HC Deb 23 March 1936 vol 310 cc957-73

7.39 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, in page 8, line 14, to leave out "fifty," and to insert "fifty-two."

This is a very simple but important Amendment, and I am convinced that there is not a Member of this House who would support the Minister if he appreciated the implications of this Clause, which destroys the insurance side of this Bill. It concedes a rebate of 25 per cent. of contributions to an employer and employé, if the employer hires the servant for a period of 50 weeks. That is contrary to insurance principles. The Clause, in page 8, line 14, says: For the purposes of this section the expression period of yearly hiring' means a. period of not less than fifty consecutive weeks.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will offer a much more substantial reply to this Amendment than was offered to many of the Amendments that were moved upstairs, and which have been moved this afternoon. I will take a simple illustration. A farmer hires a servant for 50 weeks, and for each of those weeks contributions of 4½d. will be paid, or 9d. per week for the employer and the employé. The sum of 37s. 6d. will be paid in contributions by the farmer and farm labourer. But as the hiring period is only for 50 weeks, one of the weeks will be a week's waiting period, and the second week will be that upon which the employé can receive unemployment benefit. The Bill definitely specifies 50 weeks; it allows the farmer to employ the labourer for only 50 weeks. The farmer and the labourer between them, in 50 weeks, will pay 37s. 6d., and each will receive a rebate of 4s. 10½d., making 9s. 9d. The annual labourer will be unemployed for two weeks, one being a waiting week and one a benefit week, and if he is a married man with a wife and three children, he will receive 30s. in benefit. Therefore, we have a balance sheet as follows: Contributions, 37s. 6d.; benefit, 30s.; rebate, 9s. 9d., making 39s. 9d., so that the farmer and the labourer will make an annual profit out of the fund of 2s. 3d. That disregards the fact that the hired labourer may find himself without hire for a period of 12 months, and during the whole of that time he will be entitled to unemployment benefit according to the scales set down in the Bill.

It is an impossible position. Not only will the farmers and farm labourers who secure no rebate pay for their own unemployment insurance benefit, but they will pay for the benefit of the servant who is in the habit of being hired, but who on occasions is not hired. On top of this they are to pay annually 2s. 2d. benefit to the farmer who hires his servant and to the servant who is hired. It is a travesty of insurance. The Amendment which follows on the Order Paper in my name deals with the same principle, and I shall provide a balance sheet there to show the utter absurdity of the limitation of the weeks for hiring purposes and for rebate purposes when we come to that Amendment. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary has something up his sleeve which I have been incapable of perceiving to justify the rebate, which completely turns the hired servant outside insurance altogether and makes him a permanent and perpetual liability on a fund to which he contributes nothing, but out of which he and the farmer who employs him each take 1s. 1½d., this is the most grotesque arrangement ever made in an alleged insurance scheme.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. HOPKIN

I am entirely mystified as to the purpose of the definition which has been put in this Clause. Sub-section (2) says: For the purposes of this Section the expression Period of yearly hiring' means a period of not less than 50 consecutive weeks. As my hon. Friend has shown that leaves out two weeks, and for that period it is possible for the farmer and his worker together to make a profit of about 2s. 3d. out of the fund. That cannot possibly be the intention of the Government, in an insurance scheme for agricultural workers. What happens if a man is employed not for one year but for two years? What becomes of the hiatus between one year and the other? The definition in the Clause destroys the whole idea of the rebate. It amounts to this—I have no objection to it, but let us call it by its proper name—that for one week certain the worker migat have a week's holiday with pay, but the pay is provided not by the farmer but out of the fund. It is an extraordinary thing that this definition should be in the middle of the Bill and not where one would expect to find it, namely, in the definition clause. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give some explanation as to the reason for this extraordinary number of consecutive weeks.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. MAR KLEW

In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary said to me at Question time to-day I do not propose to overload his plate on this particular occasion. I have been looking at the Clause and making a comparison between it and the first Amendment to the Bill to-day which was rejected very peremptorily by the Minister. For the life of me I cannot, see any justification for rejecting the Clause which was moved by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Milton (Mr. Turton) and yet retained in the Bill the Clause which we are now seeking to amend. The proposed new Clause provided for a similar rebate to the one in the Clause under discussion, but the employer had to employ the man for a consecutive period of two years. The Minister could not accept that proposal simply because the employment was not due to a hiring contract mentioned in the Bill and refused to allow a rebate in those circumstances; yet apparently he can, if a hiring contract is made, provide a rebate for 50 weeks, or, in the case of a half year's hiring, for a shorter period of 21 weeks.

I cannot square the rejection of a Clause which is more just and fair to the employer and the acceptance of the present Clause which we want to amend. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has put the position for the Amendment clearly. It would substitute 52 weeks for 50 weeks, and the Amendment is necessary in order to provide that more shall not be drawn out in either case, whether it is a yearly or a half-yearly hiring, than is actually paid in. We have heard a great deal about the necessity of keeping the fund in a solvent position. Surely this is not a provision which will help to that desirable end. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary has something up his sleeve or on his plate I hope he will accept the Amendment and remove an anomaly in the Bill.

7.51 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD

I do not think I can have anything up my sleeve or on my plate, because there was no room for more after what I was given by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Marklew) this afternoon. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that he could not understand this particular provision unless there was some argument of which he had never dreamt. There is an existing and a long established practice in the North of England, and as we were dealing with a particular industry and with an industry in which there existed this long-continued practice, we have adopted it for the purposes of the Bill. The point is that the established practice in the North of England did have a great deal to do with our putting in this yearly and half-yearly hiring provision, but I was careful to point out that there was no limit geographically to its application. In the North of England the long-established practice has been to hire from Whitsuntide to Whitsuntide. It is not a hiring for a specific period of time, and in view of the movement of Whitsuntide from one year to another there has to be a certain amount of elasticity.

Mr. HOPKIN

The example which the Parliamentary Secretary has given the House is surely one that cannot possibly come under Clause 10. Whitsuntide may very often be less than 50 weeks from the following Whitsuntide, and, therefore, it could not possibly apply under Clause 10, which is a yearly hiring.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD

I was simply quoting Whitsuntide to show that there has been a certain fluidity in the (late from which half-yearly hirings or yearly hirings have commenced. It is to meet the established practice of long-term hirings that these particular figures have been put in the Bill. The hirings entered into are bona fide hirings. There is no question of there being a few weeks to spare. There has been no insurance scheme, of course, in operation hitherto and there can therefore have been no idea of trying to wangle anything at the expense of anybody else. I do not think this provision will be open to any of the subterfuges suggested or that anybody will try to obtain undue benefits at the expense of other contributors. The hon. Member asked what happened to the hiatus. That is a hypothetical question. The scale on which the rebate is made is clearly laid down in Clause 10 of the Bill, namely 25 per cent. for a yearly hiring and 12½ per cent. for a half-yearly hiring: and the employer and the employed person shall each be entitled, on making application in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, to have repaid to him the appropriate proportion of the agricultural contributions paid by him in respect of the employed person during the period of yearly or half-yearly hiring. I hope this explanation will satisfy hon. Members, and show that the figures we have put in the Bill are justifiable having regard to the long-established practice in that part of the country where long-term hirings have been in existence.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Will the hon. and gallant Member say whether my calculation was correct. The Clause definitely says "yearly hiring," and the number of weeks is limited to 50. In that case, regarding one of the two weeks as a nonworking week, as a waiting week, and the other as a benefit week, is it not the case, as I have explained, that the servant and the employer, the hirer and the hired, will make a profit out of the scheme and that the whole of the unemployment and liability of the hired servant will be a liability and burden on the other contributors to the scheme?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD

The phrase "yearly hiring" is subsequently defined. It is obvious that it is subject to that definition. I do not know whether the hon. Member expects me to check financial calculations in the course of Debate. However much I may have up my sleeve, I have not got a ready reckoner. It is perfectly clear that the giving of a rebate in respect of a yearly or half-yearly hiring is intended to benefit the people who engage in it. It is given in respect of a particular obligation entered into in advance and is not something that is given to people in respect of a long-term employment. It is to be given to the man in respect of a considerable obligation on the part both of the employer and the employed and I do not see anything inconsistent in giving a rebate in these circumstances and not in the other case, and I believe it is in the best interests of the scheme and of agricultural workrs.

8 p.m.

Mr. SILVERMAN

I really must congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the extreme skill with which he evades the point that is being put to him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, defending in this House an insurance scheme, surely cannot pretend that there is anything difficult in the financial calculation put to him by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), but if he has not a ready reckoner in front of him, will he admit the possibility that the hon. Member for Don Valley may be right? On that assumption—and I understand he is not in a position to refute the assumption—the position is that more is going to be taken out of the fund than was ever put in. It is going to be taken out not for the benefit of the insured persons but for the benefit of the contributors on the employers' side. On the financial basis of a pure insurance scheme, how can he justify to this House paying to the contributor at least 2s. 3d. that was never in the Fund at all? He is going to make to the contributor' a rebate of something that in fact has never been paid.

That is the position he has to meet. It is, of course, the reductio ad absurdum, and I suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows it as well as anybody in the House. We have heard the Minis-

ter say in Debates on previous Clauses—and we accept it as being said with the utmost sincerity—that although he would very much have liked to make concessions to the insured persons, he left that they were not justified on general principles. To use his own words, he would have liked to grant if he could have his own way, but he left compelled to reject them because of the financial considerations involved, and because he had to make his schemes fit within the four corners of the finances provided. We all accept that attitude and respect it, although we may not entirely agree with it. We could suggest ways by which the finances of the scheme could be adjusted. But accepting that position, I think we are entitled to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to apply it as much against the contributors to whom he wishes to make a rebate as against the insured persons for whose benefit the scheme was evolved.

On the Clause as it stands you are not doing that. You are paying back to persons who are in the category of contributors on the employers' side money which is not really a rebate, because it is more than was ever paid in by the contributors on both the employers' and employed side. Surely the hon. and gallant Member ought not to begin by assuming that the calculation advanced to him is wrong and then base the whole of his evasion of the point on that assumption which clearly he is not in a position to make. I think I am entitled to say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if he wants the scheme to be financially watertight he has no right to make payments which are clearly not justified by the finances of the scheme.

Question put, "That the word 'fifty' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 111.

Division No. 115.] AYES. [8.6 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Boulton, W. W. Clarry, Sir R. G.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Bower, Comdr. R. T. Cobb, Sir C. S.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W. Colfox, Major W. P.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Braithwaite, Major A. N. Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Courtauld, Major J. S.
Apsley, Lord Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Aske, Sir R. W. Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Craddock, Sir R. H.
Atholl, Duchess of Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Cranborne, Viscount
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Bull, B. B. Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Burgin, Dr. E. L. Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Butler, R. A. Crossley, A. C.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Campbell, Sir E. T. Crowder, J. F. E,
Beit, Sir A. L. Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Cruddas, Col. B.
Blair, Sir R. Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chlppenham) Culverwell, C. T.
Blindell, Sir J. Channon, H. Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Bossom, A. C. Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Denville, Alfred
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Jackson, Sir H. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Joel, D. J. B. Rayner, Major R. H.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Duncan, J. A. L. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Dunglass, Lord Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Remer, J. R.
Dunne, P. R. R. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Eales, J. F. Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Kirkpatrick, W. M. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Ropner, Colonel L.
Ellis, Sir G. Latham, Sir P. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)
Elliston, G. S. Leckie, J. A. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Elmley, Viscount Leech, Dr. J. W. Salt, E. W.
Errington, E. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Lewis, O. Savery, Servington
Everard, W. L. Liddall, W. s. Scott, Lord William
Fleming, E. L. Little, Sir E. Graham- Seely, Sir H. M.
Fox, Sir G. W. G. Llewollin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Fremantle, Sir F. E. Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Loftus, P. C. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Gledhill, G. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Gluckstein, L. H. MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Goodman, Col. A. W. Maclay, Hon. J. P. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Gower, sir R. V. Macmillan, H. (Stockton on-Tees) Somerset, T.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Maitland, A. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Gridley, Sir A. B. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Spens, W. P.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M. Maxwell, S. A. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Grimston, R. V. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Stourton, Hon. J. J.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Gunston, Capt. D. W. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Guy, J. C. M. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Hannah, I. C. Moreing, A. C. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Harbord, A. Morris, J. P. (Salford. N.) Tree, A. R. L. F.
Harris, Sir P. A. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. Turton, R. H.
Harvey, G. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Wakefield, W. W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Holdsworth, H. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. Wells, S. R.
Holmes, J. S. Owen, Major G. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Peake, O. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Hopkinson, A. Penny, Sir G. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. Perkins, W. R. D. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Peters, Dr. S. J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Hulbert, N. J. Petherick, M. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Hume, Sir G. H. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Hunter, T. Procter, Major H. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Ramsbotham, H. Captain Waterhouse and Mr. James
Stuart.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Frankel, D. Maclean, N.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Gallacher, W. Mainwaring, W. H.
Adamson, W. M. Gardner, B. W. Marklew, E.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Gibbins, J. Mathers, G.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Green, W. H. (Deptford) Maxton, J.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Messer, F.
Banfield, J. W. Grenfell, D. R. Montague, F.
Barnes, A. J. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Barr, J. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Batey, J. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Muff, G.
Bellenger, F. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Naylor, T. E.
Benson, G. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Oliver, G. H.
Bevan, A. Holland, A. Paling, W.
Broad, F. A. Hollins, A. Parker, H. J. H.
Brooke, W. Hopkin, D. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S, Ayrshire) Jagger, J. Potts, J.
Buchanan, G. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Pritt, D. N.
Burke, W. A. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Quibell, J. D.
Cape, T. Kelly, W. T. Riley, B.
Chater, D. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Ritson, J.
Cluse, W. S. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Rowson, G.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Lathan, G. Salter, Dr. A.
Cocks, F. S. Lawson, J. J. Sexton, T. M.
Cove, W. G. Leach, W. Short, A.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Lee, F. Silverman, S. S.
Daggar, G. Leonard, W. Simpson, F. B.
Dobbie, W. Leslie, J. R. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Logan, D. G. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Ede, J. C. Lunn, W. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) McEntee, V. La T. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) McGhee, H. G. Stephen, C.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. MacLaren, A. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) Walkden, A. G. Wilson, C. H, (Attercliffe)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Walker, J. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Thorne, W. Walkins, F. C. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Thurtle, E. Wilkinson, Ellen
Tinker, J. J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Viant, S. P. Williams, T. (Don Valley) Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, in page 8, line 16, to leave out "twenty-one," and to insert "twenty-six."

In moving this Amendment I propose to pursue a financial calculation similar to the one which I propounded on the last Amendment. On that we had a very courteous reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, as we should all expect, but the courteous reply failed to deal with the financial implications of the case submitted. There was really no reply, and there was not even an excuse that the Parliamentary Secretary could advance, except that some time in the dim and distant past somebody said a year in a hiring area was 50 weeks. Because a year in a hiring area covers 50 weeks, then it is suggested there is an end of the calculation and it does not matter about financial implications. Those are the terms which have been in use for a long period and therefore, it is asked, why should one worry? We know the Minister to be a very sagacious mathematician and we know that he is seldom wrong, but we do not expect him to be able to explain away the grotesque possibility which the Amendment I have moved seeks to remove. Here, again, it is a question of a rebate granted in respect of a hiring that takes place for a half-yearly period, which the Minister interprets as being 21 weeks. I invite hon. Members opposite, and particularly the hon. Member for Thirsk and Molton (Mr. Turton), who is an expert in these mathematical calculations when they suit his particular opinions, to try to justify the Minister's and the Government's case, if they possibly can, because I do not expect the Minister to be able to give either a reason or an excuse for it.

I will give to the House the figures which will undoubtedly accrue as the result of the words of the Bill as they are at the present moment. If a person is hired by a farmer for a half-yearly period, and if the farmer fulfils the conditions of the Bill by employing that person for 21 weeks within the half year, the employer and the employé, each paying 4½d. a week, will together contribute 15s. 9d. to the fund. At the end of 21 weeks' employment, they will claim and receive a rebate of 2s. 5¾d. each, or 4s. 10½d. together, so that as their joint contribution there will be left 10s. 10½d. There are five weeks in which the person may be wholly unemployed, and, as he happens to be one of those persons who is not engaged on a weekly or a monthly basis, but has only half-yearly engagements, the obvious deduction is that he will be unemployed for the next five weeks. One week will be a waiting week for benefit purposes, and the other four weeks will be benefit weeks, and the right hon. Gentleman's Bill will allow that person to draw four weeks benefits each half-year. Consequently, at the end of each half year the balance sheet will be as follows: The employer and the employé together pay in 15s. 9½d. and take out 4s. 10½d., thus leaving 10s. 10d. in the fund. If the agricultural labourer is a single man, he will receive £2 16s. benefits. If he is a married man with no children he will receive £4 4s. benefits. If he is a married man with three children he will receive £6 benefits. That is not a bad investment for a joint contribution of 10s. 10½d. There is the probability that every half year the labourer will receive in benefits and rebates anything between £2 16s. and £6.

A minute or two ago the right hon. Gentleman said sub rosa that this is a much better Bill than even he thought it was, but that is only the case with regard to those people who hire their services. After all, this £2 16s., or £4 4s., or £6 will not flow down from Heaven into the fund, but will have to be placed there by somebody. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a most grotesque arrangement, and I do not think the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who is so brilliant in skating round every legal, financial and mathematical corner he finds, will be able to provide an excuse for a proposition of this description. Football pools and Alice-in-Wonderland figures are not comparable with this proposition.

There is another point I would like to emphasise to hon. Members opposite—my friends on this sick are so learned that they understand it without a lot of lecturing. If a person who is regularly hired for half-yearly or yearly periods falls out of work, we are informed by those best able to say that he is not unemployed for a week or two, but is invariably out of work for six or 12 months, according to the hiring period in that particular neighbourhood. Now, despite the fact that his employer and he pay 10s. 10d. into the fund and may take £6 out of it, he is entitled to those six weeks of benefit just as much as is the employé who works for two years consecutively, without being out of work a single week, who pays his contribution regularly and who never receives a penny from the fund. The hired servant is a bigger liability on the fund than are other agricultural labourers, and it passes my comprehension how an interpretation such as that contained in the Bill can be given. I am amazed that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary—two ordinarily decent fellows for whom we have profound respect, for we know something of their mathematical precision and meticulous desire to get down to the last dot in detail—should have allowed this to escape their notice.

This proposition is wholly intolerable, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can give a far better mathematical, statistical and moral excuse or reason on this occasion than was given on the last occasion, I hope that even the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), the last Rock of Gibraltar on the Tory benches, will be persuaded to come over to the Labour benches, for under the Bill there will be an undoubted robbery of every agricultural labourer in the Parliamentary Division of Stone. The hon. Member must be able to see that all his labourers will contribute to this annual four weeks' holiday with pay for those persons who are hired half-yearly. The hon. Member's labourers have to put up the money, and if he does not vote for this Amendment, in the absence of a decent explanation, I promise him that I will go to Stone myself and tell his agricultural labourers all about it.

Sir F. ACLAND

I propose to cover the ground that has already been covered but to do so rather more quickly than the previous speakers, by asking: If 52 really means 50, why does 26 not mean 25? Why does it mean 21?

8.25 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN

Having had the advantage of hearing the original calcula- tion, I wish, in the first place, to point out that for a quarter the sum would be 3s. 11d, and not 4s. 10½d., and half-yearly it would not be one-quarter but one-eighth. I would next point out to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that a thing may be a mathematical fact but a practical fiction. He is interested in football, and I will give him an example. It is possible for a team to play five games and score 20 goals which would be an average of four, but it is quite possible for that team never to have scored four goals in any one match of the series. They may have scored eight in one match, five in another, six in another and one in another and none in the remaining game. The fallacy of the hon. Member's calculation is due to one thing. He assumes that there is going to be a hiatus of two weeks in the one case and of five in the other, when such is not the case in practice.

I am sure that my Noble Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord W. Scott) will agree that there would be rejoicing in Scotland if they thought that they were going to draw out of the scheme, in the long hiring branch, the amount calculated by the hon. Member for Don Valley. The fact is that they will not do so. The hon. Member will probably realise that this arithmetical point which he has raised had occurred to me and that I made the same calculation, but I got the answer long before he thought of it and the answer is simple. In dealing with these hirings it was at first assumed that 26 weeks would be a half-year and 52 weeks would be a year under these arrangements, but when we came to analyse them on the spot we found that these long hirings, from term to term, would not invariably be for 52 weeks. Sometimes it would be more than 52 weeks and not less. It might he the case that the hiring between the farmer and the agricultural worker in a particular hiring period would be for 50 weeks, in the next period 52 weeks, and perhaps in another period 53 or even 54 weeks.

The fallacy lies in the assumption that because there is between the 52 weeks on paper and the 50 weeks a gap of two weeks the man would be unemployed for those two weeks and in the other case, because there is, on paper, a gap of five weeks between the 26 and the 21, that the man would be unemployed for five weeks. I am assured by those who have gone closely into the problem that unless we had taken the course which we have taken in this Clause, a large number of those with whom it has been customary to make these long hiring arrangements would have been cut out. I may say that this has been one of the toughest problems with which we have had to deal in connection with the Bill, and we have gone to considerable trouble to find out which was the appropriate number of weeks in each of these cases. I think that the hon. Member for Don Valley will now realise that he was not on quite as good a pitch in dealing with this matter as he thought at the outset.

Sir F. ACLAND

I do not think my point has been taken. I can understand

Division No. 116.] AYES. [8.30 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Dower, Capt. A. V. G. Joel, D. J. B.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Duncan, J. A. L. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Dunglass, Lord Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Eales, J. F. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Anstruther-Gray. W. J. Eckersley, P. T. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Apsley, Lord Edmondson, Major Sir J. Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Aske, Sir R. W. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Kimball, L.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Ellis, Sir G. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Atholl, Duchess of Elliston, G. S. Latham, Sir P.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Elmley, Viscount Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (isle of Thanet) Emmott, C. E. G. C. Leckle, J. A.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Errington, E. Leech, Dr. J. W.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Lees-Jones, J.
Beit, Sir A. L. Everard, W. L. Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Blair, Sir R. Fleming, E. L. Lewis, O.
Blindell, Sir J. Fox, Sir G. W. G. Liddall, W. S.
Bossom, A. C. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Little, Sir E. Graham-
Boulton, W. W. Furness, S. N. Loftus, P. C.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n) Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Bralthwaite, Major A. N. Gledhill, G. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Gluckstein, L. H. Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. Maitland, A.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Goodman, Col. A. W. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Gower, Sir R. V. Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Bull, B. B. Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Gridley, Sir A. B. Markham, S. F.
Burton, Col. H. W. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Maxwell, S. A.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Grimston, R. V. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Gritten, W. G. Howard Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.) Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh Gunston, Capt. D. W. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Guy, J. C. M. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Clarry, Sir R. G. Hannah, I. C. Moreing, A. C.
Cobb, Sir C. S. Harbord, A. Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Colfox, Major W. p. Harris, Sir P. A. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Harvey, G. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Craddock, Sir R. H. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Holdsworth, H. Owen, Major G.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Holmes, J. S. Patrick, C. M.
Cross, R. H. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Peake, O
Crossley, A. C. Hopkinson, A. Penny, Sir G.
Crowder, J. F. E. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Perkins, W. R. D.
Cruddas, Col. B. Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Peters, Dr. S. J.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Hulbert, N. J. Petherick, M.
Denvile, Alfred Hume, Sir G. H. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Hunter, T. Porritt, R. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H, Jackson, Sir H. Procter, Major H. A.

52 equalling 50, but I cannot understand 26 equalling 21.

Mr. BROWN

We do not assume it to equal anything. It is the best figure that we could get to cover the whole mass of customary yearly and half-yearly hirings.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

But will the right hon. Gentleman deny that the possibility which I have outlined exists in every case?

Mr. BROWN

I do not say that there is not the possibility that such a thing might happen in an occasional case, but, having given the matter the most careful consideration, my advisers and I came to the conclusion that this was the best way of dealing with it.

Question put, "That the word 'twenty-one' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 113

Ramsbotham, H. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Touche, G. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Rayner, Major R. H. Shepperson, Sir E. W. Turton, R. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Shute, Colonel Sir J. J. Wakefield, W. W.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Remer, J. R. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Somerset, T. Wells, S. R.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Southby, Comdr. A. R. J. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Ropner, Colonel L. Spens, W. P. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry) Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Stourton, Hon. J. J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Salt, E. W. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Savery, Servington Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Scott, Lord William Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin and
Seely, Sir H. M. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Captain Waterhouse.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Pothick-Lawrence, F. w.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hardle, G. D. Potts, J.
Adamson, W. M. Henderson, A, (Kingswinford) Pritt, D. N.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Quibell, J. D.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Holland, A. Riley, B.
Banfield, J. W. Hollins, A. Ritson, J.
Barnes, A. J. Hopkin, D. Rowson, G.
Barr, J. Jagger, J. Salter, Dr. A.
Batey, J. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Sexton, T. M.
Bellenger, F. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Short, A.
Benson, G. Kelly, W. T. Silverman, S. S.
Bevan, A. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Simpson, F. B.
Broad, F. A. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Brooke, W. Lathan, G. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Lawson, J. J. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Buchanan, G. Leach, W. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Burke, W. A. Lee, F. Stephen, C.
Cape, T. Leonard, W. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Chater, D. Leslie, J. R. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Cluse, W. S. Logan, D. G. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Lunn, W. Thorne, W.
Cocks, F. S. McEntee, V. La T. Thurtle, E.
Cove, W. G. McGhee, H. G. Tinker, J. J.
Daggar, G. MacLaren, A. Vlant, S. P.
Day, H. Maclean, N. Walkden, A. G.
Dobble, W. MacNeill, Weir, L. Walker, J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Mainwaring, W. H. Watkins, F. C.
Ede, J. C. Marklew, E. Whiteley, W.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Maxton, J. Wilkinson, Ellen
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Messer, F. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Montague, F. Williams, T. (Don Valiey)
Gallacher, W. Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.) Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Gardner, B. W. Morrison, R. C. (Tottonham, N.) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Gibbins, J. Muff, G. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Naylor, T. E.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Oliver, G. H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grenfell, D. R. Paling, W. Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Parker, H. J. H.