HL Deb 14 June 1934 vol 92 cc1094-116

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Right to, and duration of benefit.

(5) The Minister may by regulations make provision as to the circumstances in which and the extent to which contributions paid in error and sums paid to a person by way of benefit while he was not entitled thereto are to be taken into account for the purposes of this section.

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER)

moved, in subsection (5), before the last word "section," to insert "and the next following." The noble Lord said: This Amendment gives power to prescribe by regulations the way in which payments by way of benefit which in fact were not justified are to be treated under Clause 4, which deals with the definition of a claimant's "benefit year." Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say on this first Amendment that I am prepared, and shall be only too glad, to defend all the Amendments in the name of the Government in detail, but I know the pressure upon your Lordships' time and I will therefore move them in the fewest possible words, unless any noble Lord expresses a wish that greater details should be given.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 9, after ("this") insert. ("and the next, following").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 [Definition of Benefit Year]:

LORD ROCHESTER

moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "an application" and insert "a claim." The noble Lord said: I only want to explain on this Amendment that it is intended to remove confusion in the use of the words "claim for benefit" and "application for benefit," and it is effected by quite a number of other Amendments down on the Paper in my name. As I shall have to refer to them so many times, and it is the same point, perhaps your Lordships may allow me to refer to them later on as "my old friends."

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 19, leave out from the third ("on") to the first ("for") in line 20, and insert ("a claim").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCHESTER

The next two Amendments are purely drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 5, line 26, leave out ("ten") Page 5, line 27, after ("him") insert ("for ten weeks").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD ROCHESTER

The next Amendment is consequential upon the first Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 28, leave out from ("day") to the end of line 30 and insert ("in that benefit year in respect of which he received benefit").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCHESTER

The next Amendment is our old friend—the same point.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 32, leave out from the third ("on") to the first ("for") in line 33, and insert ("a claim").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Amendment as to anomalies regulations]:

LORD ROCHESTER

If I may I will take the next three Amendments together, because they raise the same point—namely, completing and simplifying the substitution of orders for regulations under the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931.

Amendments moved— Page 9, line 15, at end insert ("and any regulations made before the commencement of this Act under the said section shall be deemed to be orders;") Page 9, line 17, leave out ("subject to") and insert ("under") Page 9 line 33, leave out ("or of this section").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

Determination of claims and questions.

(4) A court of referees shall record their decisions in writing and shall include in the record of every decision—

  1. (a) a statement of their findings on questions of fact material to the decision; and
  2. (b) in a case where the court grants leave to appeal to the umpire from the decision, a statement of the grounds on which leave to appeal is granted.

LORD ROCHESTER

My next two Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 10, line 31, leave out ("regulations") and insert ("orders") Page 10, line 35, leave out ("regulations") and insert ("orders").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD ROCHESTER

moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "and (b) in a case where the court grants leave to appeal to the umpire from the decision," and insert: "(5) Where the chairman of a court of referees grants leave to appeal to the umpire from the decision of the court, the chairman shall record in writing." The noble Lord said: This is a matter of rather more substance. This Amendment is consequential upon changes made in the other House. Originally it was the court of referees which was responsible for granting leave for appeals to the umpire. The duty of granting leave to appeal is now placed, not on the court of referees as a whole, but on the chairman of the court. The reason for this is that hitherto leave has only been given only at the sitting of the court. The clause as amended permits the claimant to make written application for leave to appeal after the sitting. The court will then have dispersed, and when it sits again the members, except the chairman, will all be different, and it is hardly practical, and in any event is not considered necessary to bring the members of the original court together again in order to consider an application for leave to appeal. This Amendment is therefore necessary to transfer from the court to the chairman of the court the duty of recording in writing a statement of the grounds on which leave to appeal was granted. I may add, perhaps, that the chairman is the only permanent member of the court of referees and is of course an expert in law and practice.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 5, leave out from ("decision") to ("a") in line 7, and insert the said new subsection (5).—(Lord Rechester.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In order to save the Amendment of Lord Bertie of Thame I will put the Amendment down to—

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

It will not be necessary to save my Amendment, because it is covered by the Amendment of the Government.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Duties of Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee as respects regulations and advice]:

LORD ROCHESTER

This Amendment is consequential on what we have just done on Clause 11.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 40, leave out from ("1931") to the first ("the") in line 41.—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 [Amendments as to schemes]:

LORD ROCHESTER moved to insert: (2) For the purpose of securing in the case of a special scheme that like rates of benefit shall be payable to the persons to whom the scheme applies as are for the time being payable under the enactments relating to unemployment insurance, and that the benefits under the scheme shall otherwise be not less favourable than those for the time being provided by the general provisions of those Acts (but for no other purpose), the Minister may, after consultation with the body charged with the administration of the scheme, notwithstanding anything in Section eighteen of the prin- cipal Act, by order vary or amend the provisions of the scheme and any such order may provide for consequential amendments as to the rates of contribution and otherwise. This subsection shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.

The noble Lord said: the purpose of this Amendment is to enable the benefits of the Insurance Industry Special Scheme and of the Banking Industry Special Scheme to be brought up to the standard of the improved benefits under the Bill without delay. As your Lordships are probably aware, powers to make these special schemes were contained in the 1920 Act, but they have lapsed since the 1927 Act came into operation.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 34, at end, insert the said subsection (2).—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended agreed to.

Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 [Amendment of s. 41 of principal Act, and application of officers of reserve forces]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "for each week" for "per week." The noble Viscount said: I do not think that "per week" is very pure English.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 44, leave out ("per") and insert ("for each").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD ROCHESTER

I accept my noble friend's Anglo-Saxon.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 [Extension of principal Act to short service constables of the Metropolitan Police force]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

This is the same point.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 6, leave out ("per") and insert ("for each").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD ROCHESTER

I will accept that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Minor Amendments]:

LORD ROCHESTER

moved to insert:

"(2) For all the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Acts—

  1. (a) the expression 'statutory conditions' means the conditions set out in subsection (1) of Section seven of the principal Act, as amended by any subsequent enactment, and references in the said Acts to the first, second, third, fourth or fifth statutory condition shall be construed accordingly; and
  2. (b) the expression 'application for benefit' means an application for benefit made in the prescribed manner, and the expression 'claim for benefit' includes any such application as aforesaid."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment incorporates in the Bill the definition of terms which are frequently used in the Acts, but have never been precisely defined. The absence of precise definitions has led to difficulties of interpretation. Really they are only definitions, but they could not come within the Definitions Clause because they referred to past Acts, and not to this one.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 21, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 31:

Interpretation of Part I and construction of references.

(3)For the purposes of determining whether an insured contributor has exhausted his benefit rights in his last preceding benefit year, if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that he has not made an application or claim for benefit in respect of any days in that year in respect of which he would have been entitled thereto if he had made an application or claim therefor, the insured contributor shall be deemed to have received benefit in respect of those days unless there is no reasonable cause to believe that his omission to make the application or claim was with intent to avoid the necessity of proving the matters set out in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section four of this Act.

LORD ROCHESTER

moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "an application or," and to insert "a." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to prevent confusion in the use of the expressions "application" and "claim." It is really a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 26, leave out from "' made") to ("claim") in line 27 and insert ('a").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCHESTER

moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "an application or claim therefor, the insured contributor shall be deemed to have received benefit in respect of those days unless there is no" and insert "a claim therefor, and that there is." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, together with the next but one, is moved really to correct a point on which the clause is not sufficiently carefully drafted. The two Amendments are to the advantage of the insured contributors.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 29, leave out from ("made") to ("reasonable") in line 31 and insert ("a claim therefor, and that there is").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCHESTER

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 33, leave out ("application or").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 35, at end insert ("the insured contributor shall be deemed to have received benefit in respect of those days unless he proves that the omission was not with the intent aforesaid").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCHESTERmoved to add to the clause: (6) Any approved course of instruction provided by an education authority in accordance with the provisions of Section fifteen of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, shall, until the proposals submitted by that authority to the Minister under subsection (1) of Section thirteen of this Act have been approved by him, be deemed to be an authorised course, notwithstanding that it has not been provided under or in pursuance of that subsection.

The noble Lord said: This is a little complicated. It is only a temporary expedient during the transitional stage before action under the Bill is in full operation, and it is designed to ensure that there should be no lapse of power to require attendance at courses of instruction for unemployed boys and girls.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.

Clause 34:

Commencement, extent and citation of Part I.

34.—(1)Save as therein otherwise expressly provided, this Part of this Act shall come into operation one month after the passing of this Act.

LORD ROCHESTERmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "one month" and to insert "on the fifth Thursday." The noble Lord said: This is a point of substance. Under Clause 34, Part I of the Bill comes into operation one month after the passing of the Act, except where otherwise expressly provided. Amongst the provisions for which no special date is specified is the provision in Clause 3 for additional benefit to be paid under the ratio rule. It is of some administrative importance that this provision should come into operation on a Thursday, which is the beginning of a benefit pay week in the majority of cases. If it were to come into operation on any other day than a Thursday it would mean that some of the payments made in that week would consist partly of benefit arid partly of transitional payments, and as there are something like 150,000 people involved, and it would mean picking them out of 850,000, we are anxious to provide that it shall commence on the Thursday. I feared that noble Lords might, seeing "the fifth Thursday," think it was longer than a month, but we propose to work to a time-table and to seek the Royal Assent on Wednesday, the 27th, so that it will come into operation on July 26 and thus ensure its coming into operation on a Thursday.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 38, leave out ("one month") and insert ("on the fifth Thursday").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35 agreed to.

Clause 36:

Application of Part II of Act.

An appeal from a decision of the Minister of Health upon a question referred to him under this subsection shall lie in the same manner as an appeal under Section eighty-nine of the National Health insurance Act, 1924, and the rules of court for regulating such appeals shall apply accordingly and the Minister of Health shall have the same power to refer a question for decision as he has under that section

LORD ROCHESTER

This Amendment is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 42, leave out from the first ('or") to ("a") in line 43 and insert ("at any place at which he is required to be in accordance with a condition attached to").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ELTISLEY moved to insert after subsection (2): (3) For the purposes of the qualification referred to in subsection (1) of this section, a person shall not be deemed not to be capable of work if he is able to undertake employment or to perform work of a light character, including employment or work in a trade or occupation not ordinarily followed by him.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bayford, in whose name it stands. It is tabled in the interests of public assistance authorities set up under the Local Government Act, 1929, and is submitted on behalf of the County Councils Association. A fear has arisen that persons at present in receipt of poor relief and transitional benefit who are regarded as being "capable of work" for the purpose of these payments will no longer be so regarded by the Unemployment Assistance Board to be established under the new Act. This fear arises partly owing to the fact that, while in the past a generous and liberal interpretation has hitherto been given to the phrase "capable of work", in the future a more strict interpretation may be applied to it, due to certain decisions made by the courts of referees. This belief is fortified by certain estimates recently made by officers concerned in the administration of relief and by statements which appear in the Report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance. In the event, as appears not improbable, of a narrower interpretation of the words "capable of work" being adopted, there is justifiable apprehension that the immediate result will be that a large number of persons now in receipt of transitional payments and chargeable to the State will fall to be cared for by the public assistance authorities. They will in fact come back on the Poor Law and on the pockets of the ratepayers. If this occurs, one of the principal objectives of this Bill, namely, financial relief to the public assistance committees, will fail to materialise.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 6, at end insert said subsection.—(Lord Eltisley.)

LORD ROCHESTER

I confess I do not share the noble Lord's fears. The same expression is used in connection with unemployment insurance as dealt with in Part I of the Bill. The third statutory condition for the receipt of unemployment insurance benefit requires that a claimant shall be capable of and available for work. This condition has since the passing of the 1920 Unemployment Insurance Act been the subject of numerous decisions by the umpire whose decisions are after all final and conclusive. The meaning attached to "capable of work" under the umpire's decisions is a very wide one and, I submit, meets substantially the point which the noble Lord fins raised. I feel that I cannot possibly accept the Amendment on behalf of the Government. But I do agree that another point arises out of the noble Lord's speech—namely, the apprehension on the part of people concerned, and that being so, perhaps with your Lordships' permission I might make a statement on behalf of the Government in reference to that.

While I submit that there is no substantial ground for the fear that a narrow interpretation will be placed on the expression "capable of work," there is, however, another expression which I understand has given rise to some apprehension on the part of some local authorities. I refer to the condition that, in order to come within Part II of the Bill, a person must have, as a normal occupation, employment in respect of which contributions are payable under the Widows' and Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act. A doubt has been expressed lest this condition should be subject to such a narrow construction as to exclude from Part II persons who according to the intention should be included. I think that on that point I can reassure your Lordships. Local authorities, as your Lordships will be aware, are required under Clause 45 of the Bill to estimate for the year 1932-33 the expenditure which they would not have incurred had the Bill been then in operation. For the purpose of such an estimate it is of course necessary that they should be able to distinguish between those persons who would and those who would not be dealt with by the Board. A Circular has accordingly been addressed to them by the Minister of Health which is intended to afford guidance to them in the performance of this task. The meaning which, according to the legal advice we have received, should be attached to the expression "normal occupation" is set out at considerable length in such Circular.

I shall not trouble your Lordships with a full statement, but it amounts to this, that a man does not cease to have a normal occupation which is insurable merely by reason of long unemployment or a spell of sickness, but he must have definitely transferred from insurable to non-insurable employment or must have retired from active working life altogether—for example, on pension. Moreover, it is not considered that insurable employment has been abandoned simply because the person concerned has taken up some non-insurable work as a stop-gap to help him tide over the period during which he is trying to get employment at his normal trade. I think that in the light of this statement, and of the Circular which is being issued, the fears of local authorities to which I have referred should be entirely removed.

I would point out to the noble Lord, to revert back to the point of his actual Amendment, that there is another reason which occurs to me that would make it difficult if the Amendment were accepted. I suggest that it would have the effect of going beyond the wide meaning which is at present implied in the expression "capable of work." The Amendment would include within Part II persons who would not otherwise be included and so would increase the charge falling upon the Unemployment Assistance Board and therefore upon the Exchequer, and I suggest to the noble Lord that that would have the effect of raising the question of Privilege in another place. In the circumstances I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD ELTISLEY

I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for the explanation he has been good enough to give. He has, to some extent, allayed my apprehensions in regard to this possible charge on the ratepayers. With regard to the other point, may I respectfully and warmly thank him for the statement he has been kind enough to make, and which I know will be received with satisfaction? I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ROCHESTER moved in subsection (3), in the last paragraph beginning with the words "An appeal," after the last "decision," to insert "and the same powers as to revising decisions and the same right of appearing and being heard. The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to confer similar powers on the Minister of Health when a question is referred to him under this clause as he has under the National Health Insurance Acts, so that as regards certain types of question the appeal machinery under this Bill and under the National Health Insurance Acts will be identical throughout.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 2, after ("decision") insert ("and the same powers as to revising decisions and the same right of appearing and being heard.")—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Clause 38:

Persons to whom and circumstances in which allowances may be granted.

(3) The need of an applicant shall be determined and his needs assessed in accordance with regulations made under this Part of this Act … (d) all money and investments treated as capital assets shall— (ii) in so far as that value exceeds twenty-five pounds but does not exceed three hundred pounds, be treated as equivalent to a weekly income of one shilling for every complete twenty-five pounds:

LORD ROCHESTER

All three Amendments to this clause are drafting Amendments, and I ask leave to move them en bloc.

Amendments moved— Page 37, line 29, after ("shillings") insert ("a week"). Page 37, line 31, after ("sixpence") insert ("a week"). Page 37, line 37, after ("pound") insert ("a week").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT LEVERHULME

moved, in subsection (3) (d) (ii), to leave out "a weekly income of one shilling for every complete twenty-five pounds "and insert" the income which would arise from the investment of such an amount in the Post Office Savings Bank." The noble Viscount said: Clause 38 (3) (d) states in effect that in computing the personal resources of an applicant for unemployment benefit all money and investments treated as capital assets shall be disregarded in so far as they do not; exceed £25, but where the value of such capital assets exceeds £25 but does not exceed £300 it shall be treated as equivalent to a weekly income of one shilling for every complete £25. From this it would appear that a person who had managed to save the sum of £300 would be treated as having an annual income from it of £28 12s.—in other words, an income of almost 10 per cent. on his investments. We know that the working man who by by hard work and thrift has succeeded in making a saving of this kind must, above everything else, consider the security of any investment he makes, and the rate of interest he gets is very much less than 10 per cent. In fact, if he were blessed with the ability of discovering a perfectly safe investment yielding 10 per cent. he would not for long remain within the scope of this Bill.

The Amendment which stands in the names of my noble friends Lord Iliffe and Lord Luke and myself proposes to assess the income derived from capital sums above £25 as being the income which the applicant would have if he deposited the money with the Post Office Savings Bank, which is perhaps the most widely-used depository for working-class savings. On this basis a person who had saved £300 would be regarded—at the rate of interest at present being paid by the Post Office Savings Bank (2½ per cent.)—as having an income of £7 10s. I hope your Lordships will agree that this will be a much fairer way of making the assessment. The view of His Majesty's Government may be that an applicant out of em- ployment should be expected to some extent to draw on the capital sum he has saved, but it seems to me that we should look on this matter as fairly and as generously as we can and not discourage thrift by forcing a man while out of employment to live on the small amount of capital he may have been able to save up for his old age and thus place him at a disadvantage compared with those who have not made this provision.

In these days when the Exchequer makes such heavy demands on people's pockets by direct and indirect taxation many are tempted to say: "Well, what is the good of saving anyway? Let us spend our money while we have got it to spend, because the Government will take it from us in the end." But I am sure it would not be the wish of His Majesty's Government to encourage this state of mind amongst those whom this Bill, as a whole, is intended to help. I may add that when the provisions of this Bill were first made known, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce appointed a special committee to examine it, and this Amendment was one strongly recommended by this committee. It will therefore be seen that it has behind it a very powerful weight of public opinion. This Amendment, together with others having the same effect, was put down on the Committee stage in another place, but it was never discussed owing to the operation of the guillotine. I trust, therefore, my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill may now be able to accept it. Should my hope prove to be a false one, I am afraid, in view of the very strong opinion behind the Amendment, and my conviction that the arguments in favour of it are fair and reasonable, I must ask your Lordships to divide. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 9, leave out from ("to") in line 9 to end of line 11 and insert ("the income which would arise from the investment of such an amount in the Post Office Savings Bank").—(Viscount Leverhulme.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I rise only to say on behalf of the Opposition that we should like to support the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Viscount. I need add nothing to the admirably clear statement he has made. I think this is a very good instance in which your Lordships should make a necessary Amendment which has been omitted in another place.

LORD ROCHESTER

While sympathising with the desire of my noble friend Lord Leverhulme, I think that his criticism is based upon a mistaken view of the intention of the provision. This provision is really simply nothing other than a mode of expressing in definitive form that a person with such resources shall utilise the presumed interest from whatsoever source, be it from the Post Office Savings Bank or wherever he may have it invested. In addition, the Government feel it is not unreasonable to ask him to encroach to some slight extent upon his capital. It is not the intention of the clause at all to suppose that a big return can be obtained upon that amount of capital. A shilling a week for £25 represents a percentage which we agree only a rash or very fortunate investor could possibly obtain; but I submit it is only equitable and proper that a person who has a substantial sum put by, presumably against a rainy day, should not be put into the position, at the expense of his next door neighbour or other taxpayers, where he has no need at all to draw upon his capital.

I submit that the extreme view would be that until he has used his own resources he has no legitimate claim at all upon the resources of others. The Government do not take that extreme view, but they do say that it is not unreasonable to ask him to encroach to some slight extent upon his accumulated reserve before he comes upon the resources of others. I am afraid, too, that I should be wanting in my duty to the House if I did not point out to the noble Lord in this connection, as I did to my noble friend behind me, that if this Amendment were accepted by your Lordships it would necessarily have the effect that a greater charge would be thrown upon the Exchequer. I suggest that that would raise in a fairly acute form the question of Privilege in another place, and I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. The Government must resist it.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I am rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, support this Amendment, because I remember him saying once that he never would oppose or go to a Division on the considered opinion of another place. Now that is what he proposes to do.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

May I point out to the noble Viscount that the considered opinion of another place has not been given on this point? It was not discussed in another place.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I apologise to the noble Lord. I am wrong on that point. But the noble Lord should know, and no one better than himself, that it does affect Privilege, and I am surprised that he should have taken the line he has.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

Privilege can be waived.

LORD STRABOLGI

As my noble friend has just intimated, Privilege can be waived. It frequently is waived in another place. This is a very strong case indeed, especially because, as the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment pointed out, owing to the operation of the time-table the point was not discussed in another place. I would ask your Lordships to consider for a moment the use that could be made of this debate and the result of a Division, if this Amendment is not accepted and a Division is forced and the Amendment is defeated. Everyone knows that 3½ per cent. or 3½ per cent. is the ruling interest for money. The case we are considering is that of a thrifty working-man who has fallen on hard times through no fault of his own, perhaps through the rationalising of the industry in which he is engaged and the closing of a factory in his district. He is an excellent man in every way, and he is reckoned to be charged 10 per cent. on his capital. It is all very well for the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to say: "Well, he must live on his reserve." The trouble is this. After the long period of depression that we are going through the savings and resources of the people are depleted and it is just because of that that so much distress is being suffered. Unemployment did not fall so heavily on people in the time before the severe slump which occurred about 1923 because they had resources and savings to fall back upon. It is because they are drained dry now that in cases where a little money is put by we ought to treat the man having a little stun of money with great generosity. I would appeal to the noble Lord to reconsider this matter.

LORD ROCHESTER

By leave of the Committee I would reply to the noble Lord who has just spoken. I have the greatest sympathy for all those who take the opposite view. The noble Lord talks about their resources having been exhausted. In that case this does not arise at all. Take an illustration to bring it home. Supposing a man's resources are reduced, say, to £70. That, in the Post Office Savings Bank at 2½ per cent. would be 35s. interest. Under the Bill as drawn the first £25 of the £70 are ignored. The second £25 carry ls. a week, which is 52s. in the year, and the balance of £20 is also ignored because it is not a complete £25. I suggest that if a man has £70 of his own it is not unreasonable to ask him to encroach to some slight extent upon such a nest egg before he goes to his neighbours. To continue the illustration. If a man has£ in the Post Office Savings Bank he would get 35s. interest. It would be considered 52s. for the purpose of this clause, the difference being 17s. In other words, therefore, he would only have to encroach on his savings of £70 to the extent of 17s. The Government feel that that is not unreasonable in the circumstances. Sorry as I am, I must resist the Amendment.

LORD STRABOLGI

We are in Committee and I would like to put forward one sentence in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. This is an insurance scheme, this is not a question of charity and of the so-called "dole." Surely, we want to encourage people to save and to look upon themselves as decent insured people who, when they fall out of work through no fault of their own, are able to draw on the insurance fund like any other person who is insured.

LORD ROCHESTER

Will the noble Lord forgive me? May I point out this is Part II, not the insurance section at all? It is unemployment assistance.

LORD STRABOLGI

But all these people have been originally insured, and it is not their fault that they have fallen under Part II. It is not entirely charity. That is the only point I want to make.

LORD LUKE

My noble friend Viscount Leverhulme has given such a full statement in support of the Amendment that I shall say very little. But I should like to put one question to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. Suppose the £300 which Lord Leverhulme spoke of is invested in property, is in a man's own house, the man would not be able to get at that money without selling his house, probably at a sacrifice. He would be in this position, that he could not get at the funds which he is supposed to get at when you suggest he might realise a portion of his capital.

LORD ROCHESTER

I do not quite follow the noble Lord. If the man is living in the house it is not taken into account, unless some portion is sub-let. Does the noble Lord suggest the man living in the house?

LORD LUKE

Whether he is living in the house or not he would not be able to use the money locked up in that house unless he sold the house, and he would probably have to do that at a sacrifice.

LORD ROCHESTER

If he is living in the house that is not brought into account at all, and if he is not living in the house but has money in it as an investment, surely it is not unreasonable that such a man, with £300 invested, should be asked to draw upon some portion of that accumulated capital as being a fund that he could encroach upon to some slight extent before he appeals to his neighbours. I really feel that with the best will in the world I must resist this Amendment on behalf of the Government.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

May I ask the noble Lords who support this Amendment, whether it is worth while going to a Division simply for a matter of 17s., especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has pointed out, the question of Privilege is involved?

VISCOUNT LEVERHULME

I thank the noble Lord for the answer which he has given. I am afraid that nothing said by him about the principle raised by my Amendment would have dissuaded me from asking your Lordships to divide, but the point which he raised about Privilege puts an entirely different complexion on the matter. I feel obliged on that account to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, but in so doing may I ask the noble Lord most earnestly whether something cannot be done either when this Bill comes up at a later stage in this House or when it goes back to another place to get this matter put right?

LORD ROCHESTER

I am obliged to the noble Lord for withdrawing his Amendment, but I am afraid that. I cannot give any encouragement. that his point will be met, either here or in another place. I am sorry.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 41 agreed to.

Clause 42 [Issue of allowances]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I have a drafting Amendment to this clause which I understand the noble Lord accepts.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 7, leave out ("direct") and insert ("directs").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCHESTER

I propose to leave out certain words in subsection (2). The Government feel that they are superfluous and I move the Amendment for the purpose of clarity.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 27, leave out from ("allowances") to the end of line 28.—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43 and 44 agreed to.

Clause 45:

Contributions of local authorities to Unemployment Assistance Fund.

45.—(1) There shall be paid to the Unemployment Assistance Board by the council of every county and county borough, an annual contribution towards the expenses of the Board.

(2) The contributions to be paid by any such council as aforesaid in each of the years in the period beginning on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, and ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, shall be three-fifths of the sum of the two following amounts, that is to say— (a) the estimated expenditure (excluding the cost of administration) incurred by the council in the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, on the provision of relief (not being relief in respect of medical needs) to persons to whom this Part of this Act would have applied if it had then been in operation; and

LORD ROCHESTER

moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "(not being relief in respect of medical needs) to persons to whom this Part of this Act would have applied if it" and insert "which would not have been provided if this Part of this Act." The noble Lord said: This is a little more than a drafting Amendment but not much. It is intended to remove any possibility of ambiguity as regards the basis on which the contributions of local authorities will be assessed.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 2, leave out from the first ("relief") to ("had") in line 4 and insert ("which would not have been provided if this Part of this Act").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 46 to 50 agreed to.

Clause 51:

Superannuation rights of officers of local authorities entering the service of the Unemployment Assistance Board.

(2) Any rules made under this section shall be laid before Parliament.

LORD ROCHESTER

There is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 28, after ("entitled") insert ("or qualified").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "Parliament" and insert: each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House, within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such rules are laid before it, resolves that the rules shall be annulled, the rules shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new rules. The noble Viscount said: These rules, unlike the rules under Clause 52, which are scattered about the Bill and are to be made by the Unemployment Assistance Board are to be made by the Treasury after consultation with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State and are to be laid before Parliament, without, however, there being power to either House to annul them. I do not think that is quite in harmony with the Donoughmore Report on the powers of Ministers. I only ask that these rules shall be subject to annulment if either House thinks that the Treasury have gone beyond their powers. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 41, leave out ("Parliament") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD ROCHESTER

As I have explained to my noble friend I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment, but I have tried to meet him in the matter of an Amendment which he has on the Paper later, which raises the same point. I do not want to delay your Lordships, but I must say that I really think these rules are so technical and so involved and in such detail that they are not really rules which lend themselves to Parliamentary debate on the floor of the House. I will ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his Amendment because I am meeting him later on what is largely the same point.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I do not wish to press this Amendment, but I note that the noble Lord said, with what I thought was great gusto, that the rules were too technical and involved to be discussed on the floor of the House. In other words, I suppose nobody understands them but the draftsman.

LORD ROCHESTER

Forgive me. I said they did not "lend themselves."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ROCHESTER

There are two further drafting Amendments to this clause. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 51, line 2, after ("to") insert ("or qualified for") Page 51, line 3, at end insert ("includes all such service, whether or not for a period sufficient to render him so entitled or qualified as aforesaid; and").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 52:

Rules and regulations.

52.—(1) The Unemployment Assistance Board may make rules for carrying this Part of this Act into effect and in particular (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision) with respect to all matters with respect to which rules are specifically required or authorised by this Act to Be made under this Part of this Act (except rules authorised to be made under the last foregoing section), but no rules made by the Board shall have effect until confirmed by the Minister, and any such rules shall, when confirmed, be laid before Parliament.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to omit all words after Minister and to insert the following new subsection: (2) Any rules made under the imrnediately preceding subsection and confirmed by the Minister shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are confirmed by the Minister, and if either House within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such rules are laid before it, resolves that the rules shall be annulled, the rules shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new rules.

The noble Viscount said: I do not propose to move this Amendment, because as my noble friend has indicated to your Lordships he has put down an Amendment to meet my point. I heartily thank him for having done so.

LORD ROCHESTERmoved to add to subsection (1): as soon as may be thereafter, and if either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such rule has been laid before it resolves that the rule shall be annulled, the rule shall forthwith be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new rule.

The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment because, as I have told my noble friend Viscount Bertie, we are anxious to meet him, and moreover besides meeting him the Amendment really covers what was more or less a promise made by my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General in another place. I am obliged to my noble friend Viscount Bertie for permitting me to put this Amendment in slightly different language from that proposed by him. I am assured it covers the same point and our advisers tell us that the drafting is better.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 53 [Modification of enactments and saving]:

LORD ROCHESTER

There is a grammatical error to be corrected in this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 8, at end insert ("to"). —(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 54 to 57 agreed to.

Clause 58 [Transitory provisions as to benefit]:

LORD ROCHESTER

The three Amendments standing in my name are all drafting Amendments, and I think they might be put together because they are inter-dependent one on another. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 56, line 8, leave out ("ten"). Page 56, line 9, after ("him") insert ("for ten weeks"). Page 56, line 15, leave out ("an application") and insert ("a claim").—(Lord Rochester.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule: