HC Deb 23 March 1936 vol 310 cc897-908

(1) The Minister may by regulations under the principal Act make provision that if in the prescribed manner it is proved that any person has been employed in agriculture by the same employer for any consecutive period of two years commencing after the fourth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, 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 such period of two years; so however that such regulations may provide in the case of agricultural contributions paid by an employer on behalf of a person employed by him and not recovered from that person for the repayment under this section being made to the employer instead of to that person.

(2) For the purposes of this section "appropriate proportion" means twenty-five per cent.

(3) The amount of the repayments made in any year in accordance with regulations made under this section shall be deducted—

  1. (a) for the purpose of calculating contributions to be made out of moneys to be provided by Parliament under section twenty-one of the principal Act from the contributions paid in that year in respect of unemployed persons: and
  2. (b) for the purpose of calculating the sums payable out of the Unemployment Fund in respect of the expenses of Government Departments under section sixty-two of the principal Act from the receipts or amount of income credited to the agricultural account of that fund.—[Mr. Turton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. TURTON

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The proposed new Clause is intended to fill up a gap in the Bill. In Clause 40, the Minister, in cases of six-monthly or 12-monthly hirings, may make a rebate at the end of the hiring. It is our intention to extend that to two years, in cases where a man has been in a single employment during that time. All Members of the House want there to be more employment in agriculture, as one result of the Bill. One of our anxieties is that employers may, as a result of the introduction of this Measure, stand their men off when there is not a great deal of work to be done on the land. In order to prevent that, and to encourage the employer to keep his men on although the weather is not very clement for work on the land, we have put down this proposed new Clause. It is true that what the employer will gain by keeping a man on for the whole of the two years is not commensurate with the amount he would gain by standing him off for a, week, but, against that, I think it will be found throughout the whole of this country that employers have a certain pride in being able to say that they have not stood their men off, but have kept them in employment during the whole of these two years.

The Minister during the Committee stage was unable to accept a similar Clause to this, but I would ask him now to give the proposal further consideration and to accept our contention with reference to this important matter. It is not easy to say what the adoption of the Clause would cost, but my submission is that it would not cost the Minister anything, but, on the other hand, would be a saving to him, because, as a result, employers would refrain from standing off their employés. Therefore, I would urge the Clause upon the House, with this one additional word, that it does not order the Minister to give this rebate when there has been two years' continuous employment, but gives him a discretion, It merely says that if in the fulness of time he thinks this new rebate system would work well, he should have power to bring it about by regulation.

3.52 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB

I beg to second the Motion.

I would point out that, while provision is made in the Bill for rebates in respect of long-term hirings, there are many districts in the Midlands and in the South where there is no practice of long-term hiring in existence, but where, nevertheless, there are periods of continuous employment, which may appear to be, but are not quite, the same thing. The advantage of giving a concession in respect of. continuous employment as against a long-term contract—I am speaking now, not in the interests of the employer, but in the interests of the men—is that, in the case of a long-term hiring, whether it be for six months or 12 months, the man, immediately before the expiration of the term, feels some degree of uncertainty as to whether he is going to continue in the same employment, whereas in the case of continuous employment it is not necessarily brought to the notice either of the man or of the employer that a period has arrived when the question of continuous or non-continuous employment will arise. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Clause is not mandatory upon the Minister; it merely says that he may introduce this system. In Committee there was one Amendment to make it mandatory, but that was very wisely withdrawn.

The Minister may reply that he has this power without the proposed new Clause. I see the right hon. Gentleman smiling. I hope I am not anticipating what he is going to say, but, if so, may I reply that, if the House in its discretion accepts, as I hope it will, the proposed new Clause, the Statutory Committee will consider the question and as soon as possible will give the Minister the power and the advice to make an order, thus giving to the employé the advantage which accrues from continuous employment as against long-term hiring. It would be very easy for an employer, in a district where long-term hiring is not the custom, to say that he will now enter into long-term contracts with his employés in place of their hitherto continuous employment, but to my mind that would be, as I have said, a very great disappointment to many men, and something which we ourselves would not desire. I hope the Minister will see that this proposed new Clause is not mandatory, but that, if carried, it would simply be an expression of opinion by the House that the question should be considered in all its aspects, and that he will see his way to accept it. There was a great feeling in the Committee that it should have been accepted there, but, as the Minister knows, and as other Members of the House may know, its defeat was due, not to hon. Members opposite voting against it upstairs, but to their abstention. I hope that to-day they will see that their abstention was rather an injustice to the workers, and that they will support the Clause.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has made reference to what he regarded as unfairness on the part of Members on these benches to the workers in agriculture, but the hon. Gentleman never seems to remind himself of the fact that, every time he and his colleagues try to take something out of the contribution pool for rebates or for any other purpose, they reduce the sum available for benefits to those who, through no fault of their own, are unfortunate enough to be unemployed at different intervals.

Sir J. LAMB

If the hon. Member will read the Clause, he will see that it is only to be done on the recommendation of the Statutory Committee after they have taken the whole of the facts into consideration.

Mr. WILLIAMS

That simply means that the Clause means nothing, and that the hon. Gentleman is just making a demonstration which can have no value in fact. It may have a political value in certain Parliamentary constituencies, but it will not have any value in this House from the point of view of argument. The point of view of the Opposition on Clause 10, and on rebates as a whole, was explained on the Second Reading, and it was argued fairly and squarely in Committee. We declared that rebates were inconsistent with the principles of insurance, and that, once you start to give a rebate to this person or to that for this or that act of commission, or omission, the central pool will no longer be stable; for, if you concede a rebate to this person, obviously other employers who employ their workpeople continuously are equally entitled to apply for rebates. That system obtained until 1926. Up to that time any employed person who had been employed continuously for a long period was entitled to a rebate. The rebate was abolished, quite rightly, by the Labour Government of 1924, simply because of the administrative difficulties and the fact that rebates are inconsistent with the general principles of insurance. We took that attitude in 1924; we took the same attitude on the Second Reading of this Bill, and we take the same attitude to-day. We think that the small sums which are now to be made availabble for benefit will be small enough in all conscience, but, if the hon. Member for Stone had his will, I very much doubt whether there would be any insurance scheme at all.

Sir J. LAMB

indicated dissent.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not think in those terms, but his actions imply that he would concede such rebates that automatically the scheme would break down. I do not think that a case can be made out for rebates in insurance. The good lives must pay for the bad lives, and the person who has had two years' continuous employment ought to feel very happy that, out of his contribution of 4½d. a week and those of his employer and of the Treasury, a slight contribution is being made towards the maintenance of his less fortunate brothers who for weeks or months may be unemployed through no fault of their own. I will concede one thing to the Mover and Seconder of this new Clause. If Clause 10 is to remain in the Bill as it stands there will be little or no justification for excluding this Clause. From that point of view the two hon. Members have a substantial argument, but apart from that they have no argument in logic at all. We are opposed to Clause 10; we are opposed to any deduction from the contributions which may or may not follow the Statutory Committee's investigation in any year, because it would tend to reduce the benefits or make necessary an increase in contributions from the agricultural labourers. I note the permissive factor in this new Clause, and for that reason I do not think it means much either way, whether the Minister accepts it or rejects it.

4.2 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND

I wish to support the new Clause. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that in my case at any rate support of the Clause has nothing to do with political demonstrations, because I have continually spoken and written in favour of this principle ever since 1915 or 1976, when I first worked it out on the first Agricultural Wages Board, which was interested in the matter and was in the habit of discussing matters which were not distinctly within its terms of references provided they were of importance to the agricultural industry. The point which emerged in the talks that we had then between the employers' and the workers' sides, and the point on which this idea is based is this: That agriculture by its very nature is different from the ordinary technical sorts of employment. If you have unemployment in coal mining all the classes of men employed are equally turned off—the surface men, the men at the coal face and everyone concerned.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS

That is not so.

Sir F. ACLAND

You cannot have men working on the surface unless you have men working at the coal-face and so on. It is no good cutting the coal unless it is to be brought up, and it is no good bringing it up to the surface unless you can put it into trucks and take it away. You cannot employ people moving coal on the surface and have unemployed the men working at the coal-face. In agriculture, on the other hand, there are quite definitely classes of persons who are normally employed steadily the whole of the year round and a different class altogether who are employed more or less casually for periods longer or shorter, and who reckon normally to have other employment of their own to which they can turn when employment on the farm is slack. One recognises that the whole principle of insurance does require that the people who are steadily in employment shall in the main pay the money which will be received by those who are often out of employment. But that definite dualism in agriculture does not obtain in other industries, in which the works are either open or closed and in which the different classes are normally employed or not employed.

Another point that might be made is this: The habit of not turning off men who might be turned off and whom it would pay the employer to turn off, has been very prevalent among farmers. They have realised that if men were turned off they would simply have to go on poor relief, and they have found some work for them. One wants that sort of thing to continue. Many employers would like it to continue, and to be able to say, "We should employ our men steadily all the year round if there was some incentive, such as this Clause, introduced into the Bill." Under the Bill the benefits are such that if a man is turned off he will immediately come down to a lower rate, a rate which many of us, who think that agricultural wages are in all conscience low enough, are bound to consider is too low under the Bill. Employers will be inclined to continue the habit which many of them have followed hitherto, of keeping men on all the year round, but not unless there is some sort of encouragement to them, as there would be under this new Clause. Clause 10 says that you have to make a contract. Hon. Members on the Labour benches say that they do not like anything which will encourage men to make a long-term contract. But this new Clause does not mean that there has to be any contract, for six months or any other number of months.

The Clause merely says that you should not press too hard the condition which is bound to some extent to prevail, namely, that one class of workers shall in the main provide the money which is to be drawn by a different class of workers, and that there should be, therefore, some alleviation in the case of men regularly kept on without danger of unemployment. I think the principle of the new Clause is a sound one and worthy of consideration. In this modified and diluted form it merely gives the Minister power to make regulations under the principal Act. I believe that experience would show that the Clause would very considerably relieve the situation under which there is bound to be a good deal of discontent if men who know that unemployment is never likely to come their way are too much burdened to provide for what is in many ways a different class.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I object to this new Clause and I am surprised at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. Of all parties in the House the Liberal party have constantly opposed the right of a Minister to make regulations of this character. If this proposal is to be carried out it ought to be done in the Bill, and no Minister should have the right to bring in these regulations. If the House wants this proposal adopted let it do it by proper Amendment of the Bill. I strongly object to handing this additional power over to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken told us that some employers kept on their workers and that if they got this new Clause they might continue that practice. In effect that means that employers will keep men on only if there is a consideration for so doing. I do not accept that view. I remember when the previous scheme of rebates was in operation, and, as the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said, was abolished by the Labour Government in 1924. At that time the sum available to the workers was very small. The contributions made under this Bill are smaller than they are in the case of the ordinary workers, and there is only 25 per cent. to come back.

When the previous rebate system was abolished in 1924 the demand for its continuance was practically nil; there was no outcry from any substantial body of workpeople when the system was ended. The ordinary agricultural worker would prefer that the money should be put into the fund for better benefits, than that he should be given a refund. Moreover a refund system would be a most costly thing to administer. It would be necessary to search a man's record of work and to ascertain whether he was properly making a claim. If rebates were made they could be made in only one of two ways. The Minister has told us that there will be no money to play with, and if this Clause were adopted the Minister would either have to reduce benefits further still or increase contributions.

Sir J. LAMB

Read the Clause.

Mr. BUCHANAN

We have read it. If you are to give refunds and take something out of a fund in which we have been told there is nothing to play with, you must do it at the expense either of contributions or of benefits. I want if possible to get the benefits increased, and I am not going to do anything which is bound to jeopardise the position of those drawing benefits. The man who has had 10 years' or 15 years' steady work is not the man who is worst off. He is the man who is envied. A workman in a town will do almost anything to get town council employment because of its steadiness. He would never be in need of benefit, but he would have the advantage of constant employment. I agree with the hon. Member for Don Valley and I hope the Clause will be opposed.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. RICKARDS

I support the Clause. In my district in Yorkshire it is nearly all long-term hiring and we have practically no unemployment. But the bulk of the farmers and labourers support the Bill in order that the industry as a whole may be helped. We shall pay into the pool and we shall draw very little out. I feel, therefore, that it would be a very kindly recognition by the Government of the policy these people have adopted if the Clause were accepted.

Mr. HOPKIN

I represent a division where there are long-term hirings. While the last hon. Member has been speaking I have been working out precisely what the Bill means to the industry. Fifty-two contributions of 4½d. come to 234 pence. On a six months' hiring the farmer will benefit to the extent of 2s. 5¼d.

Mr. RICKARDS

A gesture.

Mr. HOPKIN

For a 12 months' hiring he will benefit to the extent of 4s. 10½d. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that this money can be spent in a far better way in increasing the benefits of those who come under the scheme.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. TINKER

May I put it to the hon. Member who supports the Clause whether it is worth all the trouble of a new Clause to secure the slight benefit that will be given back to the farmers? The hon. Member was pleased to make a gesture by paying into the common pool for the benefit of his unfortunate brethren, but he goes on to ask for something back. The gesture might as well be whole-hearted or not be made at all. It is not worth putting the Minister to the trouble of bringing in a new Clause if there is practically nothing in it. If it meant much more than that, I should argue that the unfortunate people who happen to get out of work are more deserving of help than anyone else. I think the whole burden ought to be borne by the State but, if Parliament decides on a contributory scheme, there should be no question of any rebate. We remember that there was a lot of trouble over it under the old Act. Only this week I had a letter asking if there was no chance of the writer getting any repayment because he had been paying for a number of years and had not drawn anything. He had inquired at the Employment Exchange and was told he had better ask his Member of Parliament. I shall have the task of telling him—I shall not say I agree with it: I shall be more diplomatic than that—that there is nothing for it as Parliament has decided that there is no repayment. If you adopt this you are inviting trouble. I should advise the Minister on the whole not to accept the Clause. It will be to the advantage of everyone if it is rejected.

4.21 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead)

I think it is quite clearly recognised on all sides of the House that the proposal contained in this Clause is one that can be considered in due course by the Statutory Committee when it makes recommendations on the finance of the scheme. I should like to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) in acquitting both himself and my hon. Friends of any desire to make a political demonstration. The House knows well that the right hon. Gentleman has been extremely interested in this question for many years. The particular schemes with which he associated himself were closely examined by my Department when this Bill was being constructed.

I certainly appreciate the genuine feeling which has prompted the Movers of the Clause to carry their case from the Committee to the Floor of the House. They are prompted by a very genuine desire to do everything they possibly can to encourage continuous employment, and to do nothing to discourage it. They speak for the large and numerous parts of the country where hitherto the long-term hiring principle has not obtained. But really there is this fundamental point. Their proposal is for a refund, and the principle of a refund pure and simple in unemployment insurance went by the board over 10 years ago. Long-term hiring on the other hand, after all, is a proposal for giving a rebate in consideration of a definite obligation which the employer and the employed undertake. That is the fundamental difference.

The proposal of the new Clause is a definite inroad into the principle of insurance. The proposal for a rebate pure and simple is inconsistent with the social insurance principle on which we have based the Bill. That is the fundamental point upon which my right hon. Friend feels unable to accept the Clause. I should like to add that it is quite wrong to imagine that the long-term hiring principle is one that has any geographical limit. Though it may not be the practice in other parts of the country, there is no reason why it should not be. The long-term hiring principle which the Clause proposes is equally applicable to any particular part of England where employers and employed agree to adopt it.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER

The next Amendment that I select is that in the name of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

May I ask you, Sir, whether the reason why the Amendment in the name of three of my hon. Friends in page 2, line 28, to leave out from "contributions" to "shall," in line 31, is not called is that it would conflict with the traditional policy of the House? I understand that doubts have existed whether it would add to the Treasury contribution. I take the opposite view. I rather think that, for the moment at all events, it would dispose of the Treasury contribution, and because of that fact I thought perhaps you might reconsider your decision and call the Amendment so that the question of the Government contribution should be dealt with.

Mr. SPEAKER

I am really under no obligation to tell the hon. Gentleman why I do not select the Amendment but since I came to the conclusion not to select it the reason why I did not do so has been strengthened by further consideration. I came to the conclusion that it was doubtful whether leaving out these words would have any effect at all and if it did have any effect it probably would raise the charge.

Mr. WILLIAMS

When we put the Amendment down we did not think the words meant anything. That is why we thought it might have been called since we really had a very substantial submission to make and we thought we could make it on an Amendment that did not mean much, as well as on any other Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER

That enforces my decision not to select this Amendment.