintenance," the Tory Government say "work or starve." That is exactly the
§ position. That is to be the slogan of the Tory party and the Tory Government, representing the aristocracy of England.
§ Mr. MAXTONThe hon. Lady denies that they are the aristocracy. I deny it too, and all I am saying is that they allege it. That is the slogan that they have nailed to their mast, "Work or starve." We come forward and say that this is grossly unjust. The claim is made that the Bill is an attempt to put the whole business of unemployment insurance on a business-like basis. We say, "All right, we will take that statement, but your assumption is an assumption that the unemployment figure is about 600,000 or 700,000. Put that figure into the Bill. Then we will accept the statement that you are business-like if not humane." I shall vote for the Amendment if the Minister is not prepared to accept it.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND rose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 128.
1509| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Storry-Deans, R. |
| King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Penny, Frederick George | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Knox, Sir Alfred | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Little, Dr. E. Graham | Pilcher, G. | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Tasker, R. Inigo. |
| Loder, J. de V. | Preston, William | Templeton, W. P. |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Radford, E. A. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Raine, Sir Walter | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell |
| Lumley, L. R. | Ramsden, E. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Remnant, Sir James | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough |
| Macintyre, Ian | Rentoul, G. S. | Waddington, R. |
| McLean, Major A. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Macmillan, Captain H. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| MacRobert, Alexander M. | Ropner, Major L. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Malone, Major P. B. | Rye, F. G. | Wells, S. R. |
| Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Salmon, Major I. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Meller, R. J. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Meyer, Sir Frank | Sandeman, N. Stewart | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Sandon, Lord | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Savery, S. S. | Withers, John James |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Shepperson, E. W. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Smithers, Waldron | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Nelson, Sir Frank | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sprot, Sir Alexander | |
| Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Margesson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Sakiatvala, Shapurji |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hardie, George D. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Harney, E. A. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Harris, Percy A. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Baker, Walter | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Sitch, Charles H |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hayday, Arthur | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Barnes, A. | Hayes, John Henry | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Batey, Joseph | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Snell, Harry |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W | Hirst, G. H. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Broad, F. A. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Stamford, T. W. |
| Bromfield, William | Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bromley, J. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth) | Sullivan, J. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Kelly, W. T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kennedy, T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lansbury, George | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lawrence, Susan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lawson, John James | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lee, F. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lowth, T. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lunn, William | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dalton, Hugh | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Viant, S. P. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Mackinder, W. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) |
| Dennison, R. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Duncan, C. | March, S. | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Dunnico, H. | Maxton, James | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) | Montague, Frederick | Westwood, J. |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Murnin), H. | Whiteley, W. |
| Gillett, George M. | Naylor, T. E. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gosling, Harry | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Paling, W. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffs) |
| Greenall, T. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Windsor, Walter |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Potts, John S. | Wright, W. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Groves, T. | Riley, Ben | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Ritson, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich) | Mr. Fenby and Major Owen. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) |
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
1512§ The Committee divided: Ayes 129; Noes, 211.
1513| Division No. 355] | AYES | [7.41 pm. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Clayton, G. C. | Grotrian, H. Brent |
| Albery, Irving James | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Apsley, Lord | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Astor, Viscountess | Cooper, A. Duff | Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cope. Major William | Half, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) |
| Balniel, Lord | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Hammersley, S. S. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Hanbury, C. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Harrison, G. J. C. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Berry, Sir George | Dalkeith, Earl of | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Dixey, A. C. | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Drewe, C. | Hawke, John Anthony |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Eden, Captain Anthony | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. |
| Bowyer Capt G. E. W. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. | Ellis, R. G. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Everard, W. Lindsay | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Hills, Major John Waller |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Fielden, E. B. | Hilton, Cecil |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Holt, Capt. H. P. |
| Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Fraser, Captain Ian | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Ganzonl, Sir John | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Campbell, E T | Goff, Sir Park | Hume, Sir G. H |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Gower, Sir Robert | Hume-Williams, Sir W Ellis |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Grace, John | Hurst, Gerald B. |
| Charterls, Brigadier-General J. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Storry-Deans, R. |
| King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Penny, Frederick George | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Knox, Sir Alfred | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Little, Dr. E. Graham | Pilcher, G. | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Tasker, R. Inigo. |
| Loder, J. de V. | Preston, William | Templeton, W. P. |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Radford, E. A. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Raine, Sir Walter | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell |
| Lumley, L. R. | Ramsden, E. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Remnant, Sir James | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough |
| Macintyre, Ian | Rentoul, G. S. | Waddington, R. |
| McLean, Major A. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Macmillan, Captain H. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| MacRobert, Alexander M. | Ropner, Major L. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Malone, Major P. B. | Rye, F. G. | Wells, S. R. |
| Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Salmon, Major I. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Meller, R. J. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Meyer, Sir Frank | Sandeman, N. Stewart | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Sandon, Lord | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Savery, S. S. | Withers, John James |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Shepperson, E. W. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Smithers, Waldron | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Nelson, Sir Frank | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sprot, Sir Alexander | |
| Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Margesson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Sakiatvala, Shapurji |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hardie, George D. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Harney, E. A. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Harris, Percy A. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Baker, Walter | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Sitch, Charles H |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hayday, Arthur | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Barnes, A. | Hayes, John Henry | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Batey, Joseph | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Snell, Harry |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W | Hirst, G. H. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Broad, F. A. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Stamford, T. W. |
| Bromfield, William | Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bromley, J. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth) | Sullivan, J. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Kelly, W. T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kennedy, T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lansbury, George | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lawrence, Susan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lawson, John James | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lee, F. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lowth, T. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lunn, William | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dalton, Hugh | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Viant, S. P. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Mackinder, W. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) |
| Dennison, R. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Duncan, C. | March, S. | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Dunnico, H. | Maxton, James | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) | Montague, Frederick | Westwood, J. |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Murnin), H. | Whiteley, W. |
| Gillett, George M. | Naylor, T. E. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gosling, Harry | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Paling, W. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffs) |
| Greenall, T. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Windsor, Walter |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Potts, John S. | Wright, W. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Groves, T. | Riley, Ben | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Ritson, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich) | Mr. Fenby and Major Owen. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) | |
| b>Division No. 356.] | AYES. | [7.50 p.m. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hardie, George D. | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Harney, E. A. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Baker, Walter | Harris, Percy A. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barnes, A. | Hayday, Arthur | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hayes, John Henry | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Broad, F. A. | Hirst, G. H. | Snell, Harry |
| Bromfield, William | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bromley, J. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Buchanan, G. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kelly, W. T. | Sullivan, J. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kennedy, T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lansbury, George | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lawrence, Susan | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middilsbro, W.) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lawson, John James | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lee, F. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lowth, T. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lunn, William | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Varley, Frank B. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Viant, S. P. |
| Dennison, R. | Mackinder, W. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Duckworth, John | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Duncan, C. | March, S. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Dunnico, H. | Maxton, James | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Montague, Frederick | Westwood, J. |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Murnin, H. | Whiteley, W. |
| Gillett, George M. | Naylor, T. E. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gosling, Harry | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Palin, John Henry | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Paling, W. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Greenall, T. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Windsor, Walter |
| Crenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Wright, W. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Potts, John S. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Groves, T. | Rees, Sir Beddoe | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Riley, Ben | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Ritson, J. | Mr. Fenby and Major Owen. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Albery, Irving James | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Charter's, Brigadier-General J. | Goff, Sir Park |
| Apsley, Lord | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Clayton, G. C. | Grace, John |
| Astor, Viscountess | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) |
| Balniel, Lord | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Grotrian, H. Brent |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cooper, A. Duff | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Barnett, .Major Sir Richard | Cope, Major William | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Hall. Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Berry, Sir George | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Hammersley, S. S. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hanbury, C. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. | Dixey, A. C. | Harrison, G. J. C. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Drewe, C. | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Eden, Captain Anthony | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Ellis, R. G. | Hawke, John Anthony |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Fielden, E. B. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Ford, Sir P. J | Herbert. Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Hills, Major John Waller |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Fraser, Captain Ian | Hilton, Cecil |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Holt, Captain H. P. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Hurst, Gerald B. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Penny, Frederick George | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Tasker, R. Inigo. |
| Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Templeton, W. P. |
| King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Knox, Sir Alfred | Pilcher, G. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Tinne, J. A. |
| Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Preston, William | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Little, Dr. E. Graham | Radford, E. A. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Raine, Sir Walter | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough |
| Loder, J. de V. | Ramsden, E. | Waddington, R. |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Remnant, Sir James | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Lumley, L. R. | Rentoul, G. S. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Watts, Dr. T. |
| MacIntyre, Ian | Ropner, Major L. | Wells, S. R. |
| McLean, Major A. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern) |
| Macmillan, Captain H. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| MacRobert, Alexander M. | Rye, F. G. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Salmon, Major I. | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Malone, Major P. B. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Withers, John James |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Sandeman, N. Stewart | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Sandon, Lord | Womersley, W. J. |
| Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K. | Savery, S. S. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Meller, R. J. | Shepperson, E. W. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Staiyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Meyer, Sir Frank | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Smithers, Waldron | |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Margesson. |
§ Captain BOURNEI beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after the word "shall," to insert the words "after the expiration of the extended period."
This Amendment raises a much narrower point than the Amendment which has just been considered. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand the situation, if this Bill becomes law he will have a large number of people who pay contributions and who are qualified under the statutory conditions. I do not want to deal with those who under this Clause will have the statutory right to receive unemployment benefit if they are out of work. It is quite true that under the original Act of 1920 there was a Clause somewhat analogous to this which gave the contributor a statutory right. It was hoped in those days that when trade was better the Unemployment Insurance Fund would be self-supporting and that the contributions from the employer, the employed and the State would be sufficient to meet its liabilities. In 1921 it was found that such would not be the case and in, I think, the second Unemployment Insurance Act of 1921 the Treasury was 1514 authorised to guarantee an overdraft up to a sum of £7,000,000. Later on, that sum was increased to £20,000,000 and still later to £30,000,000.
8.0 p.m.
Now it is the idea underlying this Bill that in the course of a few years the contribution which this Bill proposes to lay upon the contributors to the Fund will be sufficient to wipe out that deficiency, and, so far as I can understand the actuary's figures, provided no very big upset again occurs it is probable that there will be a surplus of revenue over expenditure. But if you give a man a statutory right, presumably in the case where he is not receiving unemployment benefit, he ought to have a legal remedy against somebody or something. Against what has he got a remedy? It seems to me a very difficult problem that a man should have a legal remedy against a fund which is £22,000,000 overdrawn. If you say that he should be paid benefit, I quite understand it, but to give him a legal right against a fund which, if we had another stoppage of the coal mines, probably could not be made solvent, seems to me not quite the right way to do it, because 1515 the claim is not against money provided by this House, but it is against a fund which is contributed to by all parties, and on which Parliament, without a Financial Resolution, can impose further obligations, thereby lessening, perhaps to a small extent, the rights of every insured contributor. Therefore, I think we should be rather careful before giving a statutory legal right until the Fund is actually solvent. I do not wish to do anything to prevent a man getting his payment, but I think we are perhaps a little premature at present in giving him a statutory right which, under certain conditions, I can imagine, could not be met; and it is in order to get an explanation, both as to the insured contributor's rights under this Clause and also as to what steps the Government propose to take to make the Fund solvent, so that there will be a real fund against which a man will have a claim, and also as to what will happen in the event of there being a deficiency under this Bill instead of a surplus, that I have put down this Amendment.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton)I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has put down this Amendment because he is in some doubt as to what is the position of a claimant after his statutory right has been made clear by this Clause. Under this Bill he will have a statutory right to receive benefit in accordance with the provisions of the Clause. Then my hon. and gallant Friend says, "But you are giving him a right against an insolvent fund." The answer, of course, to that is that as he himself has said and as the Committee well knows, there is a Treasury guarantee behind this Fund up to a sum of no less than £30,000,000. That, as my hon. and gallant Friend also quite truly said, has been built up by successive stages. At first it was, I think, £7,000,000, and then £20,000,000, and now it is £30,000,000. Happily we are a very long way off the provision amounting to £30,000,000, but if and when it unfortunately should arise that that £30,000,000 was reached, then, quite obviously, we should have to go to the Treasury again for a further guarantee. That, however, is, I trust, a contingency so remote that we need not con- 1516 template it for a moment. That is the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend. We have the Treasury behind us now up to a sum of £30,000,000, and at present we have no reason to suppose that we shall reach anything like that figure.
§ Mr. HAYDAYThe intention of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) in moving this Amendment is not quite clear. It rather looks as though it would have the effect of carrying on present statutory conditions until after the extended period had elapsed, and it rather appeared to us as though it was a broadening Amendment, which would restrict the operation of this Clause for some considerable time, but the hon. and gallant Member certainly confuses the issue when, as I understood him, he says that the 1920 Act was actuarially sound.
§ Captain BOURNEI did not mean to infer that it was actuarially sound. What I said was that it was hoped, trade being better, that it would be self-supporting.
§ Mr. HAYDAYIt is just as well that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should know the circumstances, because it confuses the whole issue, if there is a statement made in conjunction with his Amendment such as I understood him to make. It would appear as though something had happened all of a sudden to threaten the right to benefit of any contributor to the Insurance Fund who may be able to establish his right by reason of a stamp qualification, but the fact remains that the 1920 Act could never have been looked upon hopefully from the actuarial point of view, for it took over the £22,000,000 surplus that was standing to the credit of the 1911 Act. All through the provisions of the succeeding Acts of Parliament there has never been any sound basis for saying at any time that a permanent Measure could be launched with any degree of financial safety, because early in 1921, after using a balance of £22,000,000 that did not belong to it, the Ministry of the day came to the House and secured power to draw upon the Treasury up to £10,000,000, but not less than four months after that it came with a second 1921 Bill for power to borrow from the Treasury up to £20,000,000, and in 1022 it came to the House again and obtained power to draw up to £30,000,000. The 1517 Fund now shows a deficiency of £22,000,000. Even at the present rate it seems to me that it will be quite a long time before the deficiency is wiped off, and the chances are that the deficiency may increase if we get any sudden reversal of this gradual re-absorption back into industry, because while it was £23,000,000 in June of this year, it was £22,000,000 about a fortnight ago, so that at that rate it will take, on the present number drawing benefit, about a year to reduce the deficiency by £4,000,000 at the outside. That means five years or more before the deficiency can be wiped out.
I was going to support the Amendment, because I thought it was intended to give a wider statutory right, but as the hon. and gallant Member appears to want, should the Fund at any time show a deficiency beyond £30,000,000, to safeguard the interests of a man who may not have exhausted all his rights and can prove a stamp qualification according to the new statutory conditions, I think that what the Parliamentary Secretary has said is really quite obvious. The Treasury and the Government, whatever Government might be in power, can never allow the Fund to be without resources. They can never say, at the end of any given week, to unemployed persons who establish a right, whatever the statutory conditions may be, "There is no money for you." They would not be so stupid, because the most powerful Government of the day would crumble into so much dust if, at any given week-end, in an industrial centre, with 5,000 to 10,000 persons going to draw unemployment benefit, they were to say, "You have drawn on the limit of the Fund, there are no further financial resources, and the Government refuse to advance anything from the Treasury." I would not like to judge the value of any Employment Exchange within two or three hours after any such pronouncement. I would like to know a little more from the hon. and gallant Member opposite what he is worrying about. What are his anxieties? If those were his only anxieties, I think they have been dispelled, but some of my hon. Friends felt that the Amendment would have the effect of broadening the Clause, and they felt disposed, in that event, to ask the 1518 hon. and gallant Member not to withdraw his Amendment, but to go to a Division upon it.
§ Mr. HARNEYI do not think there is anything in the point raised. If the words proposed were inserted, they would mean that an insured contributor would not be entitled to receive any benefit at all until the insolvency of the Fund had been worked off. If that Amendment became law, it would mean that from the time this Bill was passed, all benefits would cease. At the present moment there are statutory or standard benefits, and there are discretionary or extended benefits. What this Bill says is that the statutory benefits shall be somewhat enlarged, but that the extended benefits shall go. The Amendment, however, would have the effect of withdrawing all statutory benefits until the insolvency was worked off. I do not think the hon. and gallant Member realised it, but that would be the effect of his Amendment. As regards the legal point, the hon. and gallant Member thought it anomalous that you should carve statutory rights out of a Fund which is insolvent. That would have applied at any time for the last four or five years, because statutory rights have been carved out of this Insurance Fund, although it has been insolvent all the time. The true answer to that is that when the Government came along and gave a guarantee to the Fund, they took care that that loan should not take priority over the claims of any of the unemployed contributors to the Fund.
§ Captain BOURNEI understand from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) that this Amendment might have effects that I have not anticipated. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. E. BROWNI beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after the word "receive" to insert the word "the."
This Amendment goes with the one following that on the Order Paper. Do you think it will be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss the two together?
§ The CHAIRMANYes, they are one.
§ Mr. BROWNMy next Amendment is in page 1, line 11, at the end, to insert the words "of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1926."
We put down these Amendments because of our fears about the result of the Clause as it now stands, and because of our fears of the changes the Clause will make in the right to benefit. I am not so sure as some Members seem to be as to the effect. I wish I were sure, and I wish the Minister would give us some assurance, that he and his colleagues and officials have really faced the possible effects of the alteration of the Acts of 1920 to 1926, which added to this Bill, will be considerable; but, as we see it now, what will happen will be that certain benefits—I do not mean financial benefits—under the conditions of the Acts of 1920 to 1926 will be forfeited under the terms of the Clause as it now stands. There is standard benefit and there is extended benefit, and our field for doubt is a very wide field, because we have had no authoritative statement as to any calculations made by the Government as to how many insured persons are likely to qualify for the new benefit under the Clause, and how many under the alterations of the Act of 1920–1926 are likely to be disqualified. Under normal conditions, the proposals of the present Bill would be sound proposals, the idea being to free the unemployment scheme from the reproach that it has no clearly defined actuarial basis; but the abnormal conditions under which we now work cannot be ignored, and those who sit for the areas where the bulk of those who draw extended benefit which operates under the Acts of 1920–1926 are to be found, are surely entitled to know two things. We are entitled to know what is really to happen to shipyard workers, marine engineers, coalminers, and the men in the areas most affected by unemployment, as to whether they are really to qualify under the new terms of the Bill, and what proportion is likely to qualify; and, secondly, if they do not qualify what burden it is estimated will fall on the local rates in those areas?
We have some figures of the range of claims for extended or uncovenanted benefit. In the Ministry of Labour's Report I find this. Take the first individual 1520 benefit year from 1st August, 1924, to 24th August, 1925. There were under the four special conditions under the Acts of 1920 to 1926 these applications admitted by Committees: For 12 weeks, 1,281,653 persons; for less than 12 weeks, 1,758,180; disallowed, 505,370. In the second individual benefit year there were admitted by the Committees: For 12 weeks, 312,512; for less than 12 weeks, 795,160; and there were disallowed or postponed, 244,588. That is nearly 20 per cent. You might go a little further and come up-to-date. I would like to point out an answer given to me by the Minister of Labour on the 8th of this month. I asked the Minister if he would state the number of claims to standard and extended benefit, respectively, disallowed from the 1st January, 1927, to the 31st October, 1927; and the answer was:
Between 10th January, 1927, and 10th October, out of 2,448,727 applications for extended benefit considered by local employment committees to Great Britain, 458,446 were recommended for disallowance. In addition, 275,152 applications for benefit were disallowed by the Chief Insurance Officer during the period 1st January, 1927, to 31st October, including both standard and extended benefit claims, for which separate statistics are not available. In a number of these cases benefit was subsequently allowed on appeal to Courts of Referees and the Umpire. I am unable to state the number of separate individuals included in the figures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1927; col. 8, Vol. 210.]The Committee will see that there is grave and wide grounds for our questioning before this Clause goes through. We are surely entitled to a clear statement as to what estimates have been formed by the Minister through the abolition of the rights under the Acts of 1920–1926 which will take place under this Clause, as to the number who will qualify for ordinary statutory benefit as to those who will fail to qualify for extended benefit, and will therefore be cast up on to the rates. I would like to point out one other thing. If Members will turn to the Ministry of Labour Report for 1926, they will find that under the conditions under which extended benefit is granted, 562,400 persons were disallowed benefit from 12th July, 1926, to 10th July, 1927; insurable employment was not likely to be available in 20,288 cases; there was not a reasonable period 1521 of insurance in the preceding two years in 179,776 cases, and the number of cases not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment, or not willing to accept employment was given as 146,633; that is to say, there was a total in that period of 346,697 not likely to qualify. It is for reasons like this that Members both above and below the Gangway have persistently asked the Minister of Labour to give some more information as to the mind of the Ministry as to the effects of the Clause as it stands. For
§ these reasons, because we want a sound insurance scheme, because we want an insurance scheme giving a statutory right, but because we realise that with the abnormal number on the register, it cannot be got, I beg to propose in my Amendment that the present conditions shall continue to obtain.
§ Question put, "That the word 'the' be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 193.
1523| Division No. 357.] | AYES. | [8.26 p.m. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Grundy, T. W. | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hall, F. (York., W. R., Normanton) | Rose, Frank H. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Baker, Walter | Hardie, George D. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Harney, E. A. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Barnes, A. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hayday, Arthur | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Hayes, John Henry | Snell, Harry |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Broad, F. A. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Bromfield, William | Hirst, G. H. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bromley, J. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Buchanan, G. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Sullivan, J. |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kelly, W. T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kennedy, T. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lawrence, Susan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lawson, John James | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Connolly, M. | Lee, F. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Cove, W. G. | Lowth, T. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lunn, William | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Mackinder, W. | Viant, S. P. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Day, Colonel Harry | March, S. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) |
| Dennison, R. | Maxton, James | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda, |
| Duckworth John | Montague, Frederick | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Duncan, C. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Westwood, J. |
| Dunnico, H. | Murnin, H. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) | Naylor, T. E. | Whiteley, W. |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Oliver, George Harold | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Palin, John Henry | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Gillett, George M. | Paling, W. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Gosling, Harry | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Windsor, Walter |
| Greenall, T. | Potts, John S. | Wright, W. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Riley, Ben | |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Ritson, J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Groves, T. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F O. (W. Bromwich) | Mr. Fenby and Mr. Ernest Brown. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Blades, Sir George Rowland | Butt, Sir Alfred |
| Albery, Irving James | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. |
| Apsley, Lord | Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Briggs, J. Harold | Clayton, G. C. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Briscoe, Richard George | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Brittain, Sir Harry | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Conway, Sir W. Martin |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Cope, Major William |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. |
| Berry, Sir George | Buckingham, Sir H. | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Bullock, Captain M. | Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) |
| Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Knox, Sir Alfred | Rye, F.G. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lamb, J. Q. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham; |
| Dixey, A. C. | Loder, J. de V. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Drewe, C. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Sandon, Lord |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lumley, L. R. | Savery, S. S. |
| Ellis, R. G. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Fanshawe, Captain G. D | MacIntyre, Ian | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst) |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | McLean, Major A. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Macmillan, Captain H. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Goff, Sir Park | Malone, Major P. B. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Grace, John | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Meller, R. J. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Merriman, F. B. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Hanbury, C. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. R. C. (Ayr) | Templeton, W. P. |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Neville, Sir Reginald J. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Waddington, R. |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Pilcher, G. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Hilton, Cecil | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Hoare Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Preston, William | Wells, S. R. |
| Holt, Captain H. P. | Radford, E. A. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Raine, Sir Walter | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Ramsden, E. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Remer, J. R. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Remnant, Sir James | Withers, John James |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Rentoul, G. S. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hurst, Gera'd B. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.) |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Ropner, Major L. | |
| Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Captain Margesson and Mr. Penny. |
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. T. SHAWIn considering this Clause we on this side of the House apply to it the test which we should apply to a similar Clause in any Bill dealing with unemployment insurance. We ask ourselves "Will this Clause give benefits under the scheme to any unemployed man or woman for whom work cannot be found?" If it will not do that, we must vote against it. We find the Clause does not meet these requirements that we insist upon. What will be the result of this Clause? The Memorandum of the Bill says that the Clause, in conjunction with the repeal of certain existing enactments set out in the Fifth Schedule, makes unemployment benefit payable as a right: 1524
where the requisite conditions are satisfied, and abolishes the discretionary power of the Minister to place restrictions on the grant of benefit.There may be many opinions as to what that part of the Memorandum means, but the impression deeply engraved upon our minds is that the Clause is intended to give a statutory right to benefit to some of the unemployed and to refuse it to others; in effect, to make an already bad state of affairs worse. We have had one or two statements as to what will be the result of this Clause, which abolishes the discretion of the Minister, according to his own statement on Second Reading, and puts in place of it a statutory right, but not a statutory right for all the unemployed people. The "Times," which certainly is not a Labour newspaper, and just as certainly is not unfriendly to the 1525 Government, estimated that 150,000 people would be taken off the unemployment benefit fund if this Bill became law. When we consult Government publications to find out what are the conditions, we find an extraordinary state of affairs. The Minister tells us absolutely nothing about what the Government think the result will be, and consequently we must press very definitely once more for a statement as to what, in the opinion of the Minister of Labour and his Department, the result of this Clause will be upon those who are now getting benefits from the unemployed fund. The Actuary, in his addendum to the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee, says:In regard to the qualifying number of contributions, I regret that I have been unable to find any statistics which would enable the relief to he derived from this provision to be authoritatively measured. From certain data supplied to me by the Minister of Labour I draw the somewhat general conclusion that the proportion of unemployment prevailing in 1924–25 which would have been disqualified from benefit by such a rule would have been about 20 per cent.If that be the case and one million people have been paid unemployment benefit, it foreshadows that when the Act is fully in operation 50,000 at five per cent. would come out of benefit. If the full 20 per cent. should be realised, at least 200,000 of these who are now receiving benefit would be out of benefit. This is something about which the Minister of Labour cannot remain silent. It would be monstrous if the House were to be denied during the Committee stage as well as on the Second Reading a definite statement from the Minister as to what he estimates will be the result of this Bill. We ought to have that estimate at the earliest possible moment. We can assume that the "Times" has been somewhat inspired and that the statement of the actuary is not very far from the truth in view of the silence of the Minister. We now know that something like 200,000 people are going to be taken off the unemployment benefit fund, and experience has already shown quite conclusively that when people are taken off the benefit fund they are simply placed on the rolls of the boards of guardians.When I had the responsibility of dealing with this question and contrasting statistics, I invariably found that the number taken off the unemployment fund 1526 bore some relation to the number of people who applied to the guardians for relief. It is evident that this Clause will place the burden of maintaining these 200,000 people on the backs of the guardians, and more particularly in those areas where the backs of the ratepayers are already nearly broken. That is the position of affairs which this Clause puts before us. In view of these facts, it will not be with any feeling of astonishment that the Minister of Labour will hear me state that we are determined to resist the Clause so far as we are able. We think the Minister of Labour has not taken into careful consideration what he is proposing.
I called attention during the Debate this afternoon to the fact that even the Birmingham Board of Guardians—the last board of guardians in the country we should have expected to protest—have protested against what this Bill is likely to mean to them. They sent with their letter of protest a document which is staggering to anyone who reads it carefully. I am sure the Minister of Labour will realise that the voice of Birmingham must be listened to even if he thinks the voice of the Opposition is of no account. We find it stated that this particular union in Birmingham has expended approximately £3,000,000 on relief for the unemployed and incidental expenses since the commencement of Unemployment Insurance in 1921. Two million pounds is the sum which has been raised directly from the rates and £1,000,000 had to be borrowed. The final payment of this loan falls due in April, 1929, and the present rate of expenditure, including the payment of loan, is £340,000 per annum. That amount is for Birmingham alone, and Birmingham is by no means so badly hit as many other cities.
I cannot believe that the intention of the Government is to throw these people into the position of "work or starve," because the work is not there. How can the men out of employment in the mining districts find work at mines? What is the use of talking to the steel worker about finding work when he knows that hundreds of men are wanting work and cannot get a job? Is there any idea on the part of the Government that by such proposals as these the men will be driven to work for less wages? In a previous discussion, I suggested 1527 that if the Government intend to carry on such methods they had better decide at once to give these people a handful of rice and make coolies of them. We cannot look upon a Bill like this with calmness. The only result this Measure is likely to have was confirmed by the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour at the end of the Second Reading Debate when he said that he hoped the result would not be so bad as Members of the Labour party had said it would be
What is the result going to be? Let us know whether the Government think the actuary is right or whether they think the "Times" is right. Judging from the announcement which has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary, it appears that the Minister of Labour himself is convinced that a lot of these people are going to be denied benefit. So far as we are concerned, we want to state emphatically certain broad principles. The first is that every genuine working man or woman who is unemployed is entitled to benefit; secondly, that the benefit should be of such a character as to avoid undue privation; and thirdly, that the responsibility for doing this should be made a national responsibility, and the sooner this is done the better we shall be pleased. As this Clause seems to be in direct opposition to all three of these principles, as it is likely, not only not to give benefits to every unemployed worker, but to deprive of their benefits some who are now getting benefits, and as it is likely not to help in any other respect to meet our wishes, I shall ask my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby and vote against the acceptance of the Clause.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI have felt throughout the whole of this afternoon a difficulty in regard to Rulings on the question of Order, because the requirement as to 30 contributions is in Clause 5, and, consequently, if I were to discuss it in detail, I imagine I could not keep within the Rules of Order on Clause 1. I can, however, if I am permitted to do so, give the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) the information for which he asks, so far as it is in our possession, and I can say quite distinctly for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that he was pre- 1528 paring to give it on the night of the Second Reading of the Bill. He fully intended to do so, and the reason why he did not was only—I am not meaning this discourteously—because, as hon. Members opposite know full well, the intervention of questions in the middle of a speech makes a speech take longer than it otherwise would. That was the reason why my hon. Friend was not then able to give this information, which he fully intended to give.
The charge has been made that by our present administration we are driving claimants to the guardians. All I can say is that whoever makes that statement has no justification for making it. [Interruption.] I propose to publish the actual figures regarding relief and benefit, which will illustrate the point precisely. The next point made by the right hon. Gentleman was that the only place where those whose benefit is disallowed can go is to the guardians, with the obvious inference that everyone whose benefit is disallowed goes to the guardians. Particulars of a number of cases were taken out a short time ago, in order to show the proportion of those who go to the guardians within the next fortnight. The number of those who were not in receipt of Poor Law relief before, and who went to the guardians within the next fort-night after their benefit was disallowed, was 13.5 per cent.—not the whole number, but, as hon. Members will realise, somewhere between 1 in 7 and 1 in 8.
I now come to the actual numbers for which the right hon. Gentleman asked. I am precluded from discussing them in detail, but I will gladly give our conclusions. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary had been able to give our conclusions on the night of the Second Reading; it would have saved a great deal of time to-day. The Blanesburgh Committee, no doubt, satisfied themselves with regard to the requirement of 30 contributions; I have no reason to believe that those who signed the Report failed to satisfy themselves with regard to it. When it was a question of the Government adopting the Report, we wished to see what information we could get. We have had a series of inquiries. We had an inquiry in the spring of 1926—I forget for the moment whether that was the third or fourth—and we have had another this year, in order to obtain information on a number 1529 of points of different kinds, quite apart from anything of this kind; but, as the Blanesburgh Report was then in our possession, we wanted to see, among other things, what would be the effect of the 30-contribution rule—and this is a material fact—at the time when it is likely to come into effect, namely, in April, 1929.
I say to the Committee at once that one could not get exact information, for the reason that the year 1920 was a year, as everyone knows, of a quite abnormal kind, and no one can draw inferences from the period of the coal dispute as to what could be reasonably expected to be the case in April 1929. Subject to that, and subject to the allowances and necessary hypotheses that we had to make, the figure we came to as the most precise estimate that could be made, in the circumstances, of the number of people, additional to those already disqualified, who would, in April, 1929, be added, under the Bill to the number of disqualified persons, was 30,000. That is the conclusion to which we came. As I have said, we have had a number of such inquiries for other purposes, and we endeavoured, in the course of this one, to see if we could get some guide as to what would be the result in 1929. I say at once that by 1929, we shall, as we hope, be getting back much more to a period of normality than we have been during the past year, and, therefore, we had to estimate on that basis.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYMay I put to the Minister a question which I think is very important? Is his estimate of 30,000 based on the unemployment figures to-day, or on the Government's estimate of what those figures will be in April, 1929?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDOn our estimate of what the figures will be in 1929.
§ Mr. HAYDAYIt is rather astonishing to hear the statement of the Minister as to what is likely to be the position in 1929, to the effect that by that time, estimating on the number who at present cannot comply with the suggested statutory conditions, there will, in another 18 or 19 months, be still 30,000 left. That makes, I suggest, a figure of more than 200,000 who at present are subject to the Minister's discretion, and who, if they 1530 were called upon within the next month or so, could not fulfil his qualification of 30 stamps covering a period of two years. Who can say that, between now and 1929, there will be coming back for benefit some of the casual and intermittent type of workers, who have not the qualification and who have been turned down for various reasons, whose books are in the two-months file, gradually being weeded out, and who in the next month or two may come back without the stamp qualification, whose hope of admittance will recede as time goes on, because they will not be able to supply even the limited eight, 12, or 20 stamps so as to come within the Minister's discretion? Is it said now that we shall be faced with the appalling position that, if the present number of unemployed is the same in 1929 as it is to-day, there will still be 30,000 who cannot fulfil the stamp qualication? That is the justification for all the anxieties and worries we have had over the wording of this Clause and the introduction of the statutory condition being one of a contribution.
There is another point I should like the Minister to reply to. Earlier on in the discussion you, Sir, permitted me to put a query whether this Clause might affect the class of insured contributor who has a debit balance standing against his stamp qualification. I think the question is quite clear. It is that whilst on extended benefit he is not getting it in the form of a dole or a charity but he is getting it advanced to him on account of future contributions, and the debt goes on accumulating. I should like to know from the Minister before this Clause is finally disposed of, whether the Department proposes to wipe out all the deficit?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDYes, all these minus contributions will cease to exist, just as a debt by an individual would be wiped off.
§ Mr. HAYDAYThat means that all the minus balance standing against him will be cleared off and he will start under whatever the statutory conditions may be—
§ Mr. E. BROWNHe must have eight.
§ Mr. HAYDAYNot necessarily, because it is forgotten that right from 1921, and in 1924 and 1925, the Minister had the discretion, notwithstanding the fact that 1531 an insured person under certain circumstances could not supply a stamp claim at all, whether it was 8, 12 or 20 or at any time. There was the fact that he would normally have been employed in an insurable occupation, and that is the kind of statutory condition that we desire to see imposed in this Measure. In relation to this question of Poor Law relief, it is very significant that we are not the only ones who have insisted on this point, because Sir James Curtis who lives in Birmingham and was on the Blanesburgh Committee because of his knowledge of the Poor Law, is not satisfied that the Ministry are handling the Report as the signatories thought they would, that it is not being handled in anything like a generous sense or carrying out fairly what was in their mind. I would join with my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in saying that I should prefer the present system, unsatisfactory though it may be, to the conditions that are indicated in this Clause, not that I want to justify giving any Minister the right to determine, on family income, whether a disqualification should take place or no upon all these many little intricate considerations that enter into the claim for extended benefit when they come under the Minister's discretion. I should like to lift him right away from that. I should like the statutory condition not a contribution condition, because sooner or later a man in an insurable occupation will be called upon to pay as soon as the occupation can absorb him, and a deduction will be made from any money that he may earn. There is no escape at all. There is no coming in to get benefit and then getting employment and escaping payment for that benefit he may have been able to have if it is established as a statutory condition. But, taking the statutory condition as being a contribution one as indicated in Clause 1, while I am opposed to the Minister's discretion, I should prefer the Minister's discretion, because clearly, on the Minister's own statement, by 1929 there will be 30,000 who will be knocked off. The discretion cannot operate between now and 1929, and there is the possibility of many thousands of others who would go out because of the non-fulfilment of the contribution statutory condition as indicated in this Clause.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI said that was the total number who might be expected to be affected. They would not all take place at once.
§ Mr. HAYDAYNo, but they would run out.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThey would start in 1929, but that would be the total effect.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HAYDAYThe right hon. Gentleman should know by the present signs how many can or cannot fulfil the proposed statutory condition. When I venture the figure of 200,000 and the "Times" ventures the figure of 150,000, it is said that it is grotesque to mention any such number. The Minister and the Department can get no nearer to it than saying that at the commencement of 1929 there will be 30,000 to be dealt with. What happens in the interval? Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not desire that the country should get a wrong impression of the actual state of affairs. Is it not a fact that you have over 100,000 cards in your two months' files? Is it not a fact that most of that 100,000 are those who have been refused benefit and whose cards have been put aside? Is it not a fact that every month, or every week, just as rejects at the one end go in the two months' file, those who have been there more than two months come out, so that the 100,000 in the two months' file are already excluded from benefit for some reason or another? Add that 100,000 to your 30,000 in 1929 and of your 800,000, whether they are being paid benefit or having their claims examined, what proportion will eventually find their way to the two months' file? I will say more when we get to another Clause of a far more grievous thing dealing with your juvenile cases, but my principal point was to carry the Birmingham protest a little further, because it is fresh in all our minds. The Minister of Health, in his Report last year, said that there were 632,104 persons relieved on account of unemployment, apart from any ordinary distress operating and apart from infirmary cases and institutional treatment, 632,104, made up of 175,447 men, 149,652 women and 307,005 children. How many of these had been driven there because they could not maintain their right to unemployment benefit? How 1533 many of them had been driven there, even after the suspension from benefit of three weeks or of six weeks, until their case was heard? How many of them had been driven to seek relief because of the inadequacy of the amount?
You will hear from many more boards of guardians protesting against and condemning the principles embodied in this Clause and calling for a contribution as a statutory right before benefits can be paid long before this Bill finds its way on to the Statute Book as an Act of Parliament. It is certainly with much gravity of thought that one has to sit in this Committee this afternoon without hearing any real justification from the Ministry. We have not had given to us anything like the valuable data or statistics that the Department have, and that the Department can supply if they will. Although I do not care to harbour the thought, I sometimes think that, apart from any actuarial calculation as to the money involved in this, there is an actuarial calculation such as this: "What Measure can we introduce that will bring about the result we require in cutting down the number who will be encouraged to sign on at our Employment Exchanges, leave the country in a false atmosphere of hopefulness, and cover, as much as we can, the poverty of the men, women, and children? We can do it better with a deathlike silence, with the knowledge of our great majority to back us on the Floor of the House of Commons, because we dare not expose the statistics that are called for, as they would be too damaging and too deadly to the reputation of the Government of the day." I feel convinced, as I stand here, that the Department can give us the information if they will. It is not good enough to say that our figure is grotesque unless they can give us something that will enable them, with a greater degree of practical certainty, to upset the calculations we made on going into the matter. There is the fact. There is the position. It is true that here we are embarking on a voyage that will send more to the Poor Law authorities. The Poor Law authorities will be too poor to meet the bill. If this be the best Christmas present you can give to the workers of this country after their hardships from '14 to '18 and from '20 to '27, you are repaying the memories of the valiant dead and the courage of 1534 those who struggled against adversity in a very scurvy and wretched manner indeed.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI do not think the Committee should give very much attention to, or spend very much time in the discussion of, the figure of 30,000 given by the Minister of Labour. The figure is based upon something of which the right hon. Gentleman, with all due respect to him, is absolutely ignorant. I would challenge the Government now to estimate what the numbers of unemployed will be in December, 1927, and in January, 1928. I am quite sure that if they dare make an estimate of what the figures will be a month or two months from now these figures will be staring them in the face as an evidence of the little knowledge they have of the subject with which they are attempting to deal. We are told that only 13.5 of the people who are struck off from unemployment insurance benefit actually go to the guardians within two or three weeks of being struck off. One naturally asks, where do they go? They do not go to work. Are we asked to assume that the working-classes, under the conditions of to-day, have savings to which they can have recourse when they are struck off from unemployment benefit? It is too fantastic, too ridiculous, to ask us to believe that to-day, after such a long period of trade depression with its consequent low wages, the workers of this country have surplus wealth on which they can draw if only the House of Commons will compel them to do so.
I object to this Clause for quite another reason altogether. The Clause says that an insured contributor who is unemployed shall, if he proves so-and-so and so-and-so, be entitled to some of the means of life out of this fund. I object to the whole assumption underlying the Clause. It assumes that the working-man is somehow guilty of something and that he has to prove that he is not guilty before he will be entitled to any assistance at all. I have always understood that the basis of the industrial system under which we are working to-day was that it was the employers' duty to organise work, and that it was the duty of the workers to do it. It is not the doing of the work that has failed here. It is not the workers that have failed. The workers are still willing to do the work. The system has 1535 broken down at the other end. It has broken down in the organisation. It is, if not the individual capitalists, the capitalist system which has failed to provide employment for the men. I think the onus should not be placed on the worker at all, because he is not a failure, he is not the guilty person. The onus ought to be placed on the representatives of the Fund to show that he is not a willing worker or that he is not entitled to benefit, or that he should be driven on to the rates, or that he should be driven to seek the aid of his friends. I think we may take an entirely wrong view of the situation. I do not think we should proceed on the assumption that a man should go from gate to gate seeking work and prove that he had knocked at so many doors before he is entitled even to consideration for benefit. If we are to assume that, what is the use of the Employment Exchange at all?
If I remember rightly, the view held when these Employment Exchanges were set up was that the man no longer need go from gate to gate, that he was not to go cap in hand servile-like to foreman or manager seeking work; that the Government were now coming in to assist in the better organisation of labour. We were to assist in what is called the greater mobility of labour. Vacancies were to be registered at the Exchanges and unemployed workers were to register at the Exchanges. There are no vacancies, so far as I know, of any consequence being registered at the Exchanges. The workers have prima facie evidence that there are no vacancies, and it is a sheer waste of time, a sheer test of patience and endurance, to compel them to go from gate to gate in search of employment, which, according to the Government's organisation itself, does not exist. If we concede, as we do in unemployment insurance, that the workers by right are entitled to an income because they are unwillingly unemployed, then, surely, the onus should be placed on the other side of depriving them of that right. Why should a man have the right, say, up to three months, 13 weeks, and then when it comes to the 14th week, when he is more needing help, he should then be struck off? Should not there be some obligation on the other side to show that he should be deprived of the right, 1536 because he has not found employment within the 13 weeks? There is no such obligation upon the other side to do that, because it would be impossible for them to show that the worker was a shirker. They would be required to show that there was no scarcity of labour in some industry, that there were more jobs than there were workers, and they would be required to show the man where he could get the employment which he had not been attempting to seek.
There is another point of view which has not received sufficient prominence in the discussion. We hear a great deal about how much the Fund can stand, how much the rates can stand, but we hear very little as to how much the family of the unemployed man can stand. Surely, that consideration would be protruding prominently in our considerations if we were looking at this matter from the humane point of view, and if we put ourselves in the position of the people who are actually unemployed. I have heard a good deal about the fine, smooth temper in which we are discussing this problem to-night. I wonder whether that is a measure of how far our mentality is removed from that of the actual sufferers. If we had before us the intelligent unemployed, the people who could express their views as well as we can express them, the people who could describe their sufferings; if they sat on those benches, and they were asked to give foremost consideration to what the State can stand, what the rates can stand, what industry can stand in the burden of rates, and what industry can contribute safely in the way of unemployment insurance, and not a word as to how much it requires to feed a child, not a word as to how much of the 24s. or the 27s., or whatever the sum may be, goes in rent, and how much in clothes; I wonder whether their tempers would be as sweet as ours. I can find only one reason for thinking that their tempers would be as sweet as ours, and that would be to pay them £8 a week for keeping quiet on those benches regarding the actual sufferings of the people out-side.
When the country was at war, and we had to raise funds, we did not ask how much this Department could stand, or how much that Department could stand. We said, "The State is in danger. We 1537 require £7,000,000 a day for war purposes. "We had not £7,000,000 a day available then, any more than we have, according to hon. Members opposite, the funds necessary now adequately and properly to maintain the unemployed. But that did not deter us in the pursuit of war. We found the millions, and we accumulated a national debt of £7,000,000,000 or £8,000,000,000, and on that national debt we are paying, in round figures, £300,000,000 to £320,000,000 a year in interest. We took on that great obligation during that period, because we felt that it was in the interests of the State, in the long run, that we should accept the obligation. We felt, on the whole, that it was our duty to do so. Why should we forget now that the workers with whom we are dealing are the great basis of the State? It has been admitted from the other side that the million unemployed to-day are not to be segregated and regarded as a distinct section of workers. It is realised that unemployment is a continuous process, that it is a depth into which, in turn, all the employed of this country are liable to sink. The million workers of to-day may be the million unemployed, of next year, and the million unemployed of this year may be the million workers of next year.
It is the complete industrial army that we are dealing with here, and not a particular million of that industrial army, and we should remember that that industrial army is the very basis of the State. As was pointed out by someone in French history, I cannot for the moment recollect whom, that you can take away this section, or that section, but provided the baker continued to bake bread and provided the workers remain, the State will go on. Are we entitled to leave out of consideration what the permanent effect will be on this industrial army, which is the pillar of the State? I submit that they ought to be our first consideration, and I say to hon. Members opposite: "They are not your first consideration. If you had 1,000,000 working people in this country as intelligent in their own interests as the Members of the House of Commons are, they would not be a very easy handful with which to deal. They would let you know that they existed. They would create trouble."
§ The CHAIRMANThe right hon. Member is building up a very big argument on the question of the discretionary right to grant benefit.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYMy point is that in this Clause all the obligation to secure benefit or assistance of any kind is placed on the unemployed man. The onus of proof is placed on the unemployed man. My chief point is that the unemployed man is not the guilty person. He is not responsible for the breakdown of the system which has made him an unemployed man, and the onus of proof should be placed on the responsible person. My next point was—and I submit, with all due respect, that I have not departed very far from it—that we should bear in mind, in considering this Clause, not merely the state of the rates and of industry, but also the state of the unemployed people themselves and those who are dependent upon the unemployed, and that we should give primary and paramount consideration to what they can stand and to the limit of their sufferings in passing a Measure to deal with their circumstances. The point which I was making, when you interrupted me, was that these working classes are the very basis of the State, that your rates, your industries, your royalties, your lords and your commons, all depend on the good physical condition of these people, and that you should remove every obstacle to the adequate and healthy maintenance of these people, whether they are employed to-day or merely resting for the employment that you may hope to give them to-morrow.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSThe statement of the Minister of Labour regarding the 30,000 to be affected by this Bill is very optimistic, and I propose to submit some figures which will probably disillusion the right hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that the figure of 30,000 will be more than covered in the steel trade alone. If he will take Scotland and the North of England, the Middlesbrough and Sheffield districts, the Birmingham district and the South Wales district, including Port Talbot, he will find, according to the figures in ,our statistical department, that there are over 40,000 members of the steel trade union who have never done a day's work since 1920. And we are not the only union in the steel trade. There are the blast furnacemen, the engineers, 1539 and the labourers' union; but, in my own society alone, since, the slump of 1920 and the stoppage of 1921, there are 40,000 who, as I have said, have never done a day's work since 1920.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSWe can deal with that on another occasion. In addition to that the production of steel to-day is equivalent to what it was in 1913, although the percentage of unemployment is 16 per cent. Hon. Members, therefore, will see that there is no hope so far as these men are concerned that they will be employed in the steel trade. At Blaenavon last week a meeting was held at which the different authorities in that district were represented. It was attended by representatives of the Blaenavon Urban District Council, the Abergavenny Board of Guardians, the chamber of commerce, the trade unions and the ministers of religions, and was called for the purpose of considering the position of people who were receiving no unemployment benefit at all as a result of being idle for the last five years. That is the position so far as the steel trade is concerned, but if you take into consideration all the other industries of the country I think the figure given by the Labour Minister of Labour and "The Times" is nearer the point. That is 150,000 to 200,000. Let me refer to another question which, to me, is very important. This to me is more than an Insurance Fund. Friendly society members are not compelled to pay any contribution. It is voluntary, and if they are 12 weeks in arrears they cease to get benefit. In a trade union, if a man ceases to pay contributions for 12 weeks he naturally ceases to receive benefit. This Insurance Fund is compulsory. If a man is working in the mining industry earning 25 shillings to 30 shillings a week, the first deduction made from his wages is for the Insurance Fund. If you are going to introduce a Bill and compel men to join this Fund, a Bill which gives the Government a prior claim over the wife on the man's earnings, then I think the Government should bring in a Bill compelling the State to pay benefit to the men when they are out of employment. If a man earns only 1s. 9d. per week he is not permitted to take that sum home 1540 to his wife. You take that 1s. 9d., you have the first claim on his wages. There-fore, if the State is to he entitled to compel a man to pay his insurance contribution week after week when employed, surely the Government should also he compelled to pay benefit to that man when he is out of work. That is a logical argument. I appeal to the Government to give these men some hope for the future; not a false hope such as is given by this Bill. I can imagine members of my own union saying that there is some hope for them for by April, 1929, they will all have 30 stamps on their insurance card and be entitled to benefit. That is a false hope so far as the steel trade and the mining industry is concerned. I am going into the Lobby to support the Amendment.
§ Miss LAWRENCEI do not wish to go over the ground which so many hon. Members have traversed already, or to point out once again that the 30,000 cases are the mere expression of a pious hope on the part of the Minister, that there is no foundation whatever for it except his own sanguine, optimistic temperament to believe that such a thing is possible. I want to deal a little more closely with the burden which will be thrown on the local rates by 30,000 or 200,000 people being cut out of benefit. I want to say what is going to happen to the unemployed if they are thrown out of benefit. I want hon. Members to realise that the cost of unemployment relief has, during the past few weeks, gone up in an alarming manner. The number of persons relieved by the Poor Law has gone up from 350,000 in 1920 to 1,722,000 in the year 1927, and the cost of out-relief has gone up from over £4,000,000 to £23,750,000. If you take 1,700,000 persons and divide the £23,750,000 between them, you will see that on each person you spend £13 16s. in out-relief, and we are talking as if the number of cases would be 30,000 or 200,000. That is all wrong. The number will be 90,000 or 600,000, because these men are not all bachelors or childless widowers. Most of them have a wife and one or two children, and I have here the figures given by the Minister of Health analysing the persons who seek domiciliary assistance and the number of their dependants. If you take the whole number of unemployed, which includes cases which are not insurable and cases 1541 which are, you have 465,900 persons for 127,000 men. If you take persons who are actually capable of being insured, insurable persons, you have 298,000 cases for 218,000 men. That is to say that, when the Minister talks of 30,000 men being cut off, he means about 90,000 persons being put upon the Poor Law. If, as is more probable, they will turn out to be a couple of hundred thousand, then you will be adding another 500,000 persons to the cost of out-relief which is borne by the local authorities. That is a very considerable addition to the enormous total of £23,000,000, which has been loaded on to poor relief within the last seven years.
It is bad enough for local finance when you take it in the bulk, but when you look at the places where out-relief is highest, when you consider what is happening in those miserable industrial and coal-mining districts, you will see that the burden becomes almost in-tolerable. We have got, with some difficulty, figures from the Minister of Health showing that Northumberland and Durham, respectively, have actually 103,000 persons and 332,000 persons on the Poor Law. That is obviously necessarily the result of unemployment, because in times of good work the number was in one case a tenth and in the other less than a tenth. That is my first point, my financial point, that you are taking this expenditure off money partly collected by Income Tax, which is the fairest method of taxation, and you are putting it upon local rates, which is the form of taxation most harassing to trade and which is more uneven in its incidence than any other taxation. There is another class of persons among the poor whose condition of pauperism is due to unemployment. I mean the casuals and vagrants, people mainly running about the country looking for work, whose number has greatly increased. During this year it reached as high as 12,000 and averaged between 9,000 and 10,000. They are a very expensive class of persons receiving poor relief, and the local authorities have been forced to erect new buildings and spend a good deal of money because of this sudden swarm of destitute people walking the roads of this country. Anyone who knows anything about the efforts of men seeking employment knows that a considerable quantity 1542 of the casual population is due to the low state of trade.
Those are the burdens of the Poor Law. What sort of treatment is the unemployed man going to get out of the Poor Law? There is not a man in England who can say that unless he knows the exact circumstances of the union. The amount of relief given to the unemployed by the Poor Law is so shockingly variable that it offends against all the principles of justice. The Minister has been at pains to estimate the proportion of unemployed men in a district to the proportion of poor. It is scandalous to see how largely the relief given is the mere sport of local caprice or of the pressure exerted by the Minister. In some cases it bears a close proportion to the number of unemployed in the district. In other cases, it is a little more. In some cases the percentage of relief comes down to as low as 15 per cent., and in one case to 10 per cent.
It is not merely that you are casting the unemployed, whether they are 30,000 or 200,000, upon the rates; it is that when you do this you lose all decent control over the man when you hand him over either to the caprice of the local guardians or to the pressure that the Minister of Health knows so well how to exert in the localities. You are handing the unemployed over to the unfettered discretion of the Minister of Health, and those of us who have watched his work close at hand know how cruel are his tender mercies. If Members saw what I see day by day in my district they would remove the care of the unemployed from the discretion of the Minister of Health. It is not a reasonable way to treat these persons to leave them either to be properly treated by boards of guardians fighting against the Minister or to be reduced by hunger and cold in the secrecy of his office. Those are the two reasons why I say this Clause ought to be sent back. In the first place, you have no right to throw an unknown number of from 90,000 or 600,000 persons, as the case may be, upon the local rates. In the second place, we owe this duty to the unemployed, that the amount they receive shall be measured and determined by the nation itself. Because of the unfairness of local burdens, because of the ambiguity and uncertainty to which we hand 1543 over the unemployed, I shall vote for the rejection of this Clause.
§ Mr. BARKERI am going to support the rejection of this Clause of the Bill. In 1924, the Government gave statutory benefit to all insured persons who were unemployed and who fulfilled certain conditions. When the Conservative Government was elected, the very first thing they did was to take away that statutory right from the unemployed and give, in the place of it, discretionary power to the Minister. Now the Minister comes forward with this Bill and deprives himself of the discretionary power, leaving the unemployed without a statutory right to benefit beyond the 30 stamps, and refusing also to exercise discretionary power. In the mining areas this Bill is viewed with horror. The miners to-day are suffering as no industry has suffered in this country for 100 years. There are 240,000 miners unemployed to-day. In some of these areas these miners have been unemployed for two and three years, and it is perfectly useless for them to attempt to get employment anywhere. There is not a colliery in the kingdom where there are any vacancies for unemployed miners, and there is no alternative employment, because there are three-quarters of a million people unemployed in other industries.
Therefore, it is practically impossible for the miners to get either employment in their own industry or alternative employment. In the districts in which I have, unfortunately, to live, the Blaina district particularly, all the collieries are closed with the exception of one, and they are permanently closed according to the statement of the Ebbw Vale Company. There is no alternative employment there, and the people are practically stranded. They have nothing on which to exist except the unemployment benefit. In Abertillery more than half the population are unemployed, and quite recently the local colliery company have closed three of their collieries. Lower down in the valley the same kind of thing exists. There is no alternative employment. What are these people to do? I wonder if the Minister has asked himself what these people are to do. Reference has been made to the Poor Law. Unfortunately, in South Wales it is almost impos- 1544 sible to get any relief from the Poor Law. The guardians are absolutely bankrupt. I will read a statement issued by the new guardians, the commissioner guardians, of Bedwellty. This is what they say about the condition of the Bedwellty area:
For the purpose of meeting immediate requirements and paying some of the debts previously incurred, the appointed guardians borrowed from the Minister of Health a sum of £75,000, which increased the loan debt to £1,071,425, and it is regretted that up to the date of this report it has not been possible to liquidate any portion of this debt or pay the interest thereon.That statement tells the story of that area in most eloquent language and shows that the miners, in particular, have nothing to depend upon except the Unemployment Insurance Act. To say that these men and women should get relief from the guardians is a mockery, because the guardians have no relief to give. The place is like a wilderness. There are hundreds of empty houses and hundreds of empty shops, and the people are overwhelmed with debt. The Minister comes along with this Bill, and instead of finding some employment for these people, instead of attempting to mitigate the evil, he tramps upon the helpless. That is what the Government are doing now. The country is thoroughly against the Government with reference to this Bill. Neither the Conservative party nor the Liberal party in South Wales will support the Government in the way they have treated the unemployed. No party will do so. The Bill is an atrocious Bill. The people in this area and the ex-service men too are in a terrible state because the Bedwellty Guardians refuse to relieve any able-bodied person, and until a person becomes invalided he or she cannot get any sustenance from the guardians. It is a policy that is deliberately manufacturing misery. I would like the Committee to realise the state of the country at the present time. There is a tremendous responsibility upon employers to find employment for the people. But they do not attempt to do anything of the kind; they are against State enterprise; they will not allow the State to do anything; and the Ministry of Labour, as the mouthpiece of the capitalist party, brings forward this Bill to add to the misery of the working classes.1545 I hope it is not too late even now for the Minister of Labour to reconsider this Bill. Let him try to visualise the condition of the people in those areas where such widespread unemployment exists. I ask him again, as he has been asked many times already, what prospect there is for the mining population of the country. Instead of the bringing in of Bills like this, which will only add to the agony of the people, something should be done to find employment for them. I marvel at the behaviour of the unemployed. These people are without food practically, and without clothing, and yet crime has not increased, although we have had this volume of unemployment for six years. Our people are loyal beyond description, but I am afraid that their loyalty has been exploited by the Government. If our people had only a little bit more of the rebel in them I believe a remedy would be found. It is a disgrace to us as a people that we cannot find a remedy until violence is threatened on the nation. It is a scandal for this House that it should assemble, year after year, and pass these Bills which increase the misery of our people and do nothing whatever to remedy their suffering. There is nothing in this Bill that really meets the situation. What we demand, and what we will continue to demand, for our people is that you find employment for them or adequate maintenance. Until that is done we shall raise our voices on this side of the House every time we get an opportunity.
§ Mr. MARCHI really cannot sit here and give a silent vote while I think of the very large number of unemployed in the district which I have the honour to represent. In listening to the Debates and noting the silence of the other side of the House, one would think that there were no unemployed in the districts represented by hon. Members opposite, that there was no one who required any assistance, and that everybody was perfectly satisfied. The people are not satisfied in the district that I represent. When the Minister states that the people who are cut off from the unemployment benefit do not go to the guardians, he does not tell us where they go. After they have been unemployed for years, as many of them have been, and after they 1546 have received the standard benefit and the extended benefit, which has not been enough to keep them reasonably, and then after they have been cut off from that benefit, I wonder where the Minister thinks they go? Does he think they can live entirely on the air? If he does, I want to call his attention to a statement that I have received from the Clerk of the Poplar Board of Guardians. If this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament they will be hit harder than they are now. They have been hit very hard by the Minister's use of his discretion, because it has been found that when men get old they are told that they are not likely to be engaged in an insurable trade. The Government might as well say to these men, "You should not grow old, it is foolish of you to do so and there is no employment and no benefit for you."
If the Minister wants to know where these unemployed go to he can get the information from his colleague the Minister of Health. The clerk to the board of guardians has sent me a statement of the unemployed persons who are getting relief and of the persons who have been struck off between February and October last. He gives, week by week, the numbers of men taken off the Exchange and disallowed benefit by the Minister of Labour, and if the right hon. Gentleman cares to go through the list he will find that 889 persons have been disallowed between February of this year and the end of October. This statement is printed month by month in the minutes of the board of guardians and they have a return of it. If the right hon. Gentleman gets the return from his colleague the Minister of Health showing month by month the number of people receiving relief, he will also find the number who are receiving no unemployment benefit. For the benefit of the House, I will give the figure for a period of one month comprising two weeks in February and two weeks in March. In that period, there were 4,964 persons unemployed receiving relief, and of that number 4,122 were not in receipt of unemployment benefit and in the same four weeks 133 were disallowed benefit from the Employment Exchange. That is going on month after month. The Minister can also get the figures for the last year, or I shall get them for him if he so desires. But I presume the 1547 Minister does not want to know how badly off are these various areas.
10.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman asks what becomes of these people. I can tell the Committee what becomes of some of them. I happen to be a justice of the peace and I have the right of attending institutions in order to see people who are under observation there. I have to attend with the doctors for the purpose of certifying whether or not a person is to go to a mental institution. I assure hon. Members that an increasing number are being certified for admission to mental institutions owing to nothing else but unemployment. I investigated the cases of two men and a woman last week and of two men the week before, and the only statement I could get from their relatives was that they had been worrying and were demoralised through being unemployed and in receipt only of the meagre amount of relief allowed by the board of guardians. That is the result of the action of the right hon. Gentleman's colleague in pressing them down and giving them less and less. We maintain that the longer persons are unemployed the more and not the less should they receive. But hon. Members opposite sit there and take no notice of anything we say in connection with these matters and do nothing whatever to improve the condition of these people or to find them employment. I am glad to see present the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), who twitted us some time ago with the cases of men who asked their daughters to seek employment for them. Dozens of them come to me. I had two at my house this morning asking me to recommend them for work. It is work these men and women want and not merely assistance, and if the Government cannot find them work then they ought to find them the wherewithal to keep body and soul together.
§ Mr. KELLYWhen listening to the Minister dealing with this Clause, I was struck by one figure which he presented to us. He said that in April, 1929, 30,000 unemployed would be struck off the unemployment pay roll because of this Measure.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI must correct the hon. Member. I said the total effect was estimated at about 30,000 men, but that it would only take effect gradually.
§ Mr. KELLYI took the month of April, because the Minister referred to it. I quite realise that the right hon. Gentleman, in an earlier statement, indicated that it would not be a case of 30,000 being struck off at one fell swoop, but I should like to know how this figure has been reached. Is there to be some great revival in the engineering trade, in shipbuilding, in mechanical industry or in civil engineering? On what basis is this figure to be taken? To throw at our heads a figure of 30,000 without explanation is in itself bad enough; but when we find, even on the statement of the Government, that this Measure is gradually to throw off the roll 30,000 people, it shows how vicious the Measure is, and I am amazed at a Government at this time of day coming forward with such a proposal. We have a right to know whether it is 30,000 men who are to be struck off and, if so, how many women are going to be affected by the proposal, and what are the chances of men and women, respectively. It is not only mining that is hard hit at this time, but every industry in the country, and I would like the Minister to tell us what industries for men and what industries for women are in a position to enable the people belonging to them to prove that they have complied with the statutory conditions set out in this Measure. Where is the industry or trade, the occupation or calling that is going to assure to anyone an opportunity of complying with the conditions demanded under this Measure? We have a right to an answer to these questions in view of the fact that these people are not responsible for being unemployed. Why should they be penalised in this way and deprived of their unemployment insurance rights?
I am not at all happy about the Government's love for having an actuarial insurance scheme, for to suggest at this time of day that the people must pay premiums adequate to provide a sound scheme seems a very curious way of dealing with this problem. It almost reminds one of insisting upon a man who cannot find food or clothing for his family, and 1549 who cannot maintain them at anything like a reasonable standard of life, paying premiums in order to insure himself and his family against the various contingencies that may arise. These people cannot find these contributions that you are insisting upon as a condition precedent to their receiving benefit. The Minister told us that every one did not go to the guardians, and I am afraid that there are a good many who go to other sources than the guardians, and who, with the help of friends, try to hide that poverty that is bearing so heavily on many of our people. In some districts in London I have seen the poverty that is hidden behind the white curtains, the type of poverty that is of the worst kind, and they are the people whom you are driving off unemployment insurance. I wonder why it is that the Government do not realise that many of these people are unemployed because of the fact that in most of the industries of this country we are able to produce more to-day with a smaller number of men and women than we could at any time during the last 10 or 20 years.
I wish the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) were here, for there are men being eliminated to-day from the chemical trade, not because the industry is other than prosperous, but because in that industry we are able to produce more to-day with a smaller number of workers, and so we turn adrift those who are surplus to the requirements of that industry. They have, be-cause of inventions of science proving that they are not needed to give us production, to be allowed to drift and to starve, yet this Bill lays it down that unless the people who happen to secure employment and insure are able to find continuous employment and to prove that they can pay all that is demanded under this Bill, you will find reason for driving them out of unemployment insurance. I came across a case during this week-end of a man who was begging for work in a way that it was deplorable to think any citizen of this country would have to beg. He had not been able to find work during the last five years, even in the north country, where those hard workers are to be found, and how is that man to prove the qualifications that are demanded under this first Clause?
1550 The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) spoke of the suggestion that has been made of these people going from gate to gate. I feel bitter many times when I hear the suggestion made that men and women should go from gate to gate asking for work in order to prove that they are complying with the statutory conditions—[Interruption]—I do not know whether the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) has ever done it. It only requires to be done once, and to be refused by the type of person whom you ask for a. job, and the iron comes into your soul quickly, with the determination that you arc going to alter the hollow system that compels you to go from gate to gate, begging of some fellow to take you into his employment. Is that the kind of thing that the Ministry of Labour are still looking to, the kind of thing that we said was going to be abolished when we set up the Employment Exchanges? I followed the Committee stage of that first Unemployment Insurance Bill, and bad as I thought were some of those who engaged in that discussion, narrow as were their views, it is quite clear that the views of the present Government are even narrower with regard to the treatment of the working people of this country. I intend to vote against this Clause, as one that does not meet the situation, as one that does not understand the requirements of this time, and as one that is prepared to allow our people to suffer starvation when their unemployment comes of the paltry and horrible system under which we are now living.
§ Mr. NEIL MACLEANI have taken part in discussing a number of Unemployment Insurance Bills in this House, and to-night reminds me very strongly ,of an evening similar to this some four years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman first stood at that box as Minister of Labour introducing his first Unemployment Insurance Bill. I can remember that on that occasion he pleaded with the Opposition to give him some time in which to get his bearings, to allow him to map out the situation, and to survey the field of unemployment. He told the House, and particularly the Members of the Labour party, that we all knew his work in social schemes, that we all knew his sympathy with the under-dog, the work he had performed in various social under- 1551 takings and Committees; and he pleaded with us to let him have a. little time in which to survey the work of his office, and then, if he did not come up to expectations, he would be prepared to stand the racket. I am afraid that the Minister of Labour—and I regret very much to say it—has not come up to expectations, and he has to stand the racket. It is no use smiling in this House when there are hundreds of thousands of people outside, as good as any of us inside, who are starving on the streets to-night. It is no good smiling and looking back on those days and the speeches of those days as being well meant utterances coming from the heart. If the things that come from one's heart are not translated into something practicable for the starving people then our hearts' sympathy is absolutely no good, and is a mockery to the people with whom we profess to sympathise.
In this Bill, in the first Clause you say that a man has a right to unemployment insurance—yes, provided he fulfils three qualifications. There are three "ifs" in the Bill. What is the first qualification? Providing he fulfils three statutory conditions. What are the statutory conditions? The Minister of Labour knows perfectly well that one of these statutory conditions is that a man must prove that he is genuinely seeking employment. That is one of the qualifications laid down on the pink form. He must satisfy the Committee and the Minister that he is genuinely seeking employment. I have asked the Minister of Labour time and again to define what is meant by proving that a man is genuinely seeking employment. I have come here with certificates from foremen to whom various unemployed men have applied and which have been presented to the Unemployment Committees as genuine proof that they have been applying to the works for employment, and the Committees have refused to accept these certificates signed by foremen until the foremen in the respective works now refuse to sign them because the Unemployment Committees refuse to honour their signatures. Do you define it as "genuinely seeking employment" when a man can produce from a dozen to twenty certificates from foremen? Your Unemployment Committee and your Insurance Officer refuse to accept that as proof that the man is genuinely seeking employment. What 1552 proof is it that you want? Members of this House have told of experiences. Last night I was visited by a man who had been unemployed for two or three years, seeking employment—a man who takes the Minister of Labour back to his virgin speech of four years ago as Minister—
§ Mr. BUCHANANIt was Sir Montague Barlow then.
§ Mr. MACLEANI beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am giving him credit for a year longer than, he has had. Sir Montague Barlow went out of this House defeated at the poll—
§ Mr. WOMERSLEYHe is the best man we have ever had in the office.
§ Mr. MACLEANHe may have been one of the best men you had in office as a Tory.
§ Mr. STEPHENHe was better than this one.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEYThere are rival excellencies.
§ Mr. MACLEANI believe comparisons are odious.
§ Mr. MACLEANI am getting on—and some people will get off when the election comes. On that occasion the Minister of Labour also informed the House that he would give special attention to districts which had specialised in certain industries, where large numbers of men and women cannot find employment if trade becomes slack in those particular industries. The fact is he has visited those particular districts like the mining and shipbuilding areas with the worst form of treatment. The Minister of Labour may shake his head, but if he were down in the shipbuilding or mining areas, or any other places where industry is specialised, he would find by meeting the unemployed themselves how hardly they have been treated by various committees and the officers of his own Department.
When the Government submit a Bill purporting to relieve the unemployed and claiming they have framed a better Act and one which will enable the people to understand what they will get, they ought not to present such a pitiful monstrosity as this. Members of the Government 1553 shame themselves by having to stand at that Box to defend it. The effect of putting an Act like this on the Statute Book will be that more and more men will have to depend upon the boards of guardians in England and Wales and the parish councils in Scotland. Do hon. Members really think this Bill treats seriously the problem before the country? For the last three or four years we have never had fewer than 1,000,000 unemployed in this country. How is this Bill going to assist the unemployed? The House ought to go into the problem thoroughly in order to find out why we have had not less than 1,000,000 unemployed for more than four years. Those people are anxious to work. People are leaving this country and going abroad to find work; others cannot get the necessary means with which to go abroad. The Government talk about emigration as one of the cures for unemployment. Emigration! Get the people out of the country, get them working in one of the Colonies, or some other country—while they can pursue the stags down in Devon and in Somerset. That is throwing the responsibility of finding work for these people upon the shoulders of other countries.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Clause.
§ Mr. MACLEANI am sorry if I am going rather wide, but this Bill itself goes rather wide of the subject, because it does not touch unemployment at all. It does not touch the fringe of the question. I ask hon. Members to vote not merely against the first Clause, but to treat this Bill as being an insult to unemployed workers, as something that mocks their misery, and which throws more women upon the streets of our industrial cities. It is something that means that boys and girls will be unable
§ to get into trained occupations; it means that the unemployed man will have nothing to look forward to but Poor Law relief, and even this may be stopped by the action of the Minister of Health. There will be nothing for the unemployed worker but crime, and the Government are not only making prostitutes of the unemployed women, but they are making criminals of the men. They are producing misery and a state of things under which the unemployed women are unable to give the necessary nourishment to their children.
§ A Measure like this will only cause people to hate the Government and the system, and I have no hesitation in telling the Minister of Labour and the Members of the Government that the very thing they believe they are insuring against may arise in the industrial areas. The people may be roused by desperation to do things that this Government would not like them to do and which we should not like them to do. Macaulay said very truly that misery sometimes makes men rise in rebellion. The miserable man is sometimes compelled to do a thing that otherwise he would never deam of doing. A man in despair very often does something desperate as a last resort. I hope this Government will not rouse the people of this country in their last extremity to do things that neither we nor the Government wish to see, but things which they may be compelled to do for their own safety and for the furtherance and continuance of their own lives.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question he now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 133.
1557| Division No. 358.] | AYES. | [10.28 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) |
| Albery, Irving James | Berry, Sir George | Buckingham, Sir H. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Betterton, Henry B. | Bullock, Captain M. |
| Apsley, Lord | Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Butt, Sir Alfred |
| Ashley, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward |
| Astor, Viscountess | Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Campbell, E. T. |
| Atkinson, C. | Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. | Cassels, J. D. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Cautley, Sir Henry S. |
| Balniel, Lord | Briqgs, J. Harold | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Briscoe, Richard George | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Brittain, Sir Harry | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Remer, J. R. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Holt, Capt. H. P. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hume, Sir G. H. | Rye, F. G. |
| Cope, Major William | Hurst, Gerald B. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Jephcott, A. R. | Sandon, Lord |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Savery, S. S. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Knox, Sir Alfred | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Dixey, A. C. | Lamb, J. Q. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.) |
| Drewe, C. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Duckworth, John | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Smithers, Waldron |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Loder, J. de V. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Edmonson, Major A. J. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Ellis, R. G. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Lumley, L. R. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Fermoy, Lord | McLean, Major A. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Fielden, E. B. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Malone, Major P. B. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Ganzonl, Sir John | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Goff, Sir Park | Meller, R. J. | Tinne, J. A. |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Merriman, F. B. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Grace, John | Meyer, Sir Frank | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Grant, Sir J. A. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Waddington, R. |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Murchison, Sir Kenneth | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Wells, S. R. |
| Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) | Neville, Sir Reginald J. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Hanbury, C. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Withers, John James |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Penny, Frederick George | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Pilcher, G. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.) |
| Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Preston, William | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Radford, E. A. | |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Raine, Sir Walter | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Ramsden, E. | Captain Margesson and Major The Marquess of Titchfield. |
| Hilton, Cecil | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Groves, T. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Compton, Joseph | Grundy, T. W. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Connolly, M. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Cove, W. G. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Hardie, George D. |
| Baker, Walter | Dalton, Hugh | Harney, E. A. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Harris, Percy A. |
| Barnes, A. | Day, Colonel Harry | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon |
| Batey, Joseph | Dennison, R. | Hayday, Arthur |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Duncan, C. | Hayes, John Henry |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Dunnico, H. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) |
| Broad, F. A. | Fenby, T. D. | Hirst, G. H. |
| Bromfield, William | Gillett, George M. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) |
| Bromley, J. | Gosling, Harry | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Buchanan, G. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Greenall, T. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth) |
| Cape, Thomas | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Kelly, W. T. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Kennedy, T. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. |
| Lansbury, George | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Lawrence, Susan | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Lawson, John James | Rose, Frank H. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Lee, F. | Saklatvala, Shapurji | Viant, S. P. |
| Lunn, William | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Scurr, John | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Mackinder, W. | Sexton, James | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| March, S. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Maxton, James | Sitch, Charles H. | Westwood, J. |
| Montague, Frederick | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Morris, R. H. | Snell, Harry | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Murnin, H. | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Naylor, T. E. | Stamford, T. W. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Oliver, George Harold | Stephen, Campbell | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Palin, John Henry | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Paling, W. | Strauss, E. A. | Windsor, Walter |
| Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Sullivan, J. | Wright, W. |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Sutton, J. E. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | |
| Potts, John S. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Rees, Sir Beddoe | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley. |
| Riley, Ben | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | |
| Ritson, J. | Thurtle, Ernest |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
1558§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 137.
1559| Division No. 359.] | AYES. | [10.37 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Cope, Major William | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Couper, J. B. | Hills, Major John Walter |
| Albery, Irving James | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Hilton, Cecil |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Crcokshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Holt, Capt. H. P. |
| Apsley, Lord | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) |
| Astor, Viscountess | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. |
| Atholi, Duchess of | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Atkinson, C. | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Dixey, A. C. | Hurst, Gerald B. |
| Balniel, Lord | Drewe, C. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Eden, Captain Anthony | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Ellis, R. G. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | King, Commodore Henry Douglas |
| Berry, Sir George | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Knox, Sir Alfred |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Fermoy, Lord | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Fielden, E. B. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Ford, Sir P. J. | Loder, J. de V. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. | Fraser, Captain Ian | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lumley, L. R. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Galbraith, J. F. W. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Ganzonl, Sir John | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Gates, Percy | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | McLean, Major A. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Goff, Sir Park | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Gower, Sir Robert | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Grace, John | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Grant, Sir J. A. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Grotrian, H. Brent | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Meller, R. J. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) | Merriman, F. B. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hammersley, S. S. | Meyer, Sir Frank |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hanbury, C. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Hartington, Marquess of | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Clayton, G. C. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Murchison, Sir Kenneth |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hawke, John Anthony | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Neville, Sir Reginald J. |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Shepperson, E. W. | Waddington, R. |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Ballet) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Pilcher, G. | Smithers, Waldron | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Power, Sir John Cecil | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Preston, William | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Radford, E. A. | Sprot, Sir Alexander | Wells, S. R. |
| Raine, Sir Walter | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Ramsden, E. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Ramer, J. R. | Storry-Deans, R. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Withers, John James |
| Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Rye, F. G. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Templeton, W. P. | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Sandeman, N. Stewart | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich) |
| Sandon, Lord | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | |
| Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Savery, S. S. | Tinne, J. A. | Mr. Penny and Major The Marquess of Titchfield. |
| Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Scurr, John |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Sexton, James |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hardle, George D. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Harney, E. A. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Harris, Percy A. | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Baker, Walter | Hayday, Arthur | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Snell, Harry |
| Barnes, A. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield). | Stamford, T. W. |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Jenkins, W. (Giamorgan, Neath) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Broad. F. A. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sullivan, J. |
| Bromley, J. | Kelly, W. T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Kennedy, T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Buchanan. G. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Lansbury, George | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cape, Thomas | Lawrence, Susan | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lawson, John James | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lee, F. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lunn, William | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Compton, Joseph | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Valley, Frank B. |
| Connolly, M. | Mackinder, W. | Viant, S. P. |
| Cove, W. G. | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | March, S. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) |
| Dalton, Hugh | Maxton, James | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Montague, Frederick | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Morris, R. H. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Dennison, R. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Duckworth, John | Murnin, H. | Westwood, J. |
| Duncan, C. | Naylor, T. E. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Dunnico, H. | Oliver, George Harold | Whiteley, W. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Palin, John Henry | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Paling, W. | Williams. C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham) |
| Fenby, T. D. | Pethirk-Lawrence, F. W. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Gillett, George M. | Ponsonby, Arthur | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Gosling, Harry | Potts, John S. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Riley, Ben | Windsor, Walter |
| Greenall, T. | Ritson, J | Wright, W. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) | |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Rose, Frank H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Groves, T. | Saklatvala, Shapurji | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I attempted, when the Division was in progress, to raise this point of Order, and now that the Divisions are over and the Committee has resumed its sittings
1560§ my best plan in making the point would be to move to report Progress, on the ground that during the Debate un Clause 1, the Minister used the figures of 30,000 as being the number of people who would be cut out of unemployment benefit through the operations of the new Act, 1561 on 29th April. That figure has struck many of us on these benches as absolutely fantastic, and the correctness or incorrectness of it will govern the whole of the future discussions on this Bill. The Minister threw out the figure carelessly. He did not take the faintest trouble to give any indication as to the calculations that were made in arriving at the figure. There was absolutely no attempt on his part to justify the figure or to give other figures from which that one might be deduced.
§ I urge that the right hon. Gentleman should prepare a White Paper, showing the Committee how this figure has been reached, so that we may have some idea as to whether it has statistical reality, or is merely a fantastic figment of an optimistic imagination. From something which was said by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech, I gathered that one consideration that he has had in mind in coming to this conclusion is a conception, a hope, a belief, a faith that unemployment is going to decrease during the next year or so. I want to know how much he has allowed for that fact in his calculation. I move that we report Progress, until such time as the Minister has prepared and put before the House a White Paper giving his reasons for arriving at that figure of 30,000.
§ Mr. T. SHAWI rose at the same time as the hon. Member and for the very same purpose. I think we are entitled to ask the Minister, definitely, whether he will or will not state on what basis his figures are arrived at. The actuary, in his report at the end of the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee, makes a statement in which he estimates that by this new condition, 20 per cent. will fall out of benefit. That is stating it roughly. A 20 per cent. reduction on 1,000,000 is a far different figure from 30,000, and as there is such a wide discrepancy between the two statements we are entitled to ask the Minister whether he will lay a White Paper stating on what grounds his figures are based, and what assumptions have been made in order to arrive at the 30,000, which is so widely different from any other estimate that has been made.
§ Mr. HARNEYI support the Motion. It certainly is most essential that the country should know the figures in this case. This is a Bill which purports to 1562 remove from the benefit fund persons now receiving that benefit under the form of extended benefit. The country ought to know: number one, has the Minister calculated before bringing in the Bill the exact number of persons now receiving extended benefit who will be deprived of benefit; number two, what is the exact number of persons so deprived who will be absorbed in the slight enlargement of standard benefit and, number three, what is the number of persons who will be thrown upon the rates? This Bill has been brought forward not as a Bill to burden the rates in order to relieve insurance but as a Bill to deal with unemployment by insurance, and the Government are bound to tell us quite plainly what are the figures representing the additional burden that will be thrown on the rates by this Bill.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDIt was as a matter of courtesy, when I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman, that I gave the figure this afternoon. I explained at the time the reasons why I considered, having regard to the Rulings of the Chair previously, that I was precluded from going into it at the time: that the whole question of the 30 contributions rule is dealt with in Clause 5, and that, consequently, it is within the power of the Committee to deal with it in detail on that Clause and so expedite progress that they can get to Clause 5 at the earliest opportunity. I gave the figure as a matter of courtesy because the Parliamentary Secretary was precluded from doing so on the Second Reading—
§ Mr. MAXTONHow was he precluded?
§ Mr. BUCHANANTell us why he was precluded.
§ Mr. STEPHENOn a point of Order. Is it in order for the Minister of Labour to make a statement reflecting on the conduct of the Chair as toy what he would be allowed or not allowed to do? I want to point out that the right hon. Gentleman gave a fairly bald statement with regard to this number of 30,000, and he said that previous rulings of the Chair precluded him from giving the figure. He gave the figure, and the Chairman did not interfere with him at all. I want to know whether it is in order for the Minister of Labour to take 'shelter behind supposed rulings of the Chair which have never been given?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not understand from what the Minister of Labour has said that he was casting any reflection on the Chair or sheltering himself behind its rulings. If he had been doing so, I should have called him to order.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI have already given the figures.
§ Mr. HARNEYI have not got them.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe hon. Member must have been in some other place. So far as details with regard to this are concerned, I submit that the proper place to discuss them is on Clause 5, dealing with the 30 contributions rule.
§ Mr. SHAWMay I call the Minister's attention to the fact that he knew perfectly well that the question of people being excluded from benefit is one of the principal matters in the Bill; yet in his own Second Reading speech he made no reference to it, while the Parliamentary Secretary sat down and had to be asked in the last minute if he would give the figure. In my experience of the House, I do not remember a case of a Bill of this magnitude involving such important questions where the Minister never made a statement at all as to the number of persons likely to be affected in a derogatory way and where the Parliamentary Secretary, in spite of very specific questions put to him, sat down without ever attempting to answer them. When we speak of courtesy, let us remember the facts. If the Minister had made a statement, we should have known what the facts were. We are entitled to ask that the Minister should lay upon the Table a statement showing how this figure of 30,000 was arrived at, so that we may know what we are doing.
§ Mr. BUCHANANThe Minister of Labour has twice made either an intentional or, as I think, an unintentional misstatement. He stated that he was precluded by a ruling of the Chair from giving any figures at all, and then he gave the 30,000 as a matter of courtesy. He also stated that in the Second Reading Debate both he and the Parliamentary Secretary were precluded from giving the figure. That obviously was not the case, because, if it be in order on Clause 5, it was quite open for the 1564 Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister to have given the figure on Second Reading. There was nothing to hinder them having this Paper prepared for us to-day. Why has he waited until now to give us this figure of 30,000 people when this subject was before the House for two days? If he had really wanted to be courteous to the House, he would not have waited until the statement was dragged from him to-day; he would have had a White Paper prepared and published in the Vote Office. I remember during the Labour Government's term of office how he got white with rage because in the Russian Debate the Labour Government had not some White Paper ready about investors. He was interested in the moneyed people, but it is obviously an offence to be interested in the poor and in their figures. If these 30,000 people belonged to the White Russian gang or had been concerned with the loaves and fishes of the rich, there would have been a row in the House of Commons over this White Paper. But it is sheer damnable impertinence to come to this House and ask the Minister of Labour to prepare these figures about the poor. We are asking him, not as a matter of courtesy, but because it is his job. We are not here to get Papers from him, but our rights from him.
§ It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion to report Progress lapsed, without Question put, and the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.