§ 3.58 p.m.
§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin)I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, to leave out "three," and to insert "six."
It will be remembered that on Second Reading some hon. Members raised the question of what was called the "ceiling" in the agricultural portion of the Bill, and I undertook to give the matter consideration. I find that the maximum was fixed originally in 1936 at 30s. As the unemployment rate or increase of benefit has operated from time to time there have been increases of the maximum amount. On the first occasion it was raised to 33s. Later it was raised and reached 35s. If the original Bill had been carried through, it would have risen to 38s. Apparently the whole question has centred round the question whether the benefit paid for unemployment should be greater than the earnings in this industry. It has been the subject of consideration by the Statutory Committee. Some hon. Members pressed me to remove the "ceiling" altogether, but I felt that, as the matter had been dealt with by the Statutory Committee, and as there was a point of principle involved in it, I should not take that course without a reference back to them 1183 at some future date. I have a good deal of sympathy with the claim that has been made and we decided to adopt the alternative course of examining whether there should be, not the exact increase represented by the increase in benefit, but a greater increase, because wages which have been the dominant factor, have gone up to a higher point than they have reached hitherto.
In view of the fact that the wage minimum, on the whole, is now 48s. instead of the figure which existed when the original Act was passed, we felt that we would be justified in increasing the maximum, not by the three shillings which the benefit represents, but by six shillings which brings the maximum to 41s. under the Bill instead of the 38s. originally proposed. At some future date, when a wider consideration is being given to this unemployment problem, we shall be happy to look into it again, but having regard to the fact that this Bill has had to be introduced hurriedly, in order to meet a particular situation, we felt that the position would be met now if the Committee agreed to this Amendment. In this way we shall, at least, remove the major part of the grievance for the moment, and at a later stage we hope to give consideration to the principle as a whole.
§ 4.3 p.m.
§ Mr. Lawson (Chester-le-Street)We welcome the Amendment, and I think that Members of the Committee appreciate the readiness with which the Minister had responded to the criticisms offered during the Second Reading Debate. Those criticisms were, as he says, mainly directed to the fact that there was what he has termed a "ceiling" in this respect, making a difference between the agricultural section and the general section. We said that, in view of the changed outlook and changed attitude of mind on the position of the agricultural labourer, reflected in the rate of wages which he is now receiving, it was time that such a distinction should be abolished. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to give this matter his further consideration and I would draw his attention to the fact that, apart from the change in wages, there is a really strong case for our proposal from the point of view of the health of the Agricultural Insurance Fund.
1184 I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what is to be the annual cost of this increase, because although the Agricultural Fund has been in operation only a comparatively short time, I gather from the Statutory Committee's report, issued in March, that at the end of December there was a net balance of some £3,400,000. That is a very good balance when it is recollected that this section of unemployment insurance has not been in operation very long. As I say, we welcome the Amendment and even more the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has responded to criticism. We hope he will give consideration to the other aspects of the question which have been indicated. I have put certain facts and figures before him, because I wish to help him with the Statutory Committee. We know how they argue on the financial side, and from that point of view, I do not think there is much argument now against linking the two Funds and making them uniform as far as this matter is concerned.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 21, leave out "thirty-eight," and insert "forty-one."—[Mr. Bevin.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ 4.6 p.m.
§ Mr. George Griffiths (Hemsworth)Although this Clause is far better than anything which anybody could have expected three months ago, I say, candidly, that I still feel that it has upon it, what I would call the stigma of birth control. If an agricultural labourer and his wife have a big family, more than can be provided for within the limit of 41s., this Clause, in effect, means that the State says to them, "Look here, you have too many youngsters and we cannot afford to give you any more money." I feel that however many children may come to the farm labourer and his wife, some provision should be made for them in any Act of Parliament which is passed for this purpose. Therefore, although I am grateful for what we have got by way of concession, I still feel that this proposal does not go far enough. My father used to say to me, "George, if you cannot get the whole loaf but find that you can get half of it, take the half first, and get the rest afterwards." That 1185 is how I feel about this Clause. I am desirous that what I regard as a stigma, from the standpoint which I have mentioned, should be taken away altogether. That is why I feel bound to raise this mild protest and to have it placed on record, while thanking the Minister for what he has done.
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.