§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
§ [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to insurance against unemployment, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:—
The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow)I do not think it is necessary to explain this Resolution at, any great length. It is comparatively simple. It consists of two pairs, one part dealing with Clause 4 and the other with Clause 6 of the Bill. Clause 4, shortly put, deals with the dependants' allowances as they will be determined after the deficiency period has come to an end, broadly speaking; and the second portion deals with the expenses incurred as the result of carrying out what is called the Chelmsford Agreement. As to the first portion, namely, the financial adjustments, there is the carrying on of the expenditure not only to the end of the deficiency period, but from the end of the deficiency period to such period as may be prescribed. The second portion of the first part of paragraph (a) deals with a scale of expenses which may be considered to be likely to be reasonable when times become normal again. The scale under the Act of 1920, to which we hope as far as possible to revert when times become normal, was in the case of 431 men 4d. and 4d., or 8d. plus a quarter extra on behalf of the State. It is not considered now that that will be sufficient for two reasons, partly because it is conceivable—I am afraid it is more or less probable—that the numbers of unemployed may, owing to the War wastage, he somewhat in excess of what they were contemplated as likely to be under the Act of 1920; and, secondly, we have to add on the provision in respect of dependants' allowances. It is therefore suggested that we should be making proper provision, if we increased the contributions in respect of employer and employed person—taking the case of men, because that is the simplest case—from 4d. and 4d., or 8d., to 6d. and 6d., or 1s. Then add to that a quarter, as under the Act of 1920, and you get 1s. 3d., and similarly with regard to the other contributions for the women, and the boys and girls.
In regard to the second portion of the Resolution, I must say one word of a rather general character. It is this: the expenses are to be in accordance with a scale laid down in the Bill. It is unfortunate that we have not had more time to consult with the local authorities affected by the proposal. The reason of urgency has been, as the Committee is aware, that Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill deal with matters with regard to which great expedition is required. If the provisions of the Bill are to come into operation promptly we must get the Bill through before Easter. That being so this appeared to be, in all probability, the last, or one of the last, occasions during the present year when we can make a provision for dealing with this local authority matter. Therefore I hope that local authorities will realise that there has been no intention of rushing the Bill; so far as they were concerned it was merely a matter of the exigencies of the case in regard to the continuation of benefits that required us to bring the Bill; and has, perhaps, not given us the opportunity for discussion with the local authorities that we, under normal circumstances, would have desired.
§ Mr. HARRISDoes the right hon. Gentleman know that the London County Council object to the Clause?
Sir M. BARLOWIt appears to be putting it very strongly to say that they 432 object to it, and scarcely equitable. What I do want to impress upon the local authorities is that the scales will have to be fixed, but not until after consultation with them. In view of that, and my explanation, I trust that they will not feel that they have been unreasonably treated. I would he glad now to have the Resolution.
§ Mr. N. MACLEANI desire to move in paragraph (a) to leave out the words "In respect of the period between "and to insert instead thereof the words "as from." In the Act of 1920 the proportions of contributions were 4d. from the employer, 4d. from the workman, and 2d. from the State —or one-fourth of the total from the State. Since then we have had several Unemployment Insurance Acts and the amounts have risen considerably. At the present time the contributions from the employer is 10d., from the worker 9d., and from the State 6¾d., a total of 25¾d. It is now proposed, not to go back to the 1920 figures which were 4d., 4d., and 2d., but to fix a new figure 6d., 6d., and 3d.—in all is. 3d. According to the Financial Resolution nearly one-fourth of the amount that is contributed is to be paid by the State, against at present slightly more than one-third. We on these benches do not believe that it is advisable for the State to go back to the Act of 1920 and fix the sums in the same proportion as then. The Minister of Labour, and I think most hon. Members here know where I stand in regard to unemployment. I think most of my colleagues, if not all, are also in the same position as myself. We say that unemployment insurance ought to be a national burden and should not be upon a contributory basis so far as workmen and employers are concerned. I think the whole cost ought to be borne by the State, and there is no necessity for the State going back to the proportion of 1920. Whilst it is true that the State is going to pay one-fourth of the total contribution of the employer and the workman, it really only works out at one-fifth of the three parties to the contract. You are taking 6d. from the worker, 3d. from the employer and 3d. from the State. Here you have three parties contributing and one of the parties has all the powers of administration carrying with it the power of refusing benefits to those who are contributing. In these circumstances we want to know 433 why the third party should get off by paying one-half of the contribution which it ought to pay. Therefore we consider that the whole system of allocating the proportion ought to be revised by the Minister of Labour. The memorandum which has been issued states that when the reduced rates of contribution come into force the State contribution will be one-fourth of the combined contribution of employers and employed, which was approximately the proportion fixed by the Act of 1920, instead of approximately one-third, the proportion in operation under the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1922.
As a matter of fact, the Financial Resolution of the Act of 1920 lays down that the State contribution shall be one-third and not one-fourth, although it was fixed in the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920. The rates fixed in the Schedule of that Act laid down that the State shall pay one-fourth of the total contribution, but in the Financial Resolution passed by this House on the 4th of March, 1920, it was provided
That the payment aforesaid shall not exceed one-third of the aggregate of the contributions which would be received from employers and employed persons.although you might go to the extent of one-third under that Act you provided in the Schedule power to restrict it merely to one-fourth. In this Financial Resolution which we are now considering you are fixing the proportion not at one-third but at one-fourth. We are altering the provisions of the Financial Resolution passed in 1920. There is nothing to prevent the Government from doing as they did, viz., having passed a Resolution giving them power to pay a certain proportion—up to a given maximum proportion—of the total contributions for the three parties, the Government do not pay so much, but pay considerably under the maximum. We cannot be assured that this Bill, which has gone into Committee upstairs, and the Financial Resolution for which we are now considering, will not prove another illustration of what has already been done by the Government. As a matter of fact the present Unemployment Insurance Bill is not going to be a permanent Bill, although the Minister of Labour expects it to be. During the last two years we had four or five Unemployment Insurance Bills brought in amending Bills 434 which we have debated here and the 1920 Act has been amended out of all recognition as a result. What guarantee have we, in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour has told us we may have a million and a quarter of people out of employment for at least a year—and I am told he is budgeting on that assumption —what guarantee have we that this Bill will not be amended before Whitsuntide by another Bill? Industry is now in such an unnatural condition: there are so many people on the fund, so many people requiring the benefit, so many being excluded because it is said that they are not genuinely seeking employment when there is no employment, that one does not know what may occur. When the Employment Exchanges were set up their object was to bring employers requiring labour and workers needing work together. Now they are merely paying out money and refusing men benefits instead of finding situations for them.
§ The CHAIRMANThe question of the Employment Exchanges is very wide of the Financial Resolution.
§ Mr. MACLEANI was under the impression that the object of the Financial Resolution was to give money to the Ministry of Labour which will be expended by the Employment Exchanges, and therefor it would be in order to discuss in a narrow sense the administration.
§ The CHAIRMANThat might be very well on the Second Reading on the question of the contribution, and the hon. Member might argue whether or not it is sufficient, but he cannot make the Employment Exchanges a subject of debate.
§ Mr. MACLEANI did not put it as a subject of debate. I brought it in as an illustration of how the money that is being raised by the contribution is being retained by the Government. Of course I submit to your ruling and will now move my Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANI had better give my ruling now. All the Amendments on the Paper enlarge the scope of the Resolution and may thereby increase the charge. They are therefore out of order.
§ Mr. MACLEANThe Amendment on the Paper in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hay- 435 day) and myself, which seeks to delete from paragraph (a) the words,
and from and after the date so prescribed of such a contribution at a rate not exceeding one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contributions received from employers and employed persons in any year being contributions at rates not exceeding in the case of men one shilling, in the case of women nine pence, in the case of boys six pence. and in the case of girls four pence halfpenny—does not, so far as I can make out, in any way extend the scope of the Resolution, but rather narrows it. It takes away the power of the Minister of Labour with regard to certain proportions of certain rates that he is going to impose, and puts no further rates in their place. Consequently it cannot, I imagine, be regarded as seeking to increase or extend the powers of the Minister of Labour, or increase the amount contributed by the State. I put this forward as an argument why that Amendment should be considered and adopted by the Committee now.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think that is so. The Resolution sets forth that there shall be, up to a certain date to be fixed in the Bill, a contribution from the State equal to the present contribution, and that after that time that contribution shall be decreased. The effect of omitting these words would be to say that the present contribution shall continue indefinitely, and that undoubtedly, at some time or other, does increase the charge on the State.
§ Mr. MACLEANI am sorry to appear reluctant to accept your ruling, but the point I wish to put is that the Minister of Labour himself cannot fix definitely the date when the deficiency period will come to an end. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I accept that as indicating that he agrees with me that he cannot fix that definite date. In this Resolution he is legislating for something that is indefinite. My Amendment cuts out that particular part which is indefinite, and leaves it as a definite Resolution, so that the Committee may say that for the deficiency period, of the ending of which the Minister himself does not know the hour or the day, the contributions shall remain as they are, and, when there is the appearance of good trade and the likelihood of the deficiency period coming to an end, then the Minister can bring in a short amend- 436 ing Bill with a new Financial Resolution, which shall fix the rates at that period.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Minister can bring in an Amending Bill at any time, whatever may be said in the Resolution. But undoubtedly the effect of the hon. Member's Amendment would be that the present contributions would remain indefinitely, and therefore the charge is increased.
§ Mr. PRINGLEOn that point of Order. I submit that under the Bill as it stands the contributions during the first period are indefinite at the present time, and the object of the Amendment is that this Bill should deal solely with this indefinite period. When the indefinite period comes to an end, then, as the Bill would make no further provision, it would be the duty of Parliament to amend it.
§ The CHAIRMANIt may be found, when the Bill is considered in Committee, that this Resolution does not cover some of the Clauses, and the Chairman of the Committee may rule that those Clauses will have to drop. I am not considering the Bill at all, but am considering the Resolution, and undoubtedly the effect of this Amendment of the Resolution would be to increase the charge.
§ Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONWould you accept an Amendment to leave out paragraph (a.)?
§ The CHAIRMANI am considering what would be left. That Amendment would undoubtedly be in order, but I cannot conceive what would be left after it had been passed.
§ Mr. THOMSONI beg to move to leave out paragraph (a).
I do so because I submit that this paragraph is quite unnecessary, and for this reason. The Minister told us yesterday that the deficiency period would be, at the very earliest, 18 months ahead, and an examination of the White Paper which he has laid before the House shows that it will be not 18 months, but 2½ years at the very earliest before this particular period can arise, because on page 5 of the White Paper he shows that in October, 1924, over a year and a half hence, there will be a deficiency of over £20,000,000 to wipe out.
Sir M. BARLOWThat depends on the numbers of the unemployed. I gave the 437 estimate of unemployed at 1,250,000. If the numbers fall below that, as they may well do in two and a half years time, the figures will fall in proportion.
§ Mr. THOMSONWhen the Treasury submit a White Paper for the guidance of the House they are hardly entitled to run away from their own figures. The House only has for its guidance the estimate which has been arrived at by the experts of the Treasury, consulting with the right hon. Gentleman, and they say that in October, 1924, more than a year and a half hence, there will be a deficiency of over £20,000,000. Therefore it is clear you have to wipe out that £20,000,000 before you come to the end of the deficiency period and surely the Minister would be more than sanguine if he suggested that out of a total income of £47,000,000 a year he was going to wipe out £20,000,000 in one year. If the figures are examined from April, 1924, to October, 1924, they show a. reduction of less than £2,000,000 in six months. If the reduction is on the same ratio it will be only £4,000,000 a year and it will take five years before it is wiped out. We all hope unemployment will decrease at a more rapid rate, but under the most sanguine expectations it will take at least two and a half years, and probably three and a half, before you come to the hypothetical period known as the end of the deficiency period when this Financial Resolution is necessary. Therefore I submit my Amendment is not so foolish as it may appear at first sight because why should we pass a Financial Resolution which cannot under any circumstances be operative for two and a half years hence? In the last four years we have had no fewer than six, if not seven, amending Unemployment Insurance Bills and to suggest that we should to-night, after 11 o'clock, without proper consideration, pass a Financial Resolution which will not be operative for at least 2½ years is surely not treating this question with the careful consideration it deserves.
I wish to protest, at the same time, against this habit of taking Financial Resolutions after 11 o'clock. On these Bills the Financial Resolutions are the crux of the whole question. Hon. Members who were on the Committees last Parliament will know that Amendment after Amendment was ruled out by the Chair because the Financial Resolutions taken after 11 o'clock prevented the 438 subject matter of the Amendments being dealt with, and in the matter of Unemployed Insurance, whether you wish to reduce the qualifying period, whether you wish to extend the benefit, whether you wish to bring in the innocent victims of trade disputes or whatever Amendment you take you are in some way or other affecting the Financial Resolution. Therefore what we do to-night on this Financial Resolution practically settles and determines the whole of our procedure upstairs. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter and realise that these Resolutions are not necessary to-night. It will be 2½ years, and probably more, before they can became operative, and it is not in keeping with sound legislation nor with strict finance to deal with hypothetical periods in this slipshod way.
§ Mr. PRINGLEOn a point of Order. I submit that the Amendment to paragraph (a) standing in the names of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), the bon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), and myself, on line 7, to leave out the words
and from and after the date so prescribed of such a contribution at a rate not exceeding one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contributions received from employers and employed persons in any year being contributions lit rates not exceeding in the case of men one shilling, in the case of women nine pence, in the ease of boys six pence, and in the case of girls four pence half penny; and—would be in order, without reference to the previous Amendment. The Resolution would then stand as if dealing with the first period. There is no proposal therefore, to widen the scope of the Resolution. If the Amendment were accepted its only effect would be to disable the Committee from making any provision for any period beyond the emergency period. In these circumstances, if it is in order, suggest that you should put the Question in such a way as to safeguard the Second Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member refers to the Amendment on line 7, that. I have already ruled out of order. If the hon. Member merely wishes to move that there should be no power to continue the present equal contribution between the deficiency period and a date to he prescribed, and thereby to lessen 439 the scope of the Resolution and lessen the amount to be paid by the State that would be in order; but I do not gather that that is his intention.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIf my Amendment were accepted, the Resolution would read:
(a) in respect of the period between the end of the deficiency period and a date to be prescribed under the Act of a contribution towards benefit and other payments to be made out of the unemployment fund equal to the present contribution.That is a specific Resolution, giving the Committee power to make provision within that limit for the period to be prescribed under the Act. If the remainder of the Resolution be left out, there is no provision for that continuing period, and it will come to an end at the date prescribed in the Act.
§ The CHAIRMANI see the object of the hon. Member. The effect of the Amendment would be to cut out the whole of the latter part. By that falling out the scope of the Resolution, undoubtedly, would be increased; therefore, the Amendment is not in order.
§ Mr. PRINGLEObviously, the scope cannot be increased if part of the Resolution is to be cut out. The whole effect is to make it impossible to deal with the permanent part of the Act. The object of the Amendment is not to allow the Government while they are passing an emergency Measure rendered necessary by the urgent conditions of the time, and necessarily rushing the legislation through the House, to pass a permanent Measure dealing with hypothetical conditions which we cannot foresee. The object is to prevent the Committee from being hampered and delayed by this provision from concentrating on what is required, leaving Parliament to deal with the subsequent situation, with a view to a permanent settlement, when the time arrives.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Resolution, as it would be if amended by the hon. Member, would continue the equality of the present contribution. That would be out of order; but to leave out the whole of paragraph (a) would be very much to limit the scope of the Resolution, and that would be in order.
Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALDThe first part of paragraph (a) defines what payment is to be made between the end of the deficiency period and the date to be prescribed. The first part says:
it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:— (a) in respect of the period between the end of the deficiency period and a date to be prescribed under the Act of a contribution towards benefit and other payments to be made out of the unemployment fund equal to the present contribution.If the Resolution end there, there is no provision made for any payment after that date, which is to be fixed by the Act. If the second portion remains in, that extends the payment. That makes the payment operative not only between the end of the deficiency period and the date to be fixed, hut after the date that has been fixed. The effect of the Amendment to leave out the second part of the paragraph is to reduce the scope of the Financial Resolution. by making no provision whatever for payment after the date that has been prescribed by the Act. Therefore instead of extending the scope I submit that it is only limiting the scope.
§ The CHAIRMANI would ask the hon. Gentleman to read the whole of the provision, if this were eliminated.
Mr. MacDONALD
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to insurance against unemployment, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:—and then the period "as from and after" was to be dealt with afterwards. The effect is to limit the period during which payments are to be made.
- (a) in respect of the period between the end of the deficiency period and a date to be prescribed under the Act of a contribution towards benefit and other payments to be made out of the unemployment fund equal to the present contribution—"
§ The CHAIRMANDoes the hon. Gentleman mean to make provision merely for the period between the end of the deficiency period and the date prescribed?
§ Mr. PRINGLEThat is left in.
Mr. MacDONALDThere is provision first for the payment between the end of the deficiency period and a date to be prescribed. What I suggest is 441 that provision ought not to be made for after that date. This is done in the second part of the Resolution. Therefore, if the Resolution be cut in two, and the second part is deleted, provision is made from the end of the deficiency period.
§ The CHAIRMANThe result would be to allow the Committee to place the date at, perhaps, the year 2000, after which equal contributions should be made.
Mr. MacDONALDWhen we discuss the Bill, and the date to he put in, we can move that as an Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANThat point does not arise at present. What the hon. Gentleman appears to be contending is that the limitation in the length of time of this Resolution shall he left out. That is not in order.
§ Sir GODFREY COLLINSI support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, One argument which he advanced was that it would take two and a half years before the deficiency period came to an end. In examining this subject the Committee must have regard to the White Paper issued on this subject by the Government. I find in the Report of 25th March, 1922, that the actuary at that time, basing his figures on information supplied to him by the Minister of Labour, estimated the net debt to the Exchequer on 5th April this year at £14,500,000. But on examining the White Paper issued with this Bill, I find that the estimated deficiency is there estimated at £18,500,000. In other words the figures of a year ago have increased by 25 per cent.
§ Sir G. COLLINSI make the right hon. Gentleman a present of the difference. I place no blame on the shoulders of anyone when endeavouring to estimate figures on this subject, but the two White Papers clearly show that the Estimates of the Government in the past have riot been accurate, and that the end of the deficiency period of 2½ years may well be, as my hon. Friend behind me said, four or five years, or even more. To-night we are discussing the Financial Resolution of the largest insurance fund in the world. The Government, are asking the House to discuss this subject, 442 which fixes any contribution from His Majesty's Government for the purposes of unemployed insurance for the coming year, at this late hour. It is a subject that concerns intimately 10,000,000 people.
I think the contribution from the Government is insufficient, because the burden which is being placed on insured persons to-day is very heavy—is. 9d. Tenpence from the employer and 9d. from the insured person, making ls. 7d., was not perhaps an excessive figure twelve months ago, but to-day, with falling wages, this figure is indeed a heavy burden on all people in insured trades. I was hoping that in the coming year, with reduced Estimates in other Departments, His Majesty's Government might find a larger sum for unemployed insurance purposes. This Financial Resolution, when it becomes law, will fix the amount to be paid to the insured persons—
§ The CHAIRMANI understand the lion. Gentleman is supporting the Amendment. The one point of the Amendment is to delete the whole of paragraph (a) from the Resolution, as being unnecessary.
§ Sir G. COLLINSI was using the ordinary Parliamentary procedure, I think, as you well know, in endeavouring to delete a particular Clause, while objecting to the Clause in particular, and advancing my reasons. I submit that I am in order in dealing with the main general proposition as the ordinary Parliamentary procedure. This contribution, fixed under the Financial Resolution, will place, during the coining year, very heavy burdens on every local authority. The amount to be paid under the Financial Resolution will give certain benefits to the insured persons. The Parish Councils in Scotland will borrow £1,000,000; the local authorities in England will borrow £8,000,000. That is a total of £9,000,000 for borrowed money; and the Insurance Fund itself will require to borrow, if the past year be any guide to the coming year—the Minister of Labour will correct me if I am wrong—a further slim of £15,000,000.
§ Sir G. COLLINSThe right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. May I remind him that in the present year the Insurance Fund is borrowing £15,000,000. If the present year is any guide to the 443 coming year, there will be £15,000,000 borrowed under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and a further £9,000,000 borrowed by the local authorities throughout the country, making a total sum of £24,000,000.
If those figures be at all correct—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—this Financial Resolution is inadequate in amount. It does not deal with the dire distress of the country and the heavy burdens on local authorities in a manner which should commend itself to the Committee. In supporting the Amendment—although I am well aware that by the strict interpretation of the rules of the House it means a restricted contribution from the State—I wish to voice my own opinion that the Government, in this matter, have not had regard to the national circumstances which exist to-day. They had taken too little heed of the heavy burden being placed on local authorities, and should have come to the House and asked for a larger contribution for State purposes towards the needs of every locality.
§ Mr. HAYDAYI rise to speak on this subject because I feel that the Government have not given the amount of consideration to the financial provision necessary under this Resolution that would justify them in becoming active participants in the desire to relieve the distress caused in consequence of unemployment. As I have stated before, even the memorandum is quite misleading. It speaks in terms of a State contribution, approximately one-third. The State's contribution is one-fourth of the aggregate contribution. It proposes by this Financial Resolution eventually to get back to the payment of one-fifth of the aggregate weekly contribution. This is, at a time when it should set an example in the direction of easing the length of the deficiency period. It holds out no hope beyond saying this, "The deficiency is cleared by three-fourths being paid by employer and workman, and by our paying one-fourth. We then propose to drop back to a one-fifth payment although we get hack to a permanent piece of legislation that will restrict the period of payment to the recipients "—I mean, of course, the period of twenty-six. I would urge, firstly, that there was no need for the opening 444 words in this Financial Resolution, that automatically when the deficiency period ceased the smaller contribution should then be brought into operation. I still urge that Ministers should shoulder their share of the financial burden, that instead of one-fourth it should be one-third, and after the deficiency period instead of one-fifth it should be one-third.
If we examine the Estimates of the late Government, which will not be disputed by my right hon. Friend, because at that time he was Parliamentary Secretary to the ex-Labour Minister, we find that there we had it, as he will remember, that during the early part of the 1920 Act operation they were then contributing only one-fifth of the total. They increased their share of the contribution in 1921, when they put on to the general unemployment funds all the ex-service men who were before that a direct charge upon the Treasury. They were drawing their unemployment allowances as ex-service men, not as men in industry—as men demobilised and thrown on an over-full labour market. The State took on that responsibility, but they said: "Now, in return for our making a slightly increased contribution, your fund mush take over t he responsibility of all the unemployed ex-service men," and they put them on to the fend, and they helped, by easing the pressure on the State, to create the necessity for borrowing powers from the Treasury in order to meet the industrial claims of the unemployed.
12 M.
It was estimated that from November, 1920, until the end of June of the present year £140,000,000 would be spent in unemployment payments. It was the statement made at the time the first borrowing powers were asked for; it was repeated when the extension of those borrowing powers was required. Out of the £140,000,000 I am approximately correct in saying that, taking the early period of the 1920 Act when the Treasury provided one-fifth, and the subsequent period up to now when the State provides one-fourth, out of that £140,000,000 the State will have contributed £34,000,000, and the employers and workmen £106,000,000. The one-third share would be slightly over £46,500,000 for that period, instead of which the State limits its financial responsibility to £34,000,000, a deficit of £12,000,000, almost the equivalent of the deficiency being created by the heavy 445 calls made for unemployment payments, and these, I assert, are consequent on the extra load placed on the fund when the men discharged from the Army were put upon the general unemployment contribution fund. I say that £12,000,000 odd ought certainly to be a real contribution. I know it will be said, "But if we enlarge our financial responsibilities in this Bill there is no return for it."I want to put this to the Minister. It is well known that guardians and local authorities spent between £13,000,000 and £14,000,000 for the last financial year prior to the War. In the last financial year boards of guardians and local authorities spent £44,000,000 in relief of unemployment. Their estimate for the financial year now running out is £40,000,000, and I am going to suggest that you have taken and will take in two and a half years £106,000,000 from the employer and workman without paying your fair share, and that that £106,000,000 has eased the Treasury from their responsibility in the matter, and has eased the extra charge that would have fallen upon boards of guardians and local authorities.
Mr. PETOOn a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to address the Committee in favour of an increased charge on the Treasury, when he is supporting an Amendment, which is to limit the duration of the charge?
§ The CHAIRMANI think it is illogical, but i am afraid there are numerous precedents for it in Parliamentary procedure.
§ Mr. HAYDAYI am not supporting the Amendment, but I am certainly suggesting that the Ministry ought to have been more generous in their Financial Resolution. You, Mr. Hope, would not receive an Amendment increasing the amount, but surely I can suggest what I consider to be the shortcomings of the Ministry in this particular matter. Apart from the general financial gain, the State, if it had not caused to be made through the other joint contributors this great contribution, would have been faced with an unstable, uncertain temperament amongst the people, and would necessarily have suffered had there been no such provision made. Having got out of their responsibility after 2½ years with a £34,000,000 responsibility, it is only fair that, having by their act created the deficiency period and the necessity for appealing for 446 borrowing powers, they should ease the deficiency period by making a more just contribution. There is a question I want to submit to the Minister, and which I may perhaps he allowed to submit now. It deals with a financial provision in the Resolution in connection with the education authorities.
§ The CHAIRMANThis is not the proper time to raise that. This Amendment deals only with paragraph (a).
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe object of the Amendment is to retain the control of Parliament. At the present time during the deficiency period no Financial Resolution is required. The funds are there. There comes an end to the deficiency period—a date which I do not think the Minister of Labour would even now predict with any confidence or assurance. He has suggested one and a half years or two and a half years. Some authorities believe the period will not come to an end before four years are over. If that be so, it is a very large order to ask the House now to lay down the conditions of contribution for a period four years hence, when we are quite unaware as to the conditions which will then prevail. Accordingly, my hon. Friend proposes to omit the whole of paragraph (a). It will not diminish by a single penny the amount available for unemployment during this deficiency period. It will not diminish the State contributions, nor the contributions made by the employers and employed. It merely says that when this period comes to an end, the Government will be compelled to come to Parliament and ask for a provision which is appropriate to the conditions then prevailing. If we allow this Resolution to pass, Parliament loses all control. We do not know what the prescribed date may be. You, Mr. Hope, suggested that it might be the year 2000. It seems to me a most extraordinary thing that in a Bill, in which the prescribed date is made the year 2000, we are actually laying down the State contribution.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI am taking the Chairman's ruling. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman will suggest that the Chair is wrong.
§ The CHAIRMANI suggested that the Committee might be so foolish, if the hon. Member's Amendment were accepted, as 447 to fix the date at the year 2000. I did not say that the Committee or the Minister would do so.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI suggest that the prescribed date may be so made, and we have no guidance as to what date the Minister of Labour considers the prescribed date will be. We are legislating for a vague and indefinite future, and in relation thereto Parliament, under this Resolution, is depriving itself of all control with regard to the contributions to be made by the three authorities. It is in order to preserve the control of Parliament that this Amendment is moved. If we allow this to go, the conditions are stereotyped. No private Member can introduce a Bill to alter those conditions, because he would be ruled out of order, as the Bill would be a charge upon the public purse. The Government can simply say that for the purpose of tranquillity they desire to do nothing, and unless we can force the
§ Government to bring in a Bill there is no remedy for the unemployed. If you wish to keep in your hands a remedy, you must confine the Government strictly to what is necessary now. It will get the Bill through all the quicker. We are anxious to get it through, for the purposes of the gap, which alone requires haste; whereas, under the guise of getting through emergency legislation, the Government, under the powers conferred by this Resolution, are to be enabled to lay down conditions, first of all, for a second period up to the prescribed date, as to which the right hon. Gentleman has given us no information, and which may bind the Committee to the year 2000, as the Chairman has suggested. As this is a preposterous absurdity, I ask the Committee to support the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That paragraph (a) stand part of the Question."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 121.
449| Division No. 24.] | AYES. | [2.13 a.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) | Harrison, F. C. |
| Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) | Curzon, Captain viscount | Harvey, Major S E. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Davidson, J.C.C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Hawke. John Anthony |
| Apsley, Lord | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H, | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Davies, Thomas (Clrencester) | Hennessy. Major J. R. G. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Dawson, Sir Philip | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) | Doyle, N. Grattan | Herbert, S. (Scarborough) |
| Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Hiley, Sir Ernest |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Barlow, Rt. Hon Sir Montague | Ednam, Viscount | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Hood, Sir Joseph |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Ellis, R. G. | Hopkins, John W. W. |
| Becker, Harry | England, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Houfton, John Plowright |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Hudson, Capt. A. |
| Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. | Hume, G. H. |
| Berry, Sir George | Evans. Ernest (Cardigan) | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian. N.) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Falcon, Captain Michael | Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Hutchison, W, (Kelvingrove) |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Fawkes, Major F. H. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. |
| Brass. Captain W. | Fildes, Henry | Jarrett, G. W. S. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clitton (Newbury) | Foreman, Sir Henry | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Forestier-Walker, L. | Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul |
| Bruford, R. | Fexcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | King, Capt. Henry Douglas |
| Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Frece, Sir Walter de | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lamb, J. Q |
| Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North) | Furness, G. J. | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C) |
| Button, H. S. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. | Lloyd, Cyril E (Dudley) |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Goff. Sir R. Park | Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Gray, Harold (Cambridge) | Lorden, John William |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Greaves-Lord, Walter | Lori-Williams, J. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.) | Lumley, L. R. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Gwynne, Rupert S. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | McNeill, Ronald (Kent. Canterbury) |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l.W.D'by) | Manville, Edward |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Halstead, Major D. | Margesson, H. D. R. |
| Cope, Major William | Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw |
| Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) |
| Molloy, Major L. G. S. | Rentoul, G. S. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Molson, Major John Elsdale | Reynolds, W. G. W. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H. |
| Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) | Sutcliffe, T. |
| Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Murchison, C. K. | Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.) | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Nall, Major Joseph | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Newman, Colonel J R. P. (Finchley) | Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Newson, Sir Percy Wilson | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Wallace, Captain E. |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, putney) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. | Wells, S. R. |
| Paget, T, G. | Sandon, Lord | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Peast, William Edwin | Shepperson, E. W. | Whitla, Sir William |
| Pennefather, De Fonbianque | Shipwright, Captain D. | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Penny, Frederick George | Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A. | Winterton, Earl |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Skelton, A. N. | Wise, Frederick |
| Peto, Basil E. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Philipson, H. H. | Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness) | Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Pielou, D. P. | Sparkes, H. W. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Price, E. G. | Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Privett, F. J. | Steel, Major S. Strang | |
| Raine, W. | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Rankin, Captain James Stuart | Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Oolonet |
| Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. | Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Gibbs. |
| Rees, Sir Beddoe | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, D. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Hardle, George D. | Riley, Ben |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Harris, Percy A. | Ritson, J. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hartshorn, Vernon | Roberts, C. H. (Derby) |
| Amman, Charles George | Hastings, Patrick | Roberts, Frederick O. (W, Bromwich) |
| Attlee, C. R. | Hayday, Arthur | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.) | Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) |
| Barnes, A. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Saklatvala, S. |
| Batey, Joseph | Harriotts, J. | Salter, Dr. A. |
| Bonwick, A. | Hirst, G. H. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Bromfield, William | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Shinwell, Emanuel |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | John, W'lllam (Rhondda, West) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Buchanan, G. | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Simpson, J. Hope |
| Buckle, J. | Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Burgess, S. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Burnle, Major J. (Bootle) | Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) | Sullivan, J. |
| Buxton. Charles (Accrington) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Thornton, M. |
| Cape, Thomas | Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools) | Tillett, Benjamin |
| Chappie, W A. | Kikwood, D | Tout, W. J. |
| Collin, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Lansbury, George | Trevelyan, C. P. |
| Darbishire, C. W. | Lawson, John James | Turner, Ben |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Leach, W. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Lee, F. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Linfield, F. C. | Warne, G. H. |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | Lunn, William | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne) |
| Duncan, C. | MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Ede, James Chuter | M'Entee, V. L. | Webb, Sidney |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Weir, L. M. |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | March, S. | Westwood, J. |
| Fairbairn, R. R. | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Wheatley, J. |
| Falconer, J. | Maxton, James | White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.) |
| Foot, Isaac | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Whiteley, W. |
| Gosling, Harry | Muir, John W. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Murnin, H. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Gray, Frank (Oxford) | Nichol, Robert | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Greenall, T. | Oliver, George Harold | Wright, W. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Paling, W, | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Parker, H. (Hanley) | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) | Phillipps, Vivian | Mr. Trevelyan Thomson and Mr. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Pringle. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Potts, John S. |
§ Main Question again proposed.
§ Mr. HARRISThere is one part of this Resolution which introduces a lieu novel principle that has a good deal to recommend it, namely, that the responsibility for looking after the young insured persons under 18 years of age should be given to 450 the education authorities. That in itself is a very good thing, because no section of the unemployed are of more concern to us than the young men and women out of work. They are unfortunately growing in number: there is no sign of a diminution in the number and they are likely in the battle of life to be handi- 451 capped by the fact that they are not learning any trade at the most critical period of their lives. Any scheme to improve their lot and to ensure that more interest is taken in their welfare should commend itself to this Committee. But I have to suggest that, at any rate as far as London is concerned, the proposals in their particular form are neither economical nor sound. If the Committee will refer to the Memorandum, they will see it is suggested in paragraph 12 that the proposals will not appreciably increase the cost. They will involve some extra expense on the Exchequer, but I should like to be assured that they will not also mean extra expense on the ratepayers. The present system is now working on the whole fairly satisfactorily. The London County Council through its education authority has had 10 or 11 years' experience in carrying out this particular work in looking after those who are leaving school. They give advice to these young people when they are making a start in life; they advise them as to the kind of occupation they should engage in; they watch generally over their welfare when they get work and undoubtedly by means of these welfare committees and the various other social organisations the County Council has accomplished some very fine work.
It is now proposed, as I understand it, that all this work shall come under the Ministry of Labour and be done through the Employment Exchange. That, I submit, is a most revolutionary proposal. The education authority is surely the right authority to control these young people. Another alternative is, that the whole of this work should go to the education committee, and that the Employment Exchange should be duplicated. Is there going to be parallel machinery set up? Are we going to have outside the Employment Exchanges another organisation parallel with the Employment Exchanges under the local authorities? If so, surely that is a needless expense. I assume the cost is to be borne by the Fund. I notice that the paragraph points out that the expense of administration has to be borne by the Exchequer, but, ultimately, it is to be charged back on this unfortunate overburdened Insurance Fund. In paragraph 11, the Committee will notice that the administrative expenses of the unem- 452 ployment insurance scheme are estimated at rather less than 8½ per cent. of the annual revenue. That is a big charge on the Fund. Under this new scheme for the setting up of parallel organisations under the education authorities, you will have a still further percentage charge on the Fund. I think the Committee should hesitate before they pass this proposal, and I would have liked to move that it be omitted, but I fear that, if the financial provision were omitted, the charge might wholly fall on the public authority, and that would be disastrous. Therefore I do not like to take that step. But I warn the Minister that, unless some satisfactory assurance is forthcoming, there will be a lot of opposition to these financial proposals when the Bill gets into Committee. For my part, I think, as regards London, it would be a tragedy to break up the fine work done in co-operation with the Employment Exchanges and the education committees which has been going on for the last 10 years. It has worked well. It has developed and expanded to a great extent, and it would be a retrograde step to hand over that work entirely to the education authority and to set up elaborate new machinery, or, alternatively, to hand it over entirely to the Employment Exchanges.
Sir M. BARLOWI think I can deal with that point in two sentences. I entirely endorse what he has said of the admirable work done by the Committee for many years. I have had that work under my observation, and I accept cordially and reinforce all that the hon. Member says on the subject. Now, then, as to the proposals in this Bill. I am glad the hon. Member accepts the general policy which gives the education authority the option of taking over the entirety of the work This gives them the option and says that, if they take over the work for those from 14 to 16 under the Chelmsford recommendations, they must also take it over from 16 to 18. This Clause makes provision for it to be taken over. So far as I can see, there will be no extra charge upon the rates at all by the working out of this provision. I believe these arrangements made now for some provision by means of the Board of Education will continue. I cannot see any possibility, even if the present joint arrangement continues, of increased 453 charge arising. It will be open to the London authority to make full use of this.
§ Mr. HARDIEWhere we have great numbers of boys and girls, is it in the mind of the Minister of Labour, since he is making it optional on a city, that it should be open to them to take action in regard to finding something useful in the form of training. In the city of Glasgow, in a period like this, boys and girls are liable to be influenced by the worst in life.
Sir M. BARLOWI am not quite sure I appreciate the hon. Member's point. I think what he refers to is the scheme recently worked out between the President of the Board of Education and myself with regard to juvenile classes, where the State pays 75 per cent. of the cost if the locality will put up the remaining 25 per cent. That is not affected by the proposals made here. The proposals here are for the administrative work of finding employment. All we say to the local authorities is, that they should make their choice either to leave the work under the Ministry of Labour, with a juvenile employment committee, and let the Minister make arrangements for the young people between 14 and 18; or, if the local authorities wish to take it, they should take it so that there should be no difficulty between the Employment Exchange and the education authority. But if the education authority takes it, they must do so in accordance with the Chelmsford recommendations and take over the work of insurance as agents for the Ministry of Labour—representing trustees of the fund. They must take over from 16 to 18. I think that is reasonable. The broad principle running throughout this 454 policy is, roughly, that the hand which finds employment is the hand which pays benefit.. That is from 14 to 18—the whole period. If a local authority takes the option, that local authority will find employment from 16 to 18, and they ought to be responsible for unemployment benefit.
§ Mr. SULLIVANOn page 5, line 20, you say:
In accordance with a scale fixed by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury on the basis of the sum required to reimburse to authorities—.I think you should strike out the words "on the basis." I have had a communication from the Education Department of our country, and they are very anxious that the Ministry should not push burdens back on the local authorities, who have enough to hear already. May I be allowed to suggest that you should strike out these words?
§ The CHAIRMANThere is no line 20 in the Resolution.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Wednesday).
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
§ It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at Twenty - four Minutes before One o'Clock.