§ Mr. STEPHENI beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word "Minister," to the word" to" in line 12.
The purpose of the Amendment is to leave out the words,
after consultation with the Advisory Committee constituted for the purposes of this Section,and it raises the question of the setting up of the Advisory Committee. I had not an opportunity on the Second Reading of this Measure to take part in the Debate or I should then have expressed my dissatisfaction with the setting up of the Advisory Committee. The purpose of the Advisory Committee appears to provide a smoke screen for the Minister. It is an attempt to bring the question of unemployment insurance outwith the range of politics. Every Member in the House of Commons knows that in connection with unemployment insurance the attitude of the individual who is anxious to represent a constituency is one with very great political consequences. It has been said that it is unfortunate that this matter should not really be outwith the struggle between parties, and that we should really consider this problem from an impartial point of view. Again and again, with regard to one question after another, I have heard appeals made to take the subject concerned out of the arena of party politics. I have heard it with regard to unemployment generally, with regard to housing and with regard to practically every question with which we deal in this House. The same case has now been made out with regard to unemployment insurance.486 If the Advisory Committee is set up, I believe that it will only be a question of time before unemployment insurance will very largely be outside the control of Parliament and will cease to be a political issue, and we shall find it more and more difficult in the House of Commons to raise the question of the treatment of any persons in connection with their entitlement to benefit or the position into which they have got with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. It is going to be a very unfortunate thing for the unemployed people in this country if they are put into that position. This is one of the big innovations in connection with the Bill, and I am anxious that the Committee should consider very fully what they are going to do in this respect. Again and again it has been said that in this country the individual who is wronged or is aggrieved has always got the constitutional avenue whereby he may obtain justice and satisfaction, and very largely that constitutional avenue has been through the ventilation of the matter in the House of Commons. Consequently I intend to set my face steadfastly against any attempts to limit the opportunity of an individual to have his grievance ventilated in the House of Commons. If the Advisory Committee is set up there can be no doubt that it will become more and more difficult to raise the grievances of people with regard to the payment of unemployment insurance benefit.
I wish to point out to my colleagues on these benches that the setting up of the Advisory Committee, as far as the Committee will function, will be a cloak or a smoke screen for a reactionary Minister of Labour, and the setting up of such a Committee will be quite contrary to the ideals and the methods of the party which sits upon these benches. Very largely owing to the way in which the Labour party voiced the claims of the unemployed and emphasised the right of the unemployed worker to work or maintenance, the Labour party became the greatest party in the State. Very largely because of the slogan of the right to work or maintenance this party has come into a position in which it acts as the Government of the day, and it will mean that this party will be committing suicide if, now, when it is in a position to afford the protection of a Government which consists of the largest party in the House, it is going to provide machinery which 487 will make it more difficult for Members in this House to protect the interest ot the unemployed.
I know that it will be said that the Advisory Committee is not going to act in this way and that it is not going to be a smoke screen but a very helpful body, and is going to be in a consultative capacity, and that after all the ultimate responsibility will rest with the Minister, and that when the ultimate responsibility-rests with the Minister the House of Commons will have full control. We have had such things said to us again and again in connection with a whole series of Acts which we have passed and bodies which have been set up. We have set up various bodies. We have had the Rota Committee, the Court of Referees and Umpires, and in connection with that machinery every Member will have had a letter from the Minister telling him that the position, say, for example, of the Court of Referees, is outwith the control of the Minister; the duties of the Umpire are outwith the control of the Minister.
While it is true that the Advisory Committee is not being put into precisely a similar position to that of the Court of Referees or the Umpires, it will be asking the Minister to take very strong steps indeed to disregard the findings of the Advisory Committee in the future. The Minister will be able to come to the House of Commons, and, if an act of administration is challenged, be able to say that while there may have been a certain amount of sympathy with the complaint that had been made, the Advisory Committee had fully considered it; that it was composed of experts and represented the Trades Union Congress, the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations, and the Treasury, and was an impartial body. How can we, in the House of Commons, not having the specialist knowledge and the opportunities of the Advisory Committee of going into all the circumstances and of weighing all the pros and cons, to set aside the findings of the Advisory Committee? I may be told by some hon. Member opposite that the present Government have found it possible to set aside the findings of their own Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance. For the time being they have set aside the findings of the Royal Commission, 488 and what they have done in that respect may be done again.
My impression is that in this Bill there is machinery which may afterwards be used to implement practically the whole of the findings contained in the interim report of the Royal Commission. I do not believe that although the Government has set aside the recommendations of that Commission with regard to the reduction of benefit and the increase of contributions, since they have introduced this Bill, they are really departing very largely from the findings of the Royal Commission. The Advisory Committee appears to be a very dangerous instrument. It is dangerous in the form in which it is to be set up under this Bill and in regard to the power that is to be put into its possession in connection with the Clauses of the Bill. If the swing of the pendulum leads the Members opposite to this side of the House, and the Members on this side of the House to the opposite side of the House and a Minister comes in with very strong views upon economy, you are going to provide the machinery for such a Minister to carry out the most ruthless attacks upon the unemployed. What will the answer be if this Measure were succeeded by another Measure giving larger powers to the Advisory Committee to deal with the whole question of unemployment insurance and benefits, and the Minister concerned said that the machinery was set up by a Labour Government, that it had the approval of the Trades Union Congress, and that therefore they could trust the Advisory Committee upon which we had had three representatives appointed
after consultation with the General Council of the Trade Union Congress.What is the answer going to be? The setting up of this Advisory Committee is entirely wrong. I should not be in order in dealing with its composition at the present moment and the power which three representatives of the working classes in a committee of nine will have, but from my experience this is going to be one of the most retrograde steps ever taken in the matter of unemployment insurance. It will give this Committee and the Minister a discretion which they should not have. In 1925 the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) who was then Minister of Labour, introduced a Bill in which he amended the Act passed by the Labour 489 Government in 1924 and restored the ministerial discretion taken away by that Act. This party nearly choked itself at the restoration of ministerial discretion in the matter of decisions as to claims for benefit, and the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) went to the Trades Union Congress and told them what a tremendous fight we were putting up in order to prevent ministerial discretion being restored. Here is a Labour Government setting up an Advisory Committee and giving to the Minister a discretion over a far greater number of people than was the case in 1925. It may be necessary to set up this Committee because of the ideas of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in regard to people drawing unemployment benefit, but in my opinion it will almost inevitably become an instrument for the oppression of the unemployed and we are not prepared to allow it to pass without making our protest.The Minister of Labour may tell me that it is a great experiment, she has already said so during the Second Reading Debate, and that it has always been felt that it would be a good thing to bring the various parties to the tripartite arrangement more closely into association in the working of the scheme. This was a beginning, she said, in giving them an opportunity to take part in administering the scheme. There you have it. I can see great possibilities for hon. Members opposite in that statement. There could be a much closer association yet everyone knows from their previous experience that the one great protection of the unemployed in the matter of the payment of insurance benefit is the way in which the question can become a predominant issue at a general election or at a by-election. At the last General Election the question which aroused more interest than almost anything else—I give this as an illustration—was the not-genuinely-seeking work qualification, and every party refused to admit its parentage.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf I admit a discussion on general matters on each Amendment there will be no end to the Debate. Hon. Members must confine themselves strictly to the purpose of the Amendment.
§ Mr. STEPHENI have no wish to trespass the rules of order, and I prefaced my remark by saying that I was simply using it as an illustration. I had no intention of entering into the merits of the question. I was simply showing that the treatment of the unemployed in the matter of the payment of unemployment benefit has very great political consequences, and every hon. Member knows how important is his attitude on this question. I want to make it plain that this Advisory Committee will make this question of less importance at elections. You are taking away from the unemployed person the instrument which enables him to protect himself against reactionary legislation. This Advisory Committee may be the most wretched instrument in the future for the oppression of the unemployed. I am not willing to have it even in an advisory capacity. It will be even more dangerous sitting only as an advisory committee than if it had fuller statutory powers. It may be even more deadly as an advisory committee. It will certainly be more difficult to get at it by question and answer in this House. I hope we shall not have it set up at all. Every hon. Member should be willing boldly to face the unemployed and to say what in his opinion is the best line to take. It is the one question which should be in the forefront of the political arena, the treatment of the unemployed should be something to fight about.
It may be said that this is to introduce bribery into politics because certain people will offer more to the unemployed than others. I have heard that said again and again. Every hon. Member offers his policy to the people in his constituency as the best because of the material benefits it will bring to them. Is that bribery? Is that bringing undue influence to bear on the people? The unemployed have learnt how to make their political power felt and this Advisory Committee is going to be the instrument whereby that weapon of the unemployed may be blunted. In the last Government we spoke about the administrative persecution of the right hon. Member who was then Minister of Labour and his colleagues. This is going to bring in statutory persecution; it is going to set up a Star Chamber persecution of the unemployed. The Labour party has no mandate to set up such a committee. 491 There is no hon. Member who would have agreed at the last General Election to set up this committee to deal with the unemployed. There would not be so many Members on these benches if they had made any such promise, and having been returned to this House I say that it is a betrayal of the unemployed if we set up this machinery which will be used to cut many thousands of people off benefit. I hope that Members of all shades of thought will press upon the Minister the advisability of dropping this committee altogether. The Minister must make regulations herself and accept full responsibility for them, and bring them to the House of Commons in order to get its consent.
It is said that it is difficult to frame a statute which will cover all the anomalies. If that is so difficult it will be no less difficult to frame regulations to cover them. Let the Minister of Labour take the responsibility which should be hers without seeking to shelter herself behind some association of the general council of the Trade Union Congress and the employers. It is not that the representatives of the unemployed will not be able to make their protest effective. The unemployed will make their protest. If they are subjected to the ruthless persecution of this Advisory Committee they will put paid to the account of the Government that set it up and to the party which was responsible for the Government which set it up. Just as the Liberal party has become a sort of ghostlike remnant of its former self because of their failure to keep their pledge to improve the conditions of the great masses of the people, so the Labour party will finish as a great party if they pursue this policy of oppression of the working-classes.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI wish to support the Amendment which has been so ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). The defence of this advisory committee by the Minister of Labour is that she must have some body to consult; in other words, that she must have some body by which she can be advised as to her action or her desires in a particular matter. She says, in effect, "I set up these nine people, who are drawn from 492 various ranks, and they will be able to advise me on any particular matter on which I want advice." But the Minister knows that she can go to these people already if she wishes to do so. There is nothing at any time to hinder her going to the Trades Union Congress. Indeed, if my information is correct, she has already had the Trades Union Congress's advice on this Bill. Any Minister can go to the Trades Union Congress for advice, and it has constantly been done. It is the same with the employers. In their case it has constantly been done. This Government and the previous Government have had consultations, for instance, with the parties interested in unemployment insurance for agricultural workers.
An hon. Gentleman opposite who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in the last Government had advisory committees, but they had no statutory powers. He said, "I would like a few persons to meet me and advise me." He constantly went to the dockers, to building societies and to local authorities. I remember, too, that Mr. Wheatley, the late Member for Shettles-ton, went to the building trades repeatedly and sought their advice. Such advice was gladly given. To-day, what is proposed? A new thing entirely. The Minister proposes to do a thing that can now be done, but proposes to add the force of law to it. It is that which we challenge. In the past, none of as had the power or would have dared to interfere with the Minister going to any group for advice and assistance. What we complain of is not the setting up of a committee or the obtaining of advice from a committee, but the proposal to give the force of law to this advisory committee. Why alter the practice of years? I remember that Sir Montague Barlow, when I first entered this House, had long consultations with the Trades Union Congress on one or two matters. That method has been adopted by every Minister. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), when a Minister, sometimes sought such advice.
I think that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment was slightly unfair to the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). In his 1925 Bill the right hon. Gentleman introduced Ministerial discretion, and he introduced it for 493 extended benefit, that is to say, for benefit for which persons were alleged not to have paid. Hitherto any advisory committee, any Minister's discretion, any interference, dealt only with those persons who had exhausted their insurance right. It has been said repeatedly in these Debates that a person is entitled to have his insurance contract carried out. I have heard hon. Members opposite say, "If I pay an insurance premium I am entitled to have the contract carried out, but if my premium is exhausted new conditions arise and different treatment is allowed." That has been the case hitherto. But what now? We are giving this Advisory Committee power to alter the contract of an insured person. Furthermore, we are giving the Minister this discretion.
I see sitting opposite the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith). His predecessor in the representation of that Division took an active part in these discussions, and I believe that the hon. Member is equally interested in the subject. He is a lawyer and he will appreciate this point. These people have entered into an insurance contract. Is that denied? The married women, the seasonal workers and the others have all got a contract for insurance. It may be that when the State made the contract it was too generous or too mean. It may be that in the case of married women the State should not have entered into the contract, and that the State was badly advised financially. It may be true that now the State is poor, that this rich country is not quite as rich, and that the contract entered into in 1927 cannot now be upheld in the same way. But if we are to alter the insurance contract the contract should be altered by law just as it was made by law. Is that not reasonable? In return for certain payments the State guaranteed a certain thing. It was an honourable bargain. I take it that hon. Members opposite, being honourable men, would no more dream of breaking a contract with a poor married woman than of breaking a contract with anyone else. Here we have a greater responsibility. When the 1927 Act was introduced the contract entered into was the result of the long and laborious inquiry of the Blanesburgh Committee.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is covering a very wide field. The question whether a contract has been broken or not should be raised on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The only issue at the moment is whether or not the Minister should have this advisory committee as proposed in the Bill.
§ Mr. BUCHANANMy point is that the Advisory Committee are given powers to advise the Minister to break a contract.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is seeking to try and prove that certain contracts are being broken by the Bill, but that question does not arise here. The only question before us is whether the regulations to be issued shall be issued by the Minister on her personal responsibility or on the advice of a committee to be appointed.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI accept your Ruling that we must raise the question on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Let me return to the advisory committee. As I have said, the Minister always had power to go to these bodies and did go to them. The difference now is that what was the practice, of going to ask for advice, is being altered. The Minister sent for the Trades Union Congress or for the employers or for the experts of the Ministry. Now it is proposed to give the advisory committee statutory status. For what purpose? The committee is to advise and the Minister is to act. When the Minister comes down to the House what will be her defence? She will be questioned as to why she intends to do certain things. She will rise and say that she has made a certain alteration only after consultation with and acting on the advice of the advisory committee. She will state that such a course has been agreed to, and the Minister will not be judged on her merits. If regulations are made let the Minister come here and say, "I made the regulations and I am responsible for them. I sought advice, but nobody else imposed his will on me. I made the regulations voluntarily, on my own part." That is what has been the practice hitherto. What is now proposed is that in order to provide an excuse, in order to have someone to lean on, in order to have a buffer, this statutory body is to be 495 created, and the Minister will say in regard to action that she has taken," I have done it only with their advice." The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me said that this is capable of expansion. I see in the advisory committee not merely the purpose of the moment, but once it starts we shall be told that it has been a success. They will begin in a small way, and we shall be told that they are working smoothly. Then we shall be asked to give them a little more power, and each succeeding step will lessen the control of the publicly elected representatives, by taking business out of their hands The advisory committee will serve no useful purpose. If there is a useful purpose to be served in consultation, the Minister has channels open to her. The real purpose of the committee is twofold, in the first place to act as a buffer against criticism and, secondly, to be the beginning of an engine which will one day seek to eliminate popular Parliamentary control and leave it to outside hands to deal with the comfort and well-being of our unemployed population.
§ Mr. STRACHEYAs I understand it, the issue that we are discussing is not the delegation of powers to the Minister, but the delegation of the powers of the Government to an outside body. We have no objection to the delegation of powers, but we want the powers to be delegated for a very different purpose. The issue on this Amendment is whether the proposed delegation of powers will be covered and screened by the appointment of the committee. We see no purpose in the appointment of the Advisory Committee. If the powers are to be delegated, why should not the Minister have full responsibility for their exercise? We see in this proposal an attempt to remove this subject from politics. A plea that we should do that has come from various parts of the House at different times, but it seems to me to be either the most ignorant or the most hypocritical plea that could possibly be made. Why should this subject, perhaps the most vital subject in the whole of our public life, which affects 2,500,000 of our citizens, be removed from politics? What an extraordinary commentary it is that the Measure which takes the first step in that 496 direction should be introduced by a Labour Government. I think it was Mr. Gladstone, who is still quoted in this House, who said that the whole subject of employment was utterly unfitted for discussion in this House. Hon. Members opposite possibly owe almost their entire political existence to bringing unemployment into politics. Now we have this movement, perhaps only a comparatively short one, to take the unemployed out again. We protest against that. I cannot believe that this Advisory Committee will act in any way to improve the provisions of the present Acts. Under the powers given by this Bill, it is excluded from making improvements which many of us would like to see. I can see no useful purpose to be served by it.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNThe attitude of hon. Members towards the Amendment will be governed by their attitude towards the main purposes of the Bill. My attitude to the Amendment is almost entirely governed by my general attitude on the Bill. The purpose which the Bill is intended to serve is, quite frankly and unashamedly, that of reducing public expenditure upon unemployment benefit. I must not argue the Tightness or wrong-ness of that proposal on this Amendment, but that being the purpose of the Bill, it makes it vital that responsibility for effecting those reductions shall be place-able and shall be known. The Preamble of the Bill says that it is anticipated that there will be a saving of £5,500,000 from the operations of the committee. I do not think that those savings ought to be made, But if they are to be made, let the Minister make them herself and not shelter behind anybody else.
If we look at the proposed composition of the committee, which I cannot criticise at this stage, one finds that there will be three representatives of the Trades Union Congress, a corresponding number of representatives of employers' organisations, an alleged independent chairman, and a Treasury representative. My experience of independent chairmen is that they are never independent, and my experience of Treasury representatives is that their primary concern is to save the Exchequer. We are rapidly reaching a stage where a new technique of government is being perfected. That new technique takes the form of selecting two or three people of known views, 497 then two or three people of known opposite views, then an independent chairman, invariably drawn from the employing class. Then you confirm the independent chairman by the appointment of a young and very able Treasury or departmental representative, who can be relied upon implicity, even if the chairman wants to stray, to keep his feet in the straight and narrow way. The truth of what I have just said has been evidenced in the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance.
§ Mr. BROWNI do not want to come into conflict with your Ruling and I immediately accept it. I want to make the point in a form which is in order. Past experience ought to show us that it is fatal for a party which represents working class interests to trust effective power to bodies which, by their very composition, are loaded against the interests of the working classes. An exceedingly strong case can be made for objecting to the appointment of this committee, and for pressing to delete the provision for its appointment from the Bill. There is nothing more contemptible in political life than what I would call duck-shoving. That is a preoletarian phrase for dodging an issue. [Interruption.] In Parliamentary language, statesmanship. The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Strachey) was right when he said that the very existence of the party on this side had been based upon its treatment of the unemployment problem and the cognate problem of maintenance during unemployment. Is there anything more contemptible, more dishonest than for a party to build up political strength on the basis of an assurance to democracy that it will handle a given problem along given lines, and then, immediately it assumes power, to throw overboard the whole of its philosophy in relation to that problem and to hand over the real administration to a committee of this kind? That is on a par with the series of shifts and evasions that have characterised the whole of this Administration, and for my part I shall do my best to stop it on this Bill.
We have to be very careful to ensure that this Clause, if it passes unamended, does not result in grave injustice. There 498 are three sets of people concerned. First, there are the members of the committee, then the Minister and the House and, finally, the unemployed man and woman. What will the situation be if this committee is allowed to function? All that we shall know will be that certain orders will he brought to the House, after having been put into operation. We shall probably never know where the real responsibility for an order rests, if this committee system is allowed to work. Let us suppose a concrete case. Suppose the Minister comes forward with orders relating to the position of married women, and I ask whether it is her recommendation to the House or the recommendation of the Committee. She knows perfectly well that the whole Ministerial and Civil Service tradition would forbid her to reveal that there was any gulf between her own position and that of her advisers. It may be that the line recommended by the Minister differed from that recommended by the committee. The members of the committee, whose names will become very unpopular and very well known, will be charged in the public mind with responsibility for what the Minister does. Conversely, it may be that the Minister will be charged with responsibility for what the committee does. Finally, you get to the position of the unemployed man. If his contract is to be broken—do not make any mistake about it, this is a contract-breaking Bill from beginning to end. It may be argued that the State is in such a position that it cannot honour its contracts. I cannot now discuss the fact that it is breaking its contract, but if the contract with the unemployed man is to be broken, at least he is entitled to know on whose shoulders the responsibility for the breach directly rests.
If the Clause passes unamended, it will produce calamitous consequences for the unemployed in this Parliament and in the next. How is it that this Bill is being rushed through now, when we have no time to discuss the cotton industry and other great national issues?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThose matters are before the Committee. The hon. Member can deal with the substance of the Bill on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." The Amendment is a simple one, whether regulations should 499 be issued on the Minister's own responsibility or after consultation with the committee it is proposed to set up.
§ Mr. BROWNWhat I have in mind is that two sets of circumstances may arise in the future in which this committee, if we allow it to be set up, will play a very important part. The first thing that I have in mind is what is going to happen to the rest of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance. There is a common impression on this side that all that is going to be put into operation of the recommendations of that Commission is what is contained in the Anomalies Bill. But there are Members on the Front Bench who will understand me if I go as far as to say that this is a first bite at the cherry. I do not think I shall be very far wrong in saying that later on there will be further legislation because the whole of the capitalistic logic which leads to this Bill, when carried to its right conclusion—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is not entitled to discuss what Bills may be introduced in the future, but must keep to the Amendment before the Committee.
§ Mr. BROWNMay I put this point because it is rather important? If this Bill passes unamended this committee will come into existence, and it will function, not only in regard to present legislation, but also in regard to future legislation on unemployment insurance.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat may be so, but the principle to be discussed on this Amendment is whether these functions are to be carried out by the Minister with the advice of this committee or without the advice of this committee.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is predicting what he imagines is going to take place in the future.
§ Mr. BROWNMay I respectfully put this point? We are creating here a piece of permanent machinery quite different from anything which now exists, for the purpose of dealing with unemployment insurance. If the hon. 500 Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) were in order in envisaging the use that might be made of such a committee, after a change of Government is it not in order for me to discuss its possible effects in the lifetime of the present Government. I do not wish to wander too far of course.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is not entitled on an Amendment of this kind to range over controversial matters on which there are acute differences of opinion on both sides of the Committee. Otherwise the purpose of this Amendment would be obscured by the discussion of other matters more or less irrelevant.
§ Mr. BROWNI do not wish to obscure the point and I dismiss that aspect of my case with the short statement that I believe that in the present Parliament there will be further unemployment insurance legislation and, that in the event of the passage of such legislation, this Advisory Committee will act as a tremendous menace to working-class interests in this country. As to what will happen in the event of a change of Government, we know that the Conservative party never take unemployment insurance out of the arena of party politics. That happy and bright idea is left to us. There is no question which affects the relations between classes in this country which the Conservative party leave outside the range of party politics, and the idea that you can leave unemployment insurance outside the range of party politics is what the Prime Minister in his brighter and better days, would have described as "nursery polities." If, when Labour Governments are in power, we are to have advisory committees, loaded against the interests of the working classes then, in order to nullify that, we will have to have a Minister of Labour infinitely stronger, from the working-class point of view, than we have got. If we are to have such a committee as this with a Conservative Minister of Labour in office, then I say, bluntly and frankly, God help the unemployed in this country.
We are now getting to a stage in this country where a new technique of government is going to be worked out—the technique of advisory committees and the Royal Commissions. There is a case for that technique, but that case only exists 501 so long as in the House of Commons there are no grave divisions on social theory and social principle. If the House of Commons were a Council of State, with Members on all sides working upon a common philosophy, then there would be a case for utilising the machinery of Royal Commissions and Select Committees and the kind of machinery envisaged in this Bill. But the poor deluded public imagine that there is a real fundamental clash of social theory and principle in the House of Commons. They believe that we on this side stand for one thing and hon. Members opposite stand for another. If that were true—and I doubt it with increasing emphasis every day—then clearly the kind of machinery proposed here would be absolutely inapplicable. Its whole purpose is to obscure the issues and not to clarify them, and to bring us to a stage where everything in the House of Commons is non-political and non-party except the jobs. I regard this Clause as dangerous. I regard the Bill as contemptible. And I hope that, if it must go through, at least we shall eliminate from it what I regard as an exceedingly vicious proposal, designed to facilitate the cutting down of unemployment benefit, and to save the capitalist Exchequer at the expense of the unemployed men and women.
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield)A great deal of what has been said in this Debate—said quite sincerely I have no doubt—has been based upon a complete fallacy and upon a misunderstanding of the Clause. The Advisory Committee is not a shelter behind which the Minister can hide. It is being set up precisely for the purpose laid down in, the Bill, that is, for the purpose of consultation on very technical points of industrial practice and the industrial arrangements which may be affected if and when Parliament gives the power asked for in the Bill. The Minister remains responsible to the House of Commons for the regulations made by the Minister. The fact that the Minister consults with the Advisory Committee does not interfere with the right of individual Members to take all the steps which are now taken to raise matters on the Floor of the House of Commons, in connection with individual cases, where they feel that injustices have occurred.
502 There was one sentence spoken in this Debate with which I am most cordially in agreement—and it was perhaps the only sentence with which I am in agreement—and that was the opening remark of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that this is a very important matter. I regard this Advisory Committee as one of the most important matters in the Bill, because I believe that the proposal is another step in the evolutionary development that has been going on in connection with unemployment insurance during the whole of its history. We have had industrial bodies directly brought into contact in an advisory capacity, with various stages of the administration of unemployment insurance. We have had the stages of local employment committees, of assessors and courts of referees and of employers' and workers' representatives appearing before the umpire to put their points of view on different cases. What I am now asking is that we should bring them organically into contact with the administration in the earlier stage of consultation before these regulations are made and become operative.
Such a proposal does not take away from the Minister's responsibility to the House of Commons. It is not, I repeat, any attempt to hand over the administration to an outside body. It is not a question of abrogating in any way the right of the House of Commons to criticise a Minister and hold a Minister responsible. It will be, I hope, a helpful and useful development of what already takes place as regards consultation with the two great industrial bodies, directly affected by contributions to the Fund, in the matter of the administration of the fund. It is too late in the day to begin to talk about these great organisations as though they had no relation to insurance. They have been in the heart of the whole business from the very beginning. I can see nothing at all upon which to base the alarmist speeches that we have heard—speeches which I venture to assert are really gross misrepresentations of the position—against the proposed Advisory Committee.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNOn a point of Order. Is it in order or within the terms of Parliamentary decorum for the 503 Minister to refer to speeches as grossly misrepresenting the truth? We have a vocabulary too.
§ Miss BONDFIELDI quite understand that a Minister has to be a cockshy for any statements made in criticism of proposals of this kind. If any remarks made by me in reply appear to be at all severe I, of course, withdraw. But in considering many of the speeches and statements made, I must say that they have been utterly mistaken and entirely contrary to the facts. As I say, there is no question of handing over the real administration to the Advisory Committee but I claim for the Advisory Committee a very important place in the Bill. I place the greatest possible emphasis upon the importance of securing the assistance of this Advisory Committee in connection with the very difficult questions which arise in subsequent Clauses of the Bill, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. BROCKWAYI wish, first, to reply to some of the remarks of the Minister and then to put forward certain general considerations which I regard as important. The Minister takes the view that the Advisory Committee is to be without any great or new powers, and is to fulfil little more than the functions of a consultative body on technique. If that is a complete analysis of the functions of the Committee then I put this point to the Minister. Under this Bill, a thousand technical details will have to be dealt with. In the case of the married women alone there may be married women in Lancashire, miners' wives who want to work, and women in London under entirely different conditions. There may be the biscuit makers to whom the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referred and a hundred other different types to be considered. An Advisory Committee of nine persons, however competent those persons may be in the representation of particular in- 504 terests, is not a body from whom the Minister can get the best technical advice.
§ Miss BONDFIELDThe hon. Member has obviously overlooked page 3, Clause 2, Sub-section (6).
§ Mr. BROCKWAYNo, I have not overlooked that, and it is because I have read it that I believe the functions of this Advisory Committee are much wider and bigger than the functions which she has suggested. It is true that this committee will have power to call evidence from a large number of persons, but if the function of the committee is only that of technical advice, there is no need for the committee, there is no reason why the Minister herself and her permanent officials should not go directly to the interests which are involved, there is no reason whatever why the right hon. Lady, when she is dealing with the question of married women, should not herself and, through officials directly responsible to her, in the ordinary course of her administration obtain the information and upon that information take the responsibility of issuing the necessary Regulations. If the committee is only a committee for technical consultation, there is no need for the committee, but in our view the functions of the committee are very much more than those of technical consultation.
I want to illustrate the point which I have made, because it may be even more powerful in the case of seasonal workers, intermittent workers, casual workers, and not only those three classes, but the very wide class of workers who come under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. Indeed, almost every type and class of worker who comes under the insurance scheme is involved in this Bill, and I suggest that a committee of nine may be the wisest representatives of the Trades Union Congress, or of the Employers' Federation, or of the Treasury, or of the Ministry of Labour that it is possible to find, with a remarkable chairman to act in an independent and impartial character, but there are no nine men and women in this country who are able to fulfil the function which the Minister has in mind if that function is merely to be one of technical consultation. A much more effective way would be for the right hon. Lady to have direct 505 conferences, without anyone standing in between, with all these interests concerned, and upon that kind of detailed information to be able to deal with the issues involved.
That was the point of detail that I wanted to discuss, but I now want to discuss the very simple issue which is in this Amendment, and we need not go outside the Amendment, because I believe the issue of the Amendment itself is of fundamental importance to the government and the administration of this country. I believe that in passing a Bill which will set up this Advisory Committee we are making a development of Parliamentary machinery which will have a tremendous influence upon every administrative Department in the future and upon the proceedings of this House itself. The right hon. Lady, in introducing the Bill, spoke of it once as an experiment, then as a beginning, and again, in her conclusion, as a great experiment, and it is because this is an experiment, a beginning, a new departure, which may affect the whole governmental system of this country, that the Committee ought to pause before it rejects this Amendment.
I want to draw particular attention to the words used by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). As a new Member of this House during this Parliament, may I say that there are very few Members to whom I listen with greater appreciation than the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove, because I find that in his speeches he is not just scoring party points, he is not merely endeavouring to make capital for his party against another party, but there are ideas, there is a philosophy, there is a contribution, and he is seeking to get to fundamentals? That is the type of speech which this House of Commons wants from every side of the House. In his introductory speech, the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove used these words, and I believe that they illustrate the fundamental importance of the Amendment now before us. He said:
The Minister has used one or two words which are bound to evoke at any rate a sympathetic response from all sides of the House. She has spoken of this as an experiment and said that during this experimental period we must try the new method which she has submitted for the consideration of the House.506 This is with reference to the Advisory Committee.She is asking the House to take a decision of very great consequence. We are asked to set up what is neither more nor less than a D.O.R.A. Act for the whole scheme of unemployment insurance. We remember the wide change wrought in the social structure of this country by means of that small Bill which was passed in the early days of the War without any Debate; I believe there was only one question asked, as to whether it was retrospective or not. That Act transformed the whole structure of this country; and it is no exaggeration to say that the operation of the machinery which it is proposed to set up and the Orders which may be laid as a result of this Bill may very easily have a similar transforming effect upon the whole structure of unemployment insurance as we know it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1931; col. 2113, Vol. 254.]I believe that those words are true, and I want to ask this Committee, before it makes that tremendous departure in administration and in Parliamentary control, to pause and consider very carefully what it is doing. If we debate this Amendment from that point of view, I admit at once that if the House is to do its work effectively whether in reference to unemployment or to the other great issues which arise before it, we must devolve from this particular Chamber a great deal of responsibility for the operation of our administration.I want to point out one very great difference between the reasons which are often given for the need to establish advisory and other committees and the particular Advisory Committee which is to be set up under this Bill. In the case of the other advisory committees, they are committees which are going to carry out detailed administration regarding material things upon the principle of which this House has already decided, but that is not the case with the Advisory Committee proposed under this Bill. The powers in this Bill are so wide that it will be possible for the Advisory Committee which is established under it to change substantially the conditions of benefit of almost any unemployed person within the unemployment scheme.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is a matter dealt with by the Bill itself. The appointment of an advisory committee is a separate issue.
§ Mr. BROCKWAYI am only arguing that this advisory committee is to have tremendously wide powers, and I must leave the point at that, but because it will have these wide powers of dealing with matters of fundamental principle, this House ought not to remove the responsibility from its own shoulders and those of the Minister to the advisory committee. So far as those of us in this House who are Socialists are concerned, the right of an unemployed man to maintenance from the community is a fundamental right, not a right for which the responsibility should be shifted for decision to an advisory committee. It is a right wherein this House ought to be a determining factor. You might as well say that an advisory committee should declare whether particular classes of persons in the community should have the right to vote as to say that this advisory committee should have the power to issue reports to the Minister, upon which the Minister is going to act, as to whether an unemployed person should have the right to benefit.
It is because these grave issues are concerned in this matter that we hope that even now the Minister and the Government will pause before making a departure which may have the gravest effects upon the whole future of legislation, which will not merely affect the period of this Parliament and the unemployed while a Labour Government are in office, but must inevitably affect future Parliaments and the conditions of the unemployed under a Conservative Government. For these reasons, I hope the Government will reconsider the answer already given. If not, it will be necessary for us to press this point to the utmost limits in our power.
§ Mr. BECKETTWhen I heard the Minister say that one of the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Camlaehie (Mr. Stephen) had raised, in which he said that this Amendment was of very great importance, was one with which she heartily agreed, it seems to me extraordinary that on an Amendment supported by a considerable number of Members in this House and declared by the Minister to be of the most important nature there should be such a remarkable degree of unanimity among those who desire to address the Committee as 508 to the very dangerous nature of the lines which the Amendment is intended to delete. When we realise that the Minister of Labour says that this is a highly important Amendment and yet we have the most amazing spectacle of the ex-Minister of Labour, sitting opposite, exercising the most admirable self-restraint, but tendering no word of advice to the Committee on this issue, when we remember that there is hardly a Member of the Opposition party who is active in the Press or on the platform who has not denounced this Bill, and when we find that they have no advice to give us on this Amendment, we begin to realise the stage to which party politics have arrived in this country.
I am disappointed also that no Member of the smaller Opposition has got up to ease our doubts or calm our fears, and I congratulate the Minister on her twin team of dumb oxen who are prepared to sit patiently through the Debates in order that they may rally to her support in carrying out their policy in the Division Lobby. If I find among hon. Friends of mine a reluctance to justify what I fear some of them will be voting for in a short time, they will have plenty of opportunities when they next face their constituents to justify their action.
The Minister herself, having declared the Amendment to be so important, devoted a few minutes to throwing charges about gross misrepresentations at my hon. Friends who had spoken before her, but not a single moment to justifying the setting up of this advisory committee. This committee will cost the Insurance Fund a considerable amount of money. We have never heard how much, or whether the chairman and vice-chairman are to be fully remunerated. If we have, I have missed the statement. When the Unemployment Insurance Fund is in such a, bad way, it seems rather amazing that it should be proposed to spend money—which, I presume, will come out of Parliamentary funds, and which might otherwise have gone to relieve the unemployed—on an advisory committee the duties of which still remain embedded in a dark and mysterious shroud. I should like to hear from the late Minister of Labour why he never needed a special advisory committee to assist him in his 509 task of administering the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I would not be in order if I quoted him in this Debate. I have here a copy of the OFFICIAL REPOET in which statements were made by hon. Friends of mine with regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tam-worth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) which, if he remembers them after this lapse of years, must make him feel impelled to plunge into this fray in order to rebut the serious charges that were made against him at that time.
I must plead guilty to having said some of the hard things about him, but he did, at any rate, come to the House to face the music himself. He did not ask for a committee of three trade unionists, and three employers to see that the trade unionists did not do any harm; and three people appointed by the Minister to advise him in the way he wanted to go so that he could come to the House and say that he had had most expert advice. He was courageous enough to come to the House and take the blame and face the abuse which many of my hon. Friends heaped on his head for the misdeeds which he so often and so unrepentently committed. We are on specially strong ground with this Amendment, because when the Bill was introduced there was an attempt on behalf of the Government and their supporters to take the attitude of those who would say, "Well, we do not want to be too hard on the unemployed; after all, we are very surprised at the report that a Tory commission which we appointed has made with regard to the unemployed"—
§ Mr. BECKETTI am sorry if I strayed. I think that I can make this point without incurring your displeasure. If nothing can be found in any external document to justify this Bill, nothing can be found to justify the Advisory Committee. If the right hon. Lady knows of cases about which she will need technical advice which she is not able to secure without the expense, trouble and bother of this committee—if she can prove later in the Debate that that is the case, there is still no reason why an advisory committee is necessary or the best way of dealing with any anomalies which may 510 later in the Debate be proved to exist, and which so far have not been proved to exist. I suggest that if we get support for this important Amendment from nowhere else, we ought to be able to look for support from the economists in the Committee. I cannot understand the Committee, when it is bemoaning—at least I hope it is—the necessity of making economies at the expense of the unemployed, being prepared to elect a committee with a blank cheque as to what it will cost the Government.
I hope that on this the first of many discussions that must take place on this important Bill, the Committee is not to be allowed to divide on what the Miniser has truly said is such an important Amendment without getting some guidance from those to whom the majority of the Members of the Committee look for guidance upon these matters. We ought to get more than a few words of rebuttal from the Minister. We ought to hear from her exactly what kind of work this Advisory Committee can do which is not already done to the ordinary process of consultation and conference which every previous Minister of Labour has had. It is extraordinary that Labour Ministers seem unable to govern to their own satisfaction until they get a committee of their political enemies to tell them what to do. The Minister should certainly tell us what peculiar kind of technical advice she wants of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth and the present Secretary of State for War were deprived during their tenure of office at the Ministry of Labour. The Secretary of State for War succeeded in administering without an Advisory Committee, and I hope that he will tell the Committee and his colleague the Minister of Labour how he managed to do his duties without a Tory committee to help him. If the right hon. Gentleman can make that statement, and if it can be supported as it must be by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, the Committee would be most gratified to hear the right hon. Lady say that she was prepared to shoulder her responsibilities, and that she did not need any special committee composed of her political opponents—or who used to be, at any rate—in order to advise her what to do with a large percentage of the unemployed.
511 If this Bill which contains features which many Members on this side seriously deplore, and which will formulate a new technique in government, must be carried, and if all those dangers of which many of its supporters are afraid have to be faced, do not let us have them faced with an Advisory Committee. Will that committee meet in public, and will its evidence be published? Will the poor, unfortunate people whose fate is to be decided by the committee have an opportunity of attending its sittings and having their representatives heard? Will the deliberations of the committee be printed and laid on the Table of the House? We do not know how much the committee will cost, or whether it will be a secret or a public committee. We do not even know, until we get to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, precisely what classes of unemployed will be consigned to it. For the Committee to appoint a Star Chamber with unspecified powers at an unspecified cost to deal with unspecified questions, with the leaders of the House in an ignominious silence, would be a travesty of the dignity of the Committee—[Laughter]. I was saying when that interruption occurred, that you are appointing a committee of which you do not know the personnel or the cost, and you are going to hand over to your political enemies the people who supported you at the last election and to whom you have made the most lavish promises.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Sir DONALD MACLEANThe answer to some of the comments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham (Mr. Beckett) is to be found in the fact that the House by a large majority gave a Second Reading to this Measure. I would remind the hon. Member with regard to the point that he made as to what authority there was behind this proposal, that, at any rate, the responsible leaders of the trade unions have come to the conclusion that there is a grave abuse or anomaly—I prefer to call it abuse—which requires remedying. The question for the Committee is as to how best it can be remedied. The House and the country are determined that something should be done. What is the best way of dealing with it?
§ Mr. BUCHANANMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman on what authority he bases his statement that the Trades Union Congress agree about this? The evidence of the Trades Union Congress given before the Commission strenuously denied any of the anomalies which are now supposed to exist.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI base what I said on my own personal knowledge of trade union leaders who support action being taken to deal with these grave questions. I know them personally. They have sat with me on a committee spread over years, and I have some knowledge of what I am talking about. The question is, How are we to deal with this problem? I entirely agree that Parliament ought to watch very carefully the experiment which is being made, because without any doubt Parliament is delegating—and indeed in many respects derogating—its own authority to an outside committee. At the same time, is this House really capable of dealing with this matter? With the numbers and complexities of the classes of workers who must come within this investigation, it appals me when I think of a committee of this House endeavouring to deal with the problem in detail. Hon. Members opposite who are opposed to the principle of the Bill are quite justified in throwing every legitimate Parliamentary obstacle in the way of this investigation and against the passing of the Bill, but the remarks made the other day by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) evoke a very large response from me.
I ask again, How has this problem to be tackled? I would remind the Committee that the proposals have been made by the responsible Government, and not merely by the Minister of Labour. The proposal to set up a committee is the act of the Government as a whole. My only comment is that I am afraid the committee will act much too slowly. Members opposite who are opposed to the Bill will have much reason to congratulate themselves on the slow progress of the inquiry, and the long time before we have these Orders or Regulations laid upon the Table of the House. It is important to see that the right sort of people are appointed to this Advisory Committee. Who of us is there who is competent to inquire, in the meticulous 513 way which is the only method by which a fair conclusion can be arrived at, into the cases of coal trimmers or of weekend assistants or of a whole range of employments? We must have people who know the subject they are investigating. With three members drawn from the greatest representative body of the workers, namely, the Trades Union Congress, and three members drawn from an employers' association, we shall have, so far, the right sort of people.
I have had some experience of committees and have worked with representatives both of employers and employed, and while they have due regard to the great interests which they are particularly engaged to represent, I never saw anything but a really earnest desire on their part to ensure a thoroughly impartial investigation. In so far as the House of Commons is going to make an experiment, it is making an experiment with the right kind of materials. Then there will be three other members selected by the Minister, and they will certainly have a considerable amount of expert knowledge of the problem with which they are dealing. For this experiment I cannot imagine a committee selected from better areas than those indicated.
But I come back to my point as to the experiment which Parliament is making. This evil with which we are dealing has grown to its present very large proportions very swiftly and within the last year or two. When the Conservatives were in office it had attained only comparatively small proportions. There has grown up very swiftly a regular system, which at any rate reflects great credit on the ingenuity of somebody. All the same, I hope the Bill will be limited as to time. As it is an experiment, let us limit the experiment. Although we shall not be able to cure it altogether let us hope that we shall to a very large extent Lave mitigated this evil at the end of a term of years. By that time the House will have seen how this kind of legislation works, and whether or not it seriously infringes the authority of Parliament. If it does infringe, then the experiment ought not to be repeated; but to the extent to which it has been a satisfactory experiment it will be a guide for other committees of this character. I say quite frankly that I dread this method of 514 legislation—by committee, through the Minister, through regulations laid upon the Table, and only to be discussed after 11 o'clock at night, and then in the most cursory manner, and with the whole weight of the Government of the day quite naturally against the discussion. I understand your uneasiness, Mr. Dunnico, but I think this is relevant.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman is anticipating two subsequent Amendments on the subject of the regulations and on the period for which the Bill shall continue in operation. Those subsequent Amendments cannot be anticipated in his speech on this Amendment.
§ Sir D. MACLEANOne of the uses of this Debate is that it will probably assist you, Mr. Dunnico, in the selection of Amendments later.
§ Mr. STEPHENIs the right hon. Gentleman in order in anticipating discussion and trying to prevent other Members in the future from taking part in that discussion?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member may rest assured that the Chair is not unduly influenced by suggestions of that kind.
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined, then to put that Question.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMay I put two questions before we go to a Division? If the Minister could give us an answer to them it would clear up some misapprehensions. The point before us now is whether my right hon. Friend should have the services of this committee or not, and as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has just pointed out, that raises the whole question of the usefulness and propriety of this method of legislation. If an Amendment to be considered later is carried the committee will consist of 10 persons. We know that three of them will be appointed in consultation with the Trade Union Congress and three by the National Federation of Employers Organisations. Then one is to be appointed after consultation with the Treasury. I want to know whether it is intended to appoint a Treasury 515 official. It is very important that we should know that. I presume it means that a permanent member of the Civil Service is to be appointed from the Treasury. Then there is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Miss Rathbone), and the hon. Lady who represents East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) suggesting that at least one woman member should be appointed.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI will not pursue that point, but that still leaves us with three other members to be appointed. What sort of person is to be appointed as chairman of the committee?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe whole question of the constitution of the committee can be discussed on Clause 2.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI do not want to contravene your Ruling, but we have to decide in a few minutes whether my right hon. Friend shall have the services of this committee at all, and I respectfully suggest that if we could have an answer on some of these points
§ it would clear up a great many fears and doubts which have been expressed.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member must really see that any answers given to the point he has been putting would anticipate the discussion of Clause2, and I cannot allow that.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYOne of the objections to the committee which has been expressed is that it will be, it is said, a Tory committee, and another objection has been that only three members will represent the Trade Union Congress, although the majority of the people concerned are members of trade unions. I do not want to pursue this matter, but if within the rules of order my right hon. Friend could give us some reassurance on these points I think it would help, and I ask for this information with a genuine desire to clear up certain misapprehensions that undoubtedly exist.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODrose—
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 14.
517| Division No. 402.] | AYES. | [6.15 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Chater, Daniel | Gray, Milner |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Clarke, J. S. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) |
| Addison, Rt Hon. Dr. Christopher | Cluse, W. S. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Groves, Thomas E. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Cocks, Frederick Seymour. | Grundy, Thomas W. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Compton, Joseph | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Angell, Sir Norman | Cripps, Sir Stafford | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Arnott, John | Daggar, George | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Dalton, Hugh | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) |
| Ayles, Walter | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston) | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Harris, Percy A. |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Dukes, C. | Haycock, A. W. |
| Barr, James | Duncan, Charles | Hayes, John Henry |
| Batey, Joseph | Ede, James Chuter | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Edmunds, J. E. | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
| Benson, G. | Egan, W. H. | Herriotts, J. |
| Birkett, W. Norman | England, Colonel A. | Hirst, G. H (York W. R. Wentworth) |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Foot, Isaac | Hoffman, P. C. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Freeman, Peter | Hollins, A. |
| Bromfield, William | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) |
| Bromley, J. | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) | Isaacs, George |
| Brooke, W. | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Brothers, M. | Gibbins, Joseph | Jones, Llewellyn-, F. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Gill, T. H. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) |
| Burgess, F. G. | Gillett, George M. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Glassey, A. E. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) |
| Cameron, A. G. | Gossling, A. G. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Cape, Thomas | Gould, F. | Kelly, W. T. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M | Muggeridge, H. T. | Smith, Ben (Bermondasy, Rotherhithe) |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Murnin, Hugh | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Lang, Gordon | Naylor, T. E. | Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley) |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Law, Albert (Bolton) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Law, A. (Rossendale) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Lawrence, Susan | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Lawson, John James | Palin, John Henry | Sorensen, R. |
| Lawther, w. (Barnard Castle) | Palmer, E. T. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Leach, W. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Strauss, G. R. |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Perry, S. F. | Sullivan, J. |
| Lees, J. | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Sutton, J. E. |
| Leonard, W. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Lloyd, C. Ellis | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Pole, Major D. G. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Longden, F. | Potts, John S. | Tillett, Ben |
| Lunn, William | Price, M. P. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Quibell, D. J. K. | Tools, Joseph |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Tout, W. J. |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Raynes, W. R. | Townend, A. E. |
| McElwee, A. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Vaughan, David |
| McEntee, V. L. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Viant, S. P. |
| McKinlay, A. | Ritson, J. | Walker, J. |
| Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Romeril, H. G. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| MacNeill-Weir, L. | Rowson, Guy | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Manning, E. L. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Mansfield, W. | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) | West, F. R. |
| March, S. | Sanders, W. S. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Marcus, M. | Sawyer, G. F. | White, H. G. |
| Markham, S. F. | Scott, James | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Marshall, Fred | Scurr, John | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Mathers, George | Sexton, Sir James | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Matters, L. W. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Millar, J. D. | Sherwood, G. H. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Mills, J. E. | Shield, George William | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Milner, Major J. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Montague, Frederick | Shillaker, J. F. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Shinwell, E. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Simmons, C. J. | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter Withington) | |
| Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mort, D. L | Sinkinson, George | Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton. |
| Muff, G. | Sitch, Charles H. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Kirkwood, D. | Wise, E. F. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | |
| Brown, w. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. | Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley. |
| Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Stephen, Campbell |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
518§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 18.
519| Division No. 403.] | AYES. | [6.24 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Birkett, W. Norman | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Cocks, Frederick Seymour |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Bowen, J. W. | Compton, Joseph |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Cowan, D. M. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Bromfield, William | Cripps, Sir Stafford |
| Ammon, Charles George | Bromley, J. | Daggar, George |
| Angell, Sir Norman | Brooke, W. | Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) |
| Arnott, John | Brothers, M. | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Denman, Hon. R. D. |
| Ayles, Walter | Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Dukes, C. |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Burgess, F. G. | Duncan, Charles |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Ede, James Chuter |
| Barr, James | Cameron, A. G. | Edmunds, J. E. |
| Batey, Joseph | Cape, Thomas | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Chater, Daniel | Egan, W. H. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Clarke, J. S. | England, Colonel A. |
| Benson, G. | Cluse, W. S. | Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead) |
| Foot, Isaac | Longbottom, A. W. | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Freeman, Peter | Lunn, William | Scott, James |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Scurr, John |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Sexton, Sir James |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | McElwee, A. | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | McEntee, V. L. | Shield, George William |
| Gill, T. H. | McKinlay, A. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Gillett, George M. | Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Glassey, A. E | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Shinwell, E. |
| Gossling, A. G. | Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Gould, F. | Manning, E. L. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Mansfield, w. | Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Gray, Milner | March, S. | Sinkinson, George |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Marcus, M. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Markham, S. F. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Grovel, Thomas E. | Marley, J. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Marshall, Fred | Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Mathers, George | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Hail, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Matters, L. W. | Smith, Tom (Pontetract) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Mills, J. E. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Milner, Major J. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Montague, Frederick | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Sorensen, R. |
| Harris, Percy A. | Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Haycock, A. W. | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Strauss, G. R. |
| Hayes, John Henry | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S-) | Sullivan, J. |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Mort, D. L. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Muff, G. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Muggeridge, H. T. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Herriotts, J. | Murnin, Hugh | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworlh) | Naylor, T. E. | Tillett, Ben |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Hoffman, P. C. | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N) | Toole, Joseph |
| Hollins, A. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Tout, W. J. |
| Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Townend, A. E. |
| Isaacs, George | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Vaughan, David |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Palin, John Henry | Viant, S. P. |
| Jones, Llewellyn-, F. | Palmer, E. T. | Walker, J. |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Watkins, F. C. |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Perry, S. F. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline). |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Kedward, R. M. (Kent. Ashford) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | West, F. R. |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Pole, Major D. G. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Potts, John S. | White, H. G. |
| Lang, Gordon | Price, M. P. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Quibell, D. J. K. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Law, Albert (Bolton) | Raynes, W. R. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Law, A. (Rossendale) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-spring) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Lawrence, Susan | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Lawson, John James | Ritson, J. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Romeril, H. G. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Leach, W. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Rowson, Guy | Wood, Major McKenzie (Benff) |
| Lees, J. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | |
| Leonard, W. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Lloyd, C. Ellis | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) | Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton. |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Sanders, W. S. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Kirkwood, D. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Longden, F. | Wise, E. F. |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | |
| Cove, William G. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. | Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley. |
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe next Amendment that I select is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise)—In page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "regulations," and to insert instead thereof the word "orders."
§ Mr. MAXTONWhat about the Amendment standing in my name and 520 those of two colleagues of mine—In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words "as soon as may be," and to insert instead thereof the words "three years"?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member knows perfectly well that the Chair has power to select. I have not selected the Amendment to which he refers.
§ Mr. MAXTONI do not know whether, in your consideration—
§ Mr. STEPHENI would like to submit that, in my experience in the House, the Chair has always been willing to listen to Members submitting reasons why an Amendment should be taken as a substantial Amendment.
§ Mr. STEPHENOn that point of Order—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThere is really no point of Order at all. If the Chair announces that it has not selected an Amendment, no point of Order can arise on its decision. That is quite definite. If the hon. Member's point of Order is to question my selection, no point of Order can be raised.
§ Mr. STEPHENI am not questioning your right to make a selection. The point of Order that I am submitting is this: When you have intimated that you are calling another Amendment, is a Member not in order in rising and submitting to you reasons why an Amendment that has been put down should be selected?
§ Mr. WISEI beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "regulations," and to insert instead thereof the word "orders."
This is one of a number of similar Amendments, appearing all through the Bill, to delete references to the regulations, for the purpose of submitting, for this Bill, an alternative procedure, which is set out in a later Amendment also standing in my name and those of my colleagues who are associated with me in this Amendment—in page 3, line 5, at the end, to add the words:
(6) Any order made by the Minister under this Section shall be laid forthwith before each House of Parliament, and shall be of no effect until a resolution approving it has been passed by each House.522 The procedure laid down in the Bill as it stands, for bringing into effect the very big changes in legislation foreshadowed in the Bill, is that such changes shall be effected by regulations made under Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. Those regulations require what is often known as the negative procedure in respect of Orders made by departments, that is to say, they come into force as soon as they are made, but, as soon as may be after they are made, they have to be laid before each House of Parliament and to remain for 20 days on the Table of the House, becoming fully effective unless during those 20 days an Address has been agreed to in either House praying that the regulations may be annulled. That means that, unless it is possible one night at the conclusion of the ordinary business—because the Standing Orders closing business down at 11 or 11.30 do not apply to such Motions—to secure a quorum of the House and move an Address to the King to annul the regulations, the regulations are operative; and one knows that, in 99 per cent. of such cases, it is neither possible to find a convenient time for moving such an Address nor to keep a House to carry it through, unless, of course, the Government accord proper time earlier in the day for its discussion.If, therefore, the Bill goes through as it stands, without some modification on the lines that' I have suggested, the moment the Bill is passed, early in August, the Minister may, having got the Advisory Committee together, make regulations depriving a large number of insured persons of benefit, and those regulations would come into effect at once, and would operate with the full force of law, without any power of challenging them until after the House has reassembled in the Autumn; and then it would only be possible to annul them, and not to modify them, by the very cumbrous, obsolete, and antiquated procedure of an Address to the Crown, moved, if at all, somewhere in the middle of the night.
I am sure that that is not a procedure which commends itself to the House. It may be, and no doubt is, reasonable for the purposes for which it was devised in the Unemployment Insurance Act—purposes of ordinary, simple, administrative routine, dealing, for example, 523 with the method under which the insurance offices issue stamps and cards, the procedure by which they return contributions collected in error, the detailed procedure of courts of referees, and matters of that ordinary administrative kind which raise no point of important principle, and on which, quite rightly, the Departments have, after proper inquiry and examination into all the details, to formulate their own regulations. But the purposes with which this Bill proposes to deal are quite otherwise. It is a Bill to provide procedure for the amendment, in vital and essential parts, of existing Acts of Parliament. We are not dealing here with small points of administrative detail, but with legislation. This Advisory Committee, plus the Minister, have full powers of legislation. As the Bill says, they can
impose such additional conditions and terms with respect to the receipt of benefit and such restrictions on the amount and period of benefit, and make such modifications in the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts relating to the determination of claims for benefit, as may appear necessary.The whole case which the Minister has put before us is that these are very difficult points, not of administration, but of legislative detail, which it is not easy or convenient to discuss in the House. This is an entirely different type of problem, an entirely different set of circumstances, from that with which the regulations under the original Acts were framed to deal, or which were normally dealt with by procedure similar to that set out in this Bill. The House has always, in matters of this importance, jealously guarded its powers, and this point is no new one in this Parliament, for in three or four Bills already the procedure proposed by the Government in this Bill has been submitted to Committees, either on the Floor of the House or upstairs, and has been rejected by those Committees, generally without a Division, and with the full approval of the Minister in charge of the Bill, and procedure on the lines of that which I am proposing has been incorporated in the Bill.That happened, for example, in the case of the Consumers' Council Bill. Under the original draft of that Bill which was laid before this Session of 524 Parliament, an Order by the Board of Trade that the council might investigate—not to mention taking action—claims or cases in which profiteering was alleged, could be laid on the Table and would have gone through under the negative procedure set out in this Bill. The Committee, without, as far as I remember, a Division, decided that in a matter of that sort, which is of infinitely less importance than the matters dealt with in this Bill, it was necessary that the Order should not become law unless there was a definite Resolution of the House making it law. Again, in the case of the Agricultural Marketing Bill which is now before Parliament, the original draft suggested the procedure which is now suggested by the Government for this Bill, but in the Committee, without any opposition from the Minister, the procedure was changed to that which we now propose in this series of Amendments. In the Coal Mines Bill of last year, orders enabling central schemes to be made were found necessary and the same situation occurred. The Government originally proposed to let such schemes come into operation without a vote of the House but, in deference to pressure, persuasion and argument in Committee, they changed it to the procedure now contemplated. In regard to orders under the Road Traffic Act, the Government took the course proposed by our Amendment. I hope, on a matter of such vital importance as this affecting, as it does, the interests of tens of thousands of insured persons, the Government will give the House an opportunity of saying whether it approves or disapproves the proposals that have been fashioned by the Advisory Committee and by the Minister.
I am aware that the procedure in the House in regard to these Departmental orders is very unsatisfactory in either case, but the main criticism directed against the procedure of the House in dealing with Departmental matters of that sort is that the House exercises not too much but too little control over the Departments. I do not agree with a great many of the things that the Lord Chief Justice said in his book dealing with the growing powers of the Departments. I think you have to give a good deal of discretion to the Departments on points of administrative detail. At the same time, you have to provide a proper procedure by which the House, 525 if it pleases, quite properly, in full Session, not at two or three o'clock in the morning, with a large portion of its membership too worn out to give proper attention to the matters that may come before it, should have an opportunity of criticising, and of accepting or rejecting, the administrative legislation which the Department may put forward. That point is at present before a Committee of the House and a Departmental Committee outside. Both of them, as far as I know, have been more concerned to give the House proper control over the Departments than to let that control slip out of their fingers. To go backwards now in a matter of this importance would seem to be a very reactionary and unfortunate step.
There is no point of principle involved. I cannot conceive that the matter has ever been before the Cabinet or that any Cabinet time has been devoted to it. Speaking with some little knowledge of the habits of Ministers in dealing with complicated Acts of Parliament, and of other very important matters which would have to be brought before the Minister, I rather doubt whether even the Minister has given very much attention to the matter. It is plain, from what has happened in other Bills which have been laid before Parliament, that the Government draftsmen have got into the way of slipping in a Clause which takes the real power of revising this Departmental legislation away from the House. One knows quite well how it happens. Permanent officials who are asked by the draftsmen how they should put it, whether negatively or positively, naturally say, "We do not want to be held up by the possibility of Parliamentary discussion. Put it in such a way that we can slip it through the House with the least interference as quickly as possible." I expect that is the reason why it appears in this form in the Bill.
If there was any case—and I am sure there was—for changing the form of this reference to Parliament in the Agricultural Marketing Bill, the Consumer's Council Bill and the Coal Mines Bill, all of them of the last year or two, there is an infinitely stronger case for dealing with a matter of this sort, affecting directly and personally the interests of a very large number of poor and com-526 Paratively poor people, who may be very apprehensive as to the effects of the Bill or alarmed as to what may happen to benefits to which they think, rightly or wrongly, that they are entitled, and who look to the House to give proper care and attention to any proposals that may come before it for amending the Bill. If they realise that the control of this House can only be exercised, if at all, in the middle of the night in a negative way, if you can find time even then to move an Address to the Crown, they would be even more apprehensive than they are. This Amendment raises no point of primary Government policy. It raises no question as to whether the general structure of the Bill is right or wrong. I hope very much that the right hon. Lady will accord to representations made from her own side of the Committee the same sympathetic consideration as has been accorded on most other Bills which have been brought before this Parliament to representations made by other parties.
§ Sir DENNIS HERBERTThe Amendment raises two rather different considerations. One is the question of its application to the declared objects of the Bill and the other, the point which has perhaps stressed rather more strongly, of the procedure in the House generally in a matter of this kind. In regard to the application of this method of dealing with the objects of the Bill, the hon. Member and I will probably take very different views. We take the opinion that the Government are not doing their duty courageously, thoroughly or properly. We consider that the thing should have been dealt with in a totally different way.
§ Mr. MAXTONYou never gave any indication of that in the Lobby.
§ Sir D. HERBERTSometimes one feels that a Bill that is imperfect may be better than nothing. That may be one way of looking at it. Those words were merely given as a reason for my saying, as I was about to do, that I do not propose to waste the time of the Committee by any discussion of the application of the Amendment to the object of the Bill, but rather to say a word or two from the point of procedure. I do not think, in all the many examples of delegated legislation which have taken place since the War, there has been a more flagrant ex- 527 ample of delegation of power to alter Acts of Parliament which, if they are to be altered at all, should be altered by Parliament. In these circumstances, entirely apart from any question of the merits or demerits of the Amendment with regard to the objects of the Bill, this is a case where the Committee ought to support the Amendment in order to draw attention to the very unsatisfactory condition of our procedure in regard to delegated legislation and to the very extreme nature of those proposals, which I do not consider is justified in the least by the circumstances in which the Bill is brought forward. I support the Amendment strongly from the point of view of the interests of the procedure of the House and of the retaining by this House of its control over executive Ministers and Departments.
§ Miss BONDFIELDIt might be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene to explain the issue that is involved in the Amendment. I should like to assure the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) that this matter of the difference between order and regulation has been considered most carefully from every angle, and I want to put before the Committee the reasons why we have definitely come down on the side of regulations, and why we feel that the position would be far too complicated to be of very much value in dealing with the situation if we (had to proceed by way of the process of order as described by the hon. Gentleman opposite. We have to remember that the very purpose of the Bill, which is an experimental thing, is to see whether there is by this method a possibility of securing elasticity, the possibility of appropriate action either to make or amend a regulation. If we find, for example, that in the drafting of a regulation dealing, let us say, with the position of certain categories of married women, words that we thought were water-tight were capable of two interpretations by a court of referees, we should want to reconsider that quickly without having to wait until we could lay the matter before Parliament. Anyone who knows anything about administration in regard to health or unemployment insurance knows what a tremendous output of regulations has to be made on all sorts of small points. In the 1925 Act the word "order" was used. An order is in the same position 528 as a regulation, in that it becomes operative as soon as it is made and, if the House deals with it, it cannot deal with it retrospectively, but deals with it as it is at the moment when it is being considered.
7.0 p.m.
The other point is that we are exploring, quite admittedly, almost unknown territory. We have to select certain categories of persons. I said on the Second Beading that, in my opinion, it would be a very small number within this circumscribed area which would really be personally affected by any of these regulations, but it does mean that there is to be this exploring of these areas where up to now we have not had any machinery by which we could make a differentiation of the nature suggested in the subsequent Sub-sections in Clause 2. Therefore, the greatest administrative objection to accepting the Amendment is that it would cause such delay as to defeat the very object of the Bill itself. That, of course, is a matter which is within the power of the House to decide, but if they want me to work the Bill, I think they will require to give me the elasticity which is obtained by regulation and which could not possibly be obtained under the method of the Order which has to be laid before both Houses. There is another point, which I might call the constitutional point, in connection with a positive Resolution having to be laid before both Houses. Personally, I have the strongest objection to requiring a positive Resolution from the other House on a matter of this kind which might involve a question of finance. I think that is a fundamental objection.
With regard to the illustrations that we are given about the categories of Orders where concessions have been made in connection with other Departments, I have said enough to show that, in my opinion, these regulations will be of a different kind to those referred to in connection with those other Bills. I think that there is a very real misapprehension on this matter. I quite understand it, because it is almost impossible to enable people who are not really familiar with the details of this very complicated business of unemployment insurance to realise the ramifications of the administrative machine, but I want to make it 529 perfectly clear that these regulations which are to be made will not say that persons within a class will not be entitled to benefit. That is not the intention of the Bill itself. The intention is that the effect of the regulations will be that the persons within the several classes which have to be decided will still be entitled to benefit if they satisfy certain additional conditions. The whole point of making the regulations is to lay down what other additional conditions are required in these various categories. It is from that point of view, and with a desire for elasticity and from the point of view that it is an experiment, and that you cannot really conduct it with any chance of success on the principle of proceeding by positive order, and because the Bill itself will very definitely restrict the area in which the regulations may be made, that I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, and to allow me to proceed by regulation.
§ Sir CHARLES TREVELYANI am very much disappointed at the attitude which the Minister has taken up. This Bill gives, in effect, the power to make laws by Regulation. In effect, the Regulations to be made are to create an arbitrary change in the position of scores of thousands of the unemployed. The Bill gives to the House only an exceedingly clumsy method of intervention which we all thoroughly understand, which we all know is general in effect, and which can only be made effective when there is a very big general opposition to a thing which is thoroughly understood. The "after Eleven o'clock" business is no good unless there is already a firm opinion that is going to assert itself. It is now proposed to introduce Regulations which, as has been repeatedly Said, in matters of detail are going to alter the position of unemployment insurance. There are matters where very likely these Regulations may have something to be said for them, but where after discussion it may very easily come to the mind of the House that the Regulations, as a whole, are bad. We want to have an opportunity to decide upon them. I am very much disappointed at the speech of the right hon. Lady. All that she really told us was that what was wanted was prompt action, and no delay. It is a very odd thing that these 530 anomalies have only just been discovered, and that the prompt action was not asked for by the late Government or by the present Government until to-day. Why is prompt action and no delay so very much wanted?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThe right hon. Gentleman, I think, has misunderstood what I said. I said the principles of the Regulations governing the whole of the work of insurance had been on the basis that the action taken by Regulations was required promptly. I was not referring to what is going to happen in future, but to what has been the practice in connection with Regulations.
§ Sir C. TREVELYANI have pointed out that these are Regulations which may affect the whole status of unemployed people. There may be many meticulous administrative details where prompt action may be desirable, but the question is what is going to be the main position of the unemployed people, and not what is going to be the particular Regulation that is going to affect them. I think that the House of Commons ought to have an opportunity of dealing in the open with a question of this kind, and I do say that to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench who, of course, have very big majorities, while, of course, minorities on any question in this Parliament are liable to look very small. But that does not in the least remove the amount of uneasiness which is in the minds of their own party. The uneasiness in the minds of their followers consists largely in this. I speak in rather a different way, perhaps, on this Amendment from some of my hon. Friends here. They have been saying that this Bill is going to be at once used in a disastrous way to the unemployed. Perhaps it may be, but what I am quite certain exists in the minds of numbers of those who are voting for the Bill is uneasiness as to what will happen if this Government ceases to be in office, and another Government comes in. It is not the short run but the long run that is affecting my mind more than anything else.
For this reason, I ask myself what the control of this House is? I say that whether this Government or any future Government is in office, if these regulations are brought in to control the opportunities of scores of thousands of unem- 531 ployed people, the House of Commons ought openly and consciously to make up its own mind by definite resolutions as to whether it wants it or not. It does not matter what the other House does, because we all know perfectly well that if these regulations are going to have any effect, they are for the purpose of economy, and you may be perfectly certain the House of Lords is going to do what you want. That does not matter. What does matter is that this House should give its decision openly. I am thinking of the time when right hon. Gentlemen opposite may possibly be—I hope not—on the benches here. If they are, they will use this Bill as it stands to do comparatively secretly what they want. Then let this House try after 11 o'clock to stop them. It is not a very easy thing to get at the unemployed in these days, and even if a Conservative Government, which wanted to cut down a large number of unemployment benefits, were to bring forward a proposal, they might find it very difficult, if there were a public debate in this House where they had to get a Resolution passed, to get that Resolution through, even if they had a majority. That is what I am looking forward to, and that is why I ask hon. Friends of mine on this side of the Committee, who may feel that they must generally support the Bill, to try to put pressure on the Government to keep the real power of this House to control the operations of this Bill.
§ Mr. ANEURIN BEVANI should have thought, after the experience some of us have had in the House in the last few months, that an Amendment of this kind would at least be receiving support from the benches immediately opposite. If my analysis is correct, I should have thought that on this occasion the Liberal party would show themselves the defenders of the real democracy. The reason why the procedure followed on this Bill has been adopted by the Government is because of their experience on the last occasion when they had an Unemployment Insurance Bill before the House, when Members were able to show with exactitude what the consequences of a certain thing would be and they deleted this proposal by the Government. Now, of course, every effort is being made 532 to short-circuit the House of Commons in order that the Government may be able to do something that they could not obtain the consent of the House to do if a Bill were brought in.
The procedure which is followed in this Bill is of a most dangerous kind. I should have thought that all my hon. Friends on this side would have been particularly anxious to have retained as much control as possible over the character of unemployment insurance legislation. Whatever view may be taken of anomalies, many of my hon. Friends here, like the Secretary of State for War, believed that there are certain anomalies in the administration of unemployment insurance benefit which could be abolished. There appears to be general agreement in all parts of the Committee that there are certain abuses that ought to be remedied. I do not subscribe to that point of view, but I admit that there is a very general feeling of that kind. If there are these anomalies and these abuses, then there is such a case for their abolition, that a Bill could be passed through the House of Commons by a considerable majority. The Minister of Labour ought not to have any dubiety about what reception a Bill or Order would have if it is to deal with manifest abuses. If the case is so overwhelming, why is it you cannot have this Amendment accepted in order that we may be given, what we have not heard up to now from any source, namely, a fair description of the sort of anomaly and abuse that this Bill is intended to deal with?
When I saw this Bill, in the first place, being a very young and innocent Parliamentarian, I thought it was a very clever device to postpone a very difficult question. I took the view which I believe is still held by many Members on this side, that the Government did not seriously intend to use these powers at all. One hon. Member said, "Do not give the game away." It has already been given away by the Minister of Labour and by the militant speech which the Secretary of State for War made on the Second Reading. I understood that at first this was simply an ingenious bit of shifting of the burden of responsibility.
The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young)The hon. Member must keep to the difference between "Regulations" and "Orders" as covered by the Amendment.
§ Mr. BEVANI understand that the difference between an order and a regulation is that an order would have to have the positive approval of the House, whereas the regulation need only have disapproval. I am attempting to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that an order will have to be adopted by the House before it can become law, and to the consequences involved through allowing this action to be taken by regulation. What the Committee has to remember is that although on this side there are many hon. Members who are supporting the Bill because they think that its provisions will never be carried out, there are hon. Members on the main Opposition Benches who are supporting the Bill because it is precisely what they want and have been hoping for for years.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment. This point does not arise upon the question of whether you desire the Bill or not.
§ Mr. BEVANThe only alteration I need have made to keep strictly in order was to have used the word "Order" in place of the word "Bill." Then my words would have been perfectly relevant. Members of the Opposition are supporting the procedure by regulation because it contains for them the very principle for which they have been fighting for years, and that they may be able to reduce the standards of the employed in this country without paying the full democratic price for doing so. That is the whole basis of it. I should have thought that the one thing that a Labour party which had come into office and had attained whatever power it enjoys at the present time because of the poverty of unemployment, would have kept its hand upon, and kept upon the Floor of the House of Commons as much as possible, is the question of unemployment. No attempt ought to be made by a party depending upon the working-class vote to shift responsibility in respect of unemployment and surround it by red tape and make the position as difficult as possible. I should have thought they 534 would want to keep it as much as possible on the Floor of the House and so be able to expose the party opposite to the consequences of their attitude towards the unemployed. This procedure will have the effect of shifting unemployment insurance benefit from the centre of the political stage.
I have had experience of unemployment which has made me very bitter. I was unemployed for nearly three years, and I remember that in 1923 this House carried an Unemployment Insurance Act which was intended to fix an income limit for the receipt of unemployment insurance transitional benefit. A regulation was issued in pursuance of that Act which laid down certain income limits. At that time I was supporting a widowed mother. As a consequence of that regulation—and I shall never forget it; it was a matter over which Parliament itself had no control, and it-was a misinterpretation of the intention of Parliament—and because the earnings of my sister, who was 19 years of age, divided by three came to more than 11s. a week my unemployment insurance benefit and the benefit in respect of my mother were stopped and I had to live upon the earnings of my sister. If you attempt to make the grievances of the unemployed inarticulate by preventing their representatives from having an opportunity of giving expression to their grievances on the Floor of this House you will bring greater discredit upon Parliament and Parliamentary institutions than by anything else you can do. We are not merely dealing with the question of insurance but with a vital human tragedy. The only way in which that tragedy, which is being experienced by 2,500,000 of our fellow citizens, may become a political drama of equal status is by keeping everything which deals with unemployment insurance in the centre of Parliamentary politics so that the unemployed may feel that they will always have a voice at Westminster.
This is a niggardly, mean spirited attempt to vary the contractual relationships between the State and the citizen by means of regulations over which the citizen has no control. It is an attempt to make the administration of unemployment insurance benefit at the mercy of the fiat of the Minister of Labour over which Parliament will have no control 535 whatever. It will bring Parliamentary institutions into discredit. I wish to appeal to Members of this Committee who have a regard for Parliamentary institutions which young Members like myself have not yet acquired, and which our experiences of the last two years make it increasingly difficult to acquire, to try and keep this matter on the Floor of the House of Commons in order that it may be given proper ventilation whenever the opportunity occurs.
The claim of the Minister of Labour for procedure by regulation is that it will enable her to be elastic and to change the regulations day by day. The same argument could be used with respect to every class of legislation passed by this House. I understand that the constitutional position is that this House passes legislation and that the courts of law interpret that legislation. It has become an intrinsic part of our constitution that the judiciary shall be entrusted by the Constitution with the task of interpreting the mind of Parliament. From time to time it has become necessary in the lifetime of a Parliament to revise Acts of Parliament which have miscarried because the courts have given an interpretation to an enactment which Parliament never intended should be so interpreted. That is a common experience. The courts of referees have exactly the same relationship in regard to unemployment insurance legislation as the courts of law have to the Statutes generally, and it is perfectly true—no one denies it—that from time to time the umpires and the courts of referees give interpretations of insurance legislation which the House of Commons never intended. But is that any reason for the House of Commons to give up its legislative power? The same sort of thing might be done with every piece of legislation which goes through this House.
Members on this side of the Committee have been complaining for years that many Acts of Parliament intended to give benefits to the working-classes have been misinterpreted by the courts, and we have pleaded from time to time that amending legislation should be passed so that the intention of Parliament might be implemented in administration. I have the question of workmen's compensation in mind. Does the Minister 536 of Labour suggest that in future, because of the unnecessary rigidity and the lack of elasticity in the interpretation of workmen's compensation, this House should surrender its powers to deal with workmen's compensation entirely and that we should legislate by regulation? I had the honour to be associated with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) in the preparation of certain proposals. We suggested that the House of Commons should be brought up-to-date.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid that the suggestion made in connection with the hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) does not arise here. The question again is the difference between "Orders" and "Regulations."
§ Mr. BEVANIf the Chairman will permit me, I intended immediately to come back and point out that the suggestion of the hon. Member was that we should legislate by regulation. It was received with derision and indignation, and hon. Members on this side of the Committee said that we were vandals.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI think my hon. Friend does the hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) rather an injustice. What he asked to be done was by order.
§ Mr. BEVANThe hon. Member for Smethwick wanted to legislate by decree, and Parliament would have had to express its approval or disapproval before such a decree could have been promulgated. I was about to point out before the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) interrupted me that, adventurous though we were in our proposals, the Front Bench now go far beyond us. They do not want to wait for the consent of the House of Commons before their decrees are promulgated. As a matter of fact, it has been whispered to me that they want to promulgate their decrees while the House is in Recess, so that there shall be no opportunity to enable hon. Members to express their views upon the intended regulations. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee, as I have said, were very indignant and said that we were laying hands on the holy of holies and attempting to take away from this House the power which had been built up during a hundred years of democratic struggle. We 537 wanted to do that in order that something might be done to make this kind of panic legislation unnecessary. We wanted an efficient machine to be produced in this House, so that it might be possible for us to rescue Parliament from a dilemma, to escape which it is now resorting to this cowardly device. We wanted to do that, but no one ever suggested, and no one connected with the working-class movement of this country could suggest, that the problem of poverty could be shifted out of politics and made the subject of legislation by regulation.
As far as I am able to understand philosophy, I believe that when you have power, it is then that you want to escape democratic pressure. It is when you have got power by exploiting the poverty which exists, as the Labour party have exploited it for the last 50 years, and as a consequence of exploiting it have achieved power in the House of Commons, that perhaps it will be justifiable for a Government taking a revolutionary outlook to get rid of stupid persons who sit on the Front Opposition Bench, and short circuit the House of Commons by legislating by decree or regulation. I would subscribe to that if I thought there was a revolutionary outlook on the Front Government Bench. That is not their intention. We have not yet accomplished power, and not having accomplished it, and until we have accomplished it, the problem of poverty should be kept in the centre of the political stage. I can understand hon. and right hon. Members opposite desiring to obfuscate political issues, if I may use an awkward word, and to make the outline between the parties more difficult to discern. They want to make it appear that the sufferings of the unemployed are due to the action of omniscient gods over which Parliament has no contral. That is their desire, and their intention, and for a party which is defending power it is a perfectly good doctrine to make democracy as little articulate as possible on poverty. Those are the tactics and strategy of a class which has power, but for a class attempting to get it they want to keep to the broad and easy road of keeping all the issues perfectly clear.
The duty of a democratic party is to expose the rich to the attack of the poor. That is their duty, and that is what we 538 have been doing for over 60 years. It is the duty of a working class party organisation to direct the attack, to surrender no democratic privilege or political articulation until power has been accomplished. This Clause, which this Amendment is designed to amend, is a piece of political craftsmanship which, if it is developed, prevents my class and people seeing exactly what is being done, and who is doing it. Hon. Members have talked about the corruption of politics and the House of Commons being no longer able to deal with these problems because it is shovelling out money to the people who vote for them. No working class party can ever be in any different position.
§ The CHAIRMANOrder, order.
§ Mr. BEVANI beg pardon. I seem to find it extremely difficult to keep myself in order on this occasion, but I understood that the issues raised by the Amendment were of the broadest kind, involving Parliamentary prerogative and constitutional practice, and that on such issues I should be allowed to raise the questions I have endeavoured to discuss. I want to submit to my hon. Friends on this side that they ought not to allow this Amendment to be defeated. I do not want to say anything which will arouse bad feeling among my Parliamentary colleagues, but I am satisfied that if this Clause goes through unamended they will be cursing this Bill from one end of the country to the other. They will curse it because the powers will be exercised by the Minister, or, if she does not exercise them, they will curse it because they will have given a valuable precedent to hon. and right hon. Members opposite. If the Government is to remain in office for a year or two longer the powers contained in this Clause, to amend legislation by regulation, will expose the right hon. Lady to weekly, monthly and yearly pressure from hon. Members opposite so that she will be forced to exercise these powers more and more to the detriment of the people.
The party to which I have the honour to belong is defending itself in the country because, in consequence of its unemployment insurance legislation, it is possible to hold an umbrella over the heads of the working classes and defend 539 them against attack. That claim is substantially founded and I would like hon. Members to remember that it is not only the amount of benefit which makes an unemployed man feel secure, it is the security in the receipt of that benefit, and if these regulations are to be issued one after another, not preceded by any Parliamentary Debate, but like a bolt from the blue, are issued from Whitehall one after another attacking this class and that class, you will get such a neurosis amongst the unemployed and such a feeling of insecurity that you will undo all the good work we have done by our last protection of the workers.
I beg the Government to accept this Amendment. It is the protection which a minority Government is entitled to expect from Parliament. Whatever is done Parliament should accept full responsibility for it. I ask the right hon. Lady not to place us in the position of having to go to the country as though we were arguing against our own people. All we want to do, all I want to do, and I have 49 per cent. unemployed in my constituency, is to have an opportunity of voicing my opinion about a piece of legislation before it comes into operation, and I feel that in the interests of democracy and of the working class in general it will not be safe for any Government to take away such powers from Parliament because it will have the result of driving our people into channels of activity which we should all subsequently deplore.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI do not intend to delay the Committee for more than a few moments, but I want to say one or two things in reply to the speech of the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Sir C. Trevelyan) and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Wise). The question is whether we should adopt the system in the Bill of regulations as the best means for dealing with this matter or whether we shall adopt the system of orders, which will have to be passed through this House. The whole tendency of legislation should in my opinion be to clear a way in Parliament for constructive legislation, and the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leicester, East, of having these endless orders passed through this House, would lead to an absolute congestion of busi- 540 ness. At the present moment business is very much congested, but the suggestion of the hon. Member would make it much worse and would prevent a Labour Government from dealing with constructive legislation. The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle says that we should take a long view and think of what may happen if the present Government falls and another Conservative Government comes in. Does he think that a Conservative Government with a majority in this House would not amend this Bill if it is in the form in which he suggests? Does he think they would allow themselves to be held up by this cumbrous method and by taking up the precious time of Parliament by a discussion of these orders 2 I suggest that in this matter my right hon. Friend is not taking the long view. I think the method suggested in the Bill as good as any, although we none of us welcome it. I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the words in the Clause:
The Minister shall cause every report received by him from the Advisory Committee to be laid forthwith before each House of Parliament.There will be ample opportunity to debate the administration of this Bill even if we are in opposition, which we all hope will not be the case for the sake of the men and women we are discussing now. There will be, however, ample opportunity to discuss these matters, and a resolute opposition can always raise opportunities for debate. The regulations themselves can be debated after 11 o'clock at night. I cite the case of Electricity Orders and Gas Orders. They can be discussed in this House, and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) on one occasion initiated a most useful discussion on one of these orders.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYExactly the same thing applies to regulations. You can raise any matter on them in the same way; and there are not the safeguards which the hon. Member for East Leicester supposes there are if the Amendment were carried. With all due respect to hon. Members below the Gangway, they do not yet know the opportunities they have of raising grievances. They have not yet 541 learnt all that there is to be learnt about ventilating grievances in this House. My main reason for supporting the Government on this matter is that I want to see more power given to Ministers, when they have the support of Parliament. I wish to see the road clear for useful and constructive legislation which will raise the whole status of our population.
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the word 'regulations' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 28.
543| Division No. 404.] | AYES. | [7.45 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Mort, D. L. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Muff, G. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Muggeridge, H. T. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Murnin, Hugh |
| Angell, Sir Norman | Harris, Percy A. | Naylor, T. E. |
| Arnott, John | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Haycock, A. W. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hayes, John Henry | Palin, John Henry |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Barr, James | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Palmer, E. T. |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Perry, S. F. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Herriotts, J. | Peters, Dr. Sidney John |
| Benson, G. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Hoffman, P. C. | Pole, Major D. G. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Hollins, A. | Potts, John S. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Pybus, Percy John |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Isaacs, George | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Bromfield, William | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Bromley, J. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Raynes, W. R. |
| Brooke, W. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Richards, R. |
| Brothers, M. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring). |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Ritson, J. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Romeril, H. G. |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Cameron, A. G. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Rowson, Guy |
| Cape, Thomas | Lang, Gordon | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Chater, Daniel | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Sanders, W. S. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lawrence, Susan | Scott, James |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Scurr, John |
| Compton, Joseph | Lawson, John James | Sexton, Sir James |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Daggar, George | Leach, W. | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Shield, George William |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lees, J. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Leonard, W. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Dukes, C. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Shinwell, E. |
| Duncan, Charles | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Ede, James Chuter | Logan, David Gilbert | Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Longbottom, A. W. | Sinkinson, George |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lunn, William | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Egan, W. H. | Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| England, Colonel A. | McElwee, A. | Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley) |
| Foot, Isaac | McEntee, V. L. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Freeman, Peter | McKinlay, A. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Smith, W. R (Norwich) |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Manning, E. L. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Mansfield, W. | Sorensen, R. |
| Gill, T. H. | March, S. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Gillett, George M. | Marcus, M. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Glassey, A. E. | Markham, S. F. | Sultivan, J. |
| Gossling, A. G. | Marley, J. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Gould, F. | Marshall, Fred | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Gray, Milner | Mathers, George | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Matters, L. W. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Mills, J. E. | Tillett, Ben |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Montague, Frederick | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Toole, Joseph |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Tout, W. J. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Townend, A. E. |
| Vaughan, David | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Viant, S. P. | West, F. R. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Walker, J. | Westwood, Joseph | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Wallace, H. W. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Watkins, F. C. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. | |
| Wellock, Wilfred | Williams, David (Swansea, East) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Welsh, James (Paisley) | Williams, T (York, Don Valley) | Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton. |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, w. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Sandham, E. |
| Ayles, Walter | Horrabin, J. F. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Kirkwood, D. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour. | Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Wise, E. F. |
| Cove, William G. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley. |
Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment I select is that in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton)—in page 1, line 14, after the word "impose," to insert the words" during the continuance of this Act."
§ Mr. MAXTONOn a point of Order. I would point out that you also, Mr. Chairman, are failing to select an Amendment which stands in my name. Tour predecessor was unfortunately unable to select my previous Amendment. Now I find that you also have jumped an Amendment. It seems to me rather unfair that two very substantial Amendments standing in my name—that is of some importance to me at least—should in the selective process of two chairmen find themselves dropped out of opportunity for discussion.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has a large number of Amendments on the Paper, and probably he will be luckier with the others than with this one.
§ The CHAIRMANI have selected an Amendment, and there is no question of Order.
§ Mr. WISEWith great respect, you can hardly tell what is my point of Order until I have put it. The point on which I ask your Ruling is this: What effect will the failure to select the Amendment mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) have on the other Amendments standing in the names of various hon. Friends of mine dealing with the classes of anomalies that affect insured persons disadvantageously—the 544 other types of anomalies on which I made various statements to Mr. Speaker earlier in the day? The particular Amendment to which the hon. Member for Bridgeton has referred links up with later Amendments. It deals, not with the question of transitional benefit, but with the question of ordinary benefit. I would remind you, as I reminded your predecessor in the Chair, that when the Unemployment Insurance Bill of 1929 was before the House you, or whoever was in the Chair at the time, ruled that Amendments dealing, not with transitional benefit, but with ordinary benefit, were in order.
§ The CHAIRMANI cannot recall the previous decision. The hon. Gentleman says that the Amendment refers only to ordinary benefit, but that has been a matter for me to find out. The Amendment referred to, and others, especially one at the end of the Order Paper, a new Clause, will come into conflict with the transitional benefit arrangement. At the moment I am not going beyond that.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is my decision. Many of these Amendments interfere with transitional benefit and are outside the scope of the Bill and the Money Resolution. I call on Mr. Winterton.
§ Mr. WISEI ask your Ruling on this point. If I am able to satisfy you, as I am sure I can, that the later Amendments deal, not with transitional benefit, but with the power of the Committee to make—
§ The CHAIRMANI have called a specific Amendment. I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that in my opinion 545 the later Amendments to which he refers will affect transitional benefit, and that therefore I must rule them out of order. I cannot go beyond that. I have given my decision and call Mr. Winterton.
§ Mr. WISEBut I am asking your decision on a point of Order, not on the later Amendments, but on this Amendment. If I am able to satisfy you, as I think I can, that when we get to the later Amendments they affect ordinary benefit and not transitional benefits, will the exclusion of Debate upon this first Amendment render the moving of the later Amendments impossible?
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a simple point. If I accepted the hon. Member's view that the Amendment affected only ordinary benefit, the proposed new Clause would not be out of order.
Mr. ERNEST WINTERTONI beg to move, in page 1, line 14, after the word "impose," to insert the words
during the continuance of this Act.It is necessary to read the Amendment with another on Clause 5, line 19, which proposes to insert the words:This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines.8.0 p.m.I think it has been evident to the Committee that there is considerable misgiving on all sides as to the nature of this Bill. If we read the Second Reading Debate we find that in every quarter of the House there was testimony to the fact that the Bill was brought forward by the Government in some fear and trembling. The case for this Amendment was made out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot), and I expect him to be with me whole-heartedly in supporting the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out in his speech that it is not the machinery which is important, but what you mean to do with the machinery. In order that there may be some opportunity to revise and review this machinery, the Amendment suggests that until Parliament otherwise determines the position shall be capable of review at the end of December, 1932. The reason for that proposition is that none of us feel very easy about this Bill. 546 Serious doubts have been expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove. He told us that it was a departure of great importance, that it was a new D.O.R.A. for the whole scheme of unemployment insurance, that it had a transforming effect on the present Acts, that it was a much more powerful engine than the Minister had indicated in her speech, that it was strong meat in view of our financial situation, and that it was over-riding every safeguard which had been given to the unemployed persons. In view of that summary of the effect of the Bill by the hon. and gallant Member, whom no one would charge with exaggerating in a matter of this kind, the House would do well to accept the principle of the Amendment.
Hon. Members on this side ought to welcome the Amendment, otherwise we are going to carry the baby so far as the unpopularity of this Measure is concerned. Although hon. Members opposite have egged on the Government to bring in some such Measure as this, it is noticeable that they do not appear in the Division Lobby in support of it. They remind me of the individual who eggs on other people to a foolish if not a criminal career. They hold a pistol at the head of the Government and say: "Unless you bring in some such Measure as this you will not get your £25,000,000 additional money for the Insurance Fund." Then these conspirators disappear and they will be able in their constituencies to plead the sufficient alibi of the Division Lobby. That is a very clever piece of strategy and it places everyone who supports this Measure in a very difficult position. I hope that we shall receive from the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove and his friends support on our proposal to review the situation. I do not think that this is the last effort on the part of the Opposition to force the Government along this path. I was very much interested to see in a very responsible journal of Conservative opinion, the "Observer," of 24th November, a statement that:
The first essential of sound financial reform is to throw nearly 400,000 persons off the dole and to relegate them to plain outdoor relief.Unfortunately, we are being made the unwilling instrument for this policy which has been declared by the Conservative party. Therefore, because I feel that 547 that strategy should be exposed and that we should be safeguarded from the unpopularity that will accrue from the passage of this Act, I hope the House will accept the Amendment. This Measure is likely to come up against the Labour party months hence, and we have some claim to be delivered from the misrepresentations under which, undoubtedly, the Opposition will seek to place us. We are conscious of the risks we run in bringing in this Bill, but it is a Bill which will not develop the difficulties which some of my hon. Friends on this side foresee. The right hon. Lady has said that this is an experimental Measure. If it is experimental, then there is all the more reason, as suggested in the Amendment, that the House should have an opportunity of reviewing the whole situation and that it shall not remain on the Statute Book unless Parliament so determines at the end of the period.
§ Miss BONDFIELDI cannot accept the Amendment in the form in which it stands on the Order Paper, but if I may put in a manuscript Amendment I think I shall be able to meet my hon. Friend in the purpose that he has in mind. I do not move the Amendment on most of the grounds which he has put forward. I move it because, as he said and as I have said repeatedly, this is an experimental Measure and I am willing to put a date in the Bill. I would draw attention, however, to the awkwardness of the date suggested in my hon. Friend's Amendment. The end of December from the insurance year point of view is a most awkward time. I propose to ask the House to accept the manuscript Amendment later, to insert the words:
Sections 1 and 2 of this Act shall continue in force until the 30th day of Juno, 1933, and no longer.That puts on the date by six months and it synchronises with the end of the insurance year. Another reason for that date, which is sometimes forgotten, is that in the 1930 Act a date was put in by another place, and that Act expires in June, 1933. Therefore, the whole question is bound to be reviewed before that date. For these reasons I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment and I will move the manuscript Amendment in its appropriate place. The 548 Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper covers the whole Bill. Clause 3 has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing, and that is why I confine the manuscript Amendment to Clauses 1 and 2.
§ Mr. McSHANEHad we known that December, 1932, would be in any way awkward, we would have suggested June, 1933. It is a satisfaction to us to know that the matter will be reviewed, when we shall have ample time to consider whatever abuses or difficulties may have arisen. I am glad that the right hon. Lady has met the point.
Mr. WINTERTONAfter the reply of the right hon. Lady, and on her assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. MAXTONIt was difficult to get the sense of the manuscript Amendment. I am afraid that I have not assimilated the meaning of it.
§ Miss BONDFIELDI am moving on the date by six months, from December, 1932, to June, 1933. It applies to the Clauses in the Bill which are germane.
§ Miss BONDFIELDIt limits the operation of the whole Bill, except Clause 3.
§ Mr. WISEMay I then draw attention to the later Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood)—in page 3, line 5, at the end, to add a new Sub-section:
(6) The power of the Minister to make new regulations under this Section shall not continue after the Dissolution of the present Parliament.I hope that Amendment will catch the Chairman's eye. It proposes to limit the power of the Minister to make new regulations under this Section to the continuance of the present Parliament. She will appreciate the purpose of the Amendment. It is a purpose which will com mend itself to everyone who sits on this side of the House. There are very few hon. Members opposite, and I am not sure that they are very wide awake. Therefore, possibly the Amendment may 549 commend itself to the whole House. Before we accept the manuscript Amendment I should like to know whether the right hon. Lady is prepared to accept our Amendment, which is an addition to hers.
§ The CHAIRMANWe cannot discuss that Amendment, which will come later.
§ The CHAIRMANShe suggested that at a later stage she will move it.
§ Mr. WISEAm I to understand that I shall have an opportunity of discussing that Amendment at a later stage?
§ The CHAIRMANCertainly.
§ The CHAIRMANOrder! Order!
§ Mr. WISEWe are placed in a difficulty. I am sure that the Chair has given consideration to the Amendments on the Order Paper. All that I am asking is whether after the Amendment which the right hon. Lady proposes to move we shall have an opportunity of discussing the other Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANThere will be an opportunity of discussing the right hon. Lady's Amendment. She has read out the Amendment. That will be a. Government Amendment.
§ Mr. MAXTONOn a point of Order. My point was not as to the intention of the right hon. Lady. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton) was moving his Amendment in order to make it possible for a date to be inserted at a later stage. The right hon. Lady tells the House that she is prepared to accept the insertion of a date at a later stage, and on that undertaking my hon. Friend said he would withdraw his Amendment. What I have not got clear yet is whether her subsequent Amendment fits into the Bill without the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Loughborough.
§ Miss BONDFIELDYes. The Amendment which has been moved is unnecessary.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ Miss BONDFIELDI beg to move, in page 1, line 20, to leave out from the word "for" to the end of the Subsection, and to insert instead thereof the words "the purposes aforesaid."
This is really a drafting Amendment and is intended to avoid the possibility of confusion. Hon. Members will notice that the words at the end of Sub-section (1) duplicate, in effect, another form of words which have the same intention in Sub-section (2). The purpose of my Amendment is to simplify matters, so that there shall be only one set of words to construe instead of two. If my Amendment is adopted Sub-section (1) will read:
relating to the determination of claims for benefit, as may appear necessary for the purposes aforesaidleaving out all reference to what those purposes are, because that is already stated in the first part of the Clause, while the classes of persons are dealt with in Sub-section (2).
§ Mr. BECKETTThere are two Amendments to the Minister's proposed Amendment on the Order Paper, and I wish to have advice from the Chair in regard to them.
§ The CHAIRMANI propose to give the hon. Member an opportunity on the Amendment which stands further down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen)—to insert the words:
so however that there is no reduction in the benefit of persons whose earnings and benefits together during such period amount to less than an income for the whole period at the rate of two hundred and fifty pounds per year.
§ Mr. BECKETTI am sorry. I am not trying to be obstructive, but I wish to know if we shall be able to move either of the Amendments to the proposed Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member gets his Amendment in, it does not matter where he gets it There are three Amendments on the Paper dealing with this point. Two of these are Amendments to the Minister's proposed Amendment, and these I do not propose to select. Then there is an Amendment 551 further down, in the name of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), which deals with the same point, and that I propose to select.
§ Mr. MAXTONAgain, I am in considerable difficulty in following this discussion. Do I take it then that it is not the purpose of the right hon. Lady to give a more extensive use of these powers in dealing with anomalies? Her claim is that this is a purely drafting Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member is referring to his own Amendment further down on the Paper which proposes to insert the words "Dot less than five years."
§ Mr. MAXTONNo, I am referring to the words "the purposes aforesaid."
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt)I hope that I can assist and reassure the hon. Member. The words which we propose to leave out are the words which describe the class of persons. The hon. Member will find on reference to Sub-section (2) that the class of persons is there defined. I am not certain that it was very happy drafting originally, unless you had complete similarity between the two classes of persons. However, to meet a point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), when we come to deal with Sub-section (2) we propose to move an Amendment which narrows the description of the class as therein set out. That Amendment provides that we can only make regulations in respect of the prescribed period, being a period not exceeding four weeks, and the effect of that Amendment is to narrow the Clause—a purpose to which, I take it, the hon. Member does not object. Then, as a corollary to that, having already two descriptions—having once described the class and once described the persons—directly we get a narrowing of Sub-section (2) we get a dissimilarity between the two descriptions, and to deal with that, we have to take out these words down to the end of Sub-section (1) which are merely descriptive of persons. The hon. Member may take it from me, that I have considered the matter carefully and, in my opinion, it is merely a matter of drafting. If we alter Sub-section (2) 552 in the way proposed by the later Amendment, and leave Sub-section (1) as it is, we shall define who the persons are, in different words and that being so, it is necessary in order to propose the Amendment to Sub-section (2), to take out these descriptive words which, in any case, were unnecessary.
§ Mr. MAXTONIt is not my purpose to limit the amount of embarrassment in the operation of this Measure. I do not want to make its operation easier against the unemployed people who are being questioned on benefit.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALIf we keep in these words then we cannot move our Amendment to Sub-section (2).
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw)If the hon. Member wants to keep them in, let him keep them in.
§ Mr. MAXTONI take it from the interjection just made by the Secretary of State for War that he is anxious to do as badly for the unemployed as possible.
§ Mr. SHAWI beg the hon. Member's pardon. What I remarked was, "If the hon. Member wants these words in, let him keep them in." I do not want them in; I want them out.
§ Mr. MAXTONThat is not the way to do business in Committee. I want to be satisfied, and I have a perfect right to be satisfied on what is the effect of the Amendment. That is the purpose of a Committee stage. It differs from the closing speech on Second Reading where general denunciation and vituperation are regarded as sufficient. Here we have to apply our minds to the details of the problem. That is what I am trying to do, with considerable aid from the Attorney-General but none from the Secretary of State for War. I propose to use my rights, and I ask if the cutting out of this phraseology—
are in receipt of substantial earnings or other similar payments"—is not removing from consideration, a point which is very important to me, namely, the question of the earnings of the persons concerned. The Attorney-General assures me that this point is fully covered by the closer definition in Sub-section (2). I shall be very glad to be satisfied that the use of this phrase—For the purpose of removing anomalies which have arisen"—553 that is the purpose referred to in the present Amendment—applies to the closer definition which is presently to appear in Sub-section (2).
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALThis Amendment has nothing to do with purposes at all. The words which we propose to leave out relate to persons and have nothing to do with purposes, and the confusion has been caused because we have defined persons here and also brought them into Sub-section (2, a). As we propose to alter Sub-section (2, a) in a way of which I think the hon. Member will approve, we must make Subsection (1) correspond.
§ Mr. BECKETTI do not want to appear chary of accepting the Attorney-General's assurance, because experience has shown us that where a proper assurance is needed, we shall receive it from him with authority, but I must confess that the manner in which this Bill is being conducted in Committee is not very reassuring. We have this Amendment brought forward by the Minister in a very neat, charming, and uninformative speech, to correct something that was wrong, and apparently there are a number of other mistakes of even greater magnitude which have to be amended later, so that I think it is incumbent on the Committee to examine this proposed alteration with very great care. The Ministry of Labour has not an extraordinarily good reputation for being free from mistakes of this kind. It may occur to the Committee that, in spite of the very scant and almost discourteous treatment received by other Amendments which have sought to point out mistakes, the seriousness of this matter may not be confined entirely to this statement.
I am certain that the Attorney-General is correct when he assures us that the words now proposed to be left out are extremely dangerous words. Some of my colleagues are going to receive serious punishment for suggesting that there are dangers in this Bill. In fact, for a Labour Member nowadays to suggest that there is any danger to the unemployed is becoming a cardinal and almost a criminal offence. I am very glad to see these words deleted, because they are words which have disturbed the minds of many of us ever since we first had the privilege, if not the pleasure, of reading the Bill. I think the Attorney-General's 554 statement has been a complete justification of the fears expressed by hon. Friends of mine, both inside and outside this House, but it does not make me feel happy with regard to the words which the Minister now proposes to insert. I think they are far too wide.
The fear that many of us have had in discussing this Bill has been the fear that, intentionally or inadvertently—though the result would be just the same whichever it was—not only the very tiny number of so-called anomalies, if there be such, would be affected by this Bill, but that the Bill was so loosely worded and so carelessly drawn that people whose receipt of benefit could not in any way be called an anomaly were going to be affected by it. While the Attorney-General has given that view considerable support, for which we are very grateful, we still do not feel that the new words suggested by the Minister are as great a safeguard as we could wish. When the Minister says that she will delete these words, which apparently more learned authorities have told her were dangerous, she also says, "I cannot get at these people whom I have had it in mind to sweep into my net before, but I will have a general Amendment down," and she proposes to make the Clause read as it is now proposed that it should read. I appreciate the point that the Attorney-General has made that someone has used his influence to get the Minister to restrict the area of the Amendment, but I feel unhappy about these words, "the purposes aforesaid."
It would be improper to stand here and criticise the powers of selection which you, Sir Robert, hold by right of your office, but I am sure that some of my hon. Friends would have been happier if, instead of having to say "Aye" or "No" to this extraordinarily loose wording of the Minister's, they had been able to have the opportunity of suggesting to the Minister, whose own wording has proved so dangerous, some more beneficial wording for insertion in the Bill; but without the opportunity of making any further suggestions, deprived of the opportunity of assisting the Minister in drafting a more satisfactory form of words that might be a greater safeguard to these people, whom the Attorney-General said we ought to protect, I feel that the Minister should, in view of the fact that the Attorney- 555 General so frankly, honourably, and openly told us that the Minister made a mistake, be here now to rectify that mistake and tell us, in view of the highest legal advice, exactly what she proposes to do. [Interruption.] I have often heard the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) make speeches demanding, with great indignation, that the Minister should be present to explain something that he did not like, so I am sure that he will not object to my making the same demand, though not perhaps in so eloquent a way.
I think it is time that the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) came to our assistance, to see that, at any rate when important Amendments are moved and the Minister makes a statement which afterwards turns out to be completely mistaken, though made no doubt in good faith, but under a complete misapprehension of the Amendment which she was moving, she should be here to give us some assurance that the new wording is not so dangerous as—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has already said that several times.
§ Mr. BECKETTYou, Sir Robert, have been here so much longer than I have, and no doubt will have heard speeches again and again, much more often than I have, and it has been, I think, accepted as a common practice that where there was a very strong case felt for an explanation by a Minister, and that explanation was not forthcoming—I have heard many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, make that appeal repeatedly to the Committee. I hope the Committee will not allow this extraordinary procedure to go through without some voices being raised in protest at this method of treating us. I have to leave it there—I have no remedy—but I feel that, in view of the complete failure of the Minister to explain this, it would be a good course to take if the Committee were to adjourn for an hour in order to enable the right hon. Lady to get her very well deserved evening meal and then to come back here and explain the matter to us.
§ Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHTI have been here throughout the discussion, and per- 556 haps I may tender some assistance. Clause 1 as it stands defines certain purposes, and in the concluding words defines certain persons to whom those purposes are to be applied. What the Minister now proposes is to take out of Clause 1 any definition of persons, leaving the Clause restricted to a recitation of purposes. My hon. Friends, whose disquiet I appreciate, desire to exempt those persons to whom the purposes are to be applied, and the course which the Minister proposes will help them. It creates the opportunity which they desire, and removes from the Clause an obstruction which otherwise they would have to meet. In the circumstances I venture to suggest that the course proposed by the Minister helps them.
§ Mr. MAXTONI appreciate that point, as I have appreciated the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the point that is worrying me is this. It is now a limiting Clause and limits very strictly the number of persons who can be dealt with under the Bill. The Amendment will extend it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, supported by the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), urges me to permit this extension on the ground that it is for my benefit. It will be very difficult for any Member of the Government to prove to me that any Amendment is put down on the Paper for the purpose of aiding my point of view. With all respect to my Friends on the Government Front Bench, I do not think that their attitude towards this Bill is quite the same as mine. If damage is to be done to the unemployed, as I believe it is being done in this Bill, I want to limit that damage to the smallest number of persons. The words that it is proposed to delete are limiting words which will reduce the benefit to persons who have substantial earnings—
§ Mr. KNIGHTThe course proposed by the Minister will take out of Clause 1 any reference to persons. It restricts the Clause to a recitation of purposes. If the hon. Member wants a closer defininition of persons, his way is open by the course proposed by the Government. If the Clause remains as it is without the Amendment, there will be a definition of persons, and it is that definition which the hon. Gentleman wants to get at. If 557 it is taken out, his difficulties are diminished, and his aim in defining "persons" can be pursued in connection with Clause 2. My hon. Friend knows that I appreciate what he has in mind, and I suggest to him that if he adopts the Amendment of the Government, it will eliminate all reference to persons and confine the Clause to purposes.
§ Mr. MAXTONAgain, I thank the hon. and learned Member for his intervention. He is certainly making the point much clearer, but he is strengthening my antagonism to the Amendment. It is all very well to say that it is definition of persons, but Clause 1 is the Clause which defines the scope of the Bill. If it passes in its present form, you may start putting anybody in at any subsequent point, unless he is
in receipt of substantial earnings or other similar payments or who would not normally be in insurable employment during a period in respect of which benefit is claimed.If the Clause is passed, that is the absolute limit to which you can go in your subsequent definition. I do not want to bring more people within the scope of this Bill. Therefore I shall resist the Amendment very strongly.
§ Mr. TINKERThere is something in the point put by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). If I follow his argument aright, he is afraid that the words "for the purposes aforesaid" may embrace more people in the Clause. If there is any doubt on that point, it ought to be cleared up, because the Clause as it stands does limit the number of persons fairly definitely, and cannot bring any more in. The words "for the purposes aforesaid" however, may mean that other people can be brought in. The Minister ought to assure us that it does not bring in any other persons.
§ Mr. KINLEYMay I move an adjournment in order to give the Minister of Labour an opportunity of being here to explain exactly what her Amendment does? It is obvious that there exists in the minds of hon. Members a considerable confusion following upon the statement of the Minister, and surely it is in the interests of good legislation that we should have an opportunity of having a clear explanation from the right hon. Lady as to what her Amendment proposes to do.
§ The CHAIRMANThere are representatives of the Government on the Front Bench now.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNI am in the same difficulty as my hon. Friend. We ought to have some information about the effect of the Amendment. As I read Clause 1, it applies to certain classes and to certain persons who are in receipt of substantial earnings. The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) says that if the Government Amendment be accepted, "persons" as distinct from "classes" come out.
§ Mr. KNIGHT"Persons" will not be defined.
§ Mr. BROWNFor the moment I am on Sub-section (1), and so far as Subsection (1) is concerned I gather the hon. and learned Member expresses the view that "persons" go out. If that view be accepted I am in this difficulty, that not only do the "persons" go out but the very important qualification as to "substantial earnings" also disappears. I am not sure that the persons really do go out, or whether they are not covered by the word "classes," on the axiom that the greater includes the less. If the classes remain in, the persons remain in, even under the Government Amendment, and they remain in, not with the limitation about substantial earnings, but with no limitation at all. If I am right, then so far from this Amendment making the unemployed man safer it actually exposes him to greater danger, because it removes the qualification about substantial earnings. I regret that there is not one of the Law Officers on the Front Bench. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can deal with the point, which is rather a refined technical and legal point, but if he can help me I shall be very much obliged, and if he cannot perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham can.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson)I do not think I can add anything to what has been said already. The Attorney-General reminded the Committee that during the Second Beading Debate the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) had pointed out that the words which the Government now desire to cut out seemed to make it possible to include everyone, 559 regardless of the classes which are set forth. It is the desire of the Government to avoid that difficulty of having two sets of words to interpret, and so the words are to be cut out here. That removes what would appear to be the danger of two interpretations. The amending words limit this Clause to "purposes."
§ Mr. MAXTONWill the hon. Member allow me to interrupt him? What are the purposes? The purpose is to remove anomalies—anomalies without definition, without restriction. I remember the Minister of Health standing at that box last night and saying that wherever a line is drawn there will be anomalies and hard cases. Here the Government are asking us to give our assent to a Clause for the purpose of removing anomalies, and this Amendment is asking for a freer hand for this advisory committee. Once we have given the Government Sub-section (1) then in Sub-section (2) they can specify 100 more anomalies; but if Sub-section (1) remains as it stands then the Government are restricted.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNIf what the Minister says is correct, and the idea of the Government in moving this Amendment is to limit the scope of the word "persons," would it not have been a more satisfactory thing to insert after the word "persons" in line 20 the words "within the aforesaid classes"? Would not that secure what they desire without incurring danger?
§ Mr. LAWSONNo, that would not be right at all, because "classes aforesaid" are not mentioned. The reference is simply to purposes. The classes are defined in Sub-section (2). I can assure the Committee that if the Clause is left as it is at the present time whole masses of people whom I am sure my hon. Friend would want to protect might be thought to come within the ambit of this Clause.
§ Mr. McSHANEI have listened very carefully to the arguments on the proposed Amendment and have come to the conclusion that if the words which it is proposed to leave out remain in the Clause—namely, "persons who during a period which includes both days of unemployment and days of employment "—it will apply to everybody claiming unem- 560 ployment benefit. There are 2,500,000 unemployed at present, and as we know that this number of persons turns over three or four times in a year there may be 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 people affected. I take it that my hon. Friends want to prevent all those 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 being subjected to that scrutiny. If they do then I suggest that these words should be deleted, but if it is their intention to make the Clause so wide as to deal with the whole lot they should persist in their present attitude.
§ Mr. WISEI am bewildered regarding what the Attorney-General meant when he informed us that the purpose of the words at the top of page 2 was covered by the Amendment which stands in the name of the Minister of Labour—In page 2, line V, to leave out from the word "who," to the word "receive," in line 10, and to insert instead thereof the words:
within the calendar week ending in the period in respect of which benefit is payable or within any prescribed period (being a period not exceeding four weeks) so ending.The words which the present Amendment proposes to leave out govern, as I understand them, the whole of the four classes of persons defined in Sub-section (2). In other words the operation of Sub-section (2) is limited if the Bill stands as it is presented to us to persons who are in receipt of substantial earnings or other similar payments. Those are words of limitation. They mean that under Subsection (2) we cannot penalise persons seasonally employed unless they are in receipt of substantial earnings or other similar payments; we cannot penalise persons casually employed unless they are in receipt of substantial earnings or other similar payments: and we cannot deal with married women unless they are in receipt of substantial earnings or other similar payments. The Amendment which the right hon. Lady proposes to move later on refers only to persons covered by paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2)—neither the seasonal workers, the casual workers nor the married women. In other words, the effect of the Amendments now proposed by the right hon. Lady is to extend the possible operations of the Bill to tens of thousands of persons who will not be touched if the Bill be left as it is at present. That is a most serious situation.561 The Attorney-General told us that the right hon. Lady was wrong and then went off, I presume to dinner, or to consult her behind the Chair, or for other purposes. I do not mind. I would like to go to dinner myself. However, the Attorney-General, at a critical stage of the discussion of a very important point, has left the House, after telling us that his view as to the meaning of the Clause is different from that of the right hon. Lady. Neither the right hon. Lady nor the Attorney-General nor the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to this effect, which I submit will be the result of the Amendment now proposed; and I do not think the Committee ought to proceed further with this Amendment without knowing precisely what is the effect of it. It is a most iniquitous thing to come to us at this stage with an Amendment the effect of which will be to bring within the ambit of the Bill tens of thousands of persons who are not now covered by it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, look at the Bill yourselves. If I am wrong let the right hon. Lady or the Attorney-General or the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what will be the effect of the Amendment. I do not want to repeat the arguments, but the effect of these words at the end of Sub-section (1) is to limit the operation of the Act to certain classes of persons. The effect of taking out these words is to remove that limitation. As I read the Bill, by cutting out these words we are cutting out a very important limitation to the power of the Minister and the Advisory Committee, dealing with seasonal workers and casual workers, and we are knocking them off benefit. If that is the purpose of this Amendment, it should be explained clearly what its effect will be.
§ Miss BONOFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but The CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI have been induced to take part in this discussion by the statement made by the Minister of Labour, who told us that, if those words were not cut out, it would mean that there would be tens of thousands of persons affected. If ever there was a condemnation of a Bill it is the statement which has come from the mouth of a Member of the Government. The 562 Attorney-General told us that the Minister of Labour had herself made a mistake, and then he left the House. The Attorney-General has not remained to tell the Committee what the mistake was which the Minister of Labour made. If a Tory Government had treated the House of Commons in that fashion there would have been some noise made here. The Attorney-General conducted himself towards my colleagues in a very gentlemanly fashion, such as no Minister has done since we started the discussion of this Bill. After the Attorney-General had given that fatal decision, which will have far-reaching effects, the Minister of Labour got up and told us that, as the Bill stood, it would condemn tens of thousands of the unemployed to punishment. We are simply defending the working class and the unemployed. With reference to the manuscript Amendment, we have not had time to give it close enough attention to understand what it means. Here we have put forward an Amendment which, at the first glance, we cannot understand all its implications, and it is not fair on the face of it to press it forward at this moment.
Just a few of us on these back benches have wrung from an unwilling Front Bench information of such a character that condemns the Bill and the Government out of their own mouths. That is my justification for asking the Government to take the Bill back. Hon. Members will recollect that on the "not genuinely seeking work Clause" we moved an Amendment at 5.30 at night asking the Government to take the Clause back, but the Front Bench turned us down. Later on it was left to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) to suggest that the Clause be taken back for further consideration, and that suggestion was accepted from the Tories although the Government refused to accept it from these benches. I am giving that as an illustration, because we want to be fair and generous in our dealings with the Front Bench. Whether the Government are going to be generous with us or not in return I do not care a button, but we will be generous to them, and I am being generous to them, because I am now giving them a chance of their lifetime, a chance to take the Bill back, 563 and I am considering this question in calm blood. [Interruption.] I was asking the Government to take this Measure back, and I am in earnest. It means everything to me. It is no easy matter for me to fall foul of men that I have worked with all my life, but I am going to stand by the working class, irrespective of all the Governments that ever have governed, and I am asking the Government to take this Bill back because here is proof positive, given by the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson)—no less a person than the Minister's right-hand man. He makes the statement that, if the Bill goes through as it is now, thousands of workers will be penalised.
§ Mr. LAWSONI did not say anything of the kind. What I said was that there is a danger of whole classes of people being included that are not meant to be included.
§ Mr. BECKETTSurely, the hon. Gentleman remembers the Attorney-General's speech.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODSurely, to be penalised means to be punished. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet. It is all the same to the man who is unemployed, whatever words you use, if he is deprived of money, if he is deprived of his right to go to the Employment Exchange; and every method and every means that is employed here is detrimental to the unemployed. I would ask the Government—and some of them are very good friends of mine—to weigh well this fact, that there is not a constituency that the Government represent where the unemployed—and there are almost 3,000,000 of them—are not a powerful factor in determining whether they will be here again or not. I hope they will consider well that fact before they proceed any further here. You may take it from me that, as far as I am concerned, I will defend myself and the country with the votes that I register here to-night, and I have drawn attention to the fact that the Attorney-General, standing at that Box, told the Committee that the Minister of Labour had made a mistake. He explained it to us, and I readily agree that we require a good deal of explana- 564 tion to get to understand just what is meant by certain words.
My learned colleague, the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), is always impressing on us that the lawyer fraternity have spent all their lives in understanding the implication of words. But we have spent all our lives working, not in understanding the implication of words, and the men and women that are going to be affected here do not understand the implication of words. They have never been at a college. It is quite true that some of them have met the scholars, and are expert at getting round these regulations, but the vast majority of the unemployed do not know how to dodge these regulations. They do not understand the implication of words; they only understand how to work. It is all they were taught; it was their mission in life, when they were little boys and girls at school, to get away from the school and to get to work to help to eke out the miserable pittance that the breadwinner was able to earn. That is the type of individual that is going to be affected by the part that the House of Commons is playing to-night.
This is no mere juggling with words; this is not a mere Debate between astute lawyers. Where is the Liberal party now? This is a discussion around which ranges the welfare of tens of thousands of the poorest people in our country. It is not the burly, well-fed section of the unemployed that is going to be affected here; it is not the astute section that is going to be affected here. They manage to get round it. It is that section which every member of the Labour party has time and again gloried in defending. We have said that, if there were any amongst us with outstanding ability, mental or physical, that was not given to us for our own aggrandisement, but in order that we might defend those who could not defend themselves. It is that section of the community—the helpless, the class that have even been described as untouchables—that is going to be affected here—the
Poor o'erlabourd wight,So abject, mean, and vile,Who begs a brother of the earthTo give him leave to toil;And see his lordly fellow-worm "—565 in this case the Government—The poor petition spurn,Unmindful tho' a weeping wife,And helpless offspring mourn.You talk about this Bill being an experiment, and this Amendment attached to it being an experiment. I wish that that were the case, but it is nothing of the kind. This Government has experimented along those lines before. What happened at the advent of the Government in regard to handling unemployment? They started a special Department, and we had an individual then dealing with unemployment—I am only using this as an illustration—an individual who was set apart to deal with it. We harassed that individual because he was there. They dissolved the Department and appointed a Committee. What has been the result? Has unemployment gone down? The unemployment figures are soaring and we are not able now to get at the Lord Privy Seal. The Government is sheltering itself. It is a deep, well-thought out plan. They saw quite well that they were going to be faced with unemployment rampant— millions of unemployed—but they have shouldered the responsibility away from the Government. They are doing the same thing here. I ask the Government before they go any further in the handing away of our power, our democratic control of the Government, before they cramp the activity of the members of the working class, who are here voicing the sentiments of the workers—
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI agree, Sir, but I wanted to get that in. There is nothing in it but what I have carefully thought out I intended to make that speech when we were discussing the formation of the Committee and, when I rose, the Minister of Labour moved the Closure on me. But I have got it in and I am satisfied for the moment, although I have intimated that I am holding myself in reserve for the midnight hour.
§ Mr. WISEOn a point of Order. If this Amendment is passed leaving these words out of paragraph (a), shall we be in order in moving manuscript Amendment" to (b), (c) and (d), applying to 566 them the limitation which the words, if left in (a), would have applied to the whole operation of the Act?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANBefore I can give a definite Ruling on that, I should require to see the terms of the Amendments that are to be moved.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI could not give a Ruling before I have seen the Amendments on which the Ruling is required.
§ Mr. WISEThe question is that certain words shall be left out. The Minister has explained that the purpose for which he desires to leave them out is that the point is already covered by an Amendment which he is moving to (a). We have asked on one or two occasions, but have not yet had a reply, why those words of limitation which apply to (b) (c) and (d) should now be withdrawn, thus extending the operation of those paragraphs to large numbers of persons who, as the Bill passed Second Reading, were outside its scope. I am asking whether we shall be in order to in moving Amendments later on to (b) (c) and (d) covering the limitation that (b) (c) and (d) shall not apply except to persons who are in receipt of substantial earnings or other similar payments. It was not possible for us to put our Amendments on the Paper because the Amendments of the Minister only appeared on the Paper this morning, and there was no opportunity for us to appreciate the effect of them or to deal with them.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWithout committing myself to accepting any definite Amendment, I should say, generally speaking, Amendments would not be out of order which dealt with the matter in such broad terms, but the hon. Member must not take it as an indication that I shall accept any Amendment.
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIKMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Mr. STEPHENShould I be in order in moving to report Progress at this stage in order to clear up this position? 567 It is obvious that a very big change has been made, affecting the interests of many thousands of people. I should like to report progress so that we may have an opportunity on some other day of having Amendments before us which would protect the interests of the various people concerned.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNMay I submit to you, Sir, that the Committee is now in the situation that the Government is moving an Amendment to Clause 1 and that it is quite uncertain whether it achieves the desired result or not. If it does, it appears sensibly to alter the sense of Sub-section (2). In the circumstances, in the general doubt about the
§ situation, may I urge you to permit us to move to report Progress so that we can get a legal adviser here?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is open to any hon. Member, whenever he chooses, to move to report Progress, but it rests with the Chair whether it shall be accepted. I do not think, in the circumstances, that I can accept it.
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 12.
569| Division No. 405.] | AYES. | [9.25 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Lloyd, C. Ellis |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff.. Cannock) | Gibbins, Joseph | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Gill, T. H. | Longden, F. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Gillett, George M. | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. |
| Angell, Sir Norman | Glassey, A. E. | Lunn, William |
| Arnott, John | Gossling, A. G. | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Gould, F. | McElwee, A. |
| Ayles, Walter | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | McEntee, V. L. |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Gray, Milner | McKinlay, A. |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | MacNeill-Weir, L. |
| Barr, James | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Malone, C. L. Estrange (N'thampton) |
| Batey, Joseph | Groves, Thomas E. | Manning, E. L. |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Grundy, Thomas W. | Mansfield, W. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, south) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | March, S. |
| Benson, G. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Marcus, M. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Markham, S. F. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Marley, J. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Marshall, Fred |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Mathers, George |
| Bromfield, William | Harris, Percy A. | Matters, L. W. |
| Bromley, J. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Middleton, G. |
| Brooke, W. | Haycock, A. W. | Mills, J. E. |
| Brothers, M. | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Milner, Major J. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Herderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Montague, Frederick |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Herriotts, J. | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Hirst, w. (Bradford, South) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Cameron, A. G. | Hoffman, P. C. | Mort, D. L. |
| Cape, Thomas | Hollins, A. | Muff, G. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Hopkin, Daniel | Muggeridge, H. T. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Murnin, Hugh |
| Chater, Daniel | Isaacs, George | Naylor, T. E. |
| Clarke, J. S. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Noel Baker, P. J. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Palin, John Henry |
| Compton, Joseph | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Palmer, E. T |
| Daggar, George | Lang, Gordon | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Perry, S. F. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
| Dukes, C. | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Pole, Major D. G. |
| Duncan, Charles | Lawrence, Susan | Potts, John S. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Pybus, Percy John |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Lawson, John James | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Rathbone, Eleanor |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Leach, W. | Raynes, W. R. |
| Egan, W. H | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Richards, R. |
| Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead) | Leonard, W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Foot, Isaac | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Freeman, Peter | Lindley, Fred W. | Ritson, J. |
| Romeril, H. G. | Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley) | Walker, J. |
| Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Wallace, H. W. |
| Rowson, Guy | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Watkins, F. C. |
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Sanders, W. S. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Sawyer, G. F. | Sorensen, R. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Scurr, John | Stamford, Thomas W. | White, H. G. |
| Sexton, Sir James | Strauss, G. R. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Sullivan, J. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Sutton, J. E. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Sherwood, G. H. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Shield, George William | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Shillaker, J. F. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Shinwell, E. | Thurtle, Ernest | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Tillett, Ben | Wilson, J (Oldham) |
| Simmons, C. J. | Tinker, John Joseph | Wilson R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Sinkinson, George | Tout, W. J. | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Sitch, Charles H. | Townend, A. E. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Vaughan, David | |
| Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Viant, S. P. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Kirkwood, D. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Wise, E. F. |
| Buchanan, G. | Maxton, James | |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Sandham, E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Stephen, Campbell | Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
570§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 12: Noes, 227.
571| Division No. 406.] | AYES. | [9.35 p.m. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Kirkwood, D. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Wise, E. F |
| Buchanan, G. | Maxton, James | |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell | Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) |
| Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Compton, Joseph | Harris, Percy A. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Cove, William G. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
| Alpass, J. H. | Cripps, Sir Stafford | Haycock, A. W. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Daggar, George | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) |
| Angell, Sir Norman | Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) |
| Arnott, John | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Harriotts, J. |
| Ayles, Walter | Dukes, C. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston) | Duncan, Charles | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Ede, James Chuter | Hoffman, P. C. |
| Barr, James | Edmunds, J. E. | Hollins, A. |
| Batey, Joseph | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Hopkin, Daniel |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Hudson, James H. (Hudderefield) |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Egan, W. H. | Isaacs, George |
| Benson, G. | Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead) | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Foot, Isaac | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Freeman, Peter | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Gibbins, Joseph | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Bromfield, William | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Bromley, J. | Gill, T. H. | Lang, Gordon |
| Brooke, W. | Gillett, George M. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George |
| Brothers, M. | Glassey, A. E. | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Gossling, A. G. | Law, Albert (Bolton) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Gould, F. | Law, A. (Rossendale) |
| Burgess, F. G. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Lawrence, Susan |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Gray, Milner | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lawson, John James |
| Cameron, A. G. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) |
| Cape, Thomas | Groves, Thomas E. | Leach, W. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Grundy, Thomas W. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Leonard, W. |
| Chater, Daniel | Hall, G. K. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Llndley, Fred W. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Lloyd, C. Ellis |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Longden, F. | Perry, S. F. | Sorensen, R. |
| Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Lunn, William | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Strauss, G. R. |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Pole, Major D. G. | Sullivan, J. |
| McElwee, A. | Potts, John S. | Sutton, J. E. |
| McEntee, V. L. | Pybus, Percy John | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| McKinlay, A. | Quibell, D. J. K. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| MacNeill-Weir, L. | Raynes, W. R. | Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow) |
| McShane, John James | Richards, R. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Tillett, Ben |
| Manning, E. L. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Mansfield, W. | Ritson, J. | Tout, W. J. |
| March, S. | Romeril, H. G. | Townend, A. E. |
| Marcus, M. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Vaughan, David |
| Markham, S. F | Rowson, Guy | Viant, S. P. |
| Marley, J. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Walker, J. |
| Marshall, Fred | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) | Wallace, H. W. |
| Mathers, George | Sanders, w. S. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Matters, L. W. | Sawyer, G. F. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Middleton, G. | Scurr, John | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Mills, J. E. | Sexton, Sir James | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Milner, Major J. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Westwood, Joseph |
| Montague, Frederick | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | White, H. G. |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Sherwood, G. H. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Shield, George William | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Shillaker, J. F. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Shinwell, E. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Mort, D. L. | Short, Alfred (Wednestury) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Muff, G. | Simmons, C. J. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Murnin, Hugh | Sinkinson, George | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Naylor, T. E. | Sitch, Charles H. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhiths) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Noel Baker, P. J. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) | Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | |
| Palin, John Henry | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Paling, Wilfrid | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson. |
| Palmer, E. T. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
§ Proposed words there inserted.
§ Mr. STEPHENI beg to move after the words last inserted, to insert the words:
so however that there is no reduction in the benefit of persons whose earnings and benefits together amount to less than an income at the rate of two hundred and fifty pounds per year.The general effect of the Amendment is to put a limit of £250 per year on eases which can be dealt with. All the cases with over £250 a year limit can be brought within the ambit of this restrictive legislation, but all people with incomes of less than £250 per annum are not to be subject to the new additional restrictive conditions proposed in this Clause of the Bill. There is no need for me to labour the points in support of this Amendment. The Secretary of State for War on the Second Reading of the Bill almost burst in his indignation at the thought of people with incomes of £7 and £8 a week also drawing unemployment benefit. We do not want to be specially obstructive of the Government's attempt to get at the people who are drawing £7 or £9 a week and also unemployment benefit. We are willing to allow them to be free to go in search 572 of the mythical person who is getting £7 a week and also drawing unemployment benefit, so that they will be able to say to him when they catch him, "We have got you, and you will get no more unemployment benefit." All we say is that it is a different case where the income is under £250 per annum. A person with that income is is no very comfortable circumstances, and hon. Members who are in receipt of £400 per annum will not want to go out with an axe in pursuit of people who have less than £250 per annum. It would not be dignified. It is not the thing for the people with an income of £400 to pass legislation imposing restrictive conditions upon these people.If the Minister of Labour is unwilling to accept the Amendment she should give us figures, which we have not yet been able to get, of the number of people who will be included within the ambit of the Measure. There is a great deal of uncertainty as to who is within the scope of the Bill, especially after the last Amendment accepted by the Committee. I should like the Minister of Labour, or the Parliamentary Secretary, to tell us what exactly it will mean in loss to the insurance fund if the Amendment is 573 carried. The Committee, so far, has been in a very trustful mood. We have had no figures. The statement regarding £5,500,000 in the Memorandum is something which was imagined by the Royal Commission, and the Minister of Labour has no idea as to what will happen if the Advisory Committee goes out searching for the people who are dole dodgers. I hope she will tell us what it will mean in additional expenditure if this limiting Amendment is carried, and also give us some idea of the classes of persons who will be affected. I think she should also give us the number of people in receipt of over £7 a week, the number in receipt of between £7 and £6, and the number in receipt of under £5 per week. That is a reasonable demand, particularly as so much of the propaganda and agitation in regard to this Measure has been around the £7 and £8 per week man. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) gave us a case which had aroused his indignation and led him to support the Government.
I hope we are going to get something more definite. The unemployed are entitled to more definite knowledge as to what is going to happen, and it will not be to the credit of the Opposition that not a single voice, with the exception of the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert), has so far been raised in the defence of the unemployed. The whole Opposition has been dumb. I do not know whether that is a tribute to the wisdom of the Minister of Labour, but I simply mention the fact for this reason, that if she proposes to make any concession and accept this Amendment the silence which has oppressed the official Opposition may be broken and the former Minister of Labour may become vocal. I would remind her that the Government on previous occasions have disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), and I hold out to her the encouragement that if the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with her on this point it may be to the advantage of the country. We must have a limit to this new inquisition which is going to be set up in regard to certain sections of the unemployed. There should be a limit, and the limit I suggest is the figure of £250 per annum. I look with interest to see how many Members of this Com- 574 mittee who themselves have a, larger income are willing to vote against this limitation.
§ Mr. LAWSONMy hon. Friend who moved the Amendment asked a good many questions, but I did not hear that he gave any particular reason why this figure should be accepted. The proposal of the Bill seems to the Government to be the proper course, in laying down that the amount should be, as stated in the Bill, a "substantial" amount. The Bill states that the Minister shall take counsel with the Advisory Committee before that substantial amount is fixed. The body which fixes this amount in consultation with the Minister has at least three workers' representatives upon it.
§ Mr. STEPHENThe Government have been able to get an Amendment passed which has taken out the reference to "substantial amount." The substantial amounts, it is true, still apply to Subsection (2, a) of Clause 1, but do not apply to Sub-sections (2, b), (2, c) and (2, d) classes, and there is no limit of income so far as they are concerned.
§ Mr. LAWSONThis matter will be discussed on Clause 2 later, when my hon. Friend will get, perhaps, a more detailed answer to his question. I can assure him that he is not right in what that particular statement implies. On this Committee there are three working class representatives, three trade union representatives.
§ Mr. BR0CKWAYOut of nine.
§ Mr. LAWSONThe numbers of the Advisory Committee were suggested by the Trades Union Congress, which certainly represents the organised opinion of the workers of this country. When these amounts are fixed they will be fixed by the Minister in consultation with the Advisory Committee composed of three of the workers' representatives as well as three representatives of the other two sections which contribute to the Insurance Fund. As this matter will be discussed in detail later, all I can say on behalf of the Government now is that we cannot accept this arbitrary amount, which would interfere with the consultations with the Advisory Committee.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNI am afraid that the reply of the Minister will carry very little conviction to those of us who are 575 really concerned with the way in which the Clause will work out. Reference to the Trades Union Congress does not help the Minister at all. It may be perfectly true that the Trades Union Congress in its evidence before the Royal Commission made some suggestion for a. committee upon which the trade union representatives should be in the proportion of one to three. If the Government had been bringing in a Bill to implement the representations which the Trades Union Congress made to the Royal Commission, the Parliamentary Secretary would have been entitled to quote the Trades Union Congress as a justification for the three representatives out of nine, but no one knows better than the Minister that that is not the Bill before us.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe subject before the Committee is whether the limitation should be a maximum of £250 a year.
§ Mr. BUCHANANOn a point of Order. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted the Trades Union Congress, and it is customary for an hon. Member who is replying to reply to such a point.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am not responsible for what anyone says until he has said it. Then it is my duty to prevent a repetition of the offence if what is said is out of order.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNI should not have referred to a matter so completely irrelevant to this Clause of the Bill if the Minister himself had not referred to it. The Minister has told us that the reason why he cannot say anything on this part of the Clause is that he may be saying something later on Sub-sections (2, b), (2, c) and (2, d). Assuming that the Minister were in a position to announce beforehand his acceptance of the Amendments to Sub-sections (2, b), (2, c) and 2, d), which refer to "substantial earnings," that would still leave unsettled the question of what constitutes "substantial earnings." Therefore the attitude of my hon. Friend in regard to Sub-section (2, a) is not in the least affected by what the Minister may say later. The hon. Gentleman inquired on what basis the figure of £250 had been selected. I would remind him that the figure of £250 is not a minimum but a maximum, a figure which defines the 576 upward limit of unemployment insurance in this country, and also in housing legislation defines the upward limit of what are described as the working classes of this country. The last function of a Government which is supposed to represent the working classes of this country is to resist Amendments which are designed to protect the working classes. On this Amendment, as on every other, we have also to bear in mind the different frames of mind that people bring to the interpretation of Acts of Parliament. The phrase, "substantial earnings," which appears later in Subsection (2, a), may conceivably be interpreted by the present Minister of Labour in one sense, and by subsequent Ministers of Labour in another sense.
The Conservative conception of what constitutes substantial earnings is a very slender conception. It is a conception which ought to be resisted from these benches, and because there is a possibility, indeed, a certainty, that this Bill and this Clause will be administered, not merely by the present Government, but by subsequent Governments, this very tenuous phrase about substantial earnings ought to be reasonably defined before the Bill is allowed to leave the Committee. There are very few Conservative Members present. I imagine that most of them have gone home. Presumably, they have gone home because they feel that Conservative interests are amply protected by the Front Bench. Certainly, the speech of the Minister so far leaves no room to suppose that he is standing for working-class interests against the protection of Conservative interests in this House. We have had a discussion on the propriety of referring this sort of issue to a committee. We cannot go over that Debate again, but if, as the House has decided, this issue is to go to a committee, I suggest that the very least that this side of the Committee ought to do is to restrict the discretion of that committee within limits which protect genuine working-class interests. In these circumstances I hope the Committee will support the attempt which is being made to define substantial earnings as earnings up to £250 a year.
When the Second Reading Debate was in progress the case that was made from the Liberal Benches, to a very large extent supported by the Secretary of State for War, who wound up the Debate for 577 the Government, was that there were substantial numbers of people who were only engaged for part of the week, and who were drawing very much larger incomes than other workers normally got for a full week's work. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) drew a picture of dockers at Cardiff, and gave illustrations of the earnings of those dockers over a period of 17 weeks. He drew the conclusion that in only two weeks out of the 17 were those part-time dockers earning less than about £7 or £8 a week. It is characteristic of those who stand for what is popularly known as economy in this House to make an attack upon masses of the people by citing the cases of small numbers of people. In the same way that the poor old widow is trotted out when the Budget is under discussion, so the docker who is drawing £8 a week for a few days work, if there be any such, is brought into prominence when the House is discussing the subject of social insurance. I could understand the official Oppositions doing that; it is their job, and I make no complaint that they do their job. But what I cannot understand is a Labour Government proposing phraseology so vague that it would cover not merely the kind of case to which attention was drawn from the Liberal and Conservative benches, but almost an illimitable number of cases, an undefined area of cases, which might include scores of thousands of people who were getting not £8 a week or £5 a week but much lower sums.
If the Government think it is wise to remedy the kind of anomalies to which attention was drawn from the Opposition Benches—I do not think they were—they would only have been justified in remedying those anomalies as part of a very much larger and more comprehensive scheme of social insurance. If they think they are wise in trying to remedy the kind of case cited, then let them remedy it in such a way as does not throw into the melting pot the cases of scores of thousands of people who are not in anything like the same position as the cases cited. This Government will not last for ever. Its own conduct has rendered its dismissal at the next election certain. When the Government do go out of office there will be a Conservative Govern- 578 ment manning this Committee, and there will be a Treasury representative on the Committee acting under the orders of a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, administering the phrase about "substantial earnings." A very prominent Conservative once said that the job of the Conservative party was to serve the interests of the possessing classes, whether the Conservatives were in power or out of power. I suggest that the Labour Government might take that for its motto, and say that it is its job to serve working-class interests whether there is a Labour Government in power or not. The last way to serve the interests of the working classes whether there is a Labour Government in power or not is to leave the discretion of this committee unfettered in regard to what constitutes substantial earnings.
In these circumstances, I hope someone from the Front Bench will make a further statement that will make it abundantly clear what is in the mind of the Minister as to what constiutes substantial earnings. We have not learned that yet. We do not know whether it is in the mind of the Minister that £3 a week constitutes substantial earnings, or £4 or £2. We are left in complete ignorance as to what is in the Minister's mind. Without any kind of definition in the Bill, if we allow it to go through, we are giving a blank cheque, an unrestricted cheque, to the Committee to determine what constitutes "substantial earnings." To allow the Clause to go through without defining substantial earnings is to place innumerable cases of unemployment benefit in jeopardy. If it is in the mind of the Minister only to deal with the alleged abuses, let her interpret the phrase in terms which will make it clear that it is only the alleged abuses that are being dealt with and that she is not interfering with reasonable earnings, even where the week has not been a full one. Above all, do not let the Minister leave in a vague and undefined form a phrase like "substantial earnings" which is going to be interpreted by a committee in which working-class representatives are hopelessly outnumbered, and will be interpreted by another Government, in another committee which has no concern for working-class interests.
§ Mr. EDEI gather that the point of the Amendment is to have a definite amount inserted in the Bill by the House of Commons rather than to leave the fixing of the figure, covered by the words "substantial earnings" to a committee consisting of nine people—in the majority of whom, I gather, my hon. Friends who put forward this Amendment have no great confidence. I desired to see how far this figure of £250 which they propose in the Amendment, represented their views when they were engaged in constructive rather than critical statesmanship and when they produced a Living Wage Bill. I secured a copy of their Bill in the Vote Office, and I find from the Memorandum that
Clause 1 gives a definition of a minimum living wage based partly on Australian and other precedents and authorises the President of the Board of Trade to set up a committee to interpret the definition in exact figures, having regard to the cost of living and the limits set by the actual amount available for distribution in wages at any moment, proper provision being made for replacement of wasting capital and the provision of new capital.A solicitude for the capitalist class which does them every credit.The committee will include representatives of housewives and of the trade unions and the co-operative movement as well as competent economists.Thus the committee which was to interpret their own vague words in actual figures, was not limited in numbers and it could have been packed by a Tory Government so as to have an overwhelming weight of opinion against their views. I have made it a rule in my life never to be more royalist than the King and my hon. Friends who support this Amendment were all in this Bill. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) introduced it and he was supported by an hon. Member whom we are all sorry is not here to-night, namely, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wall-head), the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Jowett), the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway), the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham), the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise), the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Miss Lee), the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), the hon. Member 580 for Bootle (Mr. Kinley), and the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown), who was with them in those days and who appears to have rejoined them. I cannot help feeling that if, when they were engaged on that task, they found it impossible to put in a figure or to ask the House of Commons to put in a figure, that we should be very unwise on this occasion to try to be more definite than they were when they were not acting as critics but engaged in constructive statesmanship.
§ Mr. STRACHEYNo one reading this Bill can doubt for a moment that what this committee is going to do is, in fact, to apply means tests to various categories of workers in connection with unemployment insurance. Those means tests will, of course, be on the lines that persons whose earnings rise above a certain figure should have their unemployment benefit reduced or abolished. That principle of means tests is being introduced and supported by the Government. We now find the Government unwilling to accept the opposite kind of means test, that if an individual's income drops below a certain figure, he shall not have his unemployment benefit either reduced or curtailed. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is no question whatever of an arbitrary figure. Every figure which is mentioned in this case will be an arbitrary figure. The figures which the committee will lay down as their means tests for the various categories whose unemployment benefit can be reduced or abolished altogether by this Bill will be arbitrary figures.
The point is that they are willing to apply the principle of a means test in the sense that they curtail the benefit of persons whose income rises above a certain figure, but they are not willing to apply it when the principle works in favour of the insured person, and I would like to know on what conceivable ground a Labour Government introduce a means test in the one case and refuse it in the other. It seems to me almost inexplicable that the principle can be introduced when it penalises the workman but is definitely resisted when it protects the workman, and we should like to have some explanation and not a mere riding off by the calling of a particular figure arbitrary. It is the principle of a protective means test instead of a penalising 581 means test, and the Parliamentary Secretary does not seem to have realised that that is the issue. He has not even alluded to it in his speech, and it seems that he is paying no attention to the issue before the Committee.
§ Mr. KINLEYMay I express my surprise at the replies that were given by the Parliamentary Secretary? In response to the moving of this Amendment, he suggested a two-fold answer. The first was that there would be Amendments moved by the Government to the various Sub-sections to be dealt with later, and in another part of his reply he suggested, and much more definitely, that the fixing of this "substantial earnings "figure would be a matter for the Minister in consultation with the Advisory Committee. He further suggested that that committee, not yet set up, would be fully qualified owing to its composition, to decide what ought to be the figure that would be covered by the term "substantial earnings." I want the Committee to understand that we are here effecting legislation that is directed to the worsening of the conditions of certain of the less fortunate sections of the working class. In the worsening of those conditions, a certain machine is being set up, and it is being asked that the power of that committee, the scope of that committee, in its interpretation of the amount of earnings, shall be left completely unfettered by this House. I want hon. Members on this side to understand that that committee must either have a limit fixed by us, or else it will sit down to its task with the power, deliberately given to it, to wander over the whole field of insured occupations.
No class of individuals will be free from the operations of the committee unless we are prepared to insert safeguards based upon our actual experience and knowledge of how the people live. The Parliamentary Secretary must know that to leave this figure unstated, and we ought not to leave the committee, whose personnel he himself does not know, to decide from time to time what shall he interpreted as substantial earnings, and to vary their own interpretations to bring in an ever increasing number of men and women who have hitherto looked to us for a defence. We have suggested the figure of £250 a year, equivalent to £5 a week. The Minister is not prepared to 582 accept that, and in his non-acceptance he declares that those whose earnings are below that figure are to be attacked by this committee. We ask that all those below that figure shall be protected, but the Minister said "No." What does the Committee say and particularly what does this aide of the Committee say? Are we to declare that those who earn less than £5 a week belong to that section of society which no longer needs the protection of the Labour Government? If we are to say that, are we prepared to say that there is no limit to the extent to which we will extend the field of operations of this precious Advisory Committee?
Are we to defend any of the workers from its operations or are we to include all those who are unfortunate enough to have recourse to the unemployment insurance machinery, and who, by that very reason alone, will be forced into contact with the committee? Members on this side know the conditions under which the unemployed exist, and are pledged to improve these conditions. Are we now to let the world know that all the things that we have said hitherto are only spoof for the purpose of getting position here? Are we now to let the whole working-class know that if they want to be saved from a worsening of their conditions during the existence of the Labour Government the one thing they have to do in future is to see that in no circumstances are they unemployed; in other words, to avoid the limitation we are asking, they will have to submit to any terms the employers impose on them, realising that if they do not stay in their jobs and have to approach the Employment Exchange it will be the first step towards the time when this Advisory Committee will deal with them. When that time comes they will realise what a misfortune for them it was that on this occasion we were not prepared to limit the activities of the Advisory Committee.
I suppose there are very few Members on this side who do not say now that there are abuses, but there were times when they were unemployed themselves when they knew that there were no abuses—except those committed against the unemployed workers. In these days we are changing our views, having changed our clothes and our habits, and we look at things from a different angle. 583 What I want to know is, Is a man who gets 35s. a week to be treated as a man with substantial earnings? What is to happen to a man or woman who is used deliberately by an employer in the in human fashion which is developing in our industries to-day, the employer contriving to have his work come along in such a way that by putting the screw on for a day and a night, or two days and two nights, he can get the whole of his week's output manufactured, compelling those whom he employs to flay them selves during that period, and then turns them out? He will leave them to be defined by the advisory committee as persons having substantial earnings. I appeal to this Committee to realise what they are doing. In the absence of some definite figure such as we have suggested, hon. Members must realise that no member of the working class when unemployed will be safe from this advisory committee, however little he may be earning. I would remind hon. Members, also, of the variations in definition which will come with changes of Government. There may be a Labour Minister who is prepared to suggest—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThere must be some limitation to the repetition of arguments. We cannot have the same argument over and over again.
§ Mr. KINLEYThis is the first time I have made this point; and I would point out also that this is the first time I have spoken.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am not questioning that this is the first time the hon. Member has spoken, but reminding him that he has been repeating arguments which have been made not only by himself, but by other hon. Members.
§ Mr. KINLEYI suggest that hon. Members on this side of the Committee do believe, or did believe, that there is a difference in the administration of our Acts of Parliament which affect the unemployed when there is a Labour Minister on the Treasury Bench as compared with the administration under a Tory Minister. What a Labour Minister, with a full knowledge of working-class conditions, would accept as an interpretation of substantial earnings would be very different from the interpretation to 584 which a Tory Minister would agree, and in considering all these points, we have to keep that consideration in mind, because we shall be held responsible for what happens to unemployed people under this scheme. We are now creating the machinery. What that machinery will be able to do in the future is what we decide to-night that it shall be capable of doing. When the chickens come home to roost it will not be the Government in power who will be blamed, but those who, by their actions to-night, are deciding to what extent the unemployed can be persecuted in the near future.
§ Mr. SHILLAKERI represent a constituency in which there is a large number of working people, and in which a large number of persons are employed for only two or three days a week. The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) who represents the members of the Civil Service must know very well that many civil servants do not earn £5 a week; in fact, a good many of them do not earn £3 a week.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNIt is a fact that the Government in the case of civil servants regard £2 or £3 a week as reasonably substantial earnings, and that is what makes me doubly apprehensive about the same test being applied to people under this Bill.
§ Mr. SHILLAKERI think this Amendment is very unreasonable. It is unreasonable that a man who picks up £5 for two days' work should, because he is unemployed four days, draw benefit. I have been a member of the Independent Labour Party ever since its formation, and I was a member for nearly 30 years, and I have never asked that unemployment benefit should be paid to a man who is earning £5 a week. Unemployment insurance is a heavy tax on industry, and why should that burden be increased in order to maintain men who are earning £5 a week?
§ Mr. LAWSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 16.
585| Division No. 407]. | AYES. | [10.40 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hayes, John Harvey | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Pole, Major D. G. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Potts, John S. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Pybus, Percy John |
| Arnott, John | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Herriotts, J. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Ayles, Walter | Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth | Raynes, W. R. |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Richards, R. |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Hoffman, P. C. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Barr, James | Hopkin, Daniel | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Ritson, J. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Isaacs, George | Romeril, H. G. |
| Benson, G. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Rowson, Guy |
| Bowen, J. W. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Sanders, W. S. |
| Bromfield, William | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Bromley, J. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Scurr, John |
| Brooke, W. | Lang, Gordon | Sexton, Sir James |
| Brothers, M. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Shield, George William |
| Burgess, F. G. | Law, A. (Rosendale) | Shillaxer, J. F. |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Lawrence, Susan | Shinwell, E. |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Cameron, A. G. | Lawson, John James | Simmons, C. J. |
| Cape, Thomas | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Sinkinson, George |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Leach, W. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Chater, Daniel | Leonard, W. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Llndley, Fred W. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Logan, David Gilbert | Sorensen, R. |
| Compton, Joseph | Longbottom, A. W. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Longden, F. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Daggar, George | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Sullivan, J. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Lunn, William | Sutton, J. E. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Taylor R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | McElwee, A. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Dukes, C. | McEntee, V. L. | Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow) |
| Duncan, Charles | McKinlay, A. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Ede, James Chuter | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Tillett, Ben |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Manning, E. L. | Toole, Joseph |
| Egan, W. H. | Mansfield, W. | Tout, W. J. |
| Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead) | March, S. | Townend, A. E. |
| Foot, Isaac | Markham, S. F. | Vaughan, David |
| Freeman, Peter | Marshall, Fred | Viant, S. P. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Mathers, George | Walker, J. |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Matters, L. W. | Wallace, H. W. |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Middleton, G. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Mills, J. E. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Milner, Major J. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Gill, T. H. | Montague, Frederick | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Gillett, George M. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Glassey, A. E. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Westwood, Joseph |
| Gossling, A. G. | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | White, H. G. |
| Gould, F. | Mort, D. L. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Muff, G. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Muggeridge, H. T. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Murnin, Hugh | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Naylor, T. E. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Noel Baker, P. J. | Wilson, J, (Oldham) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Palin, John Henry | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Paling, Wilfrid | |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Palmer, E. T. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. William Whiteley |
| Harris, Percy A. | Perry, S. F. |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Sandham, E. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Kirkwood, D. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Buchanan, G. | Maxton, James | Wise, E. F. |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
588§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 205.
587| Division No. 408.] | AYES. | [10.50 p.m. |
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Horrabin, J. F. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | Wise, E. F. |
| Buchanan, G. | Mosiey, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Sandham, E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Kinley. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Pole, Major D. G. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Potts, John S. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Herriotts, J. | Pybus, Percy John |
| Arnott, John | Hirst, G. H. (York W. H. Wentworth) | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Ayles, Walter | Hoffman, P. C. | Raynes, W. R. |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hollins, A. | Richards, R. |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Hopkin, Daniel | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Barr, James | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Batey, Joseph | Isaacs, George | Ritson, J. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Benson, G. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Rowson, Guy |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) |
| Bromfield, William | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Sanders, W. S. |
| Bromley, J. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Brooke, W. | Lang, Gordon | Scurr, John |
| Brothers, M. | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Sexton, Sir James |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Shield, George William |
| Burgess, F. G. | Lawrence, Susan | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Shinwell, E. |
| Cameron, A. G. | Lawson, John James | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Cape, Thomas | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Leach, W. | Sinkinson, George |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Chater, Daniel | Leonard, W. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lindley, Fred W. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Compton, Joseph | Logan, David Gilbert | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Longbottom, A. W. | Sorensen, R. |
| Daggar, George | Longden, F. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lunn, William | Sullivan, J. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Dukes, C. | McElwee, A. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Duncan, Charles | McEntee, v. L. | Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow) |
| Ede, James Chuter | McKinlay, A. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Edmunds, J. E. | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Tillett, Ben |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | McShane, John James | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Egan, W. H. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Toole, Joseph |
| Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead) | Manning, E. L. | Tout, W. J. |
| Foot, Isaac | Mansfield, W. | Townend, A. E. |
| Freeman, Peter | March, S. | Vaughan, David |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Markham, S. F. | Viant, S. P. |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Marshall, Fred | Walker, J |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Mathers, George | Wallace, H. W. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Matters, L. W. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Middleton, G. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Gill, T. H. | Mills, J. E. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Gillett, George M. | Milner, Major J. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Glassey, A. E. | Montague, Frederick | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Gossling, A. G. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Gould, F. | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Mort, D. L. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Muff, G. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Muggeridge, H. T. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Murnin, Hugh | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton) | Naylor, T. E. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Palin, John Henry | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Paling, Wilfrid | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Palmer, E. T. | |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hayes, John Henry | Perry, S. F. | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | William Whiteley. |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
§ Mr. HOFFMANOn a point of Order. May I ask whether, in view of the repeated low numbers in the Divisions that have taken place, it is not within your competence, Mr. Dunnico, to count the Members in their places?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANUnder Standing Order 30 I have that discretion, but it is a discretion that is not usually exercised unless there is obviously an attempt to divide needlessly. I hope the Committee will remember that I do hold those powers even though I do not exercise them.
§ Mr. BROCKWAYMay I draw your attention to the fact that this is a Bill of extraordinarily great importance and that a very limited time has been allowed for it? May I suggest that the Amendments brought before the Committee have in every case dealt with serious matters and that the discussions here ought not to be limited in any way or exceptional steps be taken to deal with the points at issue?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member may rest assured that the powers of the Chair will be exercised with discretion.
§ Mr. SKELTONMay I hope that you will respect the rights of minorities in this Committee?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has been long enough in the House to know that the Chair always protects the rights of minorities.
§ Mr. BECKETTMay I respectfully point out to you that, although the numbers in some Divisions may have been small, they have been composed of different hon. Members on each occasion.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is not a point of Order. My attention has been called to the powers of the Chair. How those powers are exercised depends upon me and not upon hon. Members.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out paragraph (a).
This Amendment is in the name of myself and hon. Members who sit with me and also in the name of three hon. Members of the party that has just been formed. I am willing and ready to accept any help, no matter from what quarter it comes, if I think it will benefit the unem- 590 ployed person. This Amendment deals with what is called the casual worker. The criticism which I levelled at the Bill on the Second Reading has been justified. When I suggested that the Bill should be rejected many hon. Members ridiculed the idea put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) and myself that under this paragraph powers were given to deal with every unemployed person, it was not confined to the casual worker. When we made that statement we were met by a mixture of cynicism and abuse from the Secretary of State for War, who said that we understood nothing and learned nothing, and that we were filled with hatred of certain people. Before a week has passed the Secretary of State for War has been proved to be wrong, not by me or by the Conservative party but by his own draftsman. I anticipate that the Attorney-General has advised him that this Clause needs amendment in order to limit the powers given under it. As it is the paragraph applies to no period of time. The Advisory Committee can go back for years in order to find out a man's earnings. We have urged that this should be amended, and the Government are proposing to alter the Clause so that the search shall be limited to a period of four weeks.
I do not want to encroach on past discussions, but when we were moving limitations earlier to-day, we were told that it should not be done, that we should trust the advisory committee, who were people above reproach. Here the Minister herself, through the Attorney-General, is placing a limit on the advisory committee's powers. The principle is admitted that the advisory committee cannot be granted unlimited powers, and that four weeks ought to be the time taken. What is paragraph (a)? Under it the Minister possesses full power to go back to any period in the past and to calculate a person's earnings, and if she thinks that the earnings are of a "substantial" amount benefit can be deducted in the future. That is the position with which we are faced.
I say to trade unionists here that they ought to consider the trade union point of view. Hitherto it has been the function of trade unionism to assist in getting the highest possible remuneration for services rendered by its members. I 591 see hon. Members here who, with me, accepted the Marxian doctrine that labour is a commodity, and that the workman who sold his labour had the right to force the highest possible wage from his employer. Indeed, the function of trade unions has always been to make the hourly rate, the daily rate or the weekly rate of pay as high as possible. The test of trade unionism, wherever it has been successful, has been its success in getting the highest rate of wages from employers.
I see the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in his place. What I am saying now I am not saving sarcastically or with a desire to score a point. He has been looked upon as a successful trade union leader, as a man capable of handling a great trade union. What is the test? It is said, "Jimmy at least fought for his men." That is a common statement. The right hon. Gentleman has been the object of attack by certain employers. He has been able to force for a day's work or a week's work a guaranteed wage often higher than that of other workers. Take another illustration, the case of the dock workers. There has been a man who has been associated with the right hon. Gentleman. I refer to Ernest Bevin, who has earned justifiably a great reputation for being able to gain concessions for his men. What was the test applied to him? That he has been able to get for his men a remuneration that other workers could not get. In each case the test has been, how high the union and the power of organisation could make the reward? The great thing held out to non-unionists has been this: "Join the union, and we will force up wages." We have constantly said in regard to the worker who gets £4 or £5 for two days' work, that that worker has shown success in organisation and that his leaders have shown success. In this Bill we reverse the programme. We say: "If your earnings are substantial in amount, if your organisation has been effective, if you have joined the union, if you have fought in your union, if your leaders have been skilled and have been able to get high wages for two days' work, then, because you have done that and you are getting substantial payment for the days that you work, we will not pay you unemployment benefit for the other days." In the case 592 of the man who does not organise, who does not fight for high wages, who remains outside the trade union, with the result that his wages are low, we say to him: "Because you did not organise, because you do not get £4, £3, or £2 10s. for two days' work, but only £l or 30s., the Labour Government, because you have not organized, because you have not fought and because, as a result, your remuneration is low, will give you unemployment benefit." [Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary of State for Air has anything to say I will resume my seat.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague)I was only wondering whether Karl Marx was turning in his grave.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI have said that organisation and the power of the union to get high wages is the test of trade unionism. Why should we say that we will give unemployment pay to those who have not organised? Under the Clause, as originally drafted, the Minister had power to take two or three years earnings, but now that is limited to one month. She is entitled to say: "For the past month your earnings were substantial, your union has been able to get substantial wages for you for the past four weeks, therefore"—
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas)The hon. Member suggests that the trade union has succeeded in establishing high wages for two or three days. Unless those two or three days were the habitual employment of that individual, the hon. Member's statement falls to the ground.
§ Mr. BUCHANANNo. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the Bill. This Sub-section, as amended by the Ministers proposal which is next on the Paper, would read as follows:
The classes of persons to whom this Section applies are the following:What is there in that Sub-section about habitual work? Can the Minister show me in this Clause, or any cognate Clause any reference to habitual work? Where, 593 in the Bill is there any provision about habitual work? If a man joins a union, and the union forces four weeks of high wages for him, that is good trade unionism. He should not be penalised; he should be complimented and assisted. Another man alongside him, refuses to join a union and he gets four weeks of bad wages. Instead of £12 or £16 for four weeks, he only gets £7. Then, under this Clause you say that £7 is not substantial and therefore that man shall get benefit; but the other man whose union forced good wages for him, you say, had substantial earnings' and there for he shall be denied benefit. Near where I live, as in every other part of the country, there are unionists and non-unionists. I am thinking of one factory where the men have refused to organise and where they are paid indefensibly low wages. The waitresses of this country are practically unorganised, with the result that they are paid shockingly low wages and a trade board has had to be applied to their ease. Yet, according to this proposal, the unorganised, low paid waitresses are to get benefit and the girls of the Co-operative movement, who are organised, who have made sacrifices and who are paid a good wage are to be refused benefit.
- (a) persons who within the calendar week ending in the period in respect of which benefit is payable or within any prescribed period (being a period not exceeding four weeks) so ending."
I ask the Government where are they going? When the Secretary of State for War was replying to me he asked me did I defend a man getting £7 for two days and then drawing benefit. I do not need to defend it. Every Member on that Front Bench defended it. The provision which we are now limiting by this Bill was originally put in because of pressure from the Labour party, when £7 was a more common wage than it is now. No one will deny that £7 is a less common wage now than it was six years ago. Yet in 1924, in 1927, each succeeding Government said that the £7 a week man was to get benefit—fought for it, and gave him it. Every one of those men has an insurance qualification, and I put this to hon. Members: You may have a right—I have disputed it—to apply a means test to those with no insurance qualification. I disagree with that philosophy and will oppose it, but now you come to those who have an insurance qualification, and you break your contract, and you leave it to a vague committee to decide the terms on which it is to be broken. If 594 the Government or any succeeding Government come along and say, as indeed trade unions have done, that they find the country is not well off and must save money—that is a position that trade unionists have had to take up. I have been on an executive and had to do it. They have found they bad no money, and they have had to go to their members and say, "We cannot meet our obligations." But when we have done it, we have done it putting the facts before the members.
But what are you doing here? You are breaking your contract here without definitely allowing the members to know their exact position at all. If I enter into a fire or burglary insurance policy, I know the conditions of my payments. If the society finds itself bankrupt or partially so, it alters the conditions, and gives me notice, but here you are altering their insurance policy without giving the men a day's notice, and furthermore giving them no definite policy and no definite arrangement. You say to these men, "Pay to us, and our contract with you will be remitted to another body and will not be put in a Statute." Surely you cannot defend this.
It is said that the defence of this thing is the £7 or £8 a week man. I am not saying that that case does not exist, and after you have passed this Bill he will exist, but the greatest fallacy under the sun in our unemployment insurance system is setting out to catch some fancy man like that. Rarely speaking do you ever catch him, and when you have caught him you have succeeded in catching hundreds and thousands of others whom you never intended to catch. As an illustration—I do not do it to go beyond your Ruling, Sir—I take the Debate in 1924, when the Minister for War was the Minister of Labour. Some of us take the view that the" not genuinely seeking work "condition should be abolished. What was fairer on a bit of paper than to say that only people genuinely seeking work should get benefit? The Secretary of State for War said it and said that no decent person would ever be refused benefit, and I think he meant it. I think in his heart of hearts he wanted to do it, but, as a matter of fact, when the thing began to work the one person that could escape was the not genuinely seeking work, and 595 the one person sure to be caught was the genuine person for whom you never intended it.
I know a stevedore from Glasgow, a member of the Glasgow City Council, a magistrate, a moderate, a Tory, a large employer of labour. He is a stevedore dealing with thousands of men a year, and I asked him how many men earned £7 a week, and he said that the £7 and £5 a week man in the Glasgow docks was disappearing, and that while they were there really few ever made any attempt to get unemployment benefit. I have asked for figures, and have not been able to get them. I can imagine the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), if it was a Clause dealing with something which he had at heart, insisting on figures being provided. We might find 100 or 1,000 of these men, but in trying to embrace them, we should embrace tens of thousands of others whom we never meant to embrace.
This paragraph is an attack on trade union standards—the lower the income the more the unemployment benefit. Unscrupulous employers will take advantage of it and screw down wages so that their employés can get benefit. If an employer is decent and exercises Christian feelings so that his employés' earnings are substantial, benefit will not be granted. This paragraph is anti-tradeunionism and will be an encouragement for wages to be lowered. This is a Bill to cure anomalies, but now it is proposed to investigate a man's wages during the last four weeks, and that will create further anomalies. When I worked in an engineering shop, my wages in the last four weeks might have been well outside the limit. In another four weeks they would be well inside. In the last four weeks a man may have good earnings, but in the previous nine months he may have had a very lean time. You will have anomalies like there are in widows' pensions; a man with a penny over is out and a man with a penny less is in. You have no right to take only a man's earnings; you should take his income. A man may have earned small amounts, and may have an income from another source, but you allow that to go. The £7 a week man got benefit in 1924. Nobody ever thought he was a bad man. Larger numbers got it than is the case 596 now, because then it was a much more common wage. To-day we hear of it only because there is a press campaign. Therefore I hope the Committee will reject this paragraph (a) with the scorn, contempt and derision which it deserves.
§ Mr. DUKESI have one or two questions respecting paragraph (a) which I wish to put to the Minister. There is some apprehension that this paragraph will apply to men whose normal period of work is 6 days a week but who, during a long period of depression, have been working only two, three or four days a week. In what has already been said all the emphasis has been thrown on the £7 a week man; but there is greater anxiety respecting large ranges of men who never attain that figure. In the textile machine shops of Lancashire there are to-day thousands of men working three days a week and earning even with payment by results, below 45s. a week. Earnings vary, there may be a period of three days in which they earn relatively high sums, and that may be followed, when jobs are repriced, by a period when they earn nothing beyond the 25 per cent. plus which a piece worker is expected to earn over day rates. Their earnings over a full week do not reach £7.
Then there is the case of the miner who may work in a favourable place for a short period and earn relatively high rates. Is it intended under paragraph (a) to regard the categories I have referred to—and there are many others—as coming within the term "or abnormalities" or is it intended that they shall apply only to those classes of employment where, regardless of trade boom or slump, normal employment is for two or three days a week only, during which relatively high wages are earned?
§ Miss BONDFIELDI think that it would be appropriate to respond now to the questions put by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes), and I would like also to clear up one or two quite obvious misconceptions on the part of the mover of the Amendment. May I remind the Committee that this Bill has arisen from the interim report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, that the paragraphs of Clause 1 (2) are dealing with the anomalies laid 597 down in certain paragraphs in that report, that the paragraphs have to be considered in relation to the discussion which took place in that report on this question, and, if the wording of paragraph (a) does not convey what we intended it to convey, I will undertake to make the necessary alteration on the Report stage of the Bill. Let me explain what paragraph (a) means to me and to my colleagues. I would refer the Committee to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for War on the occasion of the Second Reading on Wednesday, 8th July.
I say deliberately that I am not in favour of paying benefit to any man who, by working a short week regularly, makes double the average wage. I am not in favour of paying a man of that kind unemployment benefit,"—(OFFICIAL REPORT, July 8th, 1931, col. 2221, Vol. 254.)The cases that were discussed in connection with the Royal Commission report were the cases specially mentioned, the coal trimmers, for example, who work intensively for a short time, and certain other classes. They are included in paragraph (a) as casual workers and those regularly working short time regularly earning substantial wages—those are the categories, and those only are the categories intended to be covered by paragraph (a). If the wording does not make that clear, then I undertake to make it clear on Report stage. That was all that was in our mind, that particular category of short time and casual workers as against intermittent workers. The short time and casual workers are proposed to be dealt with by taking into account the nature of the substantial wage, but the intermittent worker is regarded as to be taken into account as a person who is normally employed for an intermittent period and who does not intend to be employed on other occasions. There it is not a question of taking substantial wages into account, but of taking employability into account. Those two categories have got mixed up in the discussion and that is one of the difficulties. We propose to deal only with wages in the first category. In the other it is a question of whether it is employment or unemployment; it is a question of unemployment rather than wages.
§ Mr. SKELTONWill the right hon. Lady make it clear what is meant by 598 "intermittent"? Does "intermittent" mean something beyond a week?
Miss BONDFLELDIf you look at paragraphs (a), (b), and (e), the first deals with short-time casuals, the second with seasonal workers and the third with what we call the week-ender. There is the person whose normal employment is employment for portion of the year only in seasonal occupations. That is one group who in the other portions of the year are not to be regarded as in employment at all. Then there are persons whose normal employment is in occupations for which they are not normally required more than two days a week. That is the intermittent worker. There are then seasonal, intermittent, and short-time workers.
§ Mr. DUKESMay I put to the Minister the ease of an engineer working on payment by results, and earning, in three days, 35s. or 40s.—a married man with a dependant wife and two children? He would be entitled to 15s. for three days' unemployment, and would earn at work, say, 45s. Do I understand that that would be regarded as an abnormal case?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThat point is not settled, and it is exactly one of the points with which the Committee will deal. There may be variations in different categories. If the House desires that what are called abuses should be dealt with at all, they must be dealt with in some such way. We have tried to devise a way by which we can find out what is to be regarded as an abuse, and we have felt that it was impossible to draw any hard-and-fast line, because the abuse would arise at a certain figure in the trade and at quite a different figure in another. The intention is that the Committee should consider this point as to what must be regarded an abuse of the Fund when people regularly work short time and regularly receive substantial wages. This is an attempt to deal with it by regulations, and that is the purpose of paragraph (a).
§ Sir JAMES SEXTONI listened with much interest to the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and there were various points in it with which I found myself somewhat in agreement, but again, as the Minister has put it, confusion has 599 arisen even in my hon. Friend's own mind. [Interruption.] I think I know something about the conditions of the casual labourer, and I would remind my hon. Friend that for many weeks I myself, as a representative of the casual labourer, have been considering, as a member of the committee which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean), and which included also Mr. Ernest Bevin, this very complicated question of casual labour. In 1920 I prophesied that the extension of Unemployment Insurance to casual labourers on a contributory basis would lead to confusion worse confounded, and my prophecy has been more than fulfilled. These men have neither standard employers, nor standard employment, nor security of tenure, and, therefore the application to them of Unemployment Insurance, which was based on the assumption of standard employment, has created all this confusion that exists to-day. It is true that men of the type earning £7 a week are few and far between, but they are there. I do not go so far as to justify payment of unemployment benefit to anyone who is regularly earning £7 10s. a week. A man may be put on a dangerous job and may get good wages for that particular week, but there may be eight or nine months' interval between that and a similar job coming along.
§ Mr. BUCHANANThe intermittent worker is dealt with in another Clause. Here it is going back four weeks.
§ Sir J. SEXTONI am dealing with the man who earns a big wage with three or four weeks intermittently. He may not get a job for months. What I protest against most strongly is the assumption on the part of these embryo statesmen who, unlike the hon. Member for Gorbals, have had no experience of these intricate questions of Unemployment Insurance and casual work, who claim to be sole repositories of all the wisdom about the economic evils under which we are suffering. It would be better for them not to talk about things they do not understand, but to leave them to those who have experience and are doing their best to solve the difficulty. The difficulty is very great. They talk about the poorest of the poor. 600 I come from the poorest of the poor. I was reared in a slum, as the hon. Member for Gorbals was. I left school when I was nine years old. I have had a sad experience for many years and I claim to know something of the conditions of the men whom I represent.
This question requires intricate inquiry so far as the casual labourer is concerned, despite apparent injustices, I think he has, in the main, been very generously dealt with. I would not like to see one single case of injustice occur, but we ought to have some sense of proportion in dealing with this very intricate question. As far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to face my constituents, either politically or industrially, in the backing of this Bill.
§ Mr. DAVID GRENFELLI wish the Minister had been rather more definite, because on her reply depends the attitude of a large number of her supporters. I would like her to remember the support given to this Bill on the very explicit speech made by the Secretary of State for War on a previous occasion. No one was led to believe that certain classes of people to which the right hon. Lady has referred to-night would be brought under the surveillance of the committee at all. I gather from her reply that it is now possible that coal miners, for example, may be considered by the Advisory Committee, which might result in depriving one section of a body of workmen who have worked three days a week of their benefit, while another section of the same body would obtain full benefit. Let me show the right hon. Lady where she may lead us in her attempt to remove some anomalies. In the mining industry in South Wales at the present time three days' wages come to almost exactly 25s. a week. A single man would get 25s. plus 8s. 6d. unemployment benefit for the three idle days. A married man would get 25s. plus 13s. unemployment benefit. The Minister has led me to believe it is possible that she would allow the Committee to consider whether the 13s. benefit now payable to a married man would continue to be payable.
§ Miss BONDFIELDPerhaps the hon. Member did not understand. It will continue to be payable.
§ Mr. GRENFELLThe single man who earns 25s. a week plus 8s. 6d. benefit may 601 continue to draw that 8s. 6d., but working side by side with him in the same district is the man who is on piece work and who may be earning 2s. a day more in wages. That man, having 6s. more wages in the three days week, might find his unemployment benefit reduced by Is for each of the idle days, because his daily wage as a piece-worker was 2s. in excess of the wage of the daily man. Speaking for myself and for the miners, let me warn the Minister that that would not be tolerated in the mining districts. It would be regarded as a greater anomaly than anything which exists at the present time, as a breach of the contractual obligations, and as a distinct breach of faith to hon. Members on this side who have supported the Government so far on this Bill. I speak for myself and for large numbers of miners when I say that, if one penny piece of unemployment benefit is to be taken away in any circumstances, there is not a single miners' Member on this side of the House who will vote for these proposals. Let the Minister reconsider the position and give a more favourable reply.
§ Mr. TINKERI confess that I am very much disappointed with the reply of the Minister. In reply to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs got up and said that the habitual worker working on short-time would not be penalised. The Secretary of State for War, in his very good speech, made a similar statement, that the Bill definitely provides that the Minister shall have power to deal with the case of the man who works two days a week and earns normal or more than normal wages. I think that that was quite clear. The Minister confirmed it to the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes), until he put a supplementary question. Then she went on to say that cases mentioned by hon. Members would have to be considered by the Committee. The right hon. Lady may not have meant that, but that was the impression conveyed to us behind. Is she quite satisfied, after her former speech and the remark made by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, with her second statement? I hope the Minister will take the opportunity of putting us right upon this point. With the present im- 602 pression in my mind, I shall feel bound to vote against the Bill.
§ Miss BONDFIELDI am sorry. I thought that I had made the matter clear in what I said in a supplementary reply to the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes), who asked me if I excluded certain categories in industry. I meant to make it clear that the line of demarcation is not certain categories of industry, but is where it is habitual on the part of one, two or any number of persons in the industry to work short-time and earn high wages. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is habitual?"] That is the point. I am trying to make the position clear. It is not intended to deal with the normal ease of the ordinary man who occasionally discovers that he is working on short-time work. It was never intended to deal with that case. That was not the class of case before the Royal Commission. It was the extraordinary case, the abnormal case, more particularly in relation to docks. I cannot say at this stage that it will not be discovered in any other category of trade, and that is why I was safeguarding myself. It is a question of inquiry. I do not think that you ought to ask me to say that certain trades in no circumstances can reveal a case of that kind. But the point I very definitely put to the Committee is, that the only class of case with which paragraph (a) is intended to deal is that of the abnormal case of men habitually working short-time or casually, as distinct from the weekender, mainly at the docks. Those who, as a matter of fact, earn substantial wages and in addition habitually draw either three or four days' unemployment benefit.
§ 12.0 m.
§ Mr. McKINLAYOn the Second Reading of the Bill we had a very definite assurance from the Secretary of State for War upon this point, but, as far as I am concerned, the Second Reading was taken under false pretences. I know that the intentions of the Minister of Labour and the Government are good, but that does not make any difference when you are arguing a case before a court of referees. I have been in the casual dock. I have started on a Friday night and worked continuously until Monday morning, in the bottom of a dock at the tail end of a ship, and during that earned substantial wages, but I never earned another penny 603 for more than three weeks. My wages for that particular week were at the rate of £3 15s. 0d. per week, but my earnings for the 12 months amounted to 29s. 3d. per week. There is an obvious danger here and words like "substantial" and "normal," and all things which require a definition, are simply leading us into a bog. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. I know that her intentions are good and that she does not desire to deprive any person of benefit to which they are entitled. I have pleaded cases before courts of referees and have said what the intention of Parliament was in the matter. I have also quoted what the Minister of Labour has said, but the Chairman of the court has said that it was no concern of his what Parliament intended, he interpreted that Act in such and such a way. It may be unfair to ask the right hon. Lady to define "substantial wages" until she has consulted her legal advisers, but I think that we should have an undertaking that she will reconsider this matter, and, if necessary, re-intro duce the paragraph in an altered form on the next stage of the Bill.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYMay I put the point which I raised on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution. The Secretary of State for the Dominions will remember what happened then. The Minister of Labour had been called out, and when I made a speech with reference to dockers who had to attend twice a day and sign on twice a day. My right hon. Friend then got up and said that those men were not aimed at at all, and I said that I was perfectly satisfied with that reply so far as the dockers were concerned. The Minister of Labour has harped on the dockers. It is the dockers who are aimed at. The right hon. Lady was absent from her place for a time, and there is obviously some confusion. The matter will have to be gone into very carefully. There will have to be the usual discussions to clear up the matter. I reinforce the suggestion that paragraph (a) be withdrawn for the present and a new-form of words introduced on Report.
§ Miss BONDFIELDAs to the case mentioned I thought I made it clear that a man who is earning good wages for a part of one week and then is unemployed 604 for other weeks will not be concerned with this Clause. It is a question of regular employment. I would again emphasise the fact that this Clause represents one of the very clear points upon which the interim report required some action to be taken. I have already promised to reconsider this matter and to see whether we can get more satisfactory wording for the Report stage of the Bill. I ask my hon. Friends to leave it at that point now.
§ Mr. DUKESI must press for an interpretation of what the Minister regards as habitual short time. Everything hangs on that.
§ Miss BONDFIELDI think it is a little unfair to ask me now to say what is "habitual." That is exactly the kind of thing about which I wish to consult.
§ Mr. DUKESLet me make my point, so that in any reconsideration of this matter, as to which we have an assurance that the point will be kept in mind—
§ Mr. DUKESA general appeal was made to the country and the employers' federation to put workpeople on short time rather than arrange that one section had regular employment while others were totally unemployed. For a period of years in the engineering industry, the textile machine shops and the textile industry, people have worked three days a week for two, three and four years. Is that regarded by the Minister as habitual short time to be referred to the advisory committee? If so, I want to assure the Minister that all my colleagues on these benches regard these categories of workers as quite outside the intentions and the statement of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw). The abnormal worker or the short-time worker whom the right hon. Gentleman had in mind and certainly the type of individual that we had in mind is the short-time worker who, regardless of trade boom or depression, works Friday to Monday and earns relatively high wages, higher wages than those received by the men normally employed in that industry working six days a week. Subsequent interpretations have inclined us to the point of view that it is in the 605 mind of the Minister that these people, such as miners, engineers and other categories, who have been employed three or four days a week, over a period of two or three years, should be referred to the Advisory Committee on the ground of their earnings. That form of habitual short-time has been accepted by the employers and the trade unions as a method of operating, so that we might spread over the earnings and divide the degrees of unemployment, rather than increase the numbers of those definitely unemployed. For that reason we seriously appeal to the Minister to withdraw the Clause or to give us such an assurance as will satisfy us that it is not the intention that these short-time workers shall be referred to the Advisory Committee.
§ Miss BONDFIELDI do not regard the categories that the hon. Member has spoken of as the categories referred to in this Clause, because they are underemployed. It is the cases that were brought out and regarded all over the country as abuses. There are the footballers, for instance. Hon. Members know the categories. I do give an assurance that I will consider most carefully the statements made to-night, and I shall try to bring up revised wording that will make the point clear. I ask again that the Committee will accept my assurance.
§ Mr. MAXTONI beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
My opposition to the Bill is more general and perhaps more hostile than that of other hon. Members. I cannot be satisfied with the right hon. Lady's assurance, because she tells us that her intention is simply to deal with those who were habitually so employed and are habitually earning substantial wage". Although she says that is her intention, there is not a solitary word in the Clause, even as amended, that brings in a conception of "habitual". Twice, in answer to questions she said that she was not able to give guarantees, because there was the Committee to be considered. It is the Committee that will ultimately say what is substantial and what is normal. In advocating the appointment of the Committee she said that she wanted elasticity. She also said that regulations might go out and 606 two days later it might be found that they were not watertight. She said that they wanted such flexibility and even if after two days they discovered something wrong, they could bring in new regulations.
We are arguing on a Clause which does not carry out the expressed intentions of the Minister. She said that she would consider the matter, and, if possible, on the Report Stage, would try to introduce amending words. That is no guarantee. A Second Reading was given to the Bill on the strong assurance of the Secretary of State for War, which carried the whole party, with the exception of a few irreconcilables—that this would not be applied to the genuine workers in ordinary trades, who were not drawing fancy wages. The right hon. Lady spoke about the cases of £7 and £8 a week people being thrown about, but that sort of talk has been thrown about by members of the Government. There is nothing in this Clause which gives the members of the party any guarantee that the very best of our trade unionists, perhaps in the most essential industries in the country will not be denied their unemployment benefit—in the mines, in the shipyards, in the engineering works, in the textile works, at the docks. There is no guarantee except the promise that the Minister will consider the matter and, if possible, introduce some Amendment at the Report stage. Remember that the Report stage of this Bill will probably come at a late period, in a dying Session. I, for one, am not prepared to let that proposition go, and I do not think that the Minister is being fair. I am not asking for any special consideration for myself or those associated with me. From the start, we have been definitely hostile to this Bill in all its aspects and we are fighting it every inch of the road. We want to be rid of it altogether. But the right hon. Lady is not being fair to the rest of the party on these benches. I suggest that the proper course is for the Committee to report Progress and for the Minister to consult with her responsible advisers. Already there have been two admissions which go to show that the Bill has been thrown before the House of Commons in an ill-considered way. Two very serious admissions have been made to that effect. It is not right that a Measure of this sort which is vital to our working people at 607 this difficult time in our industrial history, should be drafted carelessly and passed in a happy-go-lucky manner by a Labour Govt., which has a special responsibility to the manual workers of the country. I wish to move to report Progress in order that the Minister may have time, in consultation with her colleagues, to decide either to delete this paragraph (a) or to redraft it so that it may be made plain, beyond peradventure or doubt, that no decent fellow will be trapped into deeper poverty than he is already, by careless phraseology and careless work on the part of the House of Commons.
§ Mr. THOMASThere was one phrase in the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) which would in itself be sufficient ground for me in asking the Committee not to accept the Motion to report Progress. He was quite frank in saying that he and those associated with him, had made it clear from the start that they were out to kill the Bill. There is no misunderstanding about that statement, so that any Motion to report Progress would—and I am sure that he will appreciate my point—very definitely suit his policy.
§ Mr. MAXTONThe right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that I have seen him use that procedure four or five times, in the course of all-night sittings, on Measures of this description, when hon. Members opposite were in office.
§ Mr. THOMASThat was exactly my position when I was in Opposition—I am not stating the case unfairly—but that is not the position of the large section who have supported the Government in this matter and, therefore, I do not propose to enter into the merits of killing the Bill on the one hand, or of mere obstruction on the other. But the Committee are entitled, having regard to the discussion now taking place, and the confusion which, I frankly admit exists, to see whether it is not possible to state, in clear and unambiguous language, what is intended. I put it to the Committee that hon. Members have no right to ask more from the Minister than the promise given. If they accept the intention, they must trust the Minister to draft the necessary wording to give effect to it on the 608 Report stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. All right—that may not be the view of some hon. Members, but, as I have already indicated, they have admitted their position. I want to state, as clearly and definitely as I can, and in simple words, what is intended. In answer to a question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), who mentioned the case of dockers, I said that that was not the interpretation and that was not intended. I repeat that now. The Secretary of State for War, in winding up the Debate, clearly, definitely and specifically, dealt with the same point as that which is being raised now. I say, and the Minister of Labour has already said, what the Secretary of State for War said in winding up the Second Reading Debate. That is what we intend. Now, confusion has arisen—I quite admit that—as to the particular wording not giving effect to that intention. But, surely, nothing could be fairer than the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister who says: "Very well, having told you exactly what is intended, rely upon us to find the right and necessary words on the Report stage, to give effect to it."
§ Mr. MAXTONindicated dissent.
§ Mr. THOMASI know that my hon. Friend objects to that.
§ Mr. MAXTONI am shaking my head because the right hon. Gentleman is saying something more than the Minister of Labour said. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Let us be precise. The right hon. Lady said "if possible" whereas the right hon. Gentleman now says "certainly."
§ Mr. THOMASThe noble Lady—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—yes, I will say the noble little Lady who sits here, the Minister of Labour—will endorse the statement I have made and I put it to the Committee that the maximum, which they have a right to expect in the circumstances is the promise which has been specifically made. Having regard to the promise, I am not going to ask the hon. Member to withdraw the Motion, because the only contribution which he can make, is a delaying one—[Interruption.] I understood the hon. Member for Bridge-ton to say "Yes."
§ Mr. BUCHANANI say "No," and it is my Amendment upon which this arises. We frankly admit that we are antagonistic to the Bill, but we are also out for the good of the people. Everybody on this side is out for the good of the people.
§ Mr. THOMASThe hon. Member has said that everybody is out for the good of the people; the same tribute must also be paid to those who take another point of view. I was dealing with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) who said: '"' I am out to kill the Bill!".
§ Mr. MAXTONOh, no!
§ Mr. THOMASI say that the only contribution towards the desirable end, from his point of view, would be for anyone to vote for this Motion to report Progress. To those who accept the interpretation that I have given, and who desire that interpretation to be given effect in legislation, I am entitled to say that they have no right to expect more than the promise already made. That promise will be redeemed on the Report stage.
§ Mr. BROCKWAYI rise to support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member foe Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that we should report Progress. I want to do it on two lines. First, I want to do it on the limited lines on which it has been discussed by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) who has argued that the Minister of Labour and himself, on behalf of the Government, have given a declaration, regarding the rewording of this paragraph on the Report stage, that we should accept. If the Government are prepared to accept the point of view which has been put forward from the back benches, from those who, up to this point, have supported the Government, it is not enough to ask the back bench Members to accept the assurance regarding the rewording on Report stage, but the words which we now have before us should be withdrawn. It will only be after there is a withdrawal of the words which are now on the Order Paper, that we can proceed on this matter with any kind of security.
In this instance, we have a precedent which must remain in our minds, and which I use only as an illustration; that is the precedent of the phrase, "not 610 genuinely seeking work." This is a parallel to that instance. I am not going to make further reference to it. I suggest that we ought to ask the Government, when there is dissatisfaction with the wording of the Paragraph, to do what they did in the instance to which I have alluded, and withdraw the Paragraph as it now stands. When the Paragraph is withdrawn, we can have a much more definite form of assurance that there is to be a satisfactory 'rewording. One has to point out this fact, in connection with the Clause: During the Second Reading Debate, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) made a statement which I remember was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), that, under the words of the paragraph, practically every worker—
The DEPUTY CHAIRMANThe Motion before the Committee is to report Progress, and we must not enter into a discussion on the merits of the Clause. The Question is whether we should report Progress or not.
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Mr. BROCKWAYI am urging that, in the state of confusion in which we are in regarding the wording of this Bill, we ought to report Progress, and the Government and the Ministers ought to have an opportunity when they next come before us of having the actual re-wording of the Clause before us so that we may consider it in that form. This is the suggestion that I make to the members of the Front Bench. It is not enough to say that they will re-word the Clause on Report Stage, but they ought to be able to say that they will withdraw the words immediately, and then report Progress, so that we may have the new words before us, and may have proper time for the consideration of them. That is the point I put before you, and I suggest that it is a perfectly relevant one for submitting that we should report Progress.
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
611§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
612§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 19.
611| Division No. 409.] | AYES. | [12.32 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Rathbone, Eleanor |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Hollins, A. | Raynes, W. R. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Isaacs, George | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Ammon, Charles George | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Ritson, J. |
| Arnott, John | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Romeril, H. G. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Barr, James | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Rowson, Guy |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Benson, G. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Sanders, W. S. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Lang, Gordon | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Scott, James |
| Bromfield, William | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Brooke, W. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Brothers, M. | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Shield, George William |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Lawrence, Susan | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Shinwell, E. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Lawson, John James | Simmons, C. J. |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Sinkinson, George |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Leach, W. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Leonard, W. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Llndley, Fred W. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Compton, Joseph | Longbottom, A. W. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Longden, F. | Sorensen, R. |
| Daggar, George | Lunn, William | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Strauss, G. R. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | McElwee, A. | Sullivan, J. |
| Dukes, C. | McEntee, V. L. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Ede, James Chuter | McKinlay, A. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Freeman, Peter | Manning, E. L. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Mansfield, W. | Toole, Joseph |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Markham, S. F. | Tout, W. J. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Marshall, Fred | Townend, A. E. |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Mathers, George | Vaughan, David |
| Gill, T. H. | Mills, J. E. | Viant, S. P. |
| Glassey, A. E. | Milner, Major J. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Gossling, A. G. | Montague, Frederick | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Mort, D. L. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Muff, G. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Murnin, Hugh | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Naylor, T. E. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Noel Baker, P. J. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Palin, John Henry | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Hayes, John Henry | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Potts, John S. | |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Price, M. P. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Quibell, D. J. K. | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling. |
| Herriotts, J. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Kirkwood, D. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Logan, David Gilbert | Wise, E. F. |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Maxton, James | |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Remer, John R. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley. |
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 20; Noes, 172.
613| Division No. 410.] | AYES. | [12.41 a.m. |
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Groves, Thomas E. | Sandham, E. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Horrabin, J. F. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Kirkwood, D. | Wise, E. F. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Longden, F. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Maxton, James | Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley. |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Remer, John R. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Herriotts, J. | Rathbone, Eleanor |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Raynes, W. R. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Hollins, A. | Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Isaacs, George | Ritson, J. |
| Arnott, John | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Barr, James | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Rowson, Guy |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Benson, G. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent. Ashford) | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) |
| Bondfleid, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Sanders, W. S. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Lang, Gordon | Scott, James |
| Bromfield, William | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Brooke, W. | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Brothers, M. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Shield, George William |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Lawrence, Susan | Shinwell, E. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Lawson, John James | Sinkinson, George |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Leach, W. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Leonard, W. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Compton, Joseph | Llndley, Fred W. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Longbottom, A. W. | Sorensen, R. |
| Daggar, George | Lunn, William | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Strauss, G. R. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | McElwee, A. | Sullivan, J. |
| Dukes, C. | McEntee, V. L. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Ede, James Chuter | McKinlay, A. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Freeman, Peter | Manning, E. L. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Mansfield, W. | Tout, W. J. |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Markham, S. F. | Townend, A. E. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Marshall, Fred | Vaughan, David |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Mathers, George | Viant, S. P. |
| Gill, T. H. | Mills, J. E. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Glassey, A. E. | Milner, Major J. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Gossling, A. G. | Montague, Frederick | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Gould, F. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Mort, D. L. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Muff, G. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Murnin, Hugh | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Naylor, T. E. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Noel Baker, P. J. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Palin, John Henry | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Hardie, David (Rutherglen) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Hayes, John Henry | Phillips, Dr. Marion | |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Potts, John S. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Price, M. P. | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling. |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Quibell, D. J. K. | |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
§ Question again proposed, "That the words 'persons who' stand part of the Clause."
§ Mr. WISEContinuing the discussion on the Amendment, may I point out to the Committee that the right hon. Lady's words, in this paragraph, are designed to 614 carry into effect the proposals in the report of the Royal Commission relating to short time. Hon. Members above the Gangway had said very strongly that they are apprehensive lest these words may be used to prevent coal-miners', textile workers, engineers and others, who are deliberately working short time in order 615 to spread work, from being cut off from benefit. The whole of the argument-underlying the proposals in the report is based on the practice of the coal-mining and textile industries. Paragraph 112 discusses short-time working in the coal industry, in which it says that organised short time existed to some extent before the early days of Unemployment Insurance. The effect of Unemployment Insurance, pressure from the Government, and public opinion has been to extend organised short time working in that and other industries. It goes on to say:
Nor does the fact that short-time working is a well-established practice necessarily justify the use of the Unemployment Fund to support that practice.It then proceds, after admitting the subject is one of great complexity, to work out the broad outlines of a scheme which is to be applied by regulation when the Advisory Committee is set up and when the powers, which the right hon. lady proposes to give that committee under this Clause, have come into operation. In those circumstances I submit to the right hon. Lady and to the Committee that this side of the House is running a grave risk if it passes words designed to carry into effect exactly those provisions in the Report to which we object. I admit that the drafting of words to cover this point is very difficult. As a matter of fact, I myself spent several days trying to understand what these words meant, and it was not until the right hon. Lady told me that they were intended to carry into effect the short time proposals in the Report that I fully understood the effect of these words.
§ Miss BONDFIELDIt is a pity to waste time on misunderstandings. I have said repeatedly that that part of the interim report which I am trying to
§ carry into effect is that recommendation regarding substantial earnings.
§ Mr. WISEThat is exactly the point. If the right hon. Lady will look at the bottom of page 41 and at the beginning of page 42, she will discover that the whole case with regard to short time and substantial earnings is based on the organised short time working in the coalmining and textile trades. What is more, if she will turn to Appendix 4 of the report, she will learn what the Commission considered substantial earnings in those cases. On page 71 of the report, the Commission, in order to illustrate their point, take the case of a married man with a wife and two children and take an example where his earnings for two days in the week are 30s. In this particular case he is entitled to 13s. 6d. benefit under the existing rules. The Commission proposes, in dealing with short-time and substantial earnings, to dock that man of Is. 6d. per week of his benefit. That is exactly the proposal in the report, and I submit that to pass phrases, which would have the effect- of enabling the Committee to carry that sort of principle into effect, is absolutely-contrary to the opinion of this party, is absolutely contrary to the intentions of the Government as stated by the Secretary of State for War on the Second Reading, and will be absolutely contrary to the public opinion of the working-class movement.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNrose—
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 18.
617| Division No. 411.] | AYES. | [12.55 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Edmunds, J. E. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Burgess, F. G. | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Freeman, Peter |
| Ammon, Charles George | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) |
| Arnott, John | Clarke, J. S. | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Cluse, W. S. | Gibbins, Joseph |
| Barr, James | Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Compton, Joseph | Gill, T. H. |
| Benson, G. | Cripps, Sir Stafford | Glassey, A. E. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Daggar, George | Gossling, A. G. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Gould, F. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) |
| Brooke, W. | Dukes, C. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
| Brothers, M. | Ede, James Chuter | Groves, Thomas E. |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Shield, George William |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Manning, E. L. | Shinwell, E. |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Mansfield, W. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Markham, S. F. | Sinkinson, George |
| Hardie, David (Rutherglen) | Marshall, Fred | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Haycock, A. W. | Mathers, George | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Mills, J. E. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Milner, Major J. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Montague, Frederick | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Herriotts, J. | Mort, D. L. | Sorensen, R. |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. N. Wentworth) | Muff, G. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Hollins, A. | Murnin, Hugh | Strauss, G. R. |
| Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Naylor, T. E. | Sullivan, J. |
| Isaacs, George | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sutton, J. E. |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Noel Baker, P. J. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Palin, John Henry | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Paling, Wilfrid | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Tout, W. J. |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Vaughan, David |
| Lang, Gordon | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Viant, S. P. |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Potts, John S. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Price, M. P. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Law, Albert (Bolton) | Quibell, D. J. K. | Wellock, willred |
| Law, A. (Rosendale) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Lawrence, Susan | Rathbone, Eleanor | Westwood, Joseph |
| Lawson, John James | Raynes, W. R. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Leach, W. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Ritson, J. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Leonard, W. | Romeril, H. G. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Rowson, Guy | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Longden, F. | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Lunn, William | Sanders, W. S. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Sawyer, G. F. | |
| McElwee, A. | Scurr, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| McEntee, V. L. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton. |
| McKinlay, A. | Sherwood, G. H. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Grattan- Doyle, Sir N. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Horrabin, J. F. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Kirkwood, D. | Wise, E. F. |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Maxton, James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Sandham, E. | Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words 'persons who' stand part of the Clause."
618§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 18.
619| Division No. 412.] | AYES. | [1.5 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Daggar, George | Haycock, A. W. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Dukes, C. | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Ede, James Chuter | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
| Arnott, John | Edmunds, J. E. | Herriotts, J. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) |
| Barr, James | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Hollins, A. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Freeman, Peter | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) |
| Benson, G. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Isaacs, George |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Gibbins, Joseph | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Brooke, W. | Gill, T. H. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Brothers, M. | Glassey, A. E. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Gossling, A. G. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Burgess, F. G. | Gould, F. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne). | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com, Hon. Joseph M. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George |
| Clarke, J. S. | Groves, Thomas E. | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Grundy, Thomas W. | Law, Albert (Bolton) |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Law, A. (Rossendale) |
| Compton, Joseph | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lawrence, Susan |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Lawson, John James |
| Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Leach, W. | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Sorensen, R. |
| Leonard, W. | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Potts, John S. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Llndley, Fred W. | Price, M. P. | Sullivan, J. |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Quibell, D. J. K. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Lunn, William | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Rathbone, Eleanor | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| McElwee, A. | Raynes, W. R. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| McEntee, V. L. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Thurtle, Ernest |
| McKinlay, A. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| MacNeill-Weir, L. | Ritson, J. | Tout, W. J. |
| Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Romeril, H. G. | Vaughan, David |
| Manning, E. L. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Viant, S. P. |
| Mansfield, W. | Rowson, Guy | Wallace, H. W. |
| Markham, S. F. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Marshall, Fred | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Mathers, George | Sanders, W. S. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Mills, J. E. | Sawyer, G. F. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Milner, Major J. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Montague, Frederick | Sherwood, G. H. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Shield, George William | Williams, T. (York. Don Valley) |
| Mort, D. L. | Shillaker, J. F. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Muff, G. | Shinwell, E. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Murnin, Hugh | Simmons, C. J. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Naylor, T. E. | Sinkinson, George | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sitch, Charles H. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Noel Baker, P. J. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | |
| Palin, John Henry | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Paling, Wilfrid | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton. |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Kirkwood, D. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Maxton, James | Wise, E. F. |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Sandham, E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Scurr, John | Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley. |
§ The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Miss BONDFIELD:
§
In page 2, line 7, to leave out from the word "who," to the word" receive," in line 10, and to insert instead thereof the words:
within the calendar week ending in the period in respect of which benefit is payable or within any prescribed period (being a period not exceeding four weeks) so ending.
§ Miss BONDFIELDIn view of the fact that I have given my pledge to the Committee to redraft paragraph (a) on the Report stage, I think it would be wasting time to move this Amendment. I therefore do not move.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment will be that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) to leave out paragraph (b).
§ Mr. STEPHENI am in somewhat of a difficulty, because now we have passed up to the words "persons who" in paragraph (a) and, if nothing more is done—and I understand that we are going to pass on to paragraph (b)—it 620 means that the words after the word "who "to the end of paragraph (a) will be passed over. I want to move the deletion of those words. I submit that I am entitled to move their deletion, because I hold that the Committee is not willing to pass paragraph (a) as it stands, and if the Committee is not willing to do that, then those words should be deleted.
§ Mr. THOMASOn that same point. It is quite true that certain members of the Committee did not feel that they were justified in passing the paragraph as it stands, but it is equally true that the Committee by a very large majority said that it would pass that paragraph on the understanding that it is redrafted on report stage.
§ Mr. STEPHENThe discussion that took place in the Committee showed distinctly that the Members who took part in it, except the front Government bencch Members, disagreed with the words as they are in paragraph (a). I am submitting that the Question put and voted on was only with regard to the words of the paragraph to the word "who," and 621 consequently I hold that if the Minister is not going to move the Amendment on the paper in her name to replace those words with other words, then we are entitled to delete the words after the word "who" in the paragraph.
§ The CHAIRMANI purposely put the Question, "That the words 'persons who' stand part of the Clause," for the purpose of calling on the Minister to move her Amendment. I understand that the Minister does not move that Amendment, because she is going to redraft paragraph (a). Therefore any discussion on paragraph (a) would be useless until the new drafting of the paragraph is before the House, when hon. Members will have an opportunity of putting down Amendments to the paragraph that will then be before the House. If the paragraph is left standing with the words "persons who" it would make it ridiculous. In any case, I do not accept any Amendment to leave out the words after "persons who."
§ Mr. LOGANIn the circumstances, does it not show that it is advisable to withdraw the paragraph? It seems clear that that is the right thing to do.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Minister has explained what she intends to do, and consequently the position is as I have explained. Hon. Members' liberty to amend the new paragraph does not arise now.
§ Mr. STEPHENIs not the position now this, that since the Minister is not prepared to take the step of moving her Amendment, what has been passed to the words "persons who" is, as you have said, obviously nonsense? I agree with that. But the remedy for that is for the Minister to withdraw the paragraph.
§ The CHAIRMANThe position is, as I have explained to the committee, that the words "persons who" stand part of the paragraph, but that does not in any way interfere with the right of hon. Members, when the new paragraph is put down redrafting the remaining words, to amend the words after the words "persons who" or whatever words are put in their place. I am not going to accept an Amendment which would leave the paragraph ending at the words "persons who."
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNOn a point of Order. [Interruption.]
§ The CHAIRMANThere is no point of Order.
§ Mr. BROWNI have been trying to catch your eye for the last three minutes, and I submit that I am entitled to submit a point of Order to you.
§ Mr. BROWNI do not in the least desire to contest your Ruling that an Amendment which would leave paragraph (a), at the words "persons who" would produce a ridiculous position. But if an Amendment to delete all the words after the word "who" is out of Order, that does not preclude an Amendment seeking to amend the words after the word "who". In the last quarter of an hour—(Interruption). I submit that this is a serious point. We have had from the Minister for the first time, either on Second Reading or in Committee, an indication of what she regards as substantial earnings. That was given in the short intervention of the Minister a few minutes ago when she said that the desire of the Ministry was to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission, as given on page so and so of the report, and then my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) referred to that page in the report and discovered that the effect of the Ministry's interpretation of substantial earnings was 39s. plus 13s. minus Is. 6d.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a matter for the Minister and not for me.
§ Mr. BROWNI want to submit to you that the Amendment which seeks to define in paragraph (a) earnings or similar payments of such a kind and of such substantial amount really would be in Order in spite of your Ruling.
§ The CHAIRMANI did not say the Amendment was out of Order; what I did say was in regard to the words "Persons who." The Minister has had an opportunity of explaining that she is not moving the Amendment, and it is the duty of the Chair to pass on to the next Amendment, and therefore I call on the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen).
§ Mr. BECKETTrose—
§ The CHAIRMANI have given my decision.
§ Mr. BECKETTI rise on a point of Order—
§ The CHAIRMANThere is no other point of Order on this question.
§ Mr. BECKETTrose—
§ The CHAIRMANNo further point of Order can arise, and therefore I call on the hon. Member of Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) to move his Amendment to leave out paragraph (b).
§ Mr. STEPHENI beg to move in page 2, line 13, to leave out paragraph (b).
This Amendment is one which has as its object to remove from the scope of the Bill the people who are engaged in occupations which are of a seasonal nature. There has been an attempt to find victims in connection with the alleged anomalies of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. There was the mythical person earning £7 or £8 a week. Someone had heard about him, someone said he had seen him, and someone doubted him. Then when we came to pursue that subject we found that there was a great deal of dubiety as to what was really intended. We have been told that it was not intended that such and such a class would come in, but it would depend upon the earnings, substantial earnings, and so on. Now we come to another class than those who are engaged in occupations which are of a seasonal nature. Evidently these are the real bad people in connection with unemployment insurance. I myself have had some experience in dealing with the cases of these people in their claims for unemployment insurance benefit. They have never been in a very strong position with regard to the receipt of unemployment benefit. Again and again they have been ruled out. In the old days they were ruled out under the operations of the "Not genuinely seeking work Clause," and after the removal of that disqualification it would appear as if the only way to deal with these people in the mind of the Ministry is practically to throw them out.
624 I want you to consider what is the position with regard to these seasonal workers. In the fishing industry in the old days, before this tremendous industrial slump took place, the people engaged in the industry after working during the season found that there were other avenues of employment for them and that they were able to get work of one kind or another in their district. Now with this industrial slump there are not the openings for employment in their districts to anything like the same extent, and the districts in which these people live have had grievous burdens laid upon them during recent years. The only thing that has given the districts relief from the burden of unemployment has been the removal of the "not genuinely seeking work" disqualification. Again the Committee is being asked to place these people in a difficult position, practically to put them into a position where they will not be able to receive unemployment benefit, and you are going to put the responsibility for making provision for them upon the people in the districts which have borne so much of the burden of unemployment. You are going to increase the burdens under relief and the public assistance committees to an extraordinary degree, and you are going to make the position of affairs in these districts practically impossible. It may be said that that is not contemplated, but that is going to be the effect. Remember that these seasonal workers in the old days were able to obtain a livelihood, and were able to bring a strong hardy race into the world, who have contributed a great deal to this country in days gone by in every branch of industry, and every section of culture and development in this country.
The present industrial slump is responsible for the extraordinary difficulties which these people have to face, and it is an intolerable thing that now they should be put into the position where they are going to be outside unemployment benefit. They have had to contribute to the Unemployment Insurance scheme in the past, and they could not get benefit in respect of their contributions. They were not without the scheme, but it was found impossible for many of them to get benefit under the operations of the "not genuinely seeking work" Clause, and now that they 625 have got it there is going to be this new power to deal with these people. I do not think we are going to cure anomalies if we are going to deprive people in that position of unemployment benefit, and therefore I move this Amendment. I have no doubt that many of my colleagues will support me in this matter and give additional reasons as to why there should not be this special treatment for these people. In the present industrial crisis it would not be fitting for this House to put an additional burden on these people.
§ Miss BONDFIELDI want briefly to state that it is impossible for me to consider accepting this Amendment. This paragraph is part of a definite undertaking that these categories of workers should be dealt with and that we should try to see if it were possible to deal with the so-called abuses. We have discovered that there are abuses. It is for those reasons that I have to resist the Amendment.
Mr. ALLENI do not want to make a long speech, but I should like to support the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). This question of unemployment is great and overbearing in Northern Ireland, and I thought it was my duty to intervene, in view of the fact that none of the hon. Members from the North of Ireland are present. The provision in regard to seasonal work affects the workers in Northern Ireland, although separate legislation will be, required to make it applicable to Belfast. There is a constant flow of labour, from the North of Ireland to Scotland and Liverpool areas. The Northern Government will introduce this Bill in almost the exact form in which it is being introduced into this House. I think, therefore, that a protest on behalf of the seasonal workers in Northern Ireland is due at this stage of the Debate on the Bill.
If I am in Order, I should like to quote some observations made by Mr. Andrews, who, for the last 10 years, has been the Conservative Minister of Labour in the Parliament of Northern Ireland. He is a man who has the respect of all sections of the community, and less than a year ago he anticipated the very line that unemployment legislation was destined to take in this country. I think it 626 is worth while reading to the Committee the things said by the Conservative Minister of Labour in the Northern Government. He said:
When I introduced the last Unemployment Insurance Act in this House, I pointed out quite clearly that I felt that the pendulum was swinging too far, and that I dreaded the recoil in the interests of our working people. I dread that recoil more to-day, because, if you read the history of matters of this kind, you will see that if there is a step too far in one direction, there is a step back, perhaps, too far in another direction.
Miss LEEIf a paragraph of this kind had been introduced by a Conservative Government in a period when trade was prosperous, I should have found it comparatively easy to understand the motives to follow the reasons. Then, seasonal workers, deprived of benefit in their between season, would not be in danger of being left destitute, because there would be other avenues whereby they could supplement their normal means of earning a living. I find it very difficult indeed to understand how a Labour Government can introduce a paragraph like this in a time of trade depression. As the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has already said, we have to reckon that the seasonal worker may not be able to find work of any other kind during his between season, and we have to consider what is to happen to him in those periods, and what is our responsibility towards him.
We are not dealing here with a prima donna, making thousands of pounds in a very short period, nor with that illusory footballer who is certainly not like any of the footballers of my acquaintance who seem to be making fortunes for a very short period. Such men seem to be the scarecrows of the "Daily Mail" and unfortunately of other newspapers that I prefer to refrain from mentioning. These types of seasonal worker who earn excessive sums do not come within the insurance scheme; therefore, we take it that the seasonal worker with which the Bill is concerned are fisher folk and certain types of workers at seaside resorts, whose livelihood, even at the height of the season, is often of a precarious character. There may be other cases which through a very short season make what most of us would consider "substantial earnings"; but, if we took the most substantial of those earnings and 627 divided them by the 52 weeks of the year, in order to even them out, we should find that the average income level was disgracefully low. We cannot hope that the seasonal workers, the persons dealt with in this Clause, who are normally employed in a seasonal occupation, will he able to maintain their families properly in the "off" season, and we have no right to legislate on that assumption.
The Labour party at the last General Election made a great deal of the fact that we were going to relieve local rates by making the maintenance of the able-bodied poor a national charge. I made a great deal of that point in my election speeches, because I had very pronounced views about the question of local rates. I believed that our rating system, with its—
§ The CHAIRMAN rose—
Miss LEEYes, your smile was enough there, Sir Robert! I do not think that I am out of Order in making this point, that the choice for the seasonal worker, when engaged in normal occupation, is, unless in very exceptional circumstances, that of being maintained by a State fund, or by the local rates. The present proposal goes directly and indefensibly back, not only upon the specific point, but upon our whole conception of how taxes ought to be borne and distributed. I am sorry that we should be bringing forward a proposal of this kind, and I very whole-heartedly support the mover of this Amendment in asking that the paragraph should be completely withdrawn.
§ Miss WILKINSONI am very sorry that the Minister of Labour is not present. I represent a trade union that has a considerable number of seasonal workers, and we are very anxious to know exactly how this paragraph will affect them. Take an example. A large number of women workers are organised in the Union that I represent. They are dressmakers and milliners. As this paragraph is drafted, those dressmakers and milliners, of which a large number are unorganised will be cut out of benefit. Dressmaking and millinery is largely a seasonal trade. As soon as the sales stop, the dressmakers and milliners are off work, and they remain off work during 628 practically the whole of August and September. In the season of bad trade, there is a slack period, starting in the middle of July. In normal times, many of them were able to get employment as extra sales hands, but that is not the position now. I have made many inquiries in London, especially at some of the big shops, and my union has also been making inquiries. We find that the number of girls who, in bad times, are regularly employed for at least six weeks in the summer and four or five weeks in the Christmas season, is a very large one indeed. Our union pays these girls trade union unemployment benefit, but there are a very large number of girls who are in no union at all.
I want to ask the Minister what those girls are going to do. They get very meagre earnings, and it is quite impossible for them to save enough during the time that they are at work even to pay their lodging money during the winter and summer time when they are off. The hon. Lady who has just spoken said that they would then have to go on local relief. Unfortunately, in a very large number of towns outdoor relief will not be given to single women, and thoroughly decent and respectable young women, who apply for outdoor relief, are told that, by the rules of the public assistance: committees, outdoor relief is not paid to single women. They are offered the alternative of the workhouse. Does the Minister of Labour intend that perfectly decent, respectable girls are to be offered the workhouse? If she does, the position is simply intolerable. It is no use saying that this is not the kind of seasonal work contemplated by the Bill. It is definitely covered by paragraph (b), which says:
whose normal employment is employment for portions of the year only in occupations which are of a seasonal nature.Dressmaking and millinery to-day are definitely of a seasonal nature. These girls pay their unemployment insurance. Does the Minister of Labour intend that these girls, when they are out of work, shall be told that they are seasonal workers and cannot get any benefit and that the alternative for them is the workhouse? In taking over the report, the Minister of Labour has had certain classes of workers in view, who clearly only work for part of the year. She has no idea of the number of workers that will 629 be affected by it. While supporting the Anomalies Bill, I certainly cannot and will not vote for a Clause of this broad nature, which may have such a very bad effect on the girls whom I represent.
§ Mr. LOGANI have taken very little part in the discussion in this Committee on this Bill, because I did not wish to embarrass the Government. On many points I have been in disagreement with them and I should have thought that reasonableness on the part of the Minister on these points would have been more prevalent. In respect to this Clause, the Minister makes a statement and then gets up and clears out of the House—
§ Mr. THOMASI know that my hon. Friend wants to be fair to the right hon. Lady. My right hon. Friend has been sitting here all day under tremendous strain, and she has just gone to get a cup of tea.
§ Mr. LOGANI accept that explanation and wish to withdraw any statement in regard to the Minister, but I am dealing now with a particular Clause which is presented to the Committee. I have a duty to the Government which, so far as it is within my power, I shall try to fulfil, but I have a duty also to the people whom I represent and who are largely composed of the particular class mentioned in paragraph (b). We have heard that a certain trade union organisation has many workers of this particular type, but I represent a division which is composed mostly of this particular type. We find that a great exodus has taken place in the last two years among the girls in the large factories in my neighbourhood, and I have had at public meetings to warn parents that, in the interests of their girls, they should not allow them to go into seasonal occupations. I have found that in big industrial factories girls go to work from 14 to 16, and then the responsibility for stamping their cards falls on the firm. Later on those girls get discharged and they are told in the Scotland division by the employment exchange that they must get other employment. The particular class of employment to which they are accustomed has no use for them, and then they are offered seasonal employment, although I as a Member of Parliament and as a Justice of the Peace, have always advised that it was not good from the moral standpoint.
630 These girls then, having lost their normal occupation, having had to take on seasonal occupation, are now told that they are one of the classes which are to be dealt with as one of the anomalies under this Bill. There may be certain anomalies in regard to the man working at the docks and making £3 a week, but in my neighbourhood the spade is put up to keep the rain out of the windows and the coal heavers do not earn £8 a week. I know them all and I know their family life. I, as a Member of Parliament, could not go back to the City of Liverpool and say that I stood for this provision in the House of Commons. I could not say to my own flesh and blood, the people I pass my life with, that their daughters are to be denied work and to be regarded as seasonal workers, and then, when they make application to get relief, told, "You can have the house." I cannot go back and say that I stood silent in the House of Commons on that proposal. My predecessor would not have sat quiet, and I am not going to do so. I am sincere when I tell the Committee that I am not standing for this kind of thing.
Surely the Minister of Labour when appealed to by her colleagues ought to have given more than a flippant answer. I am not accustomed, when I am asked a simple question, to pass by and say, "Oh, well, it is one of those things we cannot get rid of, and you have got to put up with it." We are here to legislate. We are here to make known to the Minister, without any Advisory Committee, as those in actual contact with the people what are the conditions. I do not know whether this Advisory Committee to be set up by the Minister of Labour could understand better these people with whom I am living constantly. If there is any Clause in the Bill which hits very deeply the morality of our people it is this particular Clause. With gravity, I would ask the Minister, if she were present, to deal with the advisability of what is being done in the present Clause. It will be be said that I am another one joining the irreconcilables. It is far better to be amongst the irreconcilables in this House in dealing with what will be an injustice than going back to these people whom I represent after being silent on an injustice. Silence is contemptible in the House of Commons when an occasion 631 like this arises. I know the difficulties of the situation. I know how hard it is to deal with the question of anomalies. I may have spoken strongly in this House, but not more strongly than I have spoken every Sunday night about the difficulties that this Government have in dealing with finance and unemployment. In my humble opinion, my contact with this form of life in Liverpool alone is indicative enough for me to say that if you go on you will be creating injustice.
§ Mr. THOMASI think it only fair to say that the Minister of Labour meant no discourtesy to the House either by her absence or brevity of reply.
§ Mr. THOMASDo not let us forget that on the money Resolution and on the Second Reading there was a very full Debate on all the points that we have discussed last evening and this morning. The Minister of Labour has clearly and definitely attempted to give the House the information at her disposal. That briefly is the situation. I do not think any useful purpose is served by anyone assuming that they have the monopoly of either interest or sympathy in this matter. I said earlier on that I paid tribute to everybody in the House for the expression of their views. Those who did not vote with the hon. Members could not be accused of less humanity than those who took the other way.
§ Mr. MAXTONIt is a case of a question of wisdom and folly.
§ Mr. THOMASI am quite sure there would be a difference of opinion as to who was the embodiment of wisdom and who did the most foolish things. There would he quite legitimate differences of opinion.
§ Mr. MAXTONPut that to the Advisory Committee.
§ Mr. THOMASI am sure my hon. Friend ought to stop his opposition if he could trust his own folly or wisdom to the Advisory Committee—that is evidence of how much easier it is for them to judge as to seasonal workers. I want first, to deal with the case put forward by the hon. Member for Lanark (Miss Lee). She says that even dressmaking 632 could be held to be seasonal working. I have read the evidence before the Commission, and the report, and no such construction was ever given in evidence or in the report. I would have no hesitation in saying that such cases as she herself stated were never contemplated.
Miss LEEI have cases here. The report says distinctly that
The term 'seasonal workers' is used to cover two different classes of case—(1) where there is a busy season alternating with a slack season. … Examples of the first class are the building, clothing and certain other trades.
§ Mr. THOMASAs has already been stated, the first class is not proposed to be included. This is clear, definite, and specific. So far as the second class is concerned, that is a matter for the Committee themselves to investigate. Let us take some illustrations in my own union—not in recent years. This problem of seasonal workers has affected the trade unions for years. I remember the painters who during the summer season worked in their usual occupation and drew from my own union, year after year, unemployment benefit until there was an investigation made. My own union found that there people would not have their own places and never intended to take a job in the winter because of the particular circumstances in their locality. The union said unemployment benefit was never intended to meet the case. We wish to make it perfectly clear, in answer to the hon. Lady for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), that nothing would be so unfair as to treat painters as seasonal workers, although everybody knows they are more busy in summer than in the winter owing to the climatic conditions. It is not intended they should be included.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWhy differentiate painters?
§ Mr. THOMASBecause, unlike the painters I mentioned in the illustration, although it may be a slack season, they are anxious and willing to work and try to get a job. There are included in a large number of categories of folk who, unlike the painter when his season ends, do not intend to take any other job.
§ Mr. BUCHANANHow do you know? Have you offered them a job?
§ Mr. THOMASThat implies and, if it is true, my hon. Friend agrees.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI do not agree.
§ Mr. THOMASThen there is no point in the observation.
§ Mr. BUCHANANHow do you know they do not want a job?
§ 2 a.m.
§ Mr. THOMASIf there is any doubt on that point, that is exactly what this Committee, on which their own friends will be, will investigate. That is as far as this is intended. It is not intended to create injustices, but equally I am prepared to say, as the Secretary of State for War said, that if there are abuses, and if there are people who work six months and do not intend and do not wish to work the other six months, you cannot justify any system that says that they shall draw their benefit.
§ Mr. LOGANWill the right hon. Gentleman tell me how he will deal with the particular ease of those who leave their ordinary form of employment and have to take up seasonal occupation and receive out-of-work pay? I am anxious to know.
§ Mr. THOMASI know; we are all anxious to know. But, looking at the situation at it is, no Minister would be entitled from this Box to give an answer on a specific case. The Minister would want to know all the circumstances of the case and the accuracy of it, and for me to answer such a question as the hon. Member puts would be unfair and misleading.
§ The CHAIRMANMr. Kirkwood.
§ The CHAIRMANI have called the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood).
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI beg to appeal to the Minister of Labour to take back this paragraph. I am sorry that no Members of the Liberal party are here.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI do see one of the Members to whom I was referring, and I am glad to see that he is the Member who represents the fisher lasses. I can see, as a result of this paragraph, thousands of Scottish fisher lasses being cut off and no provision made for them at all, because their occupation is of a seasonal character. If ever there was a time in the history of this country when the Government should take an interest in those girls it is now. The time was when, after they had finished their work, they could go back to their clachans in the Highlands of Scotland in comfort, but they cannot do that to-day because all over the Highlands of Scotland poverty is rampant. Formerly their brothers and their fathers came and worked on the Clyde because there was plenty of work in the shipyards. To-day the shipyards are like graveyards. Here the Government, this Labour Government, not for any wrong that those girls have done,—there are no better lasses in the world,—are to be denied the benefit; and it is not a man that is going to condemn them in this fashion, but a woman, the Minister of Labour. But I will not say too much along that line, because I am still hoping—hope springs eternal in the human breast and it is a God's blessing—that we shall be able to move her yet to agree to delete this paragraph. If I was able to take her with me to the Highlands of Scotland, she would see the girls I am appealing for, see what it means because of this terrible industrial depression that is hitting those clachans far beyond any dream of anybody in a big industrial centre, because they have absolutely nothing to depend on and cannot be thrown on the local authorities which are impoverished, apart from the outstanding fact that single girls in any case will not get any assistance. There is no doubt about it, that, if this paragraph goes through, the Government will be responsible for driving thousands of decent respectable girls on to the streets.
§ Mr. MAXTONIt was not rubbish in the 1927 Bill. [Interruption].
§ Mr. KIRKWOODLabour Members made that statement across the floor of the House of Commons when it was threatened to reduce the rates. Here it is being taken away altogether. It was 635 stated in the Labour papers, never mind about my stating it here. It is taking away from those girls the only income that they will have at a time when poverty is rampant in their midst, and all because they put their whole soul into their job. They have no other work to go to if they go back to the land of their nativity. They come here to England and give of their best. They are sent away back to their native land—if they cannot get into a big industrial centre to sell their bodies—to starve. I impeach
§ the Minister of Labour with that responsibility. If you care to shoulder it, the responsibility is yours. I have warned you that you will be dealt with when the time comes.
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 153; Noes 17.
635| Division No. 413.] | AYES. | [2.10 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Raynes, W. R. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Herriotts, J. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Ritson, J. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hollins, A. | Romeril, H. G. |
| Arnott, John | Isaacs, George | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Rowson, Guy |
| Barr, James | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Sanders, W. S. |
| Benson, G. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Scurr, John |
| Bowen, J. W. | Lang, Gordon | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Brooke, W. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Shield, George William |
| Brothers, M. | Law, A. (Rosendale) | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Lawrence, Susan | Shinwell, E. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Lawson, John James | Sinkinson, George |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Leonard, W. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lindley, Fred W. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Longbottom, A. W. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Daggar, George | Longden, F. | Sorensen, R. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Lunn, William | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Strauss, G. R. |
| Dukes, C. | McElwee, A. | Sullivan, J. |
| Ede, James Chuter | McEntee, V. L. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Edmunds, J. E. | McKinlay, A. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Manning, E. L. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Freeman, Peter | Mansfield, W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Marshall, Fred | Tout, W. J. |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Mathers, George | Vaughan, David |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Mills, J. E. | Viant, S. P. |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Milner, Major J. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Gill, T. H. | Montague, Frederick | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Glassey, A. E. | Mort, D. L. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Gossling, A. G. | Muff, G. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Gould, F. | Murnin, Hugh | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Noel Baker, P. J. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Palin, John Henry | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Potts, John S. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Hayes, John Henry | Price, M. P. | |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Quibell, D. J. K. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Mr. Paling and Mr. Thurtle. |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Kirkwood, D. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Logan, David Gilbert | Wise, E. F. |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | |
| Buchanan, G. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Sandham, E. | Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley. |
| Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ Mr. WISEMay I draw your attention, Sir, to a manuscript Amendment which I handed to you, arising out of paragraph (a)? At a previous hour, an Amendment was moved by the Minister to delete the last four lines of Sub-section (1). The Minister informed us that the Amendment was required, in order to make more clear in drafting, the meaning of Subsection (2, a). We pointed out to her
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 19.
637| Division No. 414.] | AYES. | [2.18 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Herriotts, J. | Ritson, J. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Hollins, A. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Isaacs, George | Rowson, Guy |
| Arnott, John | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Sanders, W. S. |
| Barr, James | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Benson, G. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Scurr, John |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Lang, Gordon | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Shield, George William |
| Brooke, W. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Brothers, M. | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Shinwell, E. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Lawrence, Susan | Simmons, C. J. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Sinkinson, George |
| Burgess, F. G. | Lawson, John James | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lindley, Fred W. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Compton, Joseph | Longbottom, A. W. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Lunn, William | Sorensen, R. |
| Daggar, George | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | McElwee, A. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | McEntee, V. L. | Sullivan, J. |
| Dukes, C. | McKinlay, A. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Manning, E. L. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Mansfield, W. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Marshall, Fred | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Freeman, Peter | Mathers, George | Tout, W. J. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Mills, J. E. | Vaughan, David |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Milner, Major J. | Viant, S. P. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Montague, Frederick | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Mort, D. L. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Gill, T. H. | Muff, G. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Glassey, A. E. | Murnin, Hugh | Westwood, Joseph |
| Gossling, A. G. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Gould, F. | Noel Baker, P. J. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Palin, John Henry | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Wilson, R. J. Narrow) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Potts, John S. | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Price, M. P. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Quibell, D. J. K. | |
| Hayes, John Henry | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Rathbone, Eleanor | Mr. Paling and Mr. Thurtle. |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Raynes, W. R. | |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Kirkwood, D. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Buchanan, G. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Wise, E. F. |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley. |
§ then that the effect of the dropping of the words at the end of Sub-section (1) was to drop words of limitation, which limited the operation, not only of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2), but of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d). I then raised with the Deputy-Chairman a point as to putting down an Amendment in order to bring paragraphs (b) (c) and (d) into line with the new situation which 639 arose from the dropping of the early words of limitation by the Minister. I understood from the Deputy-Chairman that he would favourably consider the point— [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—Oh, yes—that he would consider the point at a later stage. I would like to ask to be allowed to move that manuscript Amendment. I would point out that it is not my fault that it has to be a manuscript Amendment, because the Amendment of the Minister was only brought to our notice to-day.
§ The CHAIRMANIf this were a mere drafting Amendment I would readily take it, but the hon. Member has told us that this is an Amendment of very great importance indeed. In those circumstances—apart from the fact that I was not going to select it—if it is so important, it occurs to me that it would be better for all the other hon. Members to see it on the Order Paper, in order that it may be discussed on the Report stage.
§ Mr. WISEIt is already on the Paper—or rather, it is in the Bill as it stands now. The Amendment is to restore the position in relation to paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) as it was on Second Reading. The whole of the previous discussion really related to paragraph (a). I want to move an Amendment to relate the position of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d).
§ The CHAIRMANI do not accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. STEPHENI submit, in connection with this Amendment, that the Deputy-Chairman, when he was in the Chair, practically gave us an assurance—[HON. MEMBEKS: "No"]. My understanding is that there was a definite assurance that we were to move an Amendment in order to protect the interests of the people concerned. My point is that, if the Deputy-Chairman gave some such assurance, then the Chairman ought now to accept the Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANThere seems to be a difference of opinion as to what the Deputy-Chairman promised. The Deputy-Chairman did not tell me anything about a promise to take the Amendment. I must make my own decision. I call on 640 the hon. Member for the Kirk dale Division (Mr. Sandham) to move the next Amendment.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNrose—
§ The CHAIRMANI have called on the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division (Mr. Sandham). I have given my decision. Under the Standing Orders of the House I am entitled to make my selection.
§ Mr. BROWNI am not questioning your right. My point of Order is this. When an Amendment is withdrawn on an assurance from the Chair—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is referring to an assurance from the Chair. I have told him that there is a difference of opinion as to the assurance. I have made my decision. There is no question of my power of selection and I call upon the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division (Mr. Sandham) to move the Amendment which I select.
§ Mr. BROWNI accept what you have said that you have given a decision, and I am not in the least contesting it, but, when the decision conflicts with what happened earlier, what remedy have I? Is it in order for me to move that you do leave the Chair?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must not expect me to take his word that an assurance was given when other hon. Members say that it was not. I have given my decision and we pass on to the next Amendment.
§ Mr. BECKETTrose—
§ The CHAIRMANMr. Sandham.
§ Mr. BECKETTOn a point of Order—
§ The CHAIRMANI wish to warn the hon. Member that I have called on the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division for the next Amendment and that is all that is going to happen.
§ Mr. BECKETTOn a point of Order—
§ The CHAIRMANI warn the hon. Member that, if he insists, I may have to ask him to leave the House.
§ The CHAIRMANNo point of Order arises. There is nothing before the Committee for any point of Order.
§ The CHAIRMANThere is nothing before the Committee. It is settled. We pass on to the next Amendment and I call upon the hon. Member for the Kirk-dale Division.
§ Mr. COCKSOn a point of Order. Is the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Beckett) the only person who is not allowed to raise a point of Order.
§ The CHAIRMANMy hon. Friend knows that I am objecting to himself raising a point of Order after my decision has been given.
§ Mr. SANDHAMI beg to move in page 2, line 16, to leave out paragraph (c).
That paragraph refers to the intermittent worker, whatever that may mean, and says:
persons whose normal employment is employment in an occupation in which their services are not normally required for more than two days in the week or who owing to personal circumstances are not normally employed for more than two days in the week.In moving this Amendment I wish to state nay position in regard to this Anomalies Bill, because this is the first opportunity I have had of stating my position. I do not believe that this so-called scheme is insurance at all and, from that point of view, it is very difficult for me to believe that it would be right to put anybody out of unemployment benefit. There is not a single individual, never mind a Committee, in the community who could afford to sit in judgment on the type of person referred to in paragraph (c). I hold that view in consequence of my own experience. I bought, on account of the employés connected with my business, hundreds of pounds worth of insurance stamps. I realise that it was people of the type re-referred to in this paragraph, who found the wherewithal to enable me to buy those stamps. Yet now they are to be put under the judgment of this Committee. I had to buy those stamps if they were engaged one day a week and they were compelled to agree and had no power to kick against it.642 My point is that, in regard to this matter, there is no body of persons, no single individual, who can say that the people referred to in this paragraph should even be put in doubt about receiving unemployment pay. There are thousands of them in Lancashire who will be brought within this particular paragraph, in the bleaching industry, in the printing industry, some in the textile industry, not to mention the engineering and other industries. I assert that they have no right to be left in doubt as to whether they will be paid unemployment pay. These are the people who find all the money for the unemployment fund. They work two days a week because they cannot get in the additional days. In that matter, of course, the fault is not theirs at all. It is not the employers'. It is the rotten system under which we live, and that is the reason why I am connected with this party. I know that under capitalism employment cannot be found for the people. I realise that, and I am not afraid to say so. That is one of the matters on which I won Kirkdale from the Conservative party. They were under no misapprehension with regard to this matter. I believe that this paragraph (c) should be deleted. While it will be recognised, of course, that I am "death" on the whole Bill, I may say that I am authorised to fight against the Bill under the instructions of my Divisional Labour Party—not the I.L.P. I realise that many young people have grown up during the trade depression, people who were interested in industry and who were trained as young people in the industry. I want to know whether these folk are to be excluded from unemployment pay or brought under the judgment of this Advisory Committee. These, and many other reasons which could be adduced, form the basis of my objection to this paragraph.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNI support my hon. Friend in moving the deletion of the paragraph. I do so for five reasons. I can imagine that any kind of reason would make very little appeal in the particular quarter represented by hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber, and my five reasons may be overwhelming. The first reason is that I regard the proposal under the paragraph as a backward step from a social point of view. It is part of 643 the policy of a Labour party which has, to-day, completely forgotten its philosophy that the problem of unemployment is largely a problem of the redistribution of leisure. That has been said from thousands of platforms in the country. The trouble has been that the work has not been suitably distributed. There are parts of the country where they have made a reasonable redistribution of employment and leisure but the first effect of the paragraph is to penalise those cases. That presents a definite retrograde step, and if there was nothing else we would be justified on that ground in asking for the deletion of the paragraph.
There is much more than that in the paragraph. The whole assumption underlying it is that the Insurance Fund is being penalised because of intermittent labour, and that, therefore, steps ought to be taken to deal with the problem of intermittent labour. The Fund is not penalised by virtue of intermittent labour. The Fund probably gains by it, rather than loses by it. It does not lose, because from the point of view of the Fund it makes practically no difference whether you have one person out of work for a whole week, or two persons out for half a week each. The drain on the Fund is roughly the same in both cases, and the argument that the Fund was being drained was a fallacy in itself. The Fund positively gained by intermittent labour. You have two people engaged for half a week, and both pay contributions into the Fund. If one person was employed for the whole week only one contribution would be paid and the Fund would be one contribution worse off.
A great deal will depend in relation to this paragraph upon the interpretation of the words about persons whose normal employment is intermittent. There are many people in this country about whose normal employment it would be hard to dogmatise. The employment of Members on the Treasury Bench consists of alternately condemning the capitalist system and propping it up. We have to remember that these words are going to be interpreted by the Advisory Committee and that the committee will be heavily loaded from its inception against working-class interests. Even if it were possible to determine with some precision 644 who are the persons whose employment is intermittent, I would be reluctant to leave it to the committee, because the committee not only has the power to say who is an intermittent worker, but also the power under an earlier provision to impose such additional conditions and terms in respect of benefit, and such restrictions on the amount of benefit and make such modifications as may appear necessary. In other words, we are first giving to the committee unrestricted power, in consultation with the Minister, to determine who is engaged in intermittent work, and the further unrestricted power to determine what modifications in conditions and benefit are to be applied to those particular cases. It would be extraordinarily difficult to imagine a more complete and comprehensive power. All the time it has to be remembered that the committee to which this power is given is a committee on which working class representatives are in a minority of one to three, and not only are the other two-thirds not impartial, but they are positively and definitely partial.
§ Mr. COCKSOn a point of Order. May I draw your attention Mr. Chairman to the position of a Liberal Member opposite who has got his feet all over the bench? Is that a decent sort of position?
§ The CHAIRMANIt is certainly out of order for an hon. Member to have both of his feet on the bench.
§ Mr. BROWNI may be pardoned for the observation that if hon. Members on the front bench put their foot into it, back benchers also may be allowed to put their feet on it. I was saying that to give this kind of power to deal with intermittent workers to a committee so constituted is entirely wrong from a Labour standpoint. Before the alteration was made in Clause 1, there was a phrase limiting the activities of the committee to persons in receipt of substantial earnings.
§ The CHAIRMANWe cannot discuss the committee at this stage.
§ Mr. BROWNI do not propose to do that, but I want to make this point, that, even now, the Minister has indicated that at a later stage there will be some provision for covering that point.
§ Miss BONDFIELDMay I, once and for all, deal with that point, as it has been repeated so often. The position is that the words that have been left out of paragraph (b) deal with a separate thing. The question of substantial earnings has reference only to paragraph (a) and that of normal employment to paragrahp (c).
§ Mr. BROWNThat is an exceedingly serious pronouncement, because what it means is that, from the point of view of paragraph (c), the person who is in intermittent occupation in which his services are not normally required for more than two days in the week, or who is not normally employed for more than two days in the week, will come within the scope of the committee's operations whether his earnings are substantial or not. We know that the Minister's definition of "substantial earnings" is low enough.
§ Miss BONDFIELDI must correct that statement and the constant repetition of something that is not true.
§ Mr. BROWNI should be very sorry to attribute to the Minister something that it is not her intention to say, but my difficulty is that the only reference she has given as to what does constitute "substantial earnings" is a reference by reference. Although we have asked explicitly for a statement, we have not had it at any stage of this Debate. But now it becomes quite clear that the committee's activities, in regard to persons in intermittent employment, will not be affected one way or the other by the consideration as to whether the remuneration is substantial or not. That is only intended to be applied to paragraph (a). If the person is in category (c) there is not even the protection of the necessary qualification of "substantial earnings." "When we look at the composition of the committee we can only come to the conclusion that persons in category (c) are going to have a very rough time indeed.
§ Mr. THORNEYou have had enough. [Interruption.] Nothing will satisfy him. I have known him too long; I know what he is.
§ The CHAIRMANThese personal references are quite unnecessary.
§ 3.0 a.m.
§ Mr. BROWNI am much obliged. I ask the Minister whether she can give us any kind of guidance or indication as to what sort of test the committee is going to apply to the persons in category (c). If there is not to be a "substantial earnings" qualification, what is it to be? Whatever it is, what is the kind of regulation that she contemplates for dealing with persons in that situation? I spent my own boyhood in a seaside town. There you have, not only the problem of seasonal occupation but the problem of intermittent occupation. It is a real problem. For example, in the ordinary seaside town there is very little employment in the winter time, but there is intensive employment all the summer time. Between the two you get spells of intermittent employment. I know from my own experience that when a person does intermittent and seasonal work he does not do it because he desires only to work for two days a week, but because he cannot get more that two days' work a week. If that be so, then the attitude of the State ought not be to treat him less generously in regard to unemployment insurance but to treat him more generously. I quite fail to understand the logic of the argument which says, "If your circumstances are unfortunate to the extent that you can only get work for five days in the week we will give you unemployment pay for the remaining sixth day, but, if you can only work for two days we will deny you unemployment pay for the remaining days." [Interruption.] Clause 1 gives the committee power
To impose such additional conditions and terms with respect to the receipt of benefit and such restrictions on the amount and period of the benefit and make such modifications in the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts relating to the determination of claims for benefit as may appear necessary.There is no question about the power which Sub-section (2, c) gives to the committee in regard to intermittent workers. I see the Secretary for the Dominions shakes his head.
§ Mr. THOMASThe hon. Member is flattering himself. I was going to sleep.
§ Mr. BROWNThe right hon. Gentleman is merely carrying out the tradition of the last twenty years, of going to sleep whenever the interests of the working classes are involved. I submit there can be no question at all of the powers conferred upon the Committee in regard to these people. I suggest to the Minister that if she hopes to get this paragraph through, she should give us some idea of how these powers are to be used.
§ Mr. LAWSONIt appears that the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment are under the impression that the class to which this paragraph applies is a class of workers who are not fully employed because they cannot get such employment, and are only employed at week ends. As a matter of fact, it is not that class at all. The class to which this applies are people who work two days in the week or in the week-end and who are not employed otherwise and are unavailable for work otherwise.
§ Mr. BROCKWAYMay I ask whether in this Clause there is any reference at all to availability for work? We are not discussing the intentions of the Minister, but we are discussing what is in this Bill. I ask the Minister to show me one sentence in reference to availability for work.
§ Mr. LAWSONI think that would be quite an easy thing to do. Paragraph (c) is as follows:
persons whose normal employment is employment in an occupation in which their services are not normally required for more than two days in the week or who owing to personal circumstances are not normally employed for more than two days in the week.There is the case of the printer who is occupied exclusively at the week-end, and it is said he gets quite a good wage. Then there is the case of the young woman who is engaged in the shop at the week-end and is not available for the rest of the week. I submit that these are cases that no working-class man or woman who knows anything about working-class sentiment would defend. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. A. BEVANThe hon. Gentleman said that persons, not normally available for work during the other four days of the week, would not be eligible, and he has just informed the Committee that if they are not normally employable the intention is to deprive them of benefit. 648 But under the existing situation if they are not available for employment they are not eligible for benefit.
§ Mr. LAWSONIn the existing circumstances they do what is the equivalent of a week's work, and get the benefit for the rest of the week. I assure the Committee that it is not the intention to make regulations which will include men or women workers who are normally available for the rest of the week. It is the intention of the Minister simply to have regulation's made to apply to the people who are only working at the week-ends, and are really unavailable for the rest of the week. I can assure the Committee that is the definite intention and we cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. BRACKENI do not want to intervene in the debate and I do not want to interfere with hon. Members opposite, but I feel that the Minister of Labour who has sat here all these hours should not stay until the early hours of the morning, especially as there are so many male members of the Government here.
Miss LEEI regret that the assistant to the Minister of Labour did not give us a fuller reply because there are many sides to this Amendment which some of us would like to have elaborated. One personal difficulty for me is created by the fact that the Minister of Labour in proposing to introduce this Bill said that she was in substantial agreement with the findings of the majority Report, so far as anomalies were concerned, and because of that statement I tried to understand what the implications of this Bill were going to be by paying rather close attention to the recommendations of the Report. Now I find further confusion because it seems to me that on some points the Minister is going to be guided by the recommendations of this Commission, and on others she is going to be guided by the committee which is being brought into existence. I would like to know how it is going to deal with this position. The Report says on page 40 that there are certain administrative difficulties in the way of excluding all the intermittent workers, and therefore the Commission propose that the cases should be tried according to the industrial record of these claimants.
It would help us a great deal if the Minister said whether these intermittent 649 and week-end workers are going to be judged as a class, or in groups, or whether this proposed Committee is going to take one case after another. There is the case of the barman and the barmaid, the porter, the sandwichman, the bill distributor and all the others mentioned by the Commission. Are each of these cases, when they become liable to obtain benefit, going to be brought before the Committee and individually examined. If that is so, I would ask if the Minister can give us any indication of the grounds on which the Committee will make its decisions.
It is extremely difficult, owing to the refusal of the Government to accept our previous Amendment to include an income limit of £250 to know just how a provision of this kind would hit poor workers. The old Socialist doctrine was that people who were not willing to work ought not to be allowed to eat. If we were dealing with an industrial situation in which there was plenty of work available and a scarcity of people to do it, there may be a case for penalising the members of the community who were trying to take advantage of others and who were not willing to do a fair week's work. The type of member of the community who is not willing at present to do even intermittent, seasonal or week-end work, but who makes himself comfortable, enough, is not even dealt with by this Bill. We are far away from the region of our old Socialist philosophy. We are merely dealing with workers, it it quite safe to assume, who are badly paid and who work for two or three days a week, and these are going to find their benefit-in danger.
In recent years I have been consulted in my constituency by many people who normally were engaged in work for the whole year, but who became unemployed, and who registered at the Exchange. They have been sent by the Exchanges to do intermittent, seasonal or week-end work. They would have had their benefit claims "turned down" if they had not been prepared to do work of that kind. Because of industrial depression, and because of difficulty of finding work, classes of people who would normally do a full week's work have been forced by circumstances over which they had no control, into part-time work—forced by the Government itself, through its own Exchanges, with the threat hanging over their heads that if they did not accept the 650 work their benefit would stop. How does the Government expect those people to live?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThose classes are not affected under the paragraph.
§ Miss BONDFIELDIt has been said perfectly clearly several times, that the persons under paragraph (c) are persons who themselves normally do no more than two days work a week, and who do not want to work more than two days a week. The other categories do not come under paragraph (c) at all.
Miss LEEI thank the Minister for her reply, which removes some of my doubts, but does not remove all my difficulties in understanding why the Government should want to make itself responsible for dealing with this class of people. The Minister says that she is only dealing with workers who are normally engaged for a few days a week, and who do not want to work longer than that. How are we to know who wants to work longer than two days a week? I should think it would be pretty safe to say that no workers want to work longer than they can possibly help. One of the functions of trade unionism has always been to decrease the hours of labour that people are called upon to work. How can we possibly say, in these abnormal times, that an industrial worker is in any of the classes referred to in the Report of the Royal Commission—barmen and the barmaids, shop assistants, market porters, sandwichmen and bill distributors, who are all on short time work, get short-time pay, and have very great hardships at home.
I think it is really shocking that the Labour party should be dealing with categories of people such as these, and should say that these people do not want to work.
In every industrial centre this kind of work is being increased. Practically every shop, because of trade difficulties, is introducing extra hands for the weekend work. Are we to say that those extra hands do not want to work during the week? Is it not rather that they have the alternative of not working at all and of possibly being refused bene- 651 fit? They prefer their short-time work to not working at all. It seems absurd, at this time of day, when the Socialist movement ought to be addressing itself to the question of how to make all workers intermittent, or short-time workers. If we made full use of our modern machinery, and if we divided the available amount of work by the num ber of the available workers—
Miss LEEI beg your pardon. I was trying to make the point that the class of workers dealt with on this Amendment is not only large at present, but is a growing class. Every time a new piece of machinery is invented, recruits are added to the army of the casual, seasonal, intermittent or week-end workers. If we felt satisfied that, for these short periods of work, these workers were taking home an income which, spread over the whole of the year was giving them a reasonable standard of comfort, then we would not quarrel with the Government, but I am faced with the Government's proposals in a period when there is a glut of workers and a difficulty of finding work, and when workers are obliged to take whatever kind of occupation that may be
§ available, at practically whatever wages are given them.
§ I am to see the barman, or the girl serving in a shop, at a possible wage of £1 or 15s. a week. It is not out of reason to suggest that their earnings may be even as low as 10s. The normal category is to be a category of people earning less than £2 per week and who cannot possibly save out; of it, yet they have to live on the days when they are not working as well as on the days when they are. Rather than attempt to amend the present Act, the Labour Government should be very thankful that it is possible to include such workers under the present Act. If amending legislation must be introduced, the Committee is entitled to have very much more definite information, more specific assurances and to know more that no workers who are at present lowly-paid or under-paid, and who are forced to accept intermittent work merely because nothing else is available, are to be penalised.
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 19.
653| Division No. 415.] | AYES. | [3.20 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Lawrence, Susan |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Gibbins, Joseph | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Lawson, John James |
| Alpass, J. H. | Gill, T. H. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Glassey, A. E. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) |
| Arnott, John | Gossling, A. G. | Leonard, W. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Gould, F. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Barr, James | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne). | Lindley, Fred W. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Benson, G. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Longbottom A. W. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Groves, Thomas E. | Longden, F. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Grundy, Thomas W. | Lunn, William |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
| Brothers, M. | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | McElwee, A |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Haycock, A. W. | McEntee, V. L. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | McKinlay, A |
| Burgess, F G. | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Manning, E. L. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Mansfield, W. |
| Clarke, J. S. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Marshall, Fred |
| Cluse, W. S. | Herriotts, J. | Mathers, George |
| Compton, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth) | Mills, J. E. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Hollins, A. | Milner, Major J. |
| Daggar, George | Isaacs, George | Montague, Frederick |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Mort, D. L. |
| Dukes, C. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Muff, G. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Murnin, Hugh |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lang, Gordon | Noel Baker, P. J. |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
| Freeman, Peter | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Palin, John Henry. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan) | Shillaker, J. F. | Tout, W. J. |
| Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Shinwell, E. | Vaughan, David |
| Phillips, Dr. Marion | Simmons, C. J. | Viant, S. P. |
| Potts, John S. | Sinkinson, George | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Price, M. P. | Sitch, Charles H. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Quibell, D. J. K. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Westwood, Joseph |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Ritson, J. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Romeril, H. G. | Sorensen, R. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Stamford, Thomas W. | Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Rowson, Guy | Strauss, G. R. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Sullivan, J. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Sanders, W. S. | Sutton, J. E. | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Sawyer, G. F. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Scurr, John | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) | |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Sherwood, G. H. | Thurtle, Ernest | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton. |
| Shield, George William | Tinker, John Joseph | |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Kirkwood, D. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | Wise, E. F |
| Buchanan, G. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley. |
§ Question put, accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
654§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 17.
655| Division No. 416.] | AYES. | [3.29 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Noel Baker, P. J. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Palin, John Henry |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Alpass, J. H. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Herriotts, J. | Peters, Dr. Sidney John |
| Arnott, John | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hollins, A. | Potts, John S. |
| Barr, James | Isaacs, George | Price, M. P. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Benson, G. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Rathbone, Eleanor |
| Bowen, J. W. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Brothers, M. | Lang, Gordon | Ritson, J. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Rowson, Guy |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lawrence, Susan | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Sanders, W. S. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lawson, John James | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Compton, Joseph | Lawther, W, (Barnard Castle) | Scurr, John |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Dagger, George | Leonard, W. | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Shield, George William |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lindley, Fred W. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Dukes, C. | Logan, David Gilbert | Shinwell, E. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Longbottom, A. W. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Longden, F. | Sinkinson, George |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lunn, William | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Freeman, Peter | McElwee, A. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | McEntee, V. L. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N) | McKinlay, A. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Manning, E. L. | Sorensen, R. |
| Gill, T. H. | Mansfield, W. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Glassey, A. E. | Marshall, Fred | Strauss, G. R. |
| Gossling, A. G. | Mathers, George | Sullivan, J. |
| Gould, F. | Mills, J. E. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Milner, Major J. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Montague, Frederick | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Mort, D. L. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Muff, G. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Murnin, Hugh | Tout, W. J. |
| Haycock, A. W. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Vaughan, David |
| Viant, S. P. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Wellock, Wilfred | Williams, T, (York, Don Valley) | |
| Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Westwood, Joseph | Wilson, J. (Oldham) | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton. |
| Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Kirkwood, D. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Wise, E. F. |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | |
| Buchanan, G. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Sandham, E. | Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley. |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Stephen, Campbell |
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is quite entitled to move to report Progress, but it lies with me whether to accept it; and I do not accept.
§ Mr. BECKETTI beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert the words:
always provided that no regulations made in the case of persons referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) shall apply in the case of ex-service men, or a man in receipt of a pension, or suffering from a disability for which at any time he has been in receipt of a pension or workmen's compensation, or which excludes him from following his previous insurable employment.In moving this Amendment I hope to get from the Minister of Labour and from my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench some degree of consideration for the cases that I want to put to them. I would like to be allowed to take this Amendment right out of the type of dispute which has arisen on previous Amendments. Ever since the war, and indeed before the war, in the case of the men suffering from industrial accidents, there has been a general feeling on all sides of the Committee that they should be taken out of the field of ordinary party differences and disputes. Although I confess that I am associated with a group which is desirous, as the Dominion Secretary has said, to destroy the Bill, in moving that these words be inserted I am not speaking in that capacity, but rather in the position of one making a special plea that these particular regulations should not apply to a class of man whom, I think, the Committee as a whole should treat with very special sympathy and consideration. I do not think any Member of the Committee will disagree—I am perfectly certain that the Minister of Labour 656 will not disagree—with me when I say that some of the most difficult cases that we have to deal with in our different capacities as Members of Parliament and as officials of organised societies is a difficulty which arises in what I might call the lag between National Health Insurance and the War Pension service on the one hand, and the unemployment insurance service on the other. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour has a case in his possession at the moment which he was good enough to promise to look into. It is the case of a man in my own constituency, and is typical of many. I would not attempt to argue whether he ought to be receiving a war pension or not. His condition is largely due to war service, but, unfortunately, it has developed after more than seven years and he has been passed as fit for employment and has not been able to get assistance from the Pensions Ministry, because his claim is still under consideration. Nor has he been able to get health insurance because he is declared to be fit for work, and yet he is not able to get unemployment insurance benefit because from their point of view he is not as fit as other men who undertake work.It is particularly that type of man that we do not want to send to any advisory committee with a view to making further regulations which might increase the difficulties under which they labour at the present time. I am not suggesting that the Advisory Committee is bound to deal with these cases, but I am suggesting that it would be a very generous gesture on the part of the Minister if she would exempt this class of man from the operation of the Bill. I do not like to base my case on the ground of economy, but, even on that ground, I should think that it would not be a very expensive concesion to make. It would be 657 an extraordinarily popular concession. There is a very strong argument that other workers who are in receipt of benefit object to people receiving benefit whom they consider ought not to receive it. But the Minister will agree with me that she is not likely to get any protests from any section of workers if she includes this particular class of case.
I always deprecate any attempt to bring a rather sentimental emotionalism into the discussion of a subject of this sort, but I do feel that men who were damaged when they were with us during that unfortunate upheaval ought to have things made very easy for them and ought not to have more difficulties put in their way in supporting themselves. We all know of comrades of our own who from perhaps the very strictest examination are not so fit for work as other men, yet because of the experiences they underwent with us are not so unfit for work that they are able to get a living from other sources. Exactly the same applies to men in some industrial accident not getting full compensation. We have not had a concession from the Minister to-night, and it is very unusual in a Bill of this kind not to make at least one generous gesture. If the Minister has got in her mind any possible exemptions at all then this is a class of case that is very deserving and will be very popular.
§ Mr. A. BEVANI intervene only to elicit from the Minister her opinion as to whether the language of this Amendment will meet the purpose of those who have moved it, or whether it is her intention on Report to put in some language that will meet that purpose. As the representative of a mining constituency I feel very apprehensive as to the powers conferred under Clause 1 of the Bill. Is it the intention of the Minister to issue any regulations which deprive injured workmen of unemployment insurance benefit? My apprehensions are aroused because compensation men are mentioned as a category in the Report of the Royal Commission as one of the anomalies that should be dealt with. From my own experience at courts of referees I know that in the old days unemployment insurance benefit has been withheld from workmen because they have been in receipt of such an amount of pension or workmen's com- 658 pensation as has been held to influence them in not seeking insurable employment. We have had the position at courts of referees in which men who have been given a pension on a basis of 80 per cent. or 60 per cent. disability have appeared before the court, and the court has held that that disability awarded them such a substantial pension that they could be regarded as not seeking insurable employment.
In the case of workmen's compensation, they have made a claim in the county courts, have been refused full compensation on the ground of having 20 per cent., 40 per cent., or 50 per cent. wage earning capacity left, and refused unemployment insurance benefit on the ground that they have not 40 per cent., 60 per cent., or 80 per cent., workmen's compensation, and are not regarded as available for work in the labour market. So that the reasons advanced in the county court have been precisely the same reasons advanced by the court of referees for refusing benefit. I want to know from the Minister of Labour whether there is any intention upon her part, or whether there is any power conferred under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of Clause 1 to frame any regulations withholding unemployment insurance benefit from workmen on the ground that unemployment insurance benefit added to compensation lifts them out of the insurable category, and makes them ineligible for ordinary insurable work. The Minister of Labour shakes her head, but in this debate we are not dealing with the intentions of the. Minister but with the powers conferred on the Minister. As the previous Amendment has been rejected, which prevents Members of Parliament from scrutinising the regulations before they become law, I regret to say that my duty as a Member of Parliament imposes on me the obligation to insure that no powers are conferred on the Minister to issue regulations to deprive men of benefit because at the moment we have no power of scrutinising her intentions when the regulations are issued. This is not moved with any desire to obstruct the Bill, but merely to ensure that justice is done to a category of workmen who have been very gravely prejudiced under existing conditions. As hon. Members are aware, we wished to 659 make it compulsory on an employer to offer full compensation to a workman who can show that his unemployment was due to his injury, but in view of the fact that the Committee has failed to afford protection to that man in a Bill which recenly went through the House—
§ Mr. BEVANI was coming back immediately to this Bill, and I was trying to show that in view of the fact that that Bill failed to afford protection of this kind, many workmen in the coalfields of this country, who have been incapacitated, and who have been encouraged by colliery companies to accept partial compensation, which with unemployment insurance gives them a higher income than full compensation, we must have the protection in this Bill to ensure that these men will not be deprived of unemployment insurance in addition to their compensation. My fears in this matter are reinforced by the words "Or similar payments of such a kind." What is the point of these words? It is good compensation law to say that the workman's compensation is a payment on account of loss of wage-earning capacity, and if I were asked to interpret the meaning of "similar payments," I would say that 15s., 17s., or 25s. a week of compensation was a similar payment, and any court of referees or any umpire, faced with the question as to whether 15s. or even £l paid in lieu of loss of wage-earning capacity was similar payments to earnings, I would suggest that such a court of referees or umpire would come to the decision that the language in the Bill would bear that construction. In these circumstances I would ask the Committee to consider carefully whether it is not necessary that these men should be protected, and I would ask, in deciding whether a man was entitled to unemployment insurance or not, that complete disregard should be had as to whether or not he was in receipt of workmen's compensation. I ask the Committee to believe that the man who is receipt of workmen's compensation is in receipt of that because of the physical injury which he has received, and which injures him in his search for 660 further employment, and that such receipt should not debar him from unemployment insurance. There is a further category, there is the man who is injured in his employment and has commuted his claim and receives a lump sum. Suppose he contracts miner's nystagmus [Interruption]. I am not aware there is any humour in miner's nystagmus. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. B. GARDNEROn a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to talk to a Member outside the House?
§ 4.0 a.m.
§ Mr. BEVANI am trying to protect my constituents. I am concerned at the moment in attempting to get some protection for these men. I am attempting to get from the Minister of Labour some protection for my people. I am prepared to accept that the Minister may have the intention to introduce it at a later stage, in some language which will remove my fears, but at the same time, in view of the fact that the receipt of workmen's compensation was mentioned as an anomaly by the Commission, I am entitled to find out whether there is any protection for workmen of this character. I gather from what has been said up to now that, apart from the intention of the Minister there is nothing at all which protects men in that category from being made subject to regulations, and surely I am entitled to ask, as a representative of the mining industry, that there should be the maximum protection for men in that category. There are men who have received injuries in the collieries and men who have contracted miner's nystagmus, and in consequence of that have had it impressed upon them that it is no use seeking employment in the mining industry again. As is well known men who seek for employment in the industry are asked if they have had the disease, and, if they say that they have, they are told they are not required. If, on the other hand, they say that they have not had it when they have, and they get work and contract it again, they cannot get any further compensation. Then there are the men who have received a lump sum on account of injuries and immediately they have received that lump sum they go along to the Employment Exchange and apply for insurance benefit. Although they are not available for work underground they are available for work on the surface.
661 The Minister has pointed out that certain regulations deprive persons of unemployment insurance benefit on the ground of their earnings, although they may not have had any preceding period of earning. Some legal friends of mine, to whose judgment I very humbly defer, have said that under this provision the Minister will have power to say that the receipt of £150 or £200 commutation for workmen's compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, would deprive persons of unemployment benefit on the ground that they are in receipt of a sum of money which, spread over a certain period, would amount to full compensation for each week of the prescribed period. I want to ask the Minister whether it is her intention to bring men of that kind under the operation of the Bill. I suggest to all my mining colleagues here, who view this matter with bovine complacency—
§ Mr. TINKEROn a point of Order. Is the hon. Member allowed to use an expression of that sort?
§ Mr. BEVANMy reason for using that term is that there has been no attempt on the part of hon. Members on this side of the Committee to secure anything from the Minister.
§ Mr. TINKERThe hon. Member has only just begun speaking, and nobody else gets a chance of speaking.
§ Mr. BEVANIn the event of the point which I am raising receiving support from my mining colleagues I will withdraw the word and apologise most humbly. Until this happened I had not discerned any anxiety on the part of those who have been regarded as the custodians of the miners' interests—
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSOn a point of Order. The hon. Member has not been in the Chamber much of the time during the night and he has not now been here for many minutes.
§ Mr. BRACKENThat is not a point of Order.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSYes, it is. If the hon. Member to whom I was referring had been here he would have heard representatives of the coal mining industry speaking on behalf of the miners.
§ Mr. BEVANI want to say quite frankly—[Interruption]. I am free to 662 admit that I found it impossible to be here because I was not in sympathy with many of the Amendments that have been moved. [Interruption.] Wait a moment. If I have said anything that has given offence I will withdraw it. I want to point out that I have made private representations for over a fortnight on the same point. I mentioned to two colleagues on this side of the Committee that the powers granted to the Minister of Labour under this Section would enable her to issue Regulations to cover the class of miner to whom I have referred. My hon. Friends do not seem to show the same interest in giving protection to classes of persons in any other industry. Men who have received lump sums are subject to regulation under this Bill. The Amendment seeks to protect men in this class of industry from the danger of such regulations being issued in respect of them. From the belated enthusiasm that some of my colleagues are showing I would gather that the Amendment which I am supporting may also receive their support. I submit that the Amendment is a perfectly fair one, even though its language be awkward, but the Minister can introduce language of her own on the Report stage. One would not be doing his duty to the miners if one did not make an attempt to see that Regulations are not issued which will deprive the weakest and most helpless sections of the mining community of benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
§ Mr. LAWSONThe Amendment that has been moved never fails to call forth sympathy from any gathering. The point put by the hon. Member is altogether irrelevant. It is impossible to show where, under the words we are discussing, there is the slightest indication that so excellent a set of men are being penalised in the way that the hon. Member suggests. I can assure him upon that point. I am sorry to say that the Government cannot accept this Amendment, for the simple reason that it is quite obvious that the men whom it is supposed to cover are not dealt with under the Bill. Special arrangements have been made to deal with them. The Minister has given evidence before the Royal Commission in relation to the amount of compensation, so that these matters are not only receiving attention, but will be dealt with in the final report 663 of the Royal Commission. It is quite out of place to try to deal with them in an anomalies Bill.
§ Mr. BEVANBefore my hon. Friend sits down, will he answer two questions? If it is the intention of the Minister to issue regulations dealing with these categories why does he take exception to their inclusion in the Bill? The second question is: What are the investigations to which he refers? Do we understand that investigations are now going on with these categories in mind?
§ Mr. LAWSONThe Minister is not going to deal with these categories at all, but simply with the categories coming under the four classes. Therefore, there is no obligation to deal with the question of pensioners, or compensation at all.
§ Mr. BECKETTI know the hon. Gentleman is interested in ex-Service-men, because he and I worked together many years ago on Committees for them, but does he mean by that statement that, with regard to the classes of persons coming under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), ex-Servicemen who are on unemployment benefit will come within those classes? I do not want to press this Amendment if he will give an undertaking that ex-Servicemen will not be sent to the Advisory Committee under any of those heads.
§ Mr. LAWSONNeither pension nor compensation is regarded as earnings, and, therefore, there will be no penalising. May I also repeat, that this is the wrong Bill altogether in which to deal with this subject.
§ Mr. A. BEVANI accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. That may apply to pensions, although I would point out to him with respect to pensions that they are calculated on the basis of a loss of wage earning capacity and are always spoken of as a disability of 20 per cent., 40 per cent. or 60 per cent. With regard to compensation, I would point out—and I have the support of very good legal opinion—that all similar payments in aid would be reasonably interpreted to be receipt of workmen's compensation, which is in law payment of wages in respect of loss of wage earning capacity. That interpretation of "similar payments" has been made in the courts. What warrant has he that the umpire would not make the same interpretation in any regulations the Minister may issue?
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to moue, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 19.
665| Division No. 417.] | AYES. | [4.14 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Freeman, Peter | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Lang, Gordon |
| Alpass, J. H. | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Gibbins, Joseph | Law, Albert (Bolton) |
| Arnott, John | Gill, T. H. | Law, A. (Rossendale) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Glassey, A E. | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) |
| Barr, James | Gossling, A. G. | Lawson, John James |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Gould, F. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) |
| Benton, G. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Leonard, W. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Groves, Thomas E. | Lindley, Fred W. |
| Brothers, M. | Grundy, Thomas W. | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Longden, F. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Hardie, David (Rutherglen) | Lunn, William |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Haycock, A. W. | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | McElwee, A. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | McEntee, V. L. |
| Compton, Joseph | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | McKinlay, A. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
| Daggar, George | Herriotts, J. | Manning, E. L. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Mansfield, W. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hollins, A. | Marshall, Fred |
| Dukes, S. | Isaacs, George | Mathers, George |
| Ede, James Chuter | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Mills, J. E. |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Milner, Major J. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Montague, Frederick |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Sanders, W. S. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Mort, D. L. | Sawyer, G. F. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Muff, G. | Scurr, John | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Murnin, Hugh | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Tout, W. J. |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sherwood, G. H. | Vaughan, David |
| Noel Baker, P. J. | Shield, George William | Viant, S. P. |
| Palin, John Henry | Shillaker, J. F. | Watson, W. M. (Duntermline) |
| Paling, Wilfrid | Shinwell, E. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Sinkinson, George | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Phillips, Dr. Marion | Sitch, Charles H. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Potts, John S. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Price, M. P. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Quibell, D. J. K. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Sorensen, R. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Ritson, J. | Stamford, Thomas W. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Romeril, H. G. | Strauss, G. R. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Sullivan, J. | Young, R. S, (Islington, North) |
| Rowson, Guy | Sutton, J. E. | |
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Kirkwood, D. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Maxton, James | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Wise, E. F. |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
666§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 19; Noes, 144.
667| Division No. 418.] | AYES. | [4.22 a.m. |
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Kirkwood, D. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Longden, F. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | Wise, E. F. |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. Buchan and Mr. Kinley. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Gill, T. H. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Glassey, A. E. | Lindley, Fred W. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Gossling, A. G. | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Ammon, Charles George | Gould, F. | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Arnott, John | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Lunn, William |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
| Barr, James | Groves, Thomas E. | McElwee, A. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Grundy, Thomas W. | McEntee, V. L. |
| Benson, G. | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | McKinlay, A. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Haycock, A. W. | Manning, E. L. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Mansfield, W. |
| Brothers, M. | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Marshall, Fred |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Mathers, George |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Mills, J. E. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Herriotts, J. | Milner, Major J. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Montague, Frederick |
| Clarke, J. S. | Hollins, A. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Isaacs, George | Mort, D. L. |
| Compton, Joseph | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Muff, G. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Murnin, Hugh |
| Daggar, George | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Noel Baker, P. J. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Palin, John Henry |
| Dukes, C. | Lang, Gordon | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Potts, John S. |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Price, M. P. |
| Freeman, Peter | Lawson, John James | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Leonard, W. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Ritson, J. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Romeril, H. G. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Rowson, Guy | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Westwood, Joseph |
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Sorensen, R. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Sanders, W. S. | Stamford, Thomas W. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Sawyer, G. F. | Strauss, G. R. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Scurr, John | Sullivan, J. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Sutton, J. E. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Sherwood, G. H. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Shield, George William | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Shillaker, J. F. | Thurtle, Ernest | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Shinwell, E. | Tinker, John Joseph | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Sinkinson, George | Tout, W. J. | |
| Sitch, Charles H. | Vaughan, David | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Viant, S. P. | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton. |
§ Miss RATHBONEI beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out paragraph (d).
I do not move this Amendment in any spirit of blind partisanship for the married woman. I do not deny that there are special difficulties, and also that there are occasional abuses connected with the employment of married women. The question I want to raise is, whether this paragraph is the right way of dealing with those abuses. The more I study it., the more I am inclined to doubt whether the proposal will be effective, and whether, if it is effective, it will not be so because it is operated in such a way as to cover a large number of cases of married women who are genuinely seeking work, and will therefore cause more injustice than it remedies. The speeches on the Second Reading Debate on this Bill, especially those of the Minister of Labour herself, and the hon. Member for Sunderland (Dr. Phillips) strengthen me in the view I have expressed. I wish to call attention specially to the passage of the Minister's speech in which she gave her reasons for thinking that this proposal was the best. She said:
I do claim that in a knowledge of the conditions of working women in industry, my practical experience is second to none in this House.None of us will deny that. She proceeded:I have personally been in the closest touch with the different categories of women's trades during the last 18 months, and this question has caused me a tremendous amount of anxiety and difficulty. I have taken the opportunity of meeting groups of people in different parts of the country, such as working women, working- men's wives, insured women and claimants, and I have definitely come to the conclusion"—To what conclusion? That here was a very widespread abuse, and that this is a right way of meeting it? Not at all. 668that there is a strong body of opinion which believes that there is an evil here that ought to be cured, and a difficulty here that has to be met, and that in trying to deal with it we shall receive the active support of those who want to put the position of married women on a footing of real equality."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1931; col. 2107, Vol. 254.]That is a very dangerous proposal to come from a responsible Minister. I think we should have felt more assurance if she had taken such grounds for her decision as were put forward, for example, in that admirable memorandum submitted to the Royal Commission by the Joint Committee on Industrial Women's Organisations, to which I would also very warmly recommend the attention of the hon. Member for Sunderland, and the whole tone of which is in striking contrast to her speech last week. What struck me so much in that memorandum was the statistics, which show an admittedly great increase in the proportion of married women to women claimants generally that had taken place amongst claimants for transitional benefit; but it had actually decreased for ordinary benefit. The significance of that is that claimants for transitional benefit are obliged to satisfy extremely stiff conditions before benefit is granted—the fact that a much larger proportion of married women pass through that stiff test, whereas the proportion of women who pass the comparatively wide meshes of a claim for ordinary benefit had actually decreased.That does seem to indicate that the increase in the total proportion of married women arises, not from fraudulent claims, but from the depressed condition of industry, and that when industry is depressed married women are the first to be dismissed. Whereas a great increase in proportion of married women claimants took place when the "genuinely seeking work" provision was in opera- 669 tion, there has been a decrease in the six months ended last February. Evidence of that kind is much surer ground than a popular outcry. Everyone knows that, of all popular scapegoats, the most popular is the married woman. It has been so ever since the days of Eve. There are always people jealous of married women workers. Trade unionists look on them as doubtfully sound trade unionists, and as blacklegs. Unmarried women regard them as competitors in the field, and forget it when they themselves succumb to the lure of matrimony. The general public, especially in times of depression, cannot see why two incomes should go into the same house. The truth is that the general public is at a loss what to think of the married woman and I do not wonder, because of the vagueness of her economic status.
We ought to scrutinise most jealously and carefully any proposal for making a separate class of married women, or even a section. One cannot overlook the possibility that in the administration of such special restrictions there may be a certain hostile bias against the married woman as such. There is often at work, too, a sentimental bias in the opposite direction. The real question is, whether this particular paragraph will operate so as to gain for the married woman a fair field and no favour, such as all her best friends desire. How will it work? It seems to me to be open to two interpretations. It lays down that the married woman may be required to prove a certain number of contributions after the period of marriage. That may mean two things. I will read the Sub-section, as affected by the Minister's proposed Amendment:
Married women who, since marriage or in any prescribed period subsequent to marriage, have had less than the prescribed number of contributions paid in respect of them.They are to be subject to special Regulations. Does that mean that the married woman may have, once for all, to prove a certain number of contributions during a given period and will thereafter rank as a single woman? If that is so, it will be very easily evaded. A married woman would only have to persuade her employer to keep her on after marriage for the necessary period, which will be the 670 easiest for her to stay at work while she needs it least, and that will not prevent the older married women, generally the ones with not genuine claims, being able to get benefit just as easily as before. If that is what is proposed, I do not think the proposal is likely to be effective. If the alternative is that married women may be required under the Regulations to show a certain number of stamps during a given period, then there is no doubt that the proposal may be very effective, but in that case I do not see how it can be denied that it places married women in a position of real inequality. A woman after marrying who has worked right up to her marriage is just as genuine a seeker of work as she was before, but she is weighted down with the prejudice against married women workers.I want to know how the Minister intends that it shall be interpreted. I know it may be said that the unjust interpretation will be guarded against by the Regulations which will be laid down by the Minister, with the help of the Advisory Committee. The Regulations may arrange, for any localities where it is customary for married women to work, that they shall not be in that category, but there are also other classes. I fail utterly to see how any regulations which are laid down for administration from Whitehall can be differentiated enough to apply sufficiently meticulously to provide for all the infinite variations in the circumstances which affect a number of women. It appears on the face of it, in dealing with conditions which vary infinitely, that the proper machinery is local machinery which deals with the individual case on its individual merits. We have heard in the past how these arrangements have not worked very satisfactorily, but I suggest that they could be made to do so. In the first place, the paragraphs which we have just passed, those dealing with seasonal, intermittent and short-time workers—all these will keep out a great many of the more doubtful of the claimants of married women workers, and, further, if clear instructions were issued to umpires, so that they would interpret availability more strictly, we should keep out again a fruitful source of claims that cause popular clamour—such cases as that where a married woman was permitted 671 to refuse work, because she could not return to her home at midday to nurse her baby.
The Blanesburgh Committee went into this question as well. All the evidence that was submitted to the Royal Commission indicates that abuses were capable of administrative solution. I wish that the Minister had seen her way to recommend that method of treatment. Sometimes in the early days of this Parliament we noticed that Members of the Front Bench when speaking made little lapses and addressed the Leader of the Opposition as the Prime Minister. I should have liked to hear the speeches the Minister of Labour and the hon. Member for Sunderland would have made if they had been sitting on this side of the House. They would have made out a strong case against Sub-section (1). I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter on the Report stage and see whether a real advance cannot be made by some less thoroughly objectionable and less dangerous method than by making a special category of married women workers who are to be administered by the committee.
§ Dr. MARION PHILLIPSThere have been so many references to myself in the speech which has just been made that I think I may be allowed a moment or two to deal with some of the criticisms—I might almost say accusations—which have been made against me. It is a remarkable thing that the speech of the hon. Lady was largely based on the speech which I myself made on the Second Reading.
§ Miss RATHBONEI pointed that out.
§ Dr. PHILLIPSOn the contrary, the hon. Lady said at least twice in her speech it was a pity I did not state in this House what I have said elsewhere. What I said in this House was exactly and precisely what I have said in the evidence given before the Royal Commission. I did not repeat every word, but it was exactly the same in its nature, and the way in which it dealt with the difficult problem of married women. We said then, and I repeat it here, that rules can be made which deal with the case of married women drawing benefit who were really outside the field of employment. We would be willing to accept them, and 672 to accept a proposal for drawing up such regulations. It may be impossible to find such regulations, but I made that statement after close and constant consultation with the women who were also responsible for putting that evidence before the Commission. The position is one which all of us know perfectly well. We know that there are a small number of married women, that is small in comparison to the whole number of married women seeking employment, who are getting benefit when they do not ever intend to return to industrial employment. Those cases, if they can be satisfactorily dealt with, without hardship on other married women, ought to be dealt with. As long as they exist, so long the position of the married woman in industry is in jeopardy, and runs the risk which is the result of the injustice, or the wrong, in one little section. They run the risk of suffering, because of that wrong, all through their records.
The standing joint committee of industrial women's organisations accepted the proposals which are in the Bill. We would not be against any small alteration in the Bill which might improve it, and I said so when I spoke on the Second Reading: but if it is impossible to find anything which will narrow that Clause—I admit that we have sought and have been unable to find it—we will accept it as it stands. We warn the Minister that we shall watch with the most jealous and careful eyes the regulations that are made, and, if we consider that those regulations impose hardship on married women who are employed, or who are seeking employment, we should do our utmost, within and outside the House of Commons, to prevent the regulations being carried out. That is all I want to say, but I had to intervene, in view of the frequency with which I had been referred to, and I thought it was due to the women I represent, as well as to myself, to say a word or two in answer.
§ Lady CYNTHIA MOSLEYI rise to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and to make as strong and emphatic a protest as I can against this category (d). I think that, although all the categories are just about as bad as they can be, it is possible that cate- 673 gory (d) is the worst of the lot. There are a great many reasons why I think that the persons affected under the category should not be touched at all. If there are people on the other side of the Committee who wish to turn people off benefit, there are already in existence sufficient methods to enable them to refuse married women benefit. As everybody knows, married women are being refused benefit in shoals by the courts of referees to-day. Instances are constantly cropping up in my own constituency and, I feel sure, in every other Member's constituency as well.
What annoys me is that these people have a perfect legal right to benefit. Someone at the beginning of the Debate talked about all the people in all the categories in the Bill having a perfect legal right, under contract, to draw benefit. None of the people come under any of these classes, except those who have paid in, and have a perfect right to draw out. It seems to be taken for granted by the supporters of the Minister that those people can draw in perpetuity. That is ridiculous. Everybody knows that they cannot draw after a certain specified time, after which they have to go on to transitional benefit. Then there are all sorts of reasons already in existence why they can be knocked off, if it is considered right and proper that they should be knocked off. As it is now, this Bill is going to knock people off who have paid, and who have a perfect legal right, as I have said, under contract to draw benefit, if and when the time comes that they want to.
The Minister of Labour, when she was on the Blanesburgh Committee, did not seem to hold the views she now holds. She must have changed her mind since, and I want to support the Mover of the Amendment in what she said about the different sort of people the Government now are from what they were when in opposition. If I had shut my eyes in this Debate, I might well have believed that it was the Conservative Government bringing in a Conservative Measure. I could also very well imagine the speeches that hon. Members on the Government side, who have sat mum and dumb the whole evening, would have been only too glad to make if they had 674 been in opposition. It is sickening and shameful for people to be one thing in opposition and another thing when supporting the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about six months' holiday?"] Well, what about it? To spend it, as I spent it, going round the country, working and speaking every day of the week to rouse people to the incompetence of the Labour Government—I think that is more important than sitting here. I would not have come back on this particular occasion, if it had not been that all our prophecies have proved right, and that the Labour Government are doing the very things for which we left it, because we said it would do them.
Let me get back to the Amendment. I protest that the Labour Government are caricaturing themselves; they are now going well to the right of even the Conservatives. They are even considered as such by that light-wing organ of opinion, the "Times" newspaper, which, in a leading article the other day, had something to say on this very point. It said:
From the moral point of view it—[the Bill]—is both negatively and positively vicious … those singled out for special treatment will have a very real grievance. For example, they may very well ask, who is the more entitled to benefit, a married woman who has paid contributions continuously for 10 years before marriage, or one of the 90,000 beneficiaries who, on 26th May, 1930, … had not paid even one single contribution in the previous two years? The apparent intention of the Government is that the married woman should be disqualified, but that those of the 90,000 who do not belong to the special classes should continue to draw benefit un-catechised and undisturbed.Another interesting letter appeared on the subject in the organ of another party, the "Manchester Guardian," over the signature of Miss Chrystal MacMillan. She said:This Bill proposes to make the conditions under which a woman receives unemployment benefit more onerous by reason of marriage. Since this benefit is part of the earnings of the insured worker, the real meaning of the proposal is that the married woman for the first time since her emancipation.… will be in a different position from the ordinary freeman with regard to her rights to sell her labour for gain. The Bill proposes to deprive her of part of the gains of her labour and is the most serious attack on the principle established by the Married Women's Property Acts that the 675 married woman should have in these matters, the same rights as others.This Measure is introduced by the Minister of Labour in a Labour Government. I do not want to say anything more about it. Let us leave it at that. I am more glad than I can say that I have had an opportunity of sitting up all night to oppose the Bill to the utmost of my ability.
§ 5.0 a.m.
§ Miss BONDFIELDThis is one of those contentious questions which have agitated the minds of a very large number of people including my own. I am not impressed by the reference to "The Times," because its comment was ill-informed, like a great many others. Married women in industry have been the very backbone of the trade union movement. If there has ever been a trade union built up among women, it has usually been found that the married women were the backbone of the movement. When I say that this is a grievance that has to be dealt with, I am speaking with a full knowledge of what the married women in industry themselves think about this problem. They are very concerned about it, and want to have this admitted evil remedied. I have not given statistics, but I have specially quoted that opinion of working women on this question, because I attach the greatest possible importance to the opinion of working women on this matter. I am satisfied that it is so widespread that it is essential for me to take steps to make this necessary investigation into this particular category of grievance. I want to repeat—and this is all I have to say, because I gave my reasons fully on Second Reading—that this is not a differentiation against a married woman because she is married. The regulations will make that differentiation solely on the ground that since marriage she has ceased to be in the employment field. We all know that those cases exist and that they have to be dealt with. I would like to say to the hon. Member for Stoke (Lady Mosley), that there is no contractual liability to pay a penny of benefit to any man or woman who has left the employment field. I must definitely ask the Committee to reject this Amendment as it is quite impossible for me to omit this category from the Bill.
§ Miss WILKINSONI listened to the Minister's speech with very great interest, but she has not dealt with the principle of the objection that a very large number of women feel to this provision. I entirely agree with the Minister that there are people getting benefit who were never intended to have it, and who cannot be justified on any ground except purely compassionate grounds, and in some cases not even on those. The Minister would have public opinion behind her in dealing with those cases. What we object to, however, is this: If those are persons who do not qualify under the Act, we claim that there are already plenty of means by which they can be dealt with as insured persons or as persons who have left the insurance field, and that to single out one section of them just because they have married, because they have gone through a ceremony which concerns their private lives alone, and has nothing to do with their industrial life, does seem to bring into legislation the old, bad principle of discrimination against women, which the whole women's movement has been fighting against since about 1870. If the Minister deals with these married women as persons who have entered an entirely different category, why not deal with them as such? If a woman is a housekeeper and does not intend to enter industry because she has a career of her own, and merely goes out to earn a little pocket money, then she has left the insurance field. Why single her out on these lines? If you are going on these lines, why not have a Clause singling out the men whose wives are working? If marriage is a bar against women, why not against men?
If the argument is that there are two incomes coming into one household, and that the question of need does not arise, then I can understand it, but you cannot single out women on that ground. The Minister quite unnecessarily has offended very deep-rooted feelings of women as a whole by singling out the married woman and saying that, because she is married, not because she is a person who has left the insurance field, or a person" not genuinely seeking work" or a person disqualified under any of these and other rules and regulations, but simply because she is married, she is therefore to have a different position. That is not fair and is indefensible in an Act of Parliament in 677 1931, when women are voters in this country. If the Minister wishes to deal with what I am perfectly willing to admit is a grievance, although it has been exaggerated both in numbers and amount, she should deal with them as insured persons, and not as married women. This Clause should be so drafted as to remove what is really a strong grievance among women as a whole.
Miss LEEI have been specially asked to put the point of view of the women in my constituency. Everyone in, large industrial constituencies knows that here and there you get a woman who has no intention at all to go back into industry. I ask the Committee to consider whether paragraph (d), if it is intended to exclude those women, is not unsuited to accomplish that object? As I understand it, paragraph (d) is asking that, after marriage, a woman should have for a prescribed period a prescribed number of contributions. We are given no guidance, first of all, as to the length of that prescribed period and, secondly, as to the number of contributions, but the case put to me by women who may be affected by the paragraph is, that the women who do not want to work will not be touched by this provision at all, and there will be other women, more genuinely seeking employment, who will be victimised by this Clause.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has already given examples of how in the West of Scotland some factories make a habit of keeping on women after marriage while others dismiss them. Even in one factory there may be a discrimination between one married woman and another, some of them for special circumstances, being kept on while others are dismissed. If this provision is passed, I do not see anything to prevent women continuing in industry long enough to get this benefit. The women who want to get this benefit and not to continue working, are probably the very ones who would
§
be prepared to go on working to get the requisite number of stamps, or they might be able to make a bargain with some employer and say, "You pay my contribution, and I will come and give you a hand." All kinds of abuses and all kinds of anomalies can be incurred by women whose object is simply to get this prescribed number of stamps in order to qualify. There is no safeguard at all. There is a large class of women in this deep industrial depression who, although they have heavy responsibility, demanding that they should continue in work, will be excluded. Already there is far too much discrimination against women as compared with men. Miss Rackham states in her minority report:
resident domestic service is not, of course, suitable employment for married women, but numbers of them are disallowed benefit for refusing daily domestic service.
I have instances where married, as well as single, women are not going to the Exchange long before they are offered this domestic service, even although their employment has been in some entirely different field of work. The feeling among women is this: They claim there are more hardships and handicaps when they are claiming benefit, and that this Clause is singularly unsuited to serve its purpose. The type of woman the Minister of Labour is seeking to follow will easily elude her, and many people she does not desire to injure will be injured by the Bill. I hope she will reconsider, or re-draft, the Clause and remove our legitimate fears. The Clause will cause 100 times as many abuses as it can ever cure.
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 17.
679| Division No. 419.] | AYES. | [5.13 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Bowen, J. W. | Cripps, Sir Stafford |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Bowerman, Ht. Hon. Charles W. | Daggar, George |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'llsbro') | Brothers, M. | Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Denman, Hon. R. D. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Dukes, C. |
| Arnott, John | Burgess, F. G. | Ede, James Chuter |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W) | Edmunds, J. E. |
| Barr, James | Charleton, H. C. | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Clarke, J. S. | Freeman, Peter |
| Benson, G. | Cluse, W. S. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Compton, Joseph | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Longden, F. | Shield, George William |
| Gill, T. H. | Lunn, William | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Glassey, A. E. | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Shinwell, E. |
| Gossling, A. G. | McElwee, A | Simmons, C. J. |
| Gould, F. | McEntee, V. L. | Sinkinson, George |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | McKinlay, A. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Manning, E. L. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Mansfield, W. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Marshall, Fred | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Mathers, George | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Hardie, David (Rutherglen) | Mills, J. E. | Sorensen, R. |
| Haycock, A. W. | Milner, Major J. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Hayes, John Henry | Montague, Frederick | Sullivan, J. |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Mort, D. L. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Murnin, Hugh | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Herriotts, J. | Noel Baker, P. J. | Tout, W. J. |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Palin, John Henry | Vaughan, David |
| Hollins, A. | Paling, Wilfrid | Viant, S. P. |
| Isaacs, George | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Potts, John S. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Price, M. P. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Quibell, D. J. K. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Lang, Gordon | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Law, A. (Rossendale) | Ritson, J. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Romeril, H. G. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Lawson, John James | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Rowson, Guy | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Leonard, W. | Sanders, W. S. | |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Sawyer, G. F. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Scurr, John | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Thurtle. |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Sherwood, G. H. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Kirkwood, D. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | Wise, E. F. |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words 'married women who' stand part of the Clause."
680§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 20.
681| Division No. 420.] | AYES. | [5.21 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Edmunds, J. E. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Freeman, Peter | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Alpass, J. H. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Lathan, G. (Sheffield. Park) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Law, A. (Rossendale) |
| Arnott, John | Gibbins, Joseph | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Gill, T. H. | Lawson, John James |
| Barr, James | Glassey, A. E. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Gossling, A. G. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) |
| Benson, G. | Gould, F. | Leonard, W. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lindley, Fred W. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Groves, Thomas E. | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Brothers, M. | Grundy, Thomas W. | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Lunn, William |
| Burgess, F. G. | Haycock, A. W. | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Hayes, John Henry | McElwee, A. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | McEntee, V. L. |
| Clarke, J. S. | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | McKinlay, A. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
| Compton, Joseph | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Manning, E. L. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Herriotts, J. | Mansfield, W. |
| Daggar, George | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Marshall, Fred |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Hollins, A. | Mathers, George |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Isaacs, George | Mills, J. E. |
| Dukes, C. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Milner, Major J. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Montague, Frederick |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Sawyer, G. F. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Mort, D. L. | Scurr, John | Thorne, W. (West Ham, P[...]alstow) |
| Murnin, Hugh | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Noel Baker, P. J. | Sherwood, G. H. | Tout, W. J. |
| Palin, John Henry. | Shield, George William | Vaughan, David |
| Paling, Wilfrid | Shillaker, J. F. | Viant, S. P. |
| Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Shinwell, E. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Phillips, Dr. Marion | Simmons, C. J. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Potts, John S. | Sinkinson, George | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Price, M. P. | Sitch, Charles H. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Quibell, D. J. K. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm, Ladywood) |
| Ramsay, T. B. Wilton | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Ritson, J. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Romeril, H. G. | Sorensen, R. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Stamford, Thomas W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Rowson, Guy | Strauss, G. R. | |
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Sullivan, J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Sanders, W. S. | Sutton, J. E. | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle. |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Kinley, J. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Kirkwood, D. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Wise, E. F. |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | |
| Buchanan, G. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Sandham, E. | Lady Cynthia Mosley and Miss Rathbone. |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Stephen, Campbell |
§ Mr. BUCHANANI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I move this Motion in order to ask whether we might now have a statement from the Government as to how far they intend to go with this Bill to-day. At other times when we were discussing Measures of this kind the House tried to discuss them at reasonable times in order that the question at issue might be sure of the fullest discussion. No more important issues can be raised than those on this Bill. When we were on the other side, even with a Guillotine Motion applied to one of the Measures we were given more time than we have had to-night. There is this additional fact. I do not know whether I shall be allowed to discuss it or not, but there are now fewer than 170 Members present out of a Parliament of over 600. Surely on one of the greatest issues that this country has to face, there ought to be more present than 160 or 170 out of 615 paid legislators.
In fairness to this House, this Motion should be accepted. Take the question of the married women. That ought to have been taken at a time when the full deliberative assembly could have been brought into force. If the issues had been taken when Members could have been in attendance in such numbers they could give better attention to the questions. There is only a small group 682 opposed to this Measure, and while some think that they are doing the right thing in passing this Measure, we think we are doing the right thing in opposing it. [Interruption.] It may be good tactics to say that I am doing so because of my seat, but the hon. Member had no right to make that remark. I have challenged him to come and face my electors.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSI should like the hon. Member to come to my seat, and I will resign to-morrow.
§ Mr. BUCHANANThe hon. Member is not allowed to make inferences that I do not speak the truth in this House. It is my duty at this stage to ask that we do report Progress, and although we are only a small number opposing this Bill we should be allowed to put our case. We cannot go on at this rate. It is well that the minority should be represented on this matter, and that their views should be heard. We ought to carry this Motion, as we have made a fair amount of progress with the Bill. We have dealt with the Clause dealing with married women, seasonal workers, and short-time workers and all that remains is the administrative portion of the Bill. In these circumstances, and having made comparatively 683 reasonable progress, the Government should report Progress.
§ Miss BONDFIELDThe intention of the Government is to sit and finish the Committee stage. [Interruption.] The hon. Member will recall that the Conservative party was never put in the position we are in. The Opposition parties have been most considerate. They have not blocked the Bill, and they have not taken any time. I suggest that we cannot accept the Motion, and that we should proceed to finish our business in a business-like way.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNOn this motion, I would suggest to the Minister that there was really an analogy with the Conservative party in regard to this Bill. There has been every reason why the Conservative party should not oppose it. It is a Conservative Bill.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the Bill. The Motion before the Committee is to report Progress.
§ Mr. BROWNI am sorry if I was misled into pursuing an analogy which has already been mentioned, but, on the Motion to report Progress, it does seem to me there is a case to be made out for not proceeding with the Bill further at this stage. It is not because some of us object to sitting here any longer, but because we have come to the end of the operative Clause of the Bill. It is a little unfortunate that, owing to the withdrawal of some of the Government Amendments of substance to Clause 1, we are still at this stage without precise knowledge as to how this Clause is going to be handled. We are promised a short statement on Report, but it does not seem to me to be desirable that we should discuss Sub-sections 3, 4 and 5 of Clause 1, and then the whole of Clauses 2, 3 and 4 without being in a position of having full knowledge as to what is contemplated in regard to Clause 1. I think it is well within the competence of the Minister to meet us on that point. I hope she will not take that request as a sign of weakness, because we are just getting fresh. There is a legitimate case for asking for an Adjournment at this stage of the Debate, in order that when we start again we may have a complete statement as to 684 the intentions of the Government, on the points that have been left aside on Clause 1, Sub-sections (1) and (2).
§ Mr. MAXTONI support the Motion to report Progress. It is impossible at this hour of the morning, in a very heated Chamber, we' should be asked to pass a Measure, which is no trifling Measure, but a Measure of first-class importance. Measures of less importance have been allowed several days for Second Reading, many days for the Committee stage and several days for the Report stage. Yet here, we are asked to rush through in one day this Measure, which I regard as the most vital that the House of Commons has been asked to deal with. The Conservative Government never found itself in the position in which the Labour Government find themselves to-day. Both the official Oppositions have abdicated. They have thrown aside, quite carelessly, their duty on the Committee stage, which is to examine every line of a Measure with care. It is their responsible duty. Their attitude to-day is a disgrace to a political party. If they have no regard for the type of legislation that we are opposing, they should at least have some regard for the liberties and the traditions of the House of Commons. It has always been a tradition that any Measure on which a minority holds strong views should be as carefully discussed as if there were a large and imposing opposition. It is particularly the duty of the Opposition to see that the rights of private Members are preserved.
That we are expected to finish this important stage of the Bill without a solitary word of helpful criticism or guidance from either of the two great Oppositions is, I think, one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the House—[Interruption.] The ribaldry of hon. Members is an additional reason why the Committee should now adjourn, so that hon. Members may recover and, after a night's rest, may return in the proper frame of mind that hon. Members should bring to their duties. I have the strongest pleasure in supporting the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), which asks that the Committee remembering its duty to the millions of people outside, should decide to do the wise and intelligent thing.
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
| Division No. 421.] | AYES. | [5.45 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Ritson, J. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Harriotts, J. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Rowson, Guy |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hollins, A. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Arnott, John | Isaacs, George | Sanders, W. S. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Barr, James. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Scurr, John |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Benson, G. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Lang, Gordon | Shield, George William |
| Bowen, J. W. | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Shinwell, E. |
| Brothers, M. | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Sinkinson, George |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Lawson, John James | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lindley, Fred W. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Logan, David Gilbert | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Compton, Joseph | Longbottom, A. W. | Sorensen, R. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Longden, F. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Daggar, George | Lunn, William | Strauss, G. R. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) | Sullivan, J. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | McElwee, A. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Dukes, C. | McEntee, V. L. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Ede, James Chuter | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Manning, E. L. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Mansfield, W. | Tout, W. J. |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Marshall, Fred | Vaughan, David |
| Freeman, Peter | Mathers, George | Viant, S. P. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Milner, Major J. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Montague, Frederick | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Gill, T. H. | Mort, D. L. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Glassey, A. E. | Murnin, Hugh | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Gossling, A. G. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Gould, F. | Noel Baker, P. J. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Palin, John Henry | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Potts, John S. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Price, M. P. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Quibell, D. J. K. | |
| Hayes, John Henry | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Rathbone, Eleanor | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Palin. |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Horrabin, J. F. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Kirkwood, D. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Wise, E. F. |
| Buchanan, G. | Maxton, James | |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Sandham, E. | Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
686§ Question put "That the Question be now put".
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 18.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 141.
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Herriotts, J. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Rowson, Guy |
| Alpass, J. H. | Hollins, A. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Ammon, Charles George | Isaacs, George | Sanders, W. S. |
| Arnott, John | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Scurr, John |
| Barr, James | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Benson, G. | Lang, Gordon | Shield, George William |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Shinwell, E. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Brothers, M. | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Sinkinson, George |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Burgess, F. G. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lindley, Fred W. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Logan, David Gilbert | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Longbottom, A. W. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Compton, Joseph | Longden, F. | Sorensen, R. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Lunn, William | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Daggar, George | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Strauss, G. R. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | McElwee, A. | Sullivan, J. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | McEntee, V. L. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Dukes, C. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampten) | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Ede, James Chuter | Manning, E. L. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Mansfield, W. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Marshall, Fred | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Mathers, George | Tout, W. J. |
| Freeman, Peter | Mills, J. E. | Vaughan, David |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Milner, Major J. | Viant, S. P. |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Montague, Frederick | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline). |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Gill, T. H. | Mort, D. L. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Glassey, A. E. | Murnin, Hugh | Westwood, Joseph |
| Gossling, A. G. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Gould, F. | Noel Baker, P. J. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Palin, John Henry. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Potts, John S. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Price, M. P. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Quibell, D. J. K. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Hayes, John Henry | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Rathbone, Eleanor | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton. |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Ritson, J. |
§ Miss BONDFIELDI beg to move, in page 2, line 22, after the word "who," to insert the words "since marriage or".
§ Mr. STEPHENIt is only right—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI allowed full discussion to take place on two Amendments—on an Amendment moved by the Minister and also on a previous Amendment moved by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone).
§ Mr. BUCHANANThat is not the point I was going to raise.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI allowed a full discussion on both Amendments. There ought not to be further discussion now. It ought to be put without discussion as agreed.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI understand—I may be wrong—that the Minister of 688 Labour was moving the Amendment which stands in her name. We should have some explanation of the reasons for this Amendment. I have no wish to discuss it, but it has been customary to ask the Minister to give a brief summary.
§ Miss BONDFIELDIt is obvious that the words are added for the purpose of making it quite clear that people who would come into this category (d) are those people who since marriage, or in a prescribed period since marriage, have had less than the prescribed number of contributions. It is the condition which affects women who on marriage cease to be in the employable field. There is some doubt how that is to be construed and that is why the words are to be added.
§ Miss RATHBONEWill the right hon. Lady answer one question? I asked in my speech whether the married woman would have to satisfy one prescribed period or a current prescribed period.
§ Miss BONDFIELDIt means having these areas examined to see what kind of regulations may well be made for different categories of cases. I do not-want any ambiguity as to how that line is to be prescribed.
§ Miss RATHBONEIt is quite a different point. There is a possibility that a married woman may have eight stamps in six months, or it may be she has to get eight stamps for the year after her marriage. Is it recurrent or once for all?
§ Miss BONDFIELDIt really does not arise on this Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen)—page 2, line 26, leave out Sub-section (3).
§ Mr. WISEOn a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that there are a number of Amendments on this page of the Order Paper dealing with anomalies in the Clause to which I referred in the Instruction that I dealt with when the Speaker was in the Chair? As I understood from the Speaker, it was not necessary to move that Instruction because so far as the Amendments referred to are concerned the persons referred to are in receipt of ordinary benefit. These Amendments would only be out of order if they set out to removes anomalies so as to enable people not entitled to it to get transitional benefit, and thus become an extra charge upon the Treasury. There is nothing in these Amendments referring to transitional benefit. On the contrary, the cases about which we are specially concerned are, for example, that of a man in employment up to the age of 64, and on reaching 65 years of age and finding he is deprived not of transitional benefit but ordinary benefit. Surely we are entitled to move Amendments whose application is only to ordinary benefits? That involves no charge on the Treasury directly. As the result of a discussion in this House in December, 1929, on the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, a series of Amendments which involved an increase of benefit at the expense of the general Insurance Fund were not ruled out as involving a charge.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman raised this question in the earlier part of the evening, and I have given serious attention to it. While these Amendments might only apply to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, I may remind him they may well affect transitional benefit. These Amendments on page 2,864 would have the effect of including persons who are not now entitled, for various reasons, to receive benefit, and some of these people would come into benefit by reason of the provisions with respect to transitional benefit. With regard to a matter which the hon. Member has raised, those persons who are 65 years or upwards are deprived of benefit by Section 37 of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925. Such a person may have a number of contributions standing to his credit so as to entitle him to benefit in the transitional provisions, but not under the ordinary conditions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. Here, again, the transitional provisions would be affected and a charge on the Exchequer would be involved. That also refers to the other Amendments on the Paper.
§ Mr. WISEI appreciate the great care which you have given to this point, which is a very substantial one, but might I point out that a person such as you have referred to might have, and very often does have, stamps on his card entitling him to insurance benefit. There are cases of persons of 65 years of ago entitled to transitional benefit. If there is any doubt as to the meaning, it would surely be removed if we inserted the words "would be entitled to insurance benefit." Insurance benefit means ordinary benefit under the original Act, and transitional benefit is distinguished by that special phrase. Therefore, I would desire to insert before "benefit" the word "insurance," and then to move the Amendment which, as I understand your Puling, would then be in order.
§ The CHAIRMANA person can be entitled under Act of Parliament to unemployment insurance benefit and, at the same time, because of the stamps on his card, to transitional benefit. The duty of the Chairman is not to allow his own sympathies to interfere with his duty in the matter, and my interpretation is that it would enable regulations to 691 be made which would go on at such a rate that in all cases transitional benefit would be effected, and it is my duty to take care that that cannot be done by means of such an Amendment.
§ Mr. WISEI quite understand that. [Interruption.] I am within my rights in raising this point of very great importance which Members on this side of the Committee will, I fear, discover when they meet their constituents. I understand your desire not to embody in the Bill an Amendment which infringes the Rule about charges on the Treasury, which would be infringed if the Amendment referred to transitional benefit. It is true that persons entitled to benefit are entitled to transitional benefit, but that does not operate, because they do not need it. The person entitled to transitional benefit is not entitled to insurance benefit. I am dealing with the person entitled to insurance benefit, and I submit that there is no charge involved. Might I add that on this point the Speaker indicated his views very clearly, that the Instruction was unnecessary in regard to persons entitled to insurance benefit, because in that case such an Amendment would be out of the scope and subject matter of the Bill?
§ The CHAIRMANI am not acquainted with Mr. Speaker's Ruling on that. It does not cover the Committee. I have gone into the matter very carefully, and there is a chance on every one of these Amendments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer raising additional sums, and I decline to accept them in the course of my duty.
§ Mr. STEPHENI beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (3).
This Sub-section is a great innovation in connection with unemployment insurance. It is one of the most important of all the provisions in this Bill. I think the Minister of Labour or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry will agree with me with regard to the importance of this Subjection. It means the introduction of a new principle into the working of our unemployment insurance scheme. At least, if I understand aright what is meant in this Sub-section, it means that the Minister is going to have power to make regulations which will have effect with regard to certain classes and 692 not with regard to other classes. Further, the Minister will have power to make regulations not only with regard to one class as distinct from some other class, but will be able to make a regulation with regard to a section of a class, a different regulation from that operating in respect of the other members of that class. Indeed, it is so drawn that the Minister will have power to make a regulation to deal with the conditions of benefit in the case of particular individuals. I think the Sub-section goes as far as to allow the Minister to make a regulation that will apply even to one individual alone. That is a very comprehensive power. It may be said that it is of importance that the Minister should have the power in this Sub-section, but members of the Committee should understand that this is a tremendous innovation.
I do not know of any insurance scheme in the country where there is such a practice. Members of this House and the newspapers and people outside have all laid tremendous emphasis on the necessity of putting the unemployment insurance scheme on a real insurance basis. I would be interested to know if the Minister is going to take the ground that in this Sub-section there is any retention of any insurance principle. I would like to know, also, if the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), whose party, I understand, has laid a great deal of emphasis on the necessity for restoring the insurance principle in the working of the unemployment insurance system—if he and his friends do not regard this Sub-section as a gross violation of the insurance principle and an innovation which is going to give the Minister extraordinary powers which could never be given under the operation of a real insurance scheme. I hope that we shall be able to get some information as to the attitude of the Opposition with regard to this Sub-section, m view of their protestations with regard to the importance of the reimposition of the insurance principle in connection with the provision for unemployment.
After these preliminary observations, I want to come wore directly to what is going to be the effect of the working of this Sub-section. Is it going to mean that the workers belonging to the categories dealt with under this Measure in the various parts of the country will be 693 quite at a loss to know whether, when they are unemployed, they will obtain unemployment benefit? Does it mean that conditions will be swept aside, for people in these categories? People who are paying these contributions are entitled to a certain amount of information as to what conditions they have to fulfil to obtain benefit. Everyone will agree that the unemployed have a sense of insecurity, if: hey have had a long experience of unemployment, as to whether they will be able to qualify for benefit or not. In this Sub-section we are giving the Minister power to deal with a particular section—it may be large sections—and we are going to have the extraordinary position of men and women being called upon to pay contributions to an insurance scheme, under which in one part of the country certain conditions will operate so that people, when they are unemployed, will be able to obtain benefit, while in a different part of the country, for the payment of the same contributions, people will not be able to obtain unemployment benefit. I do not see how you are going to justify any such position. If this is a Bill to remove anomalies, surely in this Subjection it is giving the Minister power to create greater anomalies than all the existing anomalies in connection with the working of insurance lumped together.
Where can there be a greater anomaly than those which will be created if individuals paying the same contributions are going to be put into different positions with regard to the receipt of benefit, according to the conditions that are operating? I wonder at the state of mind that can contemplate such legislation. Someone may tell me about the position, say, in Lancashire, where a great many of the women are engaged in industry and the position in other parts of the country. It will be said that one set of conditions exists in regard to the receipt of benefit in Lancashire, and different conditions in the West of Scotland. But I hope that the Committee is not going to agree to this discrimination between different parts of the country. I take as an illustration the experience of this country with regard to pensions after the Great War. A system was set up, and the arrangements in regard to pensions and medical 694 examinations differed greatly in different parts of the country. It was felt that a man might get a pension in one district and not in another because conditions were so much easier in one place than in the other. There was a tremendous outcry in the country against this method of granting pensions but here, on the plea of removing anomalies in connection with unemployment insurance, we are going to create different conditions in different constituencies. I shall have to tell men and women in my constituency, when they point out to me that people in similar circumstances to themselves, who have the same number of stamps to their credit, are drawing benefit, while they are not that the conditions are different. It may be said that we have different conditions of employment, or that we have had a longer period of unemployment on a large scale, or that we have had a shorter period on a large scale. But you cannot defend any such system.
I hope that the Minister, on consideration, will agree to the deletion of this paragraph. Other powers are being taken to deal with anomalies in this Bill. They are wide enough powers, and we ought not to set up a system of discrimination in this way between the different parts of the country. I believe it would be a bad day for the working of this scheme to have such discrimination. [Interruption.] I do not know what is amusing some of the Members of the Committee as this seems to me one of the most important parts of the Bill, It may be that the Minister will be able to give reasons for it, that do not appear obvious to me, but this is introducing an innovation in the working of our unemployment insurance system to which I hope the Committee is not going to agree. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say in defence of this system. I think the only fair way of dealing with the unemployed is to have one set of conditions throughout the country, and to allow people to understand what these conditions are. The Minister will remember that when she was a member of the Blanesburgh Committee, and when the representatives of the working class movement submitted their evidence, one of the things insisted upon most strongly was that every person in the unemployment insurance scheme should know exactly what the conditions were with regard to 695 benefit. I am aware now, that the Labour Government, with the concurrence of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, are preparing to go back on that point and upon the right of the individual to know exactly what his position is under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and to know that he has a contractual obligation, with full security under that contract, whatever that contract may be. I do not believe that any real case can be made out, in the desire to remove anomalies, without making the conditions of all the thousands of people who will be involved absolutely uncertain and insecure, if this provision is retained.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI regret to say that we cannot possibly accept this Amendment. The forcible argument that was advanced by the hon. Member would be a valid argument if it had been related to the Bill as a whole; it certainly does not relate to this Sub-section. The only reason why we approved of this Measure, under which we are to make regulations, is that we are convinced that the only way we can deal with this matter is by regulation. By means of regulation, it is possible to get greater elasticity, and the necessary condition for elasticity is Sub-section (3). The hon. Member's argument is really "Strike this out." and with it you must strike out the very words which embody the whole object of the Bill. If a hard-and-fast proposition were to be laid down in an Act of Parliament and were to be applied to the whole country, it may be imagined what the consequences would be. A form of words cannot be devised to apply all over the whole country which will not act with very great injustice to some parts. I well understand the hon. Member asking the question, but what he asks about is not in the Bill. A regulation, drawing a distinction between different places, will be needed.
§ Mr. STEPHENPerhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would tell us why it is necessary to have a discrimination between different parts of the country. He says we need greater elasticity. Suppose you get the power to make a regulation, why has there to be one set of regulations for Lancashire and 696 another set for the West of Scotland? What is to create the need for the different regulations in different parts of the country? Surely you can get elasticity without the power to make regulations.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALThe want of elasticity is, obviously, that in different parts of the country, a different position will be met with.
§ Mr. BROCKWAYI appreciate very much the courteous consideration which the Attorney-General has given to the point which was put forward by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), and I tried to understand the case which he advanced, but the case has been put forward elsewhere. As I understand it, the point is that in different parts of the country, and in different trades and industries, particularly where those trades and industries are of a geographical character, the circumstances which apply to married women, or to seasonal, intermittent, casual, or short-time workers, are different in one specified area from what they are in another specified area. Because there are those differences, therefore, there must be an issue of regulations, which will examine and recognise those differences and which will lead to regulations for one area which are different from those of another. That is a fair statement of the reason for this Sub-section. There is the danger that the method of regulation will create more anomalies than the ones which it is desired to remove.
Examine the matter from the point of view of East Leyton, the constituency which I represent. It is, in large part, a residential dormitory, middle-class constituency of London, and, in the other section, is largely composed of railway men, transport workers, printers and artisans. There is comparatively little dire poverty in the ordinary sense. The unemployment figure is less than 10 per cent. It is my experience week by week to meet my constituents and I know personally what dangerous possibilities there are in this Bill. How are you going to approach the problem of married women? In Lancashire, it has long been the custom of married women to work in the textile industry, and we recognise that there must be special regulations for that specified area. Compare it with my constituency, where it has not been the 697 custom for a large number of married women to be actively engaged in industry. It is a different development. Married women are increasingly going out to work, but that is due to the new conception of woman's freedom. It is also due to economic causes. The rail-waymen's wives in my constituency are undergoing a wage reduction, and men are being dismissed from the works in large numbers, owing to the process of rationalisation which is being carried out. The result of those economic factors is that more and more married women are being compelled to go into the labour market in order to maintain their families.
Therefore, if you apply a regulation in one way to Lancashire and do not apply it in a similar way to Leyton, you are creating an anomaly which, with the historical process I have described, will become a greater and greater anomaly as the months go by, and will prove how unworkable is this particular proposal. I could, if I desired, illustrate exactly the same point from any other class and from any section of a class which is concerned in this particular Sub-section. I could show in a similar way how in different parts of the country conditions are continually changing, and how impossible it would be to apply a kind of patchwork of regulation which would be of one character in one place and of another character in another place. Further than that, I would like to put this one point. This Bill arises from a report of a Royal Commission, to which the terms of reference were to make the insurance system stop within the insurance system. If you accept the principle of insurance when you demand exactly similar payment from contributors in all parts of the country, you have no right to issue regulations which say that those who have contributed in exactly the same way for exactly similar purposes shall in one part of the
| Division No. 423.] | AYES. | [6.45 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Brothers, M. | Ede, James Chuter |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Edmunds, J. E. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Burgess, F. G. | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) |
| Arnott, John | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Freeman, Peter |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Clarke, J. S. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) |
| Barr, James | Cluse, W. S. | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Compton, Joseph | Gibbins, Joseph |
| Benson, G. | Daggar, George | Gill, T. H. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Glassey, A. E. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Gossling, A. G. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Dukes, C | Gould, F. |
§ country receive benefit when they are unemployed, and in another part of the country shall not receive benefit when they are unemployed. That is an impossible position for an insurance system.
§ I should be very interested to hear how those on the opposite benches, who stand so firmly by the contributory principle, are for one moment going to justify their action in accepting in silence a Sub-section of this character. Lastly, if you are going to adopt in different areas in this country a different treatment for persons who have contributed in an exactly similar way, you are going to arouse a kind of discontent because of the comparisons which will be made, which is a very dangerous thing for the accepted stability of the insurance system as a whole. We have had examples from it in the kind of legislation regarding pensions and widows' pensions. The case will be infinitely more difficult to meet in this instance, because here you will be able to show that Mrs. A., who for three years has contributed to the Insurance Fund has been refused benefit, while Mrs. B. in another part of the country, who has also contributed for three years to the Insurance Fund, receives benefit. That is an impossible basis for any insurance system. It is going to create a spirit of discontent of all kinds and of comparison upon which you cannot (maintain a great system of this character. I hope that the Committee at this early hour, with the few Members in the precincts, and the still fewer Members actually in the Chamber, will pause seriously, indeed, before they pass legislation containing a principle difficult and dangerous to its future.
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to more, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 17.
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne). | McElwee, A. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | McEntee, V. L. | Sinkinson, George |
| Groves, Thomas E. | McKinlay, A. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Manning, E. L. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Mansfield, W. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Marshall, Fred | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Mathers, George | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Mills, J. E. | Sorensen, R. |
| Henderson, W. W (Middx., Enfield) | Montague, Frederick | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Herriotts, J. | Mort, D. L. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Murnin, Hugh | Sullivan, J. |
| Hollins, A. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Isaacs, George | Palin, John Henry | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Paling, Wilfrid | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Potts, John S. | Tout, W. J. |
| Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Price, M. P. | Vaughan, David |
| Lang, Gordon | Quibell, D. J. K. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Law, Albert (Bolton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Law, A. (Rossendale) | Ritson, J. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Romeril, H. G. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Lawson, John James | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Rowson, Guy | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Leonard, W. | Sanders, W. S. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Sawyer, G. F. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Scurr, John | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Sherwood, G. H. | |
| Lunn, William | Shield, George William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Shillaker, J. F. | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton. |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Horrabin, J. F. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Kirkwood, D. | Wise, E. F. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley. |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Sandham, E. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
| Division No. 424.] | AYES. | [6.54 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Gill, T. H. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Glassey, A. E. | Lindley, Fred W. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Gossling, A. G. | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Ammon, Charles George | Gould, F. | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Arnott, John | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Lunn, William |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
| Barr, James | Groves, Thomas E. | McElwee, A. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Grundy, Thomas W. | McEntee, V. L. |
| Benson, G. | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | McKinlay, A. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Haycock, A. W. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Manning, E. L. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Mansfield, W. |
| Brothers, M. | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Marshall, Fred |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Mathers, George |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Herriotts, J. | Mills, J. E. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Montague, Frederick |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Hollins, A. | Mort, D. L. |
| Clarke, J. S. | Isaacs, George | Murnin, Hugh |
| Cluse, W. S. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Compton, Joseph | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Palin, John Henry. |
| Daggar, George | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
| Dukes, C. | Lang, Gordon | Potts, John S. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Price, M. P. |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Freeman, Peter | Lawson, John James | Ritson, J. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Leonard, W. | Rowson, Guy |
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 16.
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Sanders, W. S. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Sawyer, G. F. | Sorensen, R. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Scurr, John | Stamford, Thomas W. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Strauss, G. R. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Sherwood, G. H. | Sullivan, J. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Shield, George William | Sutton, J. E. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Shillaker, J. F. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Shinwell, E. | Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Simmons, C. J. | Thurtle, Ernest | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Sinkinson, George | Tinker, John Joseph | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Sitch, Charles H. | Tout, W. J. | |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Vaughan, David | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Viant, S. P. | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleston. |
| Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| NOES. | ||
| Allan, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Kirkwood, D. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Wise, E. F. |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley. |
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment which I select is that on page 2866 standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), to page 3, line 5.
§ Mr. WISEOn a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that the whole of Sub-section (4) is being passed over? Perhaps you have overlooked it. Are we not to be allowed to discuss that Sub-section? There are very substantial points which can only be put on this Sub-section.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member will have to take his chance at another stage of the Bill. I am exercising my right of selection.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI beg to move, in page 3, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
with a record of the names of members present and agreeing to such report and a minute of the proceedings of the said advisory committee.I do not think that the Government will refuse what we are asking in this Amendment. It is not very much. It is that a record of the names of the members present should be published, that those agreeing to such a report should be published, and that a minute of the proceedings should be published. Take an exactly similar case—the courts of referees. They try cases each day, and every member of the court of referees is known by name to the person who is going to appear before them. That is now the law. Hero we are asking that the names of an Advisory Committee 702 with great powers should be known to the insured persons, and also how they voted. This is a very elementary demand. There are nine persons on this body. It is the bounden duty of Parliament, of the Minister, and, above all, of the insured contributors, to know, if they wish, how the members of the committee are attending.Generally speaking, the executives of the Labour party, and the Trades Union Congress, publish each year a full list of their attendances. I have been present at the sittings of the Royal Commission whose report we are considering now. What struck me very frequently was the number of members absent—sometimes one, sometimes two or three, but there were constantly some members absent. They might have had good excuses but I think that the public ought to know, when these things are being considered, who are present. It may be that this committee will come to a decision with a member absent. To be fair to that man, it ought to be known outside that he was not present when such and such a decision was made. It ought to be known to the public and the country how members voted. The Trades Union Congress are delegating powers to three members, but they alone are not delegating these powers—the trade union movement is delegating them. Presumably, the Trades Union Congress will get from these three members a regular report of how they have acted and voted. But the trade union movement outside will not get that report. Unless you make it public, the nature of the proceedings will be confidential, and I ques- 703 tion whether it would even be appropriate for the three delegates to report back to their organisation. If it is not a breach of confidence to report, why should you limit it to the Trades Union Congress? Why should not Parliament and the House of Commons get to know? If it is a breach of propriety, then those three members of the Trades Union Congress are not representative of the Trades Union Congress at all, but go there of themselves without any control or right of report at all. If it is the other way, and the delegates have a right to report, surely Parliament has an equal right to know. I think that that is justifiable.
Further, this party of ours has consistently opposed secret diplomacy between nation and nation. The first time I heard the Prime Minister speak was during the War, and he eloquently denounced secret diplomacy. He said that it was not the events which caused the War about which he was concerned, but the conversations and talks that had gone on before, and that if the country knew of them there would be a different outlook. I say we have a right to know these secret conversations because without them, we cannot make up our minds properly on the full consequences of what we are doing. I suggest, seriously, that a party which has worked openly, which, unlike its opponents, publishes its balance-sheets, should have this body open to the light of public scrutiny. We do not ask that every word should be published. All we ask is a minute of the proceedings. What I have in mind is this. Supposing that this committee decided to recommend a regulation making the income test 35s. a week and it was carried by a majority, with the three Trades Union Congress delegates opposing it. Unless a minute is published these three delegates will suffer the same blame as the others. Supposing that, on the other hand, the Treasury official takes a certain view—and he is not merely the representative of the Treasury but also represents this House—we would like to know what he is doing. Surely it would be right for the Trades Union Congress to criticise their delegates, and it would be equally right for Parliament to ask questions of its delegate.
If we do not make this Amendment you would have this kind of thing 704 taking place. Popular things are done and unpopular things are done, but if an unpopular thing is done the consequences of which members might not see at the time, you will have a scramble of members saying, "I was against it," "I was for it," "I was present," and you will have no way of judging the facts of the situation. Furthermore, the Royal Commission did its work in public, and the Blanesburgh Committee did its work in public. Why should not this committee, which is going to have, in some respects, a far greater power than the commission, do its work in the full light of day. If there is a popular demand for the Bill why should not the committee be open to the floodlight of the people. If there is a case for doing these things, the more the people know about it the better. Do not make it appear as if it were a mystery. By giving this publicity the people would be convinced of the Government's view. We have what we call a Bench of Judges in Scotland, and when the judges come to a decision by a majority of three to two their names are published. I think we are entitled to ask that the Government shall accept this very reasonable and moderate Amendment.
§ Mr. LAWSONIt seemed to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), when moving the Amendment, was under the impression at times that he was dealing with records of meetings. As a matter of fact, in Sub-section (5) it is stated:
the Minister shall cause every report received by him from the Advisory Committee to be laid forthwith before each House of Parliament.The hon. Member's Amendment would add:with a record of the names of members present and agreeing to such report and a minute of the proceedings of the said advisory committee.One half of this Amendment is unnecessary for the simple reason that the report is laid before Parliament, and the names of the members will be attached to the report. If there is a majority and a minority report the names would be attached. Therefore, that point is covered already. But when it comes to the question of the minutes of the proceedings of the advisory com- 705 mittee being made public the Government cannot accept that proposal. I think the strongest reasons that can be given against it are those which my hon. Friend gave. He wants to use these names, if I may say so, to intimidate people. I think that is the accurate interpretation of what he said. The Government will not have the members of this committee sitting in a spirit of inquisition, and I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. BECKETTI am very disappointed at the treatment which this very mild Amendment has received. I think that if this Amendment were accepted it would go a long way towards removing one of the objectionable features of this Bill. I do not think it was quite fair for the Parliamentary Secretary to suggest that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) wanted this information in order to intimidate the members. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is the last man who ought to make a statement like that. We do not have secret Division lists in this House. I think that as we are handing over legislative powers to an advisory committee the country should know what that committee is doing. It is a very reasonable thing to ask that the people who will be nominated by the Minister of Labour should be amenable to the electors. The members of this committee are to be members of the Trades Union Congress and others. We ought to know what every member of this committee is, but at least we ought to know the essential things, and I shall be rather disappointed if we do not get some support for this Amendment from our trade union friends. The Amendment is for the protection of the trade union members who are going to be in a considerable minority and who will be out-voted in the efforts which they will make to look after the interests of the unemployed. They are to be minutes of the proceedings, but everybody knows that, who ever the three representatives are, who are doing their best for the trade union movement, which they are representing on that committee—
§ Mr. KEDWARDThey are not representing a movement. Surely they are representing the nation.
§ Mr. BECKETTI accept that correction. I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. I think he is quite right. Three representatives are nominated in one case by the Employers' Federation and three in another case by the Trades Union Congress. There is a general understanding of the principle that where members of an important public body are nominated on an important committee, then the nominees shall try to find out the views of those who nominated them, in order that they may express those views.
§ Mr. KEDWARDSurely the hon. Member must know that the trade union members will have to represent other people, apart from trade unions?
§ Mr. BECKETTCertainly, I would not like to misrepresent them in that respect, but I do not think it affects my argument, that the body by whom they are nominated is naturally anxious that its representatives should know its views on matters where they have to make very vital decisions. I do not think it is well to stir up so much suspicions in the minds of people who will be affected by the knowledge that the Minister is determined to keep the proceedings of this Advisory Committee under a veil of secrecy. Most hon. Members know that the people who are the most hard hit by the present depression are those who are naturally the most suspicious lest something should be done to injure them. When they read that the Minister of Labour has not only handed them over to an Advisory Committee, but insists that the deliberations of the Committee shall be held in secrecy, it will cause very grave perturbation amongst them.
If these things are to be kept secret during the next two years, many men and women will be refused benefit, not because of this Bill alone—they would have been refused benefit very likely if this Bill had not been brought in—but because of keeping these proceedings secret. Everyone who is refused benefit will at once blame the Labour Government, who were supposed to be the protectors of the unemployed. I do not think we have had any vital reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. I do not know why there is such an insistence upon secrecy. Surely, handing these people over to a non-party oligarchy is bad enough, without keeping the deliberations secret. The Com- 707 mittee, which has taken very little interest in the Bill so far, will perhaps rise to this occasion and say that some measure of decent publicity must be given to the proceedings of the Advisory Committee.
§ Mr. WISEOn a point of Order. Shall I be in order, Sir Robert, in put ting to you a question for the interpretation of the learned Solicitor-General, whom I see on the Front Bench now? The Clause says that a report shall be made by the committee to the Minister. I gather from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, that he contemplates the possibility of majority and minority reports, not a report but two or more reports on a particular regulation. As I understand it, the procedure of the House of Commons is that the House appoints Select Committees, or Private Bill Committees, or Standing Committees to go into questions and report to it. Using the words which appear here—
§ The CHAIRMANThis is a very long point of Order.
§ Mr. WISEI am just coming to my point Sir, if you will allow me. I was saying that when the House appoints a Committee to go into a matter and re port to it, it gets a report, and no minority report. I am talking about a Parliamentary Committee. If I am wrong, the learned Solicitor-General will correct me. What I want to know is this—
§ The CHAIRMANI understood from the hon. Member that he was putting a point of Order; then he seemed to be making a speech, and now he is putting a question to the Solicitor-General.
§ Mr. WISEIf I may finish my remarks, you will see that I am putting a point of Order. What is meant in this case by "a report "which, in the terminology of the House of Commons, in regard to its own Committees, means a majority report of the Committee appointed by the House because the House of Commons does not permit minority reports from its own Committees. When the words "a report" are used in the Bill does it mean something different from what the House of Commons means when it says "a re- 708 port"? The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated majority and possibly minority reports.
§ Mr. STEPHENI think that the learned Solicitor-General might be good enough to answer a question of that character.
§ Sir C. TREVELYANI think we are perfectly justified in asking what this procedure means. Does it mean that the "report" is only going to be one report with no minority report, or that there will be two reports so that it may be known which way the individuals voted if there was a division in the committee?
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Mr. BUCHANANOn a point of Order. Cannot we get an answer from the learned Solicitor-General or those in charge on that point? Surely we are not asking too much. It is done by the Conservatives every day, and it is not unreasonable for other hon. Members to do it.
§ Mr. MAXTONFurther to that point. The Parliamentary Secretary in his reply talked of two reports, a minority and a majority. The wording of the Bill says "the report." There is no possibility, in my view, on the present wording of the Bill, of having two reports when the Bill says one. It is a small thing for us to ask that the Minister, or the Solicitor-General, whose province it is, should tell us whether the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary is a correct one or whether we are right in assuming that the word "report" in the Bill refers to one report.
§ Miss BONDFIELDI cannot credit the hon. Members on those benches with the lack of knowledge they assume. It is perfectly clearly stated in the Bill that
the Minister shall cause every report received by him from the Advisory Committee to "be laid forthwith before each House of Parliament.The Committee will be able to give the Minister a unanimous report, or two reports, a majority and a minority, or a report with a dissentient note, or a report in any other form in which they like to make a report.
§ The CHAIRMANThe reply has now been given. I accepted the Closure but allowed a reply to be given.
| Division No. 425.] | AYES. | [7.33 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Harriotts, J. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Rowson, Guy |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hollins, A. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Arnott, John | Isaacs, George | Sanders, W. S. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Barr, James | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Scurr, John |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Benson, G. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Lang, Gordon | Shield, George William |
| Bowen, J. W. | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Shinwell, E. |
| Brothers, M. | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Sinkinson, George |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Lawson, John James | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Leonard, W. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lindley, Fred W. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Compton, Joseph | Logan, David Gilbert | Sorensen, R. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Longbottom, A. W. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Daggar, George | Lunn, William | Sullivan, J. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | McElwee, A. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Dukes, C. | McEntee, V. L. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Ede, James Chuter | McKinlay, A. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Manning, E. L. | Tout, W. J. |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Mansfield, W. | Vaughan, David |
| Freeman, Peter | Marshall, Fred | Viant, S. P. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Mathers, George | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Mills, J. E. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Montague, Frederick | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Gill, T. H. | Mort, D. L. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Glassey, A. E. | Murnin, Hugh | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Gossling, A. G. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Gould, F. | Palin, John Henry | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Potts, John S. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Price, M. P. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Quibell, D. J. K. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | |
| Haycock, A. W. | Rathbone, Eleanor | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Henderson, Arthur. Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Richardson, H. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling. |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Ritson, J. |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Forgan, Dr. Robert | Owen, H. F. (Hereford) |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Wise, E. F. |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | |
| Buchanan, G. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Kinley and Mr. Kirkwood. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
| Division No. 426.] | AYES. | [7.42 a.m. |
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Horrabin, J. F. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Wise, E. F. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Maxton, James | |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Buchanan, G. | Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Kinley. |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Sandham, E. |
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 16.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 138.
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Herriotts, J. | Rowson, Guy |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Arnott, John | Hollins, A. | Sanders, W. S. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Isaacs, George | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Barr, James | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Scurr, John |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Benson, G. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Shield, George William |
| Bowen, J. W. | Lang, Gordon | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Shinwell, E. |
| Brothers, M. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Sinkinson, George |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J, (South Ayrshire) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Lawson, John James | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Smith, Rennie (Penistons) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Leonard, W. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lindley, Fred W. | Sorensen, R. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Logan, David Gilbert | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Daggar, George | Longbottom, A. W. | Strauss, G. B. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Lunn, William | Sullivan, J. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Dukes, C. | McElwee, A. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Ede, James Chuter | McEntee, V. L. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | McKinlay, A. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Manning, E. L. | Tout, W. J. |
| Freeman, Peter | Mansfield, W. | Vaughan, David |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Marshall, Fred | Viant, S. P. |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Mathers, George | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Mills, J. E. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Gill, T. H. | Montague, Frederick | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Glassey, A. E. | Mort, D. L. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Gossling, A. G. | Murnin, Hugh | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Gould, F. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Palin, John Henry | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Potts, John S. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Price, M. P. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Quibell, D. J. K. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Ritson, J. | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling. |
§ Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
§ The CHAIRMANWhen such a Motion is moved, it is put without discussion according to the Standing Order.
| Division No. 427.] | AYES. | [7.50 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Compton, Joseph | Groves, Thomas E. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Cripps, Sir Stafford | Grundy, Thomas W. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Daggar, George | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Haycock, A. W. |
| Arnott, John | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Dukes, C. | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) |
| Barr, James | Ede, James Chuter | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Edmunds, J. E. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
| Benson, G. | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Herriotts, J. |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Freeman, Peter | Hollins, A. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Isaacs, George |
| Brothers, M. | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Gibbins, Joseph | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Gill, T. H. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Burgess, F. G. | Glassey, A. E. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Gossling, A. G. | Lang, Gordon |
| Charleton, H. C. | Gould, F. | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Law, Albert (Bolton) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Law, A. (Rossendale) |
§ Mr. MAXTONIt is not usually accepted by the Chair.
§ Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 16.
| Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Sorensen, R. |
| Lawson, John James | Potts, John S. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Price, M. P. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Sullivan, J. |
| Leonard, W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Ritson, J. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Romeril, H. G. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Rowson, Guy | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Lunn, William | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Tout, W. J. |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Sanders, W. S. | Vaughan, David |
| McElwee, A. | Sawyer, G. F. | Viant, S. P. |
| McEntee, V. L. | Scurr, John | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| McKinlay, A. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Sherwood, G. H. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Manning, E. L. | Shield, George William | Westwood, Joseph |
| Mansfield, W. | Shillaker, J. F. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Marshall, Fred | Shinwell, E. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Mathers, George | Simmons, C. J. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Mills, J. E. | Sinkinson, George | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Montague, Frederick | Sitch, Charles H. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Mort, D. L. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Murnin, Hugh | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Palin, John Henry | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | |
| Parkinson, John Aden (Wigan) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling. |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Sandham, E. |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Kirkwood, D. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brawn, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | Wise, E. F. |
| Buchanan, G. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
| Division No. 428.] | AYES. | [7.59 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Groves, Thomas E. | Mills, J. E. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Grundy, Thomas W. | Montague, Frederick |
| Alpass, J. H. | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Mort, D. L. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Haycock, A. W. | Murnin, Hugh |
| Arnott, John | Hayes, John Henry | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Palin, John Henry |
| Barr, James | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Benson, G. | Herriotts, J. | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Potts, John S. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Hollins, A. | Price, M. P. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Isaacs, George | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Brothers, M. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Rathbone, Eleanor |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J, (South Ayrshire) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Ritson, J. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lang, Gordon | Rowson, Guy |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Cluse, W. S. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Sanders, W. S. |
| Compton, Joseph | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Scurr, John |
| Daggar, George | Lawson, John James | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Shield, George William |
| Dukes, C. | Leonard, W. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Shinwell, E. |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Lindley, Fred W. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Logan, David Gilbert | Sinkinson, George |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Longbottom, A. W. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Freeman, Peter | Lunn, William | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | McElwee, A. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | McEntee, V. L. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Gill, T. H. | McKinlay, A. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Glassey, A. E. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Sorensen, R. |
| Gossling, A. G. | Manning, E. L. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Gould, F. | Mansfield, W. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Marshall, Fred | Sullivan, J. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Mathers, George | Sutton, J. E. |
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 16.
| Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Wellock, Wilfred | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Tinker, John Joseph | Westwood, Joseph | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Tout, W. J. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm, Ladywood) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Vaughan, David | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) | |
| Viant, S. P. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) | Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Thurtle. |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Kirkwood, D. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Wise, E. F. |
| Buchanan, G. | Maxton, James | |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley. |