UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 3) BILL. (Hansard, 15 July 1931)

§ Mr. WISE
Owing to a mistake, I think inadvertently at the Table, the Instruction which appears in my name on the Order Paper of 8th July with regard to this Bill, does not appear on the Order Paper to-day. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to read it. That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill to eliminate anomalies in the operation of the enactments relating to unemployment insurance that appear to operate to the disadvantage of certain classes of workers. I am well aware that the path of those who wish to move Instructions in this House is in these days very difficult. There are very few Instructions which are either not unnecessary or not out of order—unnecessary because the Committee has already power to deal with the matter, or out of order because they are so far outside the scope of the Bill as to make it impossible to bring them within the scope, even by such an Instruction. But I submit that this Instruction manages to avoid Scylla and Charybdis, between which it would otherwise be likely to wreck itself. First of all, the classes we propose to bring within the scope of the Bill are concerned with anomalies which can be removed without any direct charge on the Exchequer, anomalies not merely under transitional benefit but under the ordinary benefit of the Insurance Act, and, therefore, the removal of the anomalies under which they suffer, while imposing a charge on the fund, will not impose a direct charge on the Exchequer. When the Unemployment Insurance Bill was before the House in 1929, and on subsequent occasions, that point was put to the Chair, and it was definitely ruled that Amendments which imposed a charge on the fund were in order, but that Amendments which merely imposed a charge in relation to transitional benefit, and, therefore, were charges directly on the Exchequer, were out of order. The Amendments we propose to move concern charges on the fund, and, therefore, are, I think, in order.
482 I could argue, further, that such Amendments are within the Title of the Bill, which does not stipulate classes of anomalies which it proposes to remove, but merely proposes to amend the Acts for the purpose of eliminating anomalies. The anomalies with which we propose to deal are just as much anomalies and disadvantages to the insured persons as the other types of anomalies that are dealt with in the Bill, and are, therefore, within the Title. I could argue further that they are within the scope or subject-matter of the Bill, and, therefore, come within the terms of Standing Order 34, but, in order to remove any doubts on that point, I would prefer the Instruction which stands in my name, because according to Erskine May, Instructions are intended to bring within the Rules of Order exactly those types of Amendment which might conceivably be ruled out of order by the Chair, because, although they are within the Title, it might be argued that they were outside the scope or subject matter of the Bill. Erskine May, on page 398, says: Amendments to Bills may however, be offered which might be beyond the scope of the Amendments contemplated by Standing Order No. 34, and which, without a special Instruction from the House, could not be considered by the Committee. I desire to move such a special Instruction. On the next page, Erskine May says further: The object of an Instruction is, therefore, to endow a Committee with power whereby the Committee can perfect and complete the legislation defined by the contents of the Bill, or extend the provisions of a Bill to cognate objects. I would argue that the purpose of the Instruction and the Amendments to which it refers are to complete the legislation defined by the Bill by dealing with other classes of anomalies, or, if you like, extend the provisions of the Bill to cognate objects. Therefore, in asking leave to move this Instruction, with the merits of which I am not for the moment concerned, I want your Ruling on the point of Order. I argue, first of all, that the Amendments to which it refers can be moved in Committee, in which case the Instruction maybe unnecessary; or, if there is any doubt on that point, I argue that the Amendments to which it refers are exactly of the type covered by the dicta in which Erskine May lays down the practice of the House.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The Instruction which the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) wishes to move, does not appear on the Order Paper to-day. Through some oversight, it was omitted from the Paper. It appeared the other day, and, therefore, I have given it some consideration, but as it is not on the Paper to-day, perhaps I have not given it all the consideration that I might otherwise have done. But I shall have to rule this Instruction out of order, and principally on the ground of its vagueness, because the hon. Member will readily see, as he explained in his speech, that if the anomalies referred to in that Instruction are in respect to persons entitled to benefit, the Instruction is unnecessary; but it does not say what the particular people are to whom he refers in the Instruction. On the other hand, if such persons are not now entitled to benefit, their inclusion might involve a charge, as they would become entitled, in certain circumstances, to transitional benefit, which is financed by payments from the Exchequer. The hon. Member, I am sure, will see that as the Instruction is worded, it might include persons who are on transitional benefit, which, obviously, might put a charge upon the Exchequer. On both those grounds, I am bound to rule the hon. Member's Instruction out of order.

§ Mr. WISE
If I understand you aright, an Amendment which does not refer specifically to transitional benefit, but refers to persons who are otherwise entitled to benefit, and the bringing of whom into the provisions of the Act, although it may impose a charge on the fund, will not impose a charge on the Exchequer, will be in order.

§ Mr. GEORGE HARDIE
Do I understand from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that what you mention as being a transfer is something which must be dealt with by administration, and cannot be dealt with by Amendments to this Bill?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I did not refer to that matter at all. The only matter the hon. Member is now raising is whether, if the anomalies referred to in this Instruction refer to persons who are entitled to benefit, Amendments which affect them can be in order or not. I say distinctly that they will be in order.

§ Mr. ERNEST BROWN
In that case, we understand that the Instruction is unnecessary, but that if it had referred to people on transitional benefit it would be out of order.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is what I tried to convey to the House.

§ Mr. WISE
As I understand it, you are distinguishing between persons who claim ordinary benefit, which is a charge on the fund, or who might claim ordinary benefit, but for certain anomalies which we desire to remove, and persons who are claiming transitional benefit, and, if I understand your Ruling, we are entitled to move Amendments dealing with claims to ordinary benefit, but not claims to transitional benefit?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member must not drag me into giving Rulings as to Amendments which may be moved in Committee. All I say is that if the anomalies to which the hon. Member refers, and for which he wishes to move Amendments, refer to persons now on benefit under the fund, that, in my opinion, would be in order.

§ Mr. WISE
I think there is some confusion of words. If the persons are on benefit, there would be no anomaly.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
The difficulty in our minds is not the Ruling, but that in our constituencies we find that there are certain anomalies which affect the fund, but which are not inside the categories of this Bill. That is our difficulty, and that is why, for my own sake, I want to make clear, providing the Amendments are called, that that is the distinction we have to draw this afternoon.

§ Mr. W. J. BROWN
Further to the point of Order. Assuming you were to rule this Instruction in order, which, up to now, you have not been able to do, its effect would not be to bring anyone within the scope of unemployment insurance or uncovenanted benefit. Its sole effect would be to bring people within the ambit of the recommendations of the committee which it is proposed to set up, and clearly that committee's recommendations would have to be within the general provisions referred to in the Bill. In those circumstances, does the point about benefit really arise?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I said at the beginning of my Ruling that I should rule it out of order chiefly on the matter of vagueness, but the question seems to become more and more vague as the Debate goes on. In what I have tried to lay down—perhaps I was misunderstood—I did not so much mean persons now in receipt of benefit as persons entitled to benefit.