Sitting of 24 November 1911

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
TREATY SERIES (No. 24, 1911).
Copy presented of declaration between the United Kingdom and France respecting Egypt and Morocco, together with the Secret Articles signed at the same time. Signed at London, 8th April, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MOROCCO (No. 1, 1911).
Copies presented of Despatches from His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin, transmitting translations of two speeches delivered in the Reichstag by the Imperial German Chancellor on the subject of the Franco-German Convention respecting Morocco, on 9th and 10th November, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report No. 697 (Swaziland, Report for 1910–11) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 15th November, 1911, granting a retired allowance to Benjamin Thomson, sorting clerk and telegraphist, Ellesmere Post Office [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Copy presented of Fortieth Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1910–11, Part II.: (a) Public Health and Local Administration; (b) County Council Administration; (c) Local Taxation and Valuation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

COAL MINES BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.
Travelling Roads and Haulage.

COAL MINES BILL.

  CLAUSE 42.—(Provisions as to Travelling Roads.)
  (1) For every mine newly opened after the passing of this Act, and not being a mine exempted from this provision by general regulations under this Act, there shall be provided (except within such distance from the shaft as may be fixed by the regulations of the mine) two main in take airways, which shall be of such size and shall be maintained in such condition as to afford a ready means of ingress to and egress from the workings, and one of which shall not be used for the haulage of coal.
  General regulations shall be made under this Act for determining the classes of mines which ought, having regard to their natural condition, to be exempted from the foregoing provision, and those regulations shall also provide for the exemption of any mine in which the number of persons employed underground does not at any one time exceed one hundred, or which is naturally wet throughout.
  (2) For every seam in a mine newly opened after the passing of this Act, which is exempted by general regulations from the foregoing provisions of this Section, and for every seam in a mine opened before the passing of this Act, there shall be provided two main airways, which shall be of such size and shall be maintained in such condition as to afford a ready means of ingress to and egress from the workings.
  (3) In the case of every mine or seam newly opened after the passing of this Act, all stoppings between main intake airways and main return airways and all air-crossings in that mine or seam shall so far as practicable be so constructed as not to be liable to be destroyed in the event of an explosion, and general regulations may be made under this Act providing for the manner in which such stoppings and air-crossings are to be constructed.
  (4) Where in the case of any mine or seam, whether opened before or after the passing of this Act, the air-current in the main return airway is found normally to contain more than one-half per cent. of inflammable gas, that airway shall not (except within a distance of three hundred yards from the shaft) be used for the haulage of coal from the face.
  For the purpose of this provision the average percentage of inflammable gas found in six samples of air taken by an inspector in the air-current at intervals of not less than a fortnight shall be deemed to be the percentage normally contained in the air-current.
  (5) In the case of every mine newly opened after the passing of this Act, the main airways if driven in the same seam shall be so arranged that they shall not at any point, except at air crossings, or within a distance of three hundred yards from the shafts, or such other distance from the shafts as may be fixed by the regulations of the mine, be less than such distances apart as shall be fixed by the regulations of the mine, and the distances from one another of the connections between the main airways shall not be less than the minimum distance specified in those regulations.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "every," insert the words "seam in a."—[Mr. Masterman.]
  Leave out the word "passing," and insert instead thereof the words "coming into operation."—[Viscount Castlereagh.]
  Consequential Amendments made in Sub-sections (2) and (3).
  Mr. BAIRD: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (4).
  This Sub-section was not in the original Bill, but was introduced in Grand Committee by the Under-Secretary of State. The recommendation as to the air current in the main return airway not containing more than ½ per cent. of inflammable gas is not found in the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and the Subsection seems to me inconsistent with the provision in the later part of the Bill.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): This Sub-section, as the hon. Member says, was not among the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and was put in in Grand Committee in a rather tentative manner, and I agreed with the Committee that before the Report stage I would see that a special investigation was made to see what the effect would be of the standard now set up. The results are rather remarkable as far as the chemical analysis of the air is concerned.
  1546
  We have taken samples of air in the main return airway in mines in all parts of the country, and have found it very difficult to get a mine with a standard below one-half per cent. of inflammable gas. That is a new fact which was not realised before we set out on a systematic search. We find also that it would be quite impossible in a large number of mines to conform to this regulation. The chief inspector made a very careful examination of the whole problem, and said that in many cases even the increased ventilation necessary to reduce the standard to one-half per cent., if feasible, would be even more dangerous, and that practically ventilation was up to the maximum possible without danger. In those circumstances I think I have no other alternative to offer the Committee but to confine the provisions of the Subsection to mines newly opened after the passing of the Act. Of course, that does not in the least degree prevent the continuous application of the other safety provisions in connection with the return airway. As everyone knows, dust is more and more being proved to be a greater danger than gas. We have very elaborate and stringent provisions in the coal dust Clauses for the prevention of coal dust accumulations, especially in the airways, either intake or return, and those provisions we shall press forward, but I cannot undertake the responsibility of advising that we should practically prohibit the haulage at the present time of many millions of tons, as would happen if this provision were enforced. I therefore propose, if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment, to move an Amendment to the Clause limiting the application of this particular Sub-section to mines newly opened after the passing of the Act.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I think that the action of the Government in this matter confirms what we said in Committee, that when the Government take it upon themselves without any evidence whatever, laid either before the Committee or before the Royal Commission, to make alterations in a Bill of a purely technical character without full information, they would be placed in the invidious position in which they are now. I entirely dissent from the view that where there is any considerable percentage of gas in the return airway the haulage should be continued in that return. Where you have, for example, electric signal wires, as is now the case in nearly all the mines of the country, and where there are percentages of gas, it must be

  1547
  dangerous for coal to be hauled in such returns. I said in Committee that I thought ½ per cent. was too low a standard to take. I entirely dissent from the statement of the Under-Secretary that in nearly all the mines of the country the return averages show over ½ per cent. of gas. That is wholly contrary to the fact.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I said that samples were taken in six or seven mines in every district, and that in nearly all there was over ½ per cent. of gas.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not suppose there was any agitation on the part of the people who had gas in their return airways, and the mines referred to are those to which the inspector's attention has been directed. But that is not the statement the Under-Secretary made. His statement was that in the great majority of mines the percentage of gas in the return airway was about ½ per cent. The mines in South Wales with which I am associated are extremely fiery, but in the return airways I know of no case where we have anything like ½ per cent. of gas. There may be mines in which on analysis that percentage is exceeded, but taking the coalfields of the United Kingdom as a whole it is quite untrue to say there is anything like 1 per cent. of gas in the return airways. I believe, in some of the South Wales mines, where there are large quantities of gas given off, that it would be impossible to conform to this Section of the Bill as it at present stands. But if they are giving off over ½ per cent. of gas, that is no reason why a higher standard should not be inserted in the Bill. Therefore I propose to move an Amendment to the effect that we take out the words "one half per cent." and insert "one per cent." I do not think there is any excuse for anyone to have more than 1 per cent. in the return airway. I believe the most gaseous mines in the whole of the United Kingdom to-day are those in the Doncaster district. According to the chief inspector, the circumstances which exist there are unknown in the whole history of mines in this country.
  Not only have you gas given off in enormous quantities, but in addition you have spontaneous combustion present with the gas. The inspector pointed out that these conditions have not up to the present time prevailed in the coalfields, because in Staffordshire and in other districts where spontaneous combustion takes
  1548
  place gas is not present, but in this new coalfield at Doncaster you have gas associated with spontaneous combustion. I can only say that in the Doncaster district, in connection with the first mine opened there, and of which I am the managing director, coal was hauled in the return airway. We encountered considerable difficulties with the gas. We found that enormous quantities of gas were given off, and we were compelled, for the sake of safety, to discontinue using the return airways. In the South Yorkshire district, where enormous quantities of gas are given off, it might at any time mean, with the presence of electric signal wires, that an inflammable mixture of gas might prevail. In point of fact, I have known time after time, in the main return ways of those mines in the Doncaster district, that the percentage of gas was not ½ per cent., but an inflammable mixture of 5 or 6 per cent. When those gases are given off in such enormous quantities the only thing to do is to at once withdraw the men. There is passed through the return ways 260,000 feet of wind heavily charged with gas, and you are going to allow people to haul coal where there is a mixture of inflammable gas in the return way. In the mines of South Wales the chief inspector found there was 1½ per cent. of gas in the return way, and he became convinced that it would not be practicable to apply this Clause generally over the coalfield; and the Under-Secretary has again put an Amendment upon the Paper, I suppose as the result of that inspection. Why does the hon. Gentleman pass from his former proposal? His Amendment in my opinion met the difficulties of the case. Instead of that, at the last moment, although this is one of the most highly important matters, this Clause is to be taken out, and people are to be allowed under the Bill, where there is an inflammable mixture of gas in the return way, to haul coal. I have given definite instructions that in the mines with which I am connected, where gas is given off, no coal shall be hauled in the return ways. We have done away with the hauling of coal in the return ways except in one small district, and in another month no coal will be hauled in any of the return ways. To give everybody permission to return minerals in the return ways is an unwise proceeding, and, if it be necessary, I shall certainly divide on this question.
  Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I think the Under-Secretary has been very wise in

  1549
  limiting the application of this Sub-section to mines newly opened, because, if he had insisted on the Sub-section being applied to existing collieries, it is undoubtedly the fact that a very large number of collieries in the country would have had to be closed. I am told that no less than 33,000 men in South Wales alone would have been thrown out of work. It takes something over 6 per cent. of inflammable gas without coal dust to be explosive, but a very much less quantity mixed with coal dust would cause an explosion. But we have now systematic watering in South Wales which reduces any danger from coal dust. It is very difficult to understand why a man should be prohibited from working in the return airway if there is more than ½ per cent. of gas. In Clause 66 of the Bill provision is made as to the use of safety lamps, and if it is safe for a man to work in any part of the mine with anything from 1½ to 2½ per cent. of gas present, surely it must be safe for him to work in the return airway. It is known that the airway is more humid than any other part of the mine which tends towards safety. I think, to put anything like a ½ per cent. or 1 per cent. into the Clause where the chief inspector found in a great number of the mines he visited 1½ or 2 per cent. being worked with absolute safety would be absolute folly. It would be absolutely impossible to keep a number of pits going if you insist on this Section. The men would be thrown out of work, and we know that in connection with the Eight Hours Act they have been considerably reduced. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Therefore if you are going to further diminish them by provisions of this kind you are going to make the working of large collieries impossible, except at a heavy loss. I hope the Home Secretary will stick to what he has said, and also put in a reasonable percentage even with regard to new pits.
  Mr. RICHARDS: I very much regret that upon all the occasions of this House taking into consideration any mining legislation or any legislation affecting colliery owners, that the hon. Baronet and his Friends so overstate their case. That might be expected from the Labour Benches more than from those benches. If there is any exaggeration of the case it comes from the colliery owners in this House. When you were going to give the miners compensation it was going to close half the mines of this country, and
  1550
  when you were going to reduce the hours to eight hours per day, it was going to close more than half, and it would be simply ruinous. While I admit that it may mean cost to some colliery owners to prevent haulage in the return airway, I do ask the House seriously not to attach any importance to the highly exaggerated statement of the case by the hon. Baronet. I should like to ask the Home Office whether the inquiries they have been making with regard to the ½ per cent. have been confined to the collieries where they are at present hauling coal in the return airway. It seems to me that those are the only collieries where the inquiries should be made. Here is a highly dangerous practice admitted by the Home Office, and they seek to remedy it. While it may be necessary for the House to mitigate the hardship which admittedly there will be in the conversion to increase the percentage to 1 per cent., even that is taking a dangerous step indeed. I am really astonished at this stage of the Bill that the Under-Secretary should attempt an important alteration of this kind. If the present intake is not available for putting in haulage, surely there are very easy means of converting the present haulage roads into main intakes. In some places I admit it may be difficult. On behalf of my hon. Friends who sit on these benches, I strongly urge, if any alteration at all is to be made, that the alteration should be made rather on the lines suggested by the hon. Baronet if it is absolutely necessary, but I do not think so. The other hon. Baronet, who is in Opposition, told us it wanted a much less percentage of gas. Let the House realise what it means. You have possibly a thousand miners working in the face of a pit for eight hours making coal dust, and with every stroke of their picks releasing this highly explosive gas. All that coal dust and gas finds its way into the main return airway. It is carried off and travels with a great velocity there. In that return airway of a half mile or a mile or two miles or three miles or four miles, you have travelling at a high rate of speed a train of coal every few minutes, stirring up this dust and mixing it with this ½ per cent. or 1 per cent. of highly inflammable gas, it may be, and having there a highly explosive mixture. An electric signal wire, possibly coming into contact with steel, may set this mixture ablaze at any moment. I am astonished at the

  1551
  proposal, and I hope the Home Office will reconsider the position they are taking up on this matter.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My hon. Friend was hardly justified in assuming that the Under-Secretary had accepted the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He has not accepted the Amendment, and he spoke, I can assure my hon. Friend, with very full consideration of this Clause by the Home Office. This is not a proposal which was recommended by the Royal Commission. On examination it is found that to forbid the use of the return airway for the carriage of coal where there was gas over ½per cent. would prevent the working of collieries in South Wales in which at the present time eight million tons of coal are got. That is a very serious matter, and consequently it is quite obvious that a re-examination of the Clause became necessary. In the first place, the Government do not propose to accept the Amendment which proposes to delete this Subsection. On the contrary, they propose to retain the Sub-section and to make it applicable to new mines only. My hon. Friend (Sir A. Markham) asks why we do not rely on the power to exempt mines from the operation of this Sub-section.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The Government Amendment put down the day before yesterday.
  Mr. McKENNA: Yesterday morning we had a very careful consideration of this particular point, and upon the evidence I came to the conclusion that it would be my duty to give an exemption in every case. In these circumstances I thought it would be better not to proceed by a proviso giving power to exempt, but to confine the operation of the Sub-section to new mines only. What, as a matter of fact, do we attempt to do, and, I believe, shall succeed in doing? Under Clause 29 we take care to ensure improved ventilation. Under Clause 61 steps are taken to prevent coal dust. Undeniably, when you have gas in the return airway, and a quantity of coal dust mixing with the air, you have a very inflammable mixture. But we shall take special precautions to see that all the requirements for the prevention of coal dust are carried out in those mines in which there is danger in the use of the return airway. It would be impracticable
  1552
  to close these mines, and shut down the carrying of 8,000,000 tons of coal. If the hon. Member for Mansfield, who, I recognise, is a great authority on these matters, will give his mind fully to the provisions of Clause 61, and see how adequate are the requirements there laid down for the prevention of coal dust, I think he will agree that we have there, coupled with Clause 29, sufficient safeguards to ensure that in the return airway there shall not be such danger as to render the retention of this Sub-section in its present form necessary. I hope the House will believe that in this matter we are acting on the advice of His Majesty's inspectors. Again I say, this is not a proposal recommended by the Royal Commission, who had all the evidence before them, and in the circumstances it would not be right to impose now a condition so injurious to the coal trade of South Wales, especially in view of the security which we obtain by other Clauses of the Bill.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH(who was very indistinctly heard): It is rather unfortunate that the hon. Member opposite should have endeavoured, as always, to lecture those who do not see eye to eye with him, and to suggest that all that the coal-owners desired was to extract further profits.
  Mr. RICHARDS: I did not use the word "profit" at all. I simply called attention to the exaggeration of the case as put forward by the hon. Baronet.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: This is a Bill for securing greater safety in mines, and we are all interested in bringing about that end. It is obviously not to the interest of the coal-owner to run any risks in the mine, and I do not think there are any coal-owners in the country so short-sighted as to desire to do so. The right hon. Gentleman desires to prevent dislocation of trade all over the country, and it is not right to suggest that it is merely in the interests of the coal-owners. We are perfectly prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman in what he has done, and we are grateful for the manner in which he is trying to meet us.
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I quite understand the point of view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, but it seems to me that the present proposal, although it will deal with new mines, will never alter the position in existing mines. I

  1553
  think there ought to be some time limit, or some possibility of the Home Office making regulations gradually to bring these mines into a proper condition, so that they may be more secure in the future. That point is not touched at all.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: It is quite true that the Royal Commission made no recommendation in the direction of the Clause as the Government originally drafted it, but all through the report pointed to discouraging the use of return airways for haulage purposes, and that is the object of every one here. Therefore, I do not understand why, in regard to existing mines, the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers propose to do nothing in the direction of bringing to an end the practice of using return airways for haulage purposes. My right hon. Friend thinks that the standard of ½ per cent. has been proved by recent investigations to be too high. That may be so, but it is rather significant that in the Clause as originally drafted the Government took ¼per cent., and afterwards raised it to ½per cent. If the standard of ½per cent. be too high, did the recent investigations point to the possibility of having an efficient standard at all? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do nothing beyond the Clauses in the Bill to set up a standard below which the return airways shall not be used for haulage purposes? If ½ per cent. is too high, why not 1 per cent. or at any rate some standard below which the use of return airways for this purpose shall be automatically prevented?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to my hon. Friend is extremely simple. We do not wish to fix a standard of 1 per cent. up to which a mine may work, because the moment you fix a standard it is always regarded as the standard of safety within which you may do exactly what you like.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Very ingenious.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is why it is undesirable to set up any such standard.
  Mr. BAIRD: In all the circumstances of the case I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment, if the Government will adhere to their Amendment.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The discussion that has now taken place has proved what I ventured to say last night, that so long as you rely exclusively upon the safety lamps all sorts of laxity is allowed in other
  1554
  directions. The Clause as it appears in the Bill is probably unworkable. Certainly the Government, in the Amendment they have tabled, have gone to the other extreme. A provision which would apply this new rule to new mines only means that for the next twenty-five years the great bulk of mines in the country will continue working under the present conditions. The return airway will still continue to be used for haulage purposes. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Monmouthshire has shown that that means continuous danger in mines. But I rise mainly because of the statement that the passing of the Clause in the form in which it appears in the Bill will lead to a reduction of the output, as, it is said, the Mines Eight Hours Act had done. If that statement is to go to the country unchallenged, it will produce the effect that we on these benches want to restrict the output not for the sake of safety, but for other purposes. We deny that the passing of this Clause will in anyway affect the output. We point to the fact that in spite of the predictions of the mine-owners in the House and out of it as to the effect of the Eight Hours Act upon the output, that the inspector's report shows that during the year 1910, when the Act was in full operation, there was an actual increase of 534,026 tons over the preceding year. These figures are conclusive. Our contention is that the more efficient and safe you make the mines the better, not only for the workmen, but for the mine-owners as well. Therefore I would like to support the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield to leave the Clause in, but to delete the one word "one-half" and allow 1 per cent. If that be done, a very distinct move will be made towards increasing the safety of the mines and lessening the dangers.
  Mr. E. JARDINE: I rise to appeal to those in the House who are neither mine-owners or miners' representatives. The course of the Debate in the House is following the lines of the Debate in the Committee. That is a duel between the Labour party and the mine-owners. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, it appears to me to be so, and the Under-Secretary, who was extremely fair in Committee, is just as fair in this House. His duty is to protect not only the miners and mine-owners, but that very much larger community the user of the coal. The last speaker referred to those extraordinary

  1555
  precautions which some Members say are not necessary—that they are also in the interest of the mine-owner. I agree with that. But the more unnecessary precautions you take the higher you raise the cost of coal, and the more profit it will be for the miner and the mine-owners, while the rest of the community suffers. It is therefore to those Members who are not specially interested in either of the parties to this duel that I appeal not to let sentiment but common sense sway them in their voting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear ironical cheers from the Labour Benches. The speeches of hon. Members there have been, in my opinion, extremely moderate, able, and fair. But the point that I want to impress is that the Under-Secretary is fair and Members should support him, and think something of the consumer as well as the two classes I have named.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps I may clear up some little misunderstanding, and answer the question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Warner). Hon. Members will be acting under a very grave misapprehension if they think that we are going to do nothing—that the only alternative to removing this Clause is to do nothing. The reason why we do not want to fix a higher standard than ½ per cent. is that we want to do everything in our power to bring the standard down universally below

  Division No. 405.]

  AYES.

  [12.55 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Johnson, W.

  Richards, Thomas

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Clynes, John R.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Sutton, John E.

  Crooks, William

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Doris, W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Fenwick Rt. Hon. Charles

  Martin, J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Gill, A. H.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Booth and Mr. Stephen Walsh.

  NOES.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Baird, J. L.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Barbury, Sir Frederick George

  Butcher, John George

  Clough, William

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cameron, Robert

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  ½ per cent. We do not want to fix a standard which our experts think is above the standard that ought to prevail where the coal is to be hauled through the return airway. The House will remember that in Clause 30, which we carried, I regret to say, against the opposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield, we took powers to definitely form a classification of mines according to the amount of inflammable gas in the return airway. We take very special regulations in connection with mines in accordance with the proportion of inflammable gas, in which the condition of the mine is taken point by point, so that prompt and effective action can be taken where it is possible to reduce the standard. We only fall back on the position which the Royal Commission took after examining the subject for four years.
  Mr. BAIRD: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the word "whether" ["any mine or seam whether opened"] and to insert instead thereof the word "newly."
  Question put, "That the word 'whether' stand part of the Subsection."
  The House divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 66.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Grant, J. A.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Meagher, Michael

  Tennant, Harold John

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Webb, H.

  Hickman, Col. T. E.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Question, "That the word 'newly' be there inserted instead," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (4), after the word "except" ["except within a distance of"], to insert the words "for the purpose of removing any coal gotten in the operation of enlarging or repairing the airway, or."
  Leave out the words "from the face."—[Mr. Masterman.]
  In Sub-section (5), leave out the word "passing" ["after the passing of the Act"] and insert instead thereof the words "coming into operation."—[Mr. Samuel Roberts.]

  CLAUSE 43.—(Provisions as to Travelling on Haulage Roads, etc.)
  (1) No person, other than an official of the mine or a person, employed on the road in connection with the haulage shall, while the haulage is in motion, travel on foot on any haulage road on which the haulage is worked by gravity or mechanical power, except—

  (a) Where there is provided on one side of the road a clear space of at least two feet in width between the tubs and that side of the road, and the rate of haulage is not more than ten miles an hour; or

  (b) Where, in the case of a haulage road in which such a clear space as aforesaid is not provided, the rate of haulage is not more than three miles an hour and the gradient does not exceed one in twelve, or in respect of any part of the road not exceeding one hundred yards in length, one in nine, and the space between the tracks of rail, where there is more than one track, is kept clear of obstructions:

  Provided that the exception hereinbefore contained as respects haulage
  1558
  roads in which no such clear space as aforesaid is provided shall apply only in the case of mines opened before the passing of this Act or mines in which the character of the strata makes it unreasonable to require such a clear space to be provided.
  If any question arises as to whether the character of the strata in any mine makes it unreasonable to require a clear space to be provided, that question shall be determined in the manner provided by this Act for settling disputes.
  Provided further that where there was originally such clear space as aforesaid, but such space has on any part of any haulage road become reduced to less than two feet by reason of any squeeze or other cause over which the management have no control, such persons as aforesaid may travel on such haulage road during the time the necessary repairs are being carried out provided that such repairs shall be carried out by the management without delay.
  (2) Where the haulage is worked by gravity or mechanical power, no person shall be allowed to ride on sets or trains of tubs except—

  (a) a person travelling on a set or train for the purpose of detaching or attaching tubs from or to the haulage rope, if that set or train is not proceeding at a higher speed than three miles an hour; or

  (b) men being conveyed, with the written permission of the manager or under-manager, to or from their work at the commencement or end of their employment; or

  (c) the driver of a locomotive.

  (3) In all places where sets or trains consisting of three or more tubs are coupled

  1559
  or uncoupled there shall be a clear space of at least two feet between tubs standing on any rails and the side of the road nearest to those rails, and between tubs standing on two parallel lines of rails.
  Where, in the case of any existing mine, compliance with the requirements of this Sub-section would necessitate the removal of arching or other masonry work, or where in the case of any mine sets or trains of tubs are coupled or uncoupled at the face, or at the pass-by next the face, other provisions for securing safety may be substituted by the regulations of the mine for those requirements.
  (4) In measuring any clear space for the purposes of this Section, any props or other supports of the roof projecting beyond the side of the road shall be deemed to form part of the side.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) at the beginning, insert the words "On and after the first day of January nineteen hundred and fourteen."
  After the word "haulage" ["in connection with the haulage"], insert the words "or a person engaged in carrying out any repairing work requiring to be carried out forthwith."—[Mr. Masterman.]
  In paragraph (b), leave out the word "passing" ["before the passing of this Act"], and insert instead thereof the words "coming into operation."—[Mr. S. Roberts.]
  In Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), after the word "employment," insert the words "including any person in charge of a set or train of tubs on which men are being so conveyed."
  Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "the" ["and the side"], and to insert instead thereof the word "one."
  The object of this Amendment is to carry out what was really the intention of the Government, that is where tubs are uncoupled it is necessary, if the rail is single, to have two feet on the one side of the road where the man stands who uncouples, but where there are double sets of rails the Government provide for three feet between such rails, or three feet on each side of the rails. I think the Under-Secretary will be willing to accept my Amendment as part of his intention.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, but I have already gone some distance towards meeting this point. By our present proposal we leave the first part as it stands, but we give an alternative, and we say that either there must be two feet on both sides of the tub or three feet, and not two feet, between the two lines of rails, in which case the line can be up against the wall, and my inspectors say the nearer the wall the safer. Considering the evidence we have before us of the considerable number of accidents and the death-rate especially among boys, which is a rather tragic death-rate owing to this clear space not being provided, I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "and between tubs standing on two parallel lines of rails," and to insert instead thereof the words "or where there are two parallel lines of rails, a clear space of at least three feet between tubs standing on those rails."
  Mr. RICHARDS: All those familiar with the discussion in the Committee know that there is some necessity for an alteration of this Clause, but we do not think it is necessary to go as far as the Under-Secretary proposes to go. We think the space is much more valuable on either side of the rails. The coupling of these trains often take place on steep gradients and if you happen to have a runaway, if you have this amount of space between, probably two or three horses will be standing in the space between the man and his place of refuge from the runaway, and there is simply no space to run to at all and the man is hemmed in. That would be introducing another danger. We are prepared to support the Under-Secretary in simply leaving out the words he has proposed to leave out without inserting the words suggested in the Amendment, otherwise we shall be compelled to oppose this Amendment. We are prepared to leave out the provision of two feet between the rails which is reducing the space required by two feet if you leave in the provision providing for two feet on either side. I think that is a reasonable attitude to take up.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Our Amendment is supported by the opinion of experts, and

  1561
  I submit that my hon. Friend might allow the alternative. My inspectors think it is safer to have three feet in the middle.
  Mr. RICHARDS: We know better.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: But I cannot put aside the opinions of the inspectors, backed up as they are by the Royal Commission. If you insist upon the rails being close, and allow the space between the wall, there is a danger of the boys being nipped.
  Mr. RICHARDS: It is just the other way about.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: When two tubs are coming, if the lines are close together, there is a danger of the boys being nipped between them.
  Mr. RICHARDS: There is no necessity for the boys to go between the rails at all if you have the proper space.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I think the suggestion made by the hon. Member for West Monmouthshire is an excellent one. In the case mentioned when the tub was coming down the man would have to work left-handed. It is preferable to have the room on either side of the tubs and that alternative ought to be given. You are proposing to increase the width of the rails unnecessarily, and I think it would be safer to have the increased space between the tubs and the wall. In this matter hon. Members below the Gangway are better experts than the inspectors, because some of them speak from experience. The people I have discussed the matter with think the space on either side is much more preferable than having it in the middle. There is the point which the Under-Secretary mentioned about two tubs meeting each other where there is no room. A boy might get crushed. If the roads were made on either side, he need not go between the tubs.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I would like to reinforce the appeal made by my hon. Friend. I can assure the Under-Secretary it is not for the purpose of vexatious opposition we are taking up this attitude. It is perfectly well known to every worker in the mine that the place of safety is not in the centre of the roads, but at the side of the roads. We did recognise there was what might be held to be a rather costly burden being put upon the employers if it was proposed to make the spaces both at the sides and in the centre, and we also felt
  1562
  there was a real risk of the spaces created becoming dangerous to life. If we took out the provision with regard to the middle space and left the spaces at each side, it would enable the roadway to be narrowed where the boxes are coupled and uncoupled and yet give the necessary provision for safety at the sides of the road. At the very last inquest I attended at a colliery in South Lancs, not far from Wigan, the death occurred under the conditions which the Under-Secretary proposes to provide. The man was in the centre of the roadway. There was ample space in the middle, but the full boxes from above came down, and there was no other way to escape. There were no refuge holes. It was really on the part where the boxes were being coupled and uncoupled. The man could not get into any refuge at the side. Had there been two feet clear space at each side, the man might have climbed over and got into safety. Unless you do provide clear spaces at the sides, it is simply trifling with the question to provide space in the centre. The rope breaks or the chain slips and the boxes run away, and, when boys are coupling boxes in the shunt, they are killed. If there are spaces at the sides, and they can climb over to them, they escape death. May we appeal to the Under-Secretary? We are not putting this forward in any captious spirit, but simply to make the Bill as good as we can.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I think my hon. Friends are rather under a misapprehension about this. There are very few cases where the provision for three feet between the two rails will be carried out. Most people are of opinion it is more convenient to have two feet on each side. The whole thing seems to rest whether the pressure from the weight above will render it necessary to have a prop in the centre to support the roof, and it is quite clear, where you have a prop in the centre, the spaces must be on the outside. Where there is no such pressure, and the natural strata of the place allows it, I think most coal-mine managers would prefer to have two feet space on either side. I think it is quite necessary, however, to have some such proviso as has been suggested to meet special cases.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: If the Under-Secretary's Amendment is incorporated in the Bill a colliery will be free to choose one alternative or the other. They can have either the two feet on each side or three feet in the centre.
  Mr. S. WALSH: The choice being left to the managers.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: It is quite clear if they want three feet in the centre they need not provide the spaces at the side. I want to make it quite clear the alternative is there. I am not sure that in some cases it might not be very much better to have the space in the middle, though I know it is more dangerous generally. I think we might leave the selection to be determined by the local conditions.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I cannot admit there is a real alternative. It appears to me, reading it literally, it means that "where there are two parallel lines of rails," there shall be a clear space of three feet between the tubs standing on those rails. Where you have two parallel sets of rails it is imperative there shall be a space of three feet between the tubs, and not spaces of two feet on either side. That is the way I interpret it, and I think that is the way it would be interpreted by a Court of Law. I am entirely in sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member opposite. Speaking on behalf of those who work in the Forest of Dean coalfield, I may say that, although they would infinitely prefer to have the two alternatives, their own experience would leave them to believe it would be more safe, at any rate for the boys, to have the spaces at the sides rather than in the middle between the tubs. After all, it is commonsense, whatever the experts may say. The natural inclination of a person seeking safety is to go to the side of the road rather than to the middle It is at the side the manholes are provided, and the inclination of a boy who has no great experience would be to seek safety in the direction in which in other respects he would naturally seek it. Whatever the experts say, I hope the Under-Secretary will see his way to accept the suggestion of those who are really experienced in coal mines.
  Mr. WEBB: I wish to support the remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member opposite. Speaking on behalf of my friends in the Forest of Dean, it would be far better to have the spaces on either side of the trams. If the space is made between the trams, it would be far more dangerous than if the boys were allowed to work and spaces were provided for them on either side. The trams move in opposite directions, and that leads to the
  1564
  great confusion of the boys who are usually employed in this work. I hope the Government will therefore see their way either to give us the alternative or to provde for the spaces at the side and not in the middle.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There is no doubt at all, and my learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland agrees with me, if my Amendment is carried, we are offering a clear alternative. If there should be any doubt I will take care it is put right, because that is absolutely the intention of the Government. I do not think the Gentlemen who have spoken from below the Gangway ought to divide against us in this matter, because it is a real case of disagreement in expert evidence. A certain number think the best way of arranging the matter is to have the spaces between the wall and the road, and that is freely provided for in this Clause. Others who have made a life study of this subject, including my inspector and the Royal Commission, think it more essential to have the space between the tubs. They say if you give three feet between the tubs, especially where there is a danger of the breaking away of the walls, it is the better system. Surely, therefore, the best thing would be to accept the Government Amendment.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I think, with all due deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the legal construction of these words would be this. The first part of the Clause relates to where there is a single line, and the second part is governed by the words "or where there are two parallel lines." Where there are two parallel lines it is compulsory to have the space in the middle.
  Mr. T. RICHARDS: There is no option.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I think we do want some words to make the matter clear.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I guarantee to make it right.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: I do not quite understand what is the undertaking of the Under-Secretary. It is perfectly clear there is no alternative where you have two sets of parallel lines. There the three feet in between operates. If the Under-Secretary gives a definite undertaking that where there are two sets of parallel rails it may be left for decision

  1565
  as to whether there shall be three feet in the centre or two feet on either side, I think we may agree with him. I do not know whether that is so.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That is so.
  Sir CLIFFORD CORY: As Sub-section (3) is worded, I submit that it would mean that you must have a clear space of at least two feet on each side of the line of rails, even in a place where there is a single line of rails. Is that the intention of the Under-Secretary? Because I understood that he said that in places where there was a single line of rails he only intended that the two feet should be on one side of the rails, and not on both sides.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is. I have already given the undertaking that it shall be made perfectly clear.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'or where there are two parallel lines of rails, a clear space of at least three feet between tubs standing on those rails' be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), at the end, insert the words "The provision of this Sub-section shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirteen."
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, "Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to any district in any seam in any mine the probable duration of which district is less than three years from the coming into operation of this Act."
  It is very important, in view of the heavy expense that will be incurred through these alterations, that there should be ample time in which to do the work. I hope the Under-Secretary will accept the addition of these words in order to give the mine-owners time to complete the work.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I made a promise in Committee not to impose large structural expense upon mines of very short duration, which might necessitate the mine being closed altogether.
  Mr. S. WALSH: Does that involve the acceptance of this particular Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes.
  Mr. S. WALSH: Who will determine the probable duration? I remember, check-weigher, that the statement was common, "This mine will work out in twelve months," and I have known mines doomed to extinction which are now in the hey-day of prosperity. There is no term more disputatious than "probable duration." This Bill does not come into operation until January, 1913—[HON. MEMBERS: July, 1912.]—and this provision will not come into operation within three years from that time, so that wherever there is danger existing that danger is not to be dealt with if the probable duration of a mine is not going to be more than three years. I want to know who is going to determine the probable duration. Is the danger to be permitted to go on unheeded. The Sub-section at present runs,
  "Where in the case of any existing mine compliance with the requirements of this Sub-section would necessitate the removal of arching or other masonry work, or where in the case of any mine sets of trains of tubs are coupled or uncoupled at the face,"
  other regulations may be made. Surely that meets the whole position. All this talk about the heavy expense being required is simply flapdoodle—to put it very mildly. You ought to have a two feet space at the sides of a shunt where young people are engaged under conditions which in many cases invite disaster. To say that the necessity of making the two feet space at each side of the road where parallel line of tubs are standing will involve such an expense that, in the case of a mine, the probable duration of which is going to be only till 1916, it will put the owner to a ruinous loss, is simply nonsense. This is whittling down a Bill which has already been whittled down seriously in Committee. I consider that in Committee we got to the minimum conditions of safety; now we are undermining those. It is ridiculous to assume this Amendment is necessary. I must protest against the Under-Secretary constantly receiving from colliery owners proposals which can only have the effect of whittling down the already existing minimum of safety.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Throughout the proceedings in Grand Committee I very

  1567
  often found myself entirely in agreement with the hon. Member who has just spoken, but in this respect I cannot. He has suggested that this is an attempt on the part of the coal-owners to get out of their natural obligation under the Bill.
  I am asked to speak on this Clause not only by the coal-owners, but by the representatives of the men working in the Forest of Dean area. They, so far from being contented with the three years' limit, have asked that a period of seven years should be provided in the case of all mines likely to be exhausted within that period, and I have incorporated that in an Amendment. Most of those who represent mining interests in this House are associated with very large mining undertakings. The district which my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Webb) and I represent consists largely of small mines, and any considerable structural alterations would materially affect the future existence of those mines. Although I fully admit that what the hon. Member (Mr. S. Walsh) has said is perfectly relevant as regards the large mines to be found in the North of England and in South Wales, it would not be applicable to the sort of mines with which I am familiar in the Forest of Dean. At the same time I think this particular Amendment is not by any means well drafted, and I am inclined to think it will be an exceedingly difficult one for the Home Office to interpret. Who is going to decide what the probable duration of a mine is? I think it will be extremely difficult to decide in a faulty district, where a mine may appear to have come to an end, and, in consequence of piercing the fault, the mine may live longer than was anticipated. I suggest in my own Amendment it should be left to one of the inspectors of the Home Office to decide definitely whether a mine does or does not come within that category, otherwise I am sorry for the Home Office if they have to interpret such a Clause as this. I hope the Under-Secretary will not be biassed by what has fallen from the Labour Benches as to this Amendment, and I certainly hope that in the case of the Forest of Dean a longer period will be granted.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Will it not be possible to come to an agreement on this Amendment if we leave out the word "probable" and insert after the word "is" ["duration of which district is"]
  1568
  the words "in the opinion of the Secretary of State." It will then read,
  "Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to any district in any seam in any mine the duration of which district is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, less than three years from the coming into operation of this Act."
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: Would it not do if it were put generally that the Sub-section should not apply to mines or seams which, in the opinion of the inspector, are at the time of the passing of the Bill within three years of exhaustion?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think we had better leave the Secretary of State alone.
  Amendments made in proposed Amendment: Leave out the word "probable" ["the probable duration of which"].
  After the word "is" ["duration of which district is"], insert the words "in the opinion of the Secretary of State."—[Mr. Edgar Jones.]
  Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 44.—(Provision of Refuge Holes.)
  (1) Every haulage road on which the haulage is worked by gravity or mechanical power, shall be provided with sufficient refuge holes at intervals of not more than ten yards, but if the gradient does not exceed one in twenty, and either such a clear space as aforesaid is provided or the rate of haulage is not more than three miles an hour it shall be sufficient if the intervals are not more than twenty yards.

  (2) Every haulage road on which the haulage is worked by animal power shall be provided with sufficient refuge holes at intervals of not more than twenty-five yards.

  (3) Every refuge hole shall as near as may be be three feet in width and not less than four feet in depth, and shall be on the same side of the road, and if such a clear space as aforesaid is provided shall be on the same side of the road except on curves where the refuge holes may be on the outer side of the curve as that space, and shall be marked with a distinctive number, and shall, where necessary to make it readily visible, be constantly kept whitewashed, both inside and for a distance of not less than one foot round the aperture, and shall be kept clean, and nothing shall be placed in any refuge hole or across the entrance thereto so as to impede ingress.

  1569

  (4) Provided always that refuge holes need not be provided on roads within twenty-five yards of the working face.

  Amendments made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "depth" ["not less than four feet in depth"], insert the words "and not less in height than the height of the haulage road at the point where the hole is, or six feet, whichever is the less."—[Mr. Masterman.]
  In Sub-section (3), after the word "road" ["shall be on the same side of the road "], insert the words "as that space."
  In Sub-section (3), after the word "curve" ["on the outer side of the curve"], leave out the words "as that space."—[Mr. S. Roberts.]
  Sir C. CORY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "twenty-five" ["within twenty-five yards of the working-face"], and to insert instead thereof the word "fifty."
  This Sub-section is a new one, put in at the instance of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham). If reference is made to the Report of Standing Committee "B" on the Coal Mines Bill, page 109, it will be found that the Sub-section runs,
  "(4) Provided always that refuge holes need not be provided on roads within fifty yards of the working face."
  Now it is found in the Bill as not fifty, but twenty-five yards. I think the attention of the Under-Secretary was drawn to it, and he said that fifty yards was a mistake. It is a curious thing that we should find that in the Standing Committee's Report fifty yards is mentioned. I propose that we abide by the Report of the Standing Committee.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I agree with the hon. Baronet that there was an unfortunate mistake, for which, of course, the Home Office is not responsible. There is a divergence in the Report of the Committee's proceedings and the actual doings of the Committee. The matter was brought to the attention of the officials of the House in order to correct the statement. It now appears in the Bill as twenty-five yards. The decision of the Committee was twenty-five yards, and we ask the House to maintain the decision of the Committee. I want to make it quite clear
  1570
  that that does not mean, if the decision is maintained, that there is to be a manhole within twenty-five yards of the working-face. Sub-section (2) says,
  "Every haulage road on which the haulage is worked by animal power shall be provided with sufficient refuge holes at intervals of not more than twenty-five yards."
  And then under Sub-section (4) it is provided that the refuge hole need not be provided on roads within twenty-five yards of the working-face.
  Sir C. CORY: I ask leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 45.—(Dimensions of Travelling Roads.)
  (1) Every travelling road shall be of adequate height, and if the height of any such road appears to the inspector of the division to be inadequate he may require that the height be increased to such extent as he thinks proper, and the manager shall comply with the requisition unless he disputes the reasonableness thereof, in which case the dispute shall be settled in manner provided by this Act for settling disputes.

  (2) Every road on which a horse or other animal is used underground or by which it has to pass to get to its work shall be of sufficient dimensions to allow the horse or other animal to pass without rubbing itself or its harness against the roof or sides or the bars or props supporting the roof or sides.

  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move, in Subjection (2), after the word "without" ["to pass without rubbing itself"], to insert the words "the possibility of its." The Sub-section will then read,
  "Every road on which a horse or other animal is used underground or by which it has to pass to get to its work shall be of sufficient dimensions to allow the horse or other animal to pass without the possibility of its rubbing itself or its harness against the roof or sides or the bars or props supporting the roof or sides."
  The reason why I move this Amendment is because of an experience which I had underground two months ago. I was visiting the underground workings of a mine in the Forest of Dean, in company with the manager, and as I passed a horse with some tubs behind him, the horse brought its head with a crack against one of the roof timbers, and at once the horse appeared to be stunned, and, of course,

  1571
  stopped dead. Th manager appeared to be surprised that the tubs had stopped, and he called out to the man in charge, "What is the matter? Why don't the tubs move on?" and I remarked to the manager, "This horse has just received a severe crack on the head owing to the lowness of the roof." The answer was, "That was very stupid of him. He ought to have lowered his head." If this Clause reads as it is drafted it will exactly apply to the case of a horse such as that, which could pass such a roof-timber if he lowered his head. We all know that the conditions in mines do not admit of a horse using that degree of intelligence which he might in the full daylight above ground, and I am quite certain that in this particular case this horse, considering the poor light in which he was moving, could not have seen this timber and have avoided getting the serious blow on his head which he actually received. It is a very reasonable Amendment. I ask to have it so amended as to ensure that the roof shall in every case be high enough to prevent the possibility of a horse reciving a crack on the head owing to the roof-timbers being as low as they were in this particular case. As the Clause reads at present it would be perfectly possible to admit the case of which I was a witness coming within the four corners of this Bill.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I really, with all the best wish in the world, could not accept this. It adds nothing to the Clause, and in practice it would be quite impossible to enforce. Every one of these items which have been put down imposes a contravention if it is violated. On what kind of evidence could a Court determine whether there would be a possibility of an animal rubbing itself against the side? It is an offence for an animal to rub itself under the Act.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: All you have to do, as was done in this particular case, is to measure the height of the roadway and the height of the horse.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Amendment only deals with the possibility of a horse rubbing against the side. The Bill goes much further than the Amendment when it says if a horse rubs itself against the side it shall be a contravention of the Act.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The result of the Amendment would be that there could not be any underground passages at all. There is always the possibility of a horse rubbing against the side, if there is a side, so that there could be no side underground. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member, and I hope the Home Office will insist on this being carried out, but I do not think we can ask more than that the animal in its normal position shall have a free passage. I quite agree it should not be expected that the animal should lower its head, but the passage should be high enough and wide enough that the animal should be able to pass through.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Amendment is rather complicated, and I am not quite certain whether it will achieve my hon. Friend's object, but the case he has made out is such a good one that some means should be taken to meet the difficulties which he has shown us by practical experience do occur. Of course, it is perfectly evident that under the Clause, if it can be proved that a horse can get through a particular passage provided everything is all right, there can be no offence under the Act. When a horse pulls a heavy load his head is used as a lever, and, especially where there is a gradient, it is inclined to go up and down. If that is so, it might be perfectly possible that the horse could get through without rubbing itself, but in throwing his head up he would hit the roof. I hope we shall alter the Clause in this place, and not put our trust in the House of Lords, as the hon. Member opposite is too much inclined to do.
  Mr. RICHARDS: With every possible desire to protect the horses which work underground, I am sure the House must be very careful lest they create an untold difficulty for animal labour underground. To insist on the construction of roadways underground for horses to travel like the hon. Baronet's horses in Hyde Park is simply to prohibit at once the whole of the horse traffic that I know of—that is, for a horse to be able to throw its head up and as high as it can without touching the roof. In nine-tenths of the roadways where horses are working at present there is not room for that. Horses are very intelligent animals, and they become accustomed to stoop as the colliers do, and you will never see a colliery horse put his head up. He invariably goes with his head in a line with his body in any colliery roadway that I know unless it is some main haulage

  1573
  roadway. It is simply out of the question to do that. The roadways are not constructed for that purpose.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I think the case which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Bathurst) referred to is a very real case. Anyone who has walked along a road in a mine in a bad light knows, with all the intelligence that a man has, how difficult it is to avoid striking one's head against the timbers. You put some wretched pony in this bad light drawing a heavy load of tubs, and provide a road for him to go in which is, ex hypothesi, too low for him to pass along without striking his head. I think that is an evil which ought to be, if possible, abolished. I suggest some such words as these "the possibility of striking its head against the roof and without"
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Suppose the pony jumped.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Supposing it did jump, will anyone tell me that a manager should be prosecuted for an offence, because of something of that sort. Of course, you can make anything ridiculous, and I think that is an attempt to make this proposal ridiculous. I want to treat the matter in a serious way. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the way in which these ponies work in the mines. In low roads in going in the ponies—[An HON. MEMBER: "Horses"]—well, if the horses are too tall for the road, then I think the owners ought to got smaller horses. What is provided by this Amendment is that when you are working a horse or a pony in one of these roads the dimensions of the road should be sufficiently high to allow the horse or pony to pass along without striking its head against the roof. Some hon. Members suggest that the horse is too tall for the road. Surely common humanity requires that if you have a low road you must have a low-sized pony. You must adapt your horse to the road. I cannot think that the Under-Secretary when he considers the effect of this Amendment will refuse to accept it. I propose to insert in the proposed Amendment the words "striking its head against the roof and without"
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I should like to say one word with regard to my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion. There may be a little difficulty in interpreting it. Bearing in mind that the whole House is desirous of meeting the particular case to which attention has been called, I think the Amendment would read in a simpler
  1574
  way by leaving out the word "dimensions" altogether and substituting the word "width." It would then read, "Every road … shall be of sufficient width to allow the horse or other animal to pass without rubbing itself or its harness against the sides or the bars or props supporting the roof or sides, and of sufficient height to allow it to pass without lowering its head."
  2.0 P.M.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not know whether hon. Members who have spoken on this matter have ever been down a mine. Really the hon. Member opposite does not seem to know how a pony works in a mine. Injuries to ponies are not generally caused by striking the head against the roof. The bulk of the injuries are not sustained on the head at all; they are sustained on the sides and the shoulders. In most modern mines a skull-cap is provided for the horse. Those who are familiar with the working of mines know that the horse throws the whole of its weight on the forelegs, and, in point of fact, in practice the head, of which we have heard so much, is carried, not high, but nearly on the ground. This seems a curious thing to those who are accustomed to see horses working in the open in their natural position. When a horse goes into a mine it keeps its head near the rails all the time. There is another point to which I would direct attention. I have myself knocked my head against a roof on account of my own carelessness. Having gone along a road in a mine, I have found, on coming back, that in the interval the bars have been lowered. I remember once going along a road one way, and, on returning within three or four hours, owing to a heavy weight coming over that part, the roof had lowered, and the first intimation of this I had was when I received a thundering crack on the top of the head. Are you going to say that a mine-owner or a manager is to be liable to prosecution because a road which half-an-hour before was of sufficient dimensions happened to have lowered? All this nonsense that has been talked about the horse's head will be apparent when I state that there are cases in Wales where, in the general working of the mines, the horses are fifteen hands high. It is only in the North of England that ponies of thirteen hands and smaller are worked. All the talk about roads being sufficiently high is sheer nonsense. The proposal of the hon. Member opposite is absolutely impracticable.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: I wish to corroborate what has been said by the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham). I wish to point out to my hon. Friends on this side of the House that the roofs are very often timber. I would ask hon. Members opposite who know what it is to be down in a pit: What on earth are you to do in such a case as has been mentioned by the hon. Baronet, where the timber falls down? Supposing before the fall a pony went along the road when it was perfectly safe, and then, when coming back a short time afterwards, hits its head—[An HON. MEMBER: "Withers"]—well, hits its head or withers, that is exactly what this Amendment means to make impossible. I do not object to the whole Clause at all, but I fully support the proposal of the Under-Secretary. I think that if hon. Members would go down a pit as often as I do—
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I am much more often down pits than you are.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: I do not know how my hon. Friend can possibly tell that. It may be perfectly right—I do not say it is not—but I am perfectly certain that people who are interested in collieries are just as good men as the hon. Gentleman himself. It would not pay a colliery proprietor to have roofs in such a way that a horse or pony would hit either its withers or its head. I hope the Under-Secretary will stick to his guns, and I, for one, will support him.
  Viscount HELMSLEYrose to continue the Debate.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member has already spoken.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I only seconded the Amendment formally.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that by so doing the Noble Lord is precluded from speaking now.
  Mr. H. J. CRAIG: May I appeal to the Government to accept something in the nature of this Amendment? By the wording of the Clause they already try to prevent a horse rubbing itself or its harness against the side of the way or passage. All we seek is that they should also put in some words which shall ensure that the passage along which the horse is called upon to work shall be of sufficient height. What my hon. Friend opposite suggested was
  1576
  that there should be such a passage as will allow the horse to go along without lowering its head. Surely the Government might meet this case.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member knows that we met him very freely on this question of the horses in the Committee. We went into it in great detail and accepted a large number of Amendments which he proposed and which the society that he represents advocated in the interests of the animals. I submit that the House should accept the suggestion of the Committee and should not occupy its time in such details as this. It is quite clear that the passage must be such that the horse must be able to go clearly through without bowing its head or shoulders, but if we are asked to raise the level of every mine so that the horse could toss its head in the air, that is really asking something that cannot be granted.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 46.—(Apparatus on Haulage Roads.)
  (1) Every rope used for haulage which is capped shall be recapped at intervals of not more than six months in accordance with general regulations under this Act.
  (2) Sufficient and suitable sprags lockers or drags shall be provided and used for the purpose of holding a tub or set of tubs—

  (a) at the top of every incline on which the haulage is worked by gravity;

  (b) at every place where sets or trains of tubs are coupled or uncoupled;

  (c) on all roads where the gradient exceeds one in twenty, and the haulage is worked by animal power.

  (3) Stop blocks or other suitable contrivance shall be provided at the top of every incline on which the haulage is worked by gravity other than endless-rope haulage and at every entrance thereto by which tubs are brought on to the incline.
  (4) On every haulage road where mechanical other than endless-rope haulage is used, and where the gradient exceeds one in twelve—

  (a) runaway switches or other suitable contrivances shall be provided where the use thereof is practicable to prevent accidents in the event of a tub running away;

  (b) there shall be provided and attached to an ascending tub or set of tubs a

  1577
  back-stay or other suitable contrivance for preventing the tub running back;

  (c) over chains, bridle chains, or other suitable appliances shall be provided to prevent tubs in which persona are being conveyed from becoming disconnected and running away.

  Mr. WEBB: I beg to propose in Sub-section (1), after the word "haulage," to insert the words "not being a jig rope."
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER: The Government cannot accept this Amendment, as no case has been made out for it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to propose in Sub-section (2), after the word "suitable," to insert the words "wrought iron."
  As hon. Members know, the lockers are small pieces of wood or iron which are used to act as brakes and prevent the tubs running down. The mortality to ponies from that cause is very serious. Mr. Pickering, one of His Majesty's inspectors, in his evidence before the recent Commission, was asked about accident's in mines:—
  "'Are they unavoidable ones'? 'Yes,' he said, 'but some are avoidable. A man may neglect his lockers, and the tub will run on to the pony and kill it. This kind of accident should not happen. But a runaway tub causes an accident which can be avoided. The mortality among these ponies is very serious indeed.'"
  Mr. Butterley, asked what kind of accidents, says:—
  "In the case where a horse is coming down for tubs and a locker breaks, or the horse puts its foot on the rail and slips, the weight of the tub throws him forward and breaks his leg or cripples him in some manner."
  The reason is that the wooden lockers break, and to make the thing effective you have to have iron lockers. Upon that very important evidence is given by Mr. Cook, assistant under-manager in the Wath Main Colliery in Yorkshire. His evidence comes to this, that while they used wooden lockers there were very many accidents in his mines from tubs running down the ponies, but when they began to use iron lockers, there were no accidents at all.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Will you quote that?
  Mr. BUTCHER: Certainly. It is at pages 203 and 204 of the evidence.
  1578
  The witness was asked the following questions by Mr. Enoch Edwards:—
  "The number of ponies you have is 114?—Yes.
  "The number killed, destroyed, or died in five years is 128?—Yes.
  "The first one 'Scottie' was killed: corves—overpowered him—broken lockers. That is the locker you were referring to?—Yes.
  "The next one is locker broke, tubs overpowered him. These are all in January. This is the 7th?—Yes."
  Then Mr. Enoch Edwards said:—
  "What happens is that the gradient of the road is so sharp that they must put some brake in, and they put a locker in the wheel on a piece of the road. If they do not, it runs the horse down. In some cases the locker has broken, and in this one I have just referred to they did not put the locker in."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Let me read on. The witness said:—
  "As I said in my statement, many of them (the ponies) are killed through neglect of lockers, and sometimes they (the drivers) will say they had the lockers in and they broke. That is the reason we are having iron lockers instead of wooden ones now."
  In other words, wooden lockers are liable to breakage, or the boys may say that they were broken when they were not broken. [An HON. MEMBER: "And iron lockers as well."] Let me read the witness's evidence. He said:—
  "That is the reason we are having iron lockers instead of wooden ones now."
  Then Mr. Wm. Abraham (Rhondda), asked:—
  "But with the iron locker, the average is nearly as high as it was before?—No."
  The last questions on this subject were:—
  "Have you had as many accidents since you got the iron lockers?—No."
  "If there was an accident it would not arise through a broken locker?—I have not known any case where an iron locker has broken. They are of sufficient strength, and above, to do the work."
  This is really the material evidence on this subject, and what it amounts to is this, that if you have wooden lockers there are two objections—either they break, or the boys say that they break, in order to hide their own neglect. Then there is the very important fact that whereas there were large numbers of accidents with the wooden lockers, since the use of iron lockers, they have had no accidents at this colliery, and I would ask the House whether this is not really a case where they might lay down that there should be iron lockers. It is not as if it would involve an enormous cost to the coal-owners.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Iron lockers are cheaper and they last much longer.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I am obliged to the hon. Baronet for his information, and

  1579
  unless some reason is given which I have not been able to discover I shall certainly proceed with my Amendment.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to Second the Amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER: I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment. There was a very full discussion in Grand Committee upon this matter, and the conclusion arrived at was that the best words to insert were the words "sufficient and suitable." The reason for adopting that course was that the Royal Commission had considered that very point which the hon. and learned Member is now urging. They made no recommendation at all, and they could not have very well made a recommendation, because the expert committee who had to deal with this matter reported that while iron lockers were less liable to break, they were more liable to fly out of the wheel, and in view of that report, the Committee would not accept the proposal which was made to use iron lockers.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend not to press the Amendment? I think the words "sufficient and suitable" cover the requirements of the case. In some instances wood is far better than iron. Iron lockers are apt to break men's fingers, and do damage of that kind.
  Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS: I can speak on this subject from a practical standpoint. I have used both the wooden and the iron sprags, and I have found the iron sprags very unreliable indeed. The iron sprag is apt to slip through and not to catch on, and it is also liable to jump out when the tram drags. The wooden sprag is always reliable, except when it has been too much used and becomes tender. I think the words in the Sub-section providing that they should be "sufficient and suitable" are enough.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), after the word "place" ["place where sets"], to insert the words "on an incline."
  The object of this Amendment is to make quite sure that these lockers are put in where there is danger of the tubs running
  1580
  away. I think the words have been omitted through an error on the part of the drafting clerk, and that they should have been put in originally.
  Mr. HUNTER: I cannot accept the Amendment. The words of the Bill are in accordance with the recommendation of the expert committee of the Royal Commission. It is not in consequence of any error of draftsmanship that the words suggested by the hon. Member opposite have not been inserted.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), after the word "roads" ["roads where the gradient"], to insert the words "or parts of roads."
  The object of my Amendment is to make quite sure that these checks are put upon the tubs in the case where the average gradient may not exceed one in twenty, but there may be a stretch of road in which it does exceed one in twenty, and very serious injury might occur to the pony in consequence. At any rate, there would be an undue strain on the pony in that particular part where the gradient is more steep. I ask the Government to accept the Amendment as one in the interests of humanity.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER: I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "the gradient exceeds one in twenty and."
  I move this in order to insert other words in a subsequent Amendment. I see no reason why the gradient should be specified as one in twenty. One in twenty-one would be just as dangerous, or even one in twenty-five or one in thirty. The real question is when ought these sprags to be provided. Surely they ought to be provided in any case where the tubs have a tendency to run down. I want to put it in general terms, and personally I see no reason why the gradient should be limited.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER: I cannot accept the suggestion. I do not know that there is any material difference between the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman and the view we entertain. It is considered necessary and desirable that we should have some definite standard of inclination. That has been fixed at one in twenty, and is more satisfactory than to adopt indefinite language as suggested.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman have any objection to the words of my second Amendment following the words now in the Clause?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), after the word "power," to insert the words "or the gradient is such as to cause the tub, or set of tubs, to run down, or tend to run down, on the animal engaged in hauling."
  Mr. HUNTER: We have already a fixed standard, and it would be inadvisable to accept this proposal. In the absence of any scientific evidence that a margin of safety has not been provided for, I do not think there is any necessity for the Amendment.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I would ask the Government to accept this Amendment,

  Division No. 406.]

  AYES.

  [2.37 p.m.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Grant, J. A.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Ashley, W. W.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gretton, John

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Boyton, J.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunt, Rowland

  Watt, Henry A.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Martin, J.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Newman, John R. P.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Pointer, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. C. Bathurst and Mr. Butcher

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clynes, J. R.

  Adamson, William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Alden, Percy

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Baird, J. L.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Cotton, William Francis

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Crooks, William

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cameron, Robert

  Crumley, Patrick

  Barnes, G. N.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  as it does not weaken the Clause in any way, and to do so as an act of justice to the poor ponies.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I hope also that the Government will accept the Amendment. It is quite impossible to say that anything less than one in twenty is absolutely safe. If there is danger it should be provided for, and I think the Amendment is a very reasonable one.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Really, does anybody suggest that in a gradient of less than one in twenty injury is done? I do not see any objection to the words myself, but they are wholly unnecessary.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Baronet knows that very often trucks run down on a particular incline, and you cannot lay down an absolutely specific degree of inclination beyond which nothing will happen.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: In all railway companies and in all sidings there is a fixed gradient laid down by the railway companies, and on that gradient the whole of the traffic is worked.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 155.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Reddy, M.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Richards, Thomas

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Doris, W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lansbury, George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rowlands, James

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Glanville, H. J.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Snowden, P.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hackett, J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Meagher, Michael

  Sutton, John E.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Munro, R.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Murray, Capt Hon. A. C.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Neilson, Francis

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Wardle, George J.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Nelan, Joseph

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivar

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hickman, Col. T. E.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Webb, H.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Grady, James

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hudson, Walter

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Johnson, W.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "suitable, contrivance," and insert instead thereof the words "similar contrivances."—[Mr. Masterman.]
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4) (c), to leave out the words "over chains."
  I am told that when going round a curve these chains might get tight and knock persons over.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER: We cannot accept this Amendment. The paragraph refers to "over chains, bridle chains, or other suitable appliances," and it would not do to alter it in the way proposed.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 50.—(Systematic Support of Roof and Sides.)
  (1) Where props or props and bars or chocks are used to support the roof at the working face, the roof under which any work of getting coal or filling tubs is carried on shall be systematically and adequately supported, and the props or
  1584
  chocks shall be set at such regular intervals and in such manner as may be specified in the notice hereinafter mentioned.
  (2) Holing props or sprags shall be set as soon as practicable, and shall be set at such regular intervals and in such manner as may be specified in the notice hereinafter mentioned, and shall not be removed before the roof supports (if any) have been advanced in the manner specified in the notice.
  (3) In all parts of a roadway in which sets or trains of tubs are coupled or uncoupled, the roof and sides shall be systematically and adequately supported, and in such parts and in all other parts of the roadway the roof or sides of which require to be supported, if props or bars are used as supports, such supports shall be set at such regular intervals and in such manner as may be specified in the notice hereinafter mentioned.
  (4) The manager shall by notice specify the manner in which the supports are to be set and advanced, and the maximum intervals to be observed on roadways between the supports, and at the face—

  (a) between each row of props;

  (b) between adjacent props in the same row;

  1585

  (c) between the front row of props and the face;

  (d) between the holing props or sprags;

  (e) between chocks or each set of cogs:

  Provided that the interval between holing props or sprags shall in no case exceed six feet.
  (5) If the inspector of the division considers that the system of supporting the roof and sides adopted in any part of a mine is unsatisfactory, either by reason of the distances fixed or any of them being excessive or otherwise, he may require the manager to fix some less distance or otherwise modify the system, and the manager shall comply with the requisition unless he disputes the reasonableness thereof, in which case the dispute shall be settled in manner provided by this Act for settling disputes.
  (6) This Section shall not apply to the mines of stratified ironstone in the Cleveland district or of thick coal in the South Staffordshire district.
  (7) Nothing in this Section shall prevent a workman from setting supports in his working place at more frequent intervals than those specified in the notice aforesaid, where necessary for safety.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "removed," insert the words "until the coal is about to be taken down and."—[Mr. Masterman.]
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (6), after the word "or," to insert the words "to any such mines worked under similar conditions in any other district, or to the mines."
  The Amendment simply provides that where there are mines similar to those in the Cleveland district, the same provision shall apply.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER: A later Amendment of the Government, I think, covers the position which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put before the House, and I would ask him therefore not to press his Amendment.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I did not notice the Amendment, and therefore I beg to withdraw the one I moved.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (6), at end add the words, "or to mines in any
  1586
  other district as respects which the Secretary of State is satisfied that similar conditions prevail.—[Mr. Hunter.]

  CLAUSE 51.—(Supply of Props and Bars.)
  Where the work of erecting the supports of the roof and sides of working places is done by the workmen employed therein, a sufficient supply of timber or other materials suitable for supports shall be kept at or within ten yards of every working place where coal or stone is being worked, and also at the gate-end, pass-bye, siding, or other similar place in the mine convenient to the workmen; and it shall be the duty of the firemen, examiners or deputies to see that such sufficient supply is so kept.
  Amendments made: Leave out the words "coal or stone is being worked," and insert instead thereof the words "in pursuance of this Act supports are required to be erected."
  At end of Clause add the words,
  "and any working place in which such a sufficient supply is not kept shall not be deemed to be safe for the purpose of the provisions of this Act. Sufficient timber or other materials as aforesaid, to enable the firemen, examiners, or deputies to see that the provisions of this Section are complied with shall be constantly provided."—[Mr. Hunter.]

  CLAUSE 52.—(Withdrawal and Removal of Supports.)
  (1) In any part of a mine where any work is being carried out which necessitates the removal of roof supports, temporary supports shall in all cases be set so as to secure the safety of the persons employed.
  (2) Props shall not be withdrawn from the waste or goaf or under a heavy roof otherwise than by means of a safety contrivance.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "under a heavy roof," and insert instead thereof the words "from under a roof which appears to a fireman, examiner or deputy to be insecure."
  In Sub-section (2), at end, add the words,
  "and it shall be the duty of the firemen, examiners, and deputies to examine all roofs from under which props are about to be withdrawn with a view

  1587
  to determining whether the props ought to be withdrawn by means of a safety contrivance."—[Mr. Hunter.]

  CLAUSE 56.—(Boilers.)
  (1) Every steam boiler used for gene rating steam in or about a mine must whether separate or one of a range—

  (a) have attached to it a proper safety valve, and also a proper steam gauge and water gauge, to show respectively the pressure of steam and the height of water in each boiler; and

  (b) every water gauge shall be protected by an efficient outer cover to prevent injury to the persons employed; and

  (c) be examined thoroughly by a competent person at least once in every fourteen months.

  (2) Every such boiler, safety valve, steam gauge, and water gauge must be maintained in proper working condition.
  (3) A report of the result of every such examination in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars, shall within fourteen days be entered into or attached to a book to be kept at the mine for the purpose, and the report shall be signed by the person making the examination, and, if that person is an inspector of a boiler-inspecting company or association, by the chief engineer of the company or association.
  (4) The foregoing provisions of this Section shall not apply to the boiler of any locomotive which belongs to and is used by any railway company.
  (5) A steam boiler shall not be placed underground in any mine after the passing of this Act.
  Amendments made: Leave out paragraph (b).
  In paragraph (c), at end, insert the words,
  "be cleaned out and examined internally, as far as the construction of the boiler will permit, by the person in charge of it once at least in every three months."
  In Sub-section (2), at end, insert the words,
  "and all water gauges shall be adequately protected by a covering or guard unless so constructed as to be equally safe to the persons employed whether so protected or not."—[Mr. Hunter.]

  CLAUSE 57.—(Appointment and Duties of Engineman.)
  (1) A competent male person not less than twenty-two years of age shall be appointed by the manager for the purpose of working the machinery which is employed in lowering and raising persons from or to the surface, and such a person shall attend for that purpose during the whole time that any person is below ground in the mine:
  Provided always that the said competent person shall not be employed for more than eight hours out of twenty-four. Where two or more persons are working the same engine it shall be lawful for the said persons to work on one day of a week eight hours after an interval of eight hours, and it shall further be lawful for a person so employed to work for twelve hours in twenty-four hours where a person engaged to work a following shift has owing to illness, accident, or other cause been unavoidably prevented from attending his work.
  (2) Where on any haulage road the haulage is effected by means of any machinery worked either by mechanical power or by animal or manual labour, the person in charge of such machinery, and if persons are being conveyed, the person in charge of any part of the machinery, ropes, chains, or tackle connected therewith must be a competent male person not less than eighteen years of age. The foregoing provision shall not apply in the case of machinery worked by an engine of not more than ten horse-power, and used for the purpose of hauling mineral from the face.
  Where the machinery is worked by an animal, the person under whose direction the driver of the animal acts shall for the purposes of this Section be deemed to be the person in charge of the machinery.
  (3) No internal combustion engine shall be newly introduced underground in any coal mine after the passing of this Act.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "appointed" ["shall be appointed by the manager"], insert the words "in writing."
  Leave out the words, "Provided always that the said competent person shall not be employed for more than eight hours out of twenty-four. Where two or more persons are working the same engine it should be lawful for the said persons to work on one day of a week eight hours

  1589
  after an interval of eight hours, and it shall further be lawful for a person so employed to work for twelve hours in twenty-four hours where a person engaged to work a following shift has owing to illness, accident, or other cause been unavoidably prevented from attending his work," and insert instead thereof,
  "(2) Except as may be provided by general regulations under this Act a winding engine-man shall not be employed for more than eight hours in any one day, and provision shall be made by general regulations for requiring particulars to be recorded in a book kept at the mine with respect to the hours of employment of winding engine-men."
  At beginning of Sub-section (3) insert, "Except with the permission of the Secretary of State."—[Mr. Hunter.]
  Electricity.

  CLAUSE 59.—(Restrictions on the Use of Electricity.)
  (1) Electricity shall not be used in any part of a mine where, on account of the risk of explosion of gas or coal dust, the use of electricity would be dangerous to life, and if the owner of a mine, on being required by an inspector of the division not to use, or to desist from using electricity in the mine or any part thereof on such ground as aforesaid, refuses to do so, the question as to the application of this Section to the mine or part thereof shall be settled in manner provided by this Act for settling disputes.
  (2) If in any place of a mine, or part of a ventilating district of a mine, the amount of inflammable gas in the air currents exceeds one-half per cent. or upwards, the use of electricity shall at once be discontinued in such place or part of such ventilating district where the inflammable gas exists till the air current is clear of the same, or shall not exceed one-half per cent.
  (3) When any question under this Section is to be settled by arbitration, the owner shall, pending the settlement of the question, comply with the requirement of the inspector subject to an appeal to the Chief Inspector.
  (4) The use of electricity in any mine shall be subject to general regulations under this Act.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2). In doing so I want the Committee not to think for a moment
  1590
  that I am in any way an expert in coal mining. I merely move this matter from the standpoint of commonsense. It has been said to-day by hon. Members on both sides of the House that we are desirous of safeguarding employment in mines in every way we possibly can. That I think is right. At the same time, in doing so, we ought not to damage other interests. If this particular Sub-section is passed we are damaging to a great extent, almost vitally, the great electrical interest of this country, in which £15,000,000 is invested. The Sub-section says that where the inflammable gas in the air currents exceeds ½ per cent. or upwards, the use of electricity shall at once be discontinued in such place or part of such ventilating district where the inflammable gas exists till the air current is clear of the same or shall not exceed ½ per cent. Last night it was stated distinctly, I think from the Government Benches, that ½ per cent. was an amount which could not be detected.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I moved an Amendment in Grand Committee, and lower down on the Paper the hon. Member will see that I have put down an Amendment striking out the "one-half per cent. or upwards," and making it "one and a quarter."
  Mr. NEWMAN: Well, then, I trust that the hon. Baronet will second my Amendment. In support of my point, let me quote the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Use of Electricity in Mines, which was only printed this year—a Commission appointed apparently by the Home Secretary in 1909. If Members would read that Report I am sure that they would bring their commonsense to bear, and they will at once have this Clause deleted. Just let me quote one or two observations from that Report:—
  "Experience has shown that the proper use of electricity cannot be regarded as inherently unsafe, and that it possesses some characteristics which are of great advantage in underground conditions, but having regard to the change in the prevailing system of distribution and to the natural development of apparatus, the Committee is of opinion that the existing rules require revision. The revised code of rules, hereafter referred to as 'the revised rules,' is attached to this Report as Appendix A."
  The Committee also say:—
  "The feeling against the use of electricity in mines which found expression in some parts of the country was largely based, the Committee considers, either upon a vague fear due to lack of knowledge, or upon experience of the behaviour of badly constructed or maintained apparatus. The Committee knows of no place below ground in which electricity is in use to-day where both kinds of accident would not be avoided if the best

  1591
  present-day practice as regards construction and maintenance were complied with."
  The Committee continue:—
  "The daily or frequent occurrence of inflammable gas in any place in quantity detectable by the ordinary safety lamp in use at the mine would make that place one to which prohibition should apply …."
  And the Committee are of opinion that:
  "On the other hand, prohibition is not required where gas is seldom found, or where from experience in the neighbourhood and from all the evidence available it is likely to be of rare occurrence: provided good work and proper maintenance are insured so as to obviate as far as is practicable the risk of open sparking. In these circumstances danger only arises in the extremely unlikely event of the coincidence of three things, namely (i.) the presence of gas or of a dense cloud of coal dust, (ii.) such a failure of apparatus as would cause open sparking, and (iii.) failure of the officials or workmen to observe the rules. In such places, namely, where the use of electricity is not prohibited, but where there is the possibility of the occurrence of gas or of a dense cloud of coal dust, certain additional precautions are called for by the revised rules."
  That does not bear out the contention of Sub-section (2) of Clause 59. In the appendix they make certain recommendations, and in rule 15, page 32, of the Report, they make certain suggestions for the safeguarding of electricity in mines. They say:—"In any part of a mine in which inflammable gas, although not normally present, may occur in quantity sufficient to be indicative of danger, the following additional rules shall be observed:—"
  They lay down rules stating that electric lamps should be enclosed and so on, and in paragraph 5, they point out:—
  "A safety lamp shall be provided and used with each motor when working, and should any indication of firedamp appear from such safety lamp, the person appointed to work the motor shall forthwith cut off the pressure therefrom and report the matter to a deputy or over-man or other official."
  All these reports and recommendations would indicate that this Sub-section is unnecessary, but apart from all that it is absolutely redundant. In the first Sub-section of Clause 59 you set up certain inspectors, and it is provided in Clauses 97 to 100 that these inspectors are to be selected with great care. For instance, in Monmouthshire they are to be able to speak the Welsh language. I do not know whether, in Scottish mines worked by Polish labour, the inspectors will be expected to be able to speak Yiddish and Polish. These inspectors, by Sub-section (4) of Clause 98, are given almost universal powers—powers quite as great as those of the Insurance Commissioners under the Insurance Bill. If you are going to take power to appoint these practical men to watch over everything connected with the mine and the safety of the men, surely the Sub-section which I moved to
  1592
  omit is absolutely redundant. If these inspectors are worth their salt, they will see that where electricity is used there will be no danger, and, that being so, this Sub-section is quite unnecessary.
  Mr. J. E. GORDON: I beg to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, not that in my Constituency we have any mines or pits to trouble us, but we have a large body of men dependent upon electrical works, and I have had most urgent representations from them pointing out that this Sub-section would be absolutely detrimental to their interests, to the interests of those who make their living in connection with the electrical works in my Constituency. It would involve about £10,000 a year loss in wages, and therefore I desire and hope that the Amendment of my hon. Friend will receive consideration.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: We have had many curious Amendments moved from time to time in this House, but seldom have we had one in support of which so little argument has been used. The argument of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was that something like fifteen millions of money was invested in electrical industries in this country, and the last speaker told us that £10,000 in wages—I do not know whether it is per week or per annum—would be lost in his constituency. Apparently, he thinks that these works are to be allowed to manufacture machinery for mines quite irrespective of what may happen from such machinery in the mines. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that was his argument.
  Mr. J. E. GORDON: Both the Mover of the Amendment and myself expressed the belief that this Sub-section was unnecessary and redundant.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: That is what remains to be seen. The House has already agreed that where naked lights are used in the mines the percentage of gas must not exceed 1¼. There is no such thing in the market as a gas-tight motor. I am speaking from experience. There is not a single motor working in any mine with which I am engaged in which there is any gas present. In any mine with which I am associated, if a motor was taken in where gas was in any quantities, the manager of that mine would very soon cease to occupy his position. The first Departmental Committee was appointed in 1903 by the late Lord Ritchie to inquire

  1593
  into the use of electricity, and to safeguard the use of electricity in mines. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Fenwick) sat upon that Committee together with representatives of the electrical trade, the owners of mines and Government inspectors, and a most valuable Report was issued in 1904, and if hon. Members will turn to the Report of that Committee they will find that what I am advocating now is precisely what that Committee stated. But owing to the fact of these rules going to arbitration, they were so utterly mutilated and destroyed that a further Departmental Committee was set up last year and reported this year. The Departmental Committee of which my right hon. Friend was a member stated, that in itself electricity constituted no inherent danger, but at the same time that where gas was present the use of electricity should not be allowed. There is no question about it, there has not yet been a single motor constructed which is gas-tight. No doubt they are sold on the market as such. When a motor starts to work, a heat temperature arises in the motor, and the heat is driven out of the motor along the shaft journals and comes out through the journals into the atmosphere of the mine. When the temperature of the motor again cools the motor breathes in the gas through the journals and along the shaft into the motor itself. According to the discussions in the electrical and technical institutes all the electrical engineers are agreed that a gas-tight motor has not been discovered. A motor has been invented in Germany and is used in German mines, in which when the gas gets inside the motors the explosion takes place inside and is not communicated to the outside atmosphere.
  Mr. NEWMAN: The recommendation of the Committee with regard to motors was that all motors should be so constructed that the rubbing contact should be so arranged as to prevent open sparks.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not think anyone has had more trouble with the Home Office than I have on this question of electricity, and I know that there is no such thing on the market to-day as a gas-tight motor. If you are going to say that naked lights shall not be used in a mine where there is more than 1¼ per cent. of fire-damp, what is the use of taking into that mine a motor where you are bound sooner or later to cause danger owing to numerous causes connected with the use of electricity, the conditions of which are so absolutely different from what they are
  1594
  on the surface that you never can make the same provision for preventing open sparking as you can on the surface. In this Clause you are protecting the lives and giving additional security against something which the men throughout the country hardly without exception regard as the most dangerous thing introduced into mines for many years. What is the view of the inspectors? Of course I am not entitled to say in this House what an inspector has personally said to me, unless the information has been publicly given, but I will say that every inspector of mines to-day regards the advent of electricity into mines with the greatest amount of alarm, and that view is shared by all the men themselves. With regard to the owners, I am associated in my daily life with this industry, and I have not yet met a single owner in any part of the United Kingdom who wants to work a motor where a mixture of gas is present. Does the hon. Member opposite seriously ask that motors should be allowed to work in mines where there is a mixture of gas?
  Mr. NEWMAN: Yes, for lighting mines.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: That matter has already been dealt with, and it has nothing to do with this question. The reason I ask the Committee to accept the Bill as it is drawn is that we discussed this question at enormous length in Committee, and it was only opposed by the electrical industry, who do not know what they are talking about so far as the conditions in mines are concerned. No sane manager of a mine would introduce what might at anytime cause open sparking. No manager desires to take that risk. But there are certain madmen who wish to take electricity into mines and use motors in mines where gas is present. There was a very serious explosion not very long ago, where it was proved in evidence that 2 or 3 per cent. of gas was present, and that electric coal-cutters were actually being used there. Surely the House will not sanction the using of an agency of such great danger in any part of a mine where you are nearly reaching the point of an explosive mixture, because if you have 3 per cent. of gas it may rapidly become 6 per cent. I have taken a deep interest for the last ten years in this subject, and a much deeper interest than any other hon. Member of this House. I was at first regarded as a fanatic when I told the Home Office and the Departmental Committee that I was perfectly convinced unless

  1595
  something was done in regard to the use of electricity that we should some day have one of those terrible calamities which would hurl hundreds of men to their death.
  I am not going to mention specific cases, but I think one of the great calamities which has recently taken place in this country was due to electricity. Therefore I ask the House, with all the emphasis I can possibly use, not to delete this Clause, which I am sure will be an additional safeguard to an industry into which this new danger has been imported. Those who supported the use of electricity in mines in the early days had to take the risk because we did not understand the problem, but now it is so well-known that the so-called unknown dangers can be properly guarded against by regulations. In addition, I want Parliament to set up a definite standard above which motors shall not be allowed to be used in mines. I hope the House will reject this Amendment, and thus enable this industry to carry on its operations, not as the representatives of the miners ask, namely, that the use of electricity should be abolished altogether, but allow it to be used only under such conditions where a naked light in mines is used at the present time.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have had a communication from certain electrical manufacturers, and I replied that I did not sufficiently understand what would be the danger point in a mine, and that I had made up my mind not to pledge myself until I had heard the discussion in the House of Commons. I think that is a reasonable attitude to take up. I do not quite agree with the hon. Baronet who has just spoken when he says, that all those who use motors and other electrical apparatus are madmen.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I said where gas is present.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There can be no doubt the hon. Baronet has had great experience in mines, and with regard to what may be regarded as safe and what may be regarded as dangerous. I understand the hon. Baronet later on proposes to alter the percentage from 2½ to some larger figure. I am almost inclined to think, after listening to the arguments, there is a great deal to be said against the use of electricity in parts of mines where there is a certain percentage of gas. Therefore, there is a great deal to be said against the withdrawal of
  1596
  the Clause. I can quite understand electrical manufacturers rather object to anything which will curtail their business, but what we have to consider is not the advantage of a particular industry, but whether injury may accrue or arise to people working in the mines. Subject to what the Under-Secretary may say, I have rather come to the conclusion it would not be safe to delete the Sub-section.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: I want to say, on behalf of the workmen that they may differ on many things, but although there are over a million of them there is no difference of opinion with regard to this question, which has been fully debated at a national conference. The greatest dread amongst miners to-day is of electricity being introduced into the mine at all. When you are going deeper depths, and when you are having this danger to contend with, there is no wonder at the miners being alarmed. That alarm has been increased and intensified by two catastrophes. My hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Durham, myself, and two others attended an inquiry, which lasted over six days, where over 160 men were killed through an explosion, and, if the Chief Inspector of Mines for England to-day could give his opinion with regard to it, I dare venture to say he would agree with the conclusion to which we came, and to which one of the greatest electricians in this country came, that the explosion at West Stanley, in Durham, was the result of electricity. We have had something to do at some places to keep the men at work at all where they have been introducing these electrical machines. At one colliery in my own county the men complained that the electrical coal-cutting machines were giving off sparks and flames. I called the attention of the inspector, Mr. Stokes, to it, and he went to the mine and found the men's statement was quite correct. There are thousands and tens of thousands of respectable and careful men whose eyes are upon the Government in this matter. The safety of our men is more important than that you should have electrical cutting machines or electricity introduced in mines under dangerous conditions. Give us all the safeguards you can and give the men the assurance that when they go down the mine they are going to be protected by the power of the law and that their lives shall not be destroyed.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am sure the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment did not intend to convey the impression

  1597
  that on such a Bill as this we should pay any attention whatever to the demands of the electrical industry. Our sole concern is with the safety of the mine, and, if we are quite convinced that some such provision as this is necessary in the interests of the safety of the mines, the electrical industry will have to adapt itself to that limitation. I am sure anyone who supported this Motion would agree with that general statement. I cannot accept the omission of this Sub-section, because from all the evidence I have been able to obtain, both before the Committee decided on this Sub-section and in my interviews with my divisional inspectors and others since, they all maintain the general position which the hon. Baronet the Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) has put so ably to the House, that, with the best provision in the world, there is danger where you have electricity of producing what would be similar to a naked light, especially in a coal mine.
  Hon. Members will remember the disaster some years ago where, although it was proved electricity had nothing to do with it, there was evidence to show the coal-cutting machine was giving off sparks in gas. Certainly, until some much more elaborate possibilities are before the electrical industry than at the present time, I think we ought clearly to lay down at least the same standard for working electrical machines in a mine as we have for the use of the naked light in a mine. That, I understand, is the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. It may be said we are in a sense providing for this in our regulations. We are providing new and drastic regulations which, I am glad to say, will be accepted by the coal-owners without arbitration, and certainly in those regulations we do very largely apply the standard which we are now putting into a general Sub-section. Such rules provide that the pressure shall be cut off from any motor when the safety lamp shows any indication of the presence of fire-damp. That raises an old controversy as to what the indication of fire-damp is in a safety lamp. It has been a very fruitful subject of controversy, and even of legal prosecution. I suggest it would be far better if we adopted the standard of the withdrawal of the men. Where we cannot use naked lights the mines should be cut off from the electrical machinery. It should not be allowed to be worked until the district affected is free of gas. I do not think that that is an extravagant demand to make on the users of
  1598
  electrical machines. I would suggest that the Amendment be withdrawn.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I think there is a very much greater measure of agreement on this matter than would appear on the face of it. In Committee this was moved, and the Government opposed it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, who has now moved the omission, will withdraw his Amendment in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Mansfield Division. I quite understand the point the hon. Baronet has made. He told us that he desires that the use of electricity in mines should be conducted under absolute conditions of safety from the point of view of all concerned. But the point we are dealing with at the present moment would make it almost impossible to use electricity in a mine at all. We know perfectly well that conditions differ in dry and dusty mines as against damp mines. Therefore it is far more important that matters of this description should be dealt with by regulations. Sub-section (4) provides for such regulations, and I certainly should have thought the matter could be dealt with better by regulations than by Act of Parliament. I put this forward as a solution of the difficulty, which would be far more satisfactory than the present proposal.
  Viscount WOLMER: I hope my hon. Friend will be induced to withdraw this Amendment. Let us at any rate be on the safe side, whatever may be the imperfection of modern conditions. Why should we have this additional percentage of danger introduced into our mines? It has been said that it is the duty of the inspectors to see that the machinery is in perfect working order, so that no danger may arise, but I would submit that it is quite possible for machinery to get out of gear during the intervals between the visits of the inspectors, and the result under this proposal would be that the men working in the mine would be liable to disaster. I earnestly hope that my hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw his Amendment. We want to make sure, as far as possible, of the safety of the lives of the miners. We are not so much concerned with the prosperity of the electrical engineering industry. We ought not to introduce a new element of risk into our mines—an element which will cause terrible uneasiness and a lack of confidence among the miners, together with a fear of appalling disaster.
  Mr. FENWICK: I want to know exactly what are the intentions of the Government. The Under-Secretary, in his closing observations, indicated that there was a willingness on the part of the Government to accept the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Mansfield Division. If that is so, I shall not complain; I am one of those who think that this Sub-section might well have been left out of the Bill, and dealt with by special rules. If we had adopted that course we could from time to time have varied the regulations relating to the use of electricity in mines without being compelled to come to Parliament for legislative sanction. Speaking as a practical miner, I believe that would have been the best course to have adopted. While I am not suggesting that the users of electricity should be placed in a worse position than those who are using naked lights, I certainly do suggest that they should be put into practically the same position, and I shall not object to the course suggested by the Under-Secretary being taken. I have a very strong preference indeed, on my own account, for wishing that this Sub-section should be left out of the Bill altogether, and that the matter should be dealt with by special rules rather than that we should be compelled, in the event of any alteration being desirable in the conditions governing the use of electricity in mines, to come back to the House of Commons for further instructions. I shall certainly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I am not opposing this with any desire to prejudicially affect the electrical engineering industry. But there are two sides to every question. We should not desire to put any Clause into the Bill which would unduly interfere with the working of the mine. By putting this particular Clause into the Bill and not allowing the matter to be settled by regulations, we may at once stop work in a mine where the work is dependent on the light. In a very large number of mines at the present time electricity is used for the purposes of lighting, and we have been given to understand that incandescent lamps can be safely used therein. We do not wish to put anything into the Act which would change that situation and stop the work in an unnecessary manner. It appears to me that all this can be very well provided for toy regulations. I cannot understand how it is that the attitude of the Government has changed since we were in Committee on this Bill. It appears
  1600
  to me there are plenty of safeguards in this Clause without this particular Subsection. Sub-section (1) provides that,
  "Electricity shall not be used in any part of a mine where, on account of the risk of explosion of gas or coal dust, the use of electricity would be dangerous to life."
  Then we have arbitration provided for in case the mine-owner does not agree with the inspector. It is also laid down that the use of electricity shall stop until a decision is arrived at.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: May I point out that in all cases where the Home Office has gone to arbitration, especially in regard to mines where explosions are continually occurring, the Home Office have always been beaten.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I would point out that Sub-section (3) lays down that electricity shall not be used until the arbitration is over and we must assume that the arbitrator in these cases has fairly heard the evidence of each party and come to a just conclusion. Sub-section (4) says that the use of electricity in any mine shall be subject to the general regulations under this Act. It has already been pointed out that people are all the time exercising their brains to try and arrive at fresh inventions and to improve electricity, and if we pass this particular Sub-section as it stands it will not enable us to make the improvements more easy to be used in mines without another Act of Parliament or an Amendment to this Bill. It is much better that this sort of thing should be arranged by regulations than by a strict Clause in a Bill.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: One of the difficulties we have to contend with when one has no technical knowledge of these matters is that we have to be guarded by those who have thorough knowledge of the circumstances. When it comes to a Division the responsibility rests upon us of taking what we believe to be the really safe course. In such circumstances one has a tendency to vote in such a sense as shall be absolutely safe. The statement of the Under-Secretary rather confuses the issue so far as men like myself are concerned. He lays down the proposition that electricity shall not be used except under conditions in which it is not dangerous to use a naked lamp. Yesterday it was clearly shown that it was not safe to

  1601
  have naked lamps in almost every mine. Exceptional conditions must obtain before a naked light can safely be used, yet the Under-Secretary lays down the proposition that electricity should not be used excepting where a naked lamp can safely be used. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what would happen in the case of electrically driven fans in mines? What is to happen when the electricity is withdrawn and the fans are at a standstill?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Under the Bill the main ventilating fan is bound to be on the surface.
  Sir H. CARLILE: That answer is satisfactory and comprehensive. I was not aware that the electrically driven fans were only used above the surface. The Sub-section the Government propose to retain recites that the amount of inflammable gas is not to exceed½per cent. or upwards. I do not know why the words "or upwards" are necessary. If it exceeds½per cent. it must be upwards. It is stated that the½per cent. is the condition obtaining at present in connection with naked lamps. I understand that naked lamps are used when there is a much greater volume of gas. I should like to have some guidance on these points. As to the difficulty of adapting electrical appliances to the altered conditions proposed by the Bill, surely the electrical inventors can find some way of making this apparatus absolutely safe. It is intolerable that when working on the face an electrically driven machine should be throwing off sparks into dust, and possibly gas. From what we know of electrical engineers, I should think they would fasten upon this difficulty and succeed in clearing it up. If the Under-Secretary will make the point clear as to what he means in connection with the½per cent. I shall be very grateful.
  Mr. ENOCH EDWARDS: The suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Hickman) as to the change in the Bill since it left Committee is rather unreasonable. I know from some experience that there is no Member in this House engaged in the coal industry who is more humane and more desirous of avoiding accidents, and who goes a longer way to accomplishing it than the hon. and gallant Member himself. The desire of the Committee was that this matter should be looked at from the point of view that you were dealing with a subject which, as yet, is not thoroughly understood, and that
  1602
  while you were dealing with it it is well to keep fairly on the safe side. Those of us who voted for the Sub-section in Committee did so because we believed we were taking the safe course, even against the advice of the Government at that time. I am pleased that the Government have hesitated to pursue the course they took before the Committee. That is in harmony with what should be the correct position of the Government where human life is at stake, as it is in this case. The recent accidents, and there have been several alarming accidents, while they have shaken the faith of engineers and colliery owners and the general public in electricity, have struck terror into the colliers themselves. I have presided over a large gathering or two in relation to this Bill, and this was discussed. It is no use belittling this question. These men have had fathers, brothers and relations slain in large numbers, and when they see this electricity being applied at the coal face you can scarcely wonder that they regard it with horror. I am satisfied that it is the desire of every Member of the House to guard against these unforeseen dangers, and until electricity is better understood the Government will do well to pause and to make regulations. At present the most up-to-date electricians are not sanguine that you are safe in going forward, and there is a very large volume of opinion that electricity ought not to be worked at the face, and I agree that it is the act of a madman to put it in any pit where gas is given off. I regret that there is a suggestion that the percentage of gas should be raised. I know there is no test as yet and I am not going to stand in the way of the Amendment, because it is preferred at any rate to the course suggested by my hon. Friend opposite in deleting this Clause, because, after all, however we may measure these questions inside this House, the great mass of men who are called upon to get their living under these circumstances do not feel as Members of Parliament feel as we sit here; but they feel that there is a danger, and they dread it, because this is a question which is not thoroughly understood, and I think the House will do well to pause before inflicting on them what they regard so suspiciously.
  Sir C. CORY: I agree that the use of electricity is very dangerous. As a general rule I am not in favour of referring the decision of questions of this sort to the Home Office, preferring rules to be laid

  1603
  down by Parliament; but I think this is an exceptional case. I think the question of the use of electricity is in such a transition state that in this case it is much better to leave it to regulations to be made from time to time.
  Mr. NEWMAN: As the Home Secretary has indicated that he will accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, I withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LYELL: I beg to move, to leave out the words "one-half" ["one-half per cent. or upwards"], and to insert instead thereof the words "one and one-quarter."
  The object of the Amendment is to put electricity on the same level as naked lights. I put it down originally, having no knowledge of mining, very tentatively and diffidently, but I am fortified by seeing that one who has such expert knowledge as the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) has put down a similar Amendment. I would not have moved it had I not been assured beforehand that the question of risk with regard to electricity is precisely the same as the risk with regard to naked lights, and under these circumstances I cannot see why the use of electricity should be penalised in any way as compared with the use of naked lights.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "or upwards" ["one-half per cent. or upwards"].
  Leave out the words "one-half" ["or shall not exceed one-half per cent."], and insert instead thereof the words "one and a-quarter."—[Sir A. Markham.]

  CLAUSE 61.—(Prevention of Coal Dust.)
  In every mine, unless the floor, roof, and sides of the roads are naturally wet throughout,—

  (1) arrangements shall be made to prevent, as far as practicable, coal dust from the screens entering the downcast shaft; and in the case of a mine newly opened after the passing of this Act, no plant for the screening or sorting of coal shall be situated within a distance of eighty yards from any downcast shaft unless a written exemption is given by the inspector of the division;

  1604

  (2) the tubs shall be so constructed and maintained as to prevent, as far as practicable, coal dust escaping through the sides, ends, or floor of the tubs;

  (3) the floor, roof, and sides of the roads shall be systematically cleared so as to prevent, as far as practicable, coal dust accumulating;

  (4) Such systematic steps, either by way of watering or otherwise, as may be laid down by the regulations of the mine, shall be taken to prevent explosions of coal dust occurring or being carried along the roads;

  (5) The roads shall be examined daily, and a report (to be recorded in a book kept at the mine for the purpose) made on their condition as to coal dust and on the steps taken to mitigate danger arising therefrom.

  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, after the word "throughout" ["are naturally wet throughout"], to insert the words, "or unless it is a mine in which, and in the district of which, inflammable gas is wholly unknown."
  I believe I am correct in stating that the only mines in England in which inflammable gas is unknown are the mines situated in the Forest of Dean. I believe again I am correct in stating, though on this point I am not quite certain, that the mines in the Forest of Dean are small mines run by small people, and do not employ a very large number of men in each mine. It would not be the desire of the House to impose upon those mine-owners and miners burdens which are unnecessary. Therefore if I can prove, as I shall endeavour to do, that this Amendment would not involve any great opposition, I think the House will be inclined to accept the Amendment. I am informed that the mine-owners and the miners in the district have lately come to an understanding to the effect that they desire these words inserted in the Bill. I do not think there is a dissentient voice among the men employed or the employers upon this question in the district. I understand that the reasons in favour of this Amendment are that there is an entire absence of explosive gas in all the mines in the Forest of Dean, and that one of the greatest dangers in connection with explosions—that arising from coal dust—is eliminated. I believe that the seams in the district are very hard, and that there is little or no coal dust even at the

  1605
  coal faces. The dust found in the pits is largely composed of shale. If one looks at the Bill, one sees that the question of dust is a very important one in this matter. Clause 61, Sub-section (4), says,
  "Such systematic steps, either by way of watering or otherwise, as may be laid down by the regulations of the mine shall be taken to prevent explosions of coal dust occurring or being carried along the roads."
  Sub-section (5) says,
  "The roads shall be examined daily and a report (to be recorded in a book kept at the mine for the purpose) made on their condition as to coal dust and on the steps taken to mitigate danger arising therefrom."
  4.0 P.M.
  Therefore, the chief danger contemplated in relation to explosions arises from coal-dust, but, as I have pointed out, the dust in the roadways in the mines in the Forest of Dean consists largely of shale. A witness who was examined before the Royal Commission stated in answer to a question that, on instructions from the Home Office tests of coal dust were made by His Majesty's Inspector of Mines, the samples of dust being collected from a number of seams in the respective mining districts. The experiments made with dust from the Forest of Dean resulted in no explosion whatever being obtained. The experiments proved that in that district the main constituents of the dust came from shale. I have come to the almost irresistible conclusion that there are no arguments against the Amendment which I have brought forward. If hon. Gentlemen oppose the Amendment, they will have to show that there are no mines where inflammable gas is unknown. At any rate, within no reasonable time, say the last ten or twenty years, no such thing as inflammable gas has been found in these mines. I confidently hope that the Under-Secretary, who has shown a conciliatory disposition during the discussions of this Bill, will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. WEBB: I rise to second the Amendment. I have received authority from my Forest of Dean constituents in the shape of a resolution passed at a joint conference between the masters and the men to say that they are of one mind in urging me to ask the Government to give them the advantage of this Amendment. In the Forest of Dean coal pits, inflammable gas has never been discovered, and
  1606
  there is not a single pit in the whole district which at the present time contains a single vestige of the presence of inflammable gas. During the recess I made it my business to go into as many pits as I could, and I was careful to make an examination of the coal dusts found in the various workings. I naturally looked for coal dust where you would expect the lightest dust to accumulate—that is, up against the roof and on the timbers, and I am quite sure it would be impossible to manufacture anything in the nature of an explosion with dust of the kind that was found. In the Forest of Dean we can claim that there is no such thing as inflammable gas, and that it is quite impossible to discover coal dust of such a nature as to cause explosions. I hope that the Under-Secretary will grant this concession.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I regret that the Government is unable to accept the Amendment so cogently and ably proposed by the hon. Baronet, whom I can congratulate respectfully on his study of the subject. We do not say that inflammable gas of necessity is dangerous in mines where inflammable gas is unknown, but we say beyond all shadow of doubt that it is proved that coal dust alone is sufficient to cause an explosion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shale."] Shale may mitigate it. I learned from the chief inspector lately that he has had experiments carried out in connection with the very mine which the hon. Baronet is chiefly concerned, and the results show that dust of freshly crushed coal from that field is of a highly ignitable quality. The Royal Commission is conclusive on this point. The Report says:
  "The witnesses who included those best qualified from scientific or practical experience to speak on the question, were generally agreed that coal dust is liable to explode, with or without the presence of fire-damp, in the condition at present to be found in most coal mines of the country."
  Those who have been following this subject will remember a very remarkable instance of an explosion in 1908 in a Somersetshire colliery where inflammable gas was never present, and where none was discovered on investigation. We are more and more coming to see that the real danger in mines is far more due to the presence of coal dust than to the presence of gas. In order somewhat to mitigate the harshness of this verdict to my hon. Friend, I will point out that the terms of Clause 61 are sufficiently wide to cover any adjustments that may be necessary. Sub-clause (4) gives power to make regulations,

  1607
  and no doubt they will demand a more stringent clearing of coal dust in dusty mines than in any others; but we cannot part with the general provision.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that the hon. Member has later on an Amendment in his name excepting any mine in which inflammable gas is totally unknown, thus showing by his own words that there are districts in which inflammable gas is unknown, and, consequently, refuting himself the arguments which he has just brought forward.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If he is going to insert those words in Clause 63 it shows that there are districts in which inflammable gas is unknown. I am only acting as deputy in this matter, and I do not know what my hon. Friend would like to do. If the hon. Member opposite, who seconded the Amendment, desires to go to a Division, I place myself in his hands, as he knows more about the matter.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "passing" ["after the passing of this Act"], and to insert instead thereof the words "coming into operation."
  This is the same Amendment as I moved the other day, and it is not necessary that I should explain it.
  Sir C. CORY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: This is different from the other Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who will probably withdraw it. The Clause reads—"and in the case of a mine newly opened after the passing of this Act, no plant for the screening or sorting of coal shall be situated within a distance of eighty yards from any downcast shaft." That is a provision for safety which is regarded as necessary after the passing of the Act. There does not seem to be any necessity for any exemption.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: At the end of Sub-section (2), add "but any tub which was in use in any mine at the date of the passing of this Act may, notwithstanding that it is
  1608
  not so constructed, continue to be used in that mine for a period of five years from the said date."—[Mr. Masterman.]

  CLAUSE 63.—(Inspections before Commencing Work.)
  (1) The firemen examiners or deputies of a mine shall, within such time not exceeding two hours immediately before the commencement of work in a shift as may be fixed by the regulations of the mine, inspect every part of the mine situated beyond the station or each of the stations, and in which workmen are to work or pass during that shift, and all working places in which work is temporarily stopped within any ventilating district in which the men have to work, and shall ascertain the condition thereof so far as the presence of gas, ventilation, roof and sides, and general safety are concerned.
  (2) The inspection shall be made with a locked safety lamp.
  (3) A full and accurate report, specifying whether or not, and where if any, noxious or inflammable gas was found, and whether or not any, and, if any, what defects in roofs or sides and other sources of danger were observed, shall be recorded without delay in a book to be kept at the mine for the purpose, and accessible to the workmen, and such report shall be signed by, and so far as the same does not consist of printed matter shall be in the handwriting of the person who made the inspection.
  (4) For the purpose of the foregoing provisions of this Section, two or more shifts succeeding one another so that work is carried on without any interval are to be deemed to be one shift.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after "sides" ["roof and sides"], to insert the words "and supply of timber."
  The object of the Amendment is to secure that there should be a provision of timber near the workplaces. Clause 51 appears to cover my object, but my right hon. Friend will see that it is necessary that the timber should be at the spot where it can be used. Clause 51 imposes upon the management generally that timber shall be kept within so many yards of the working places where it is required, but my point is that it should be placed where it is readily available.
  Mr. McKENNA: The point has already been provided for.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: At the beginning of Sub-section (2), insert the words "Except in the case of a mine in which inflammable gas is unknown."
  At the end of Sub-section (2), insert the words "and no other light shall be used during the inspection."—[Mr. Masterman.]
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words,
  "And if the deputy be interfered with in the discharge of the aforesaid duties the person or persons so interfering shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
  I certainly think the deputy should be afforded some protection other than that which he at present enjoys.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to second the Amendment. It is more likely the workmen will interfere with the firemen than any one else
  Mr. McKENNA: The Government have no very strong views against this Amendment, but I think the Bill applies already to the point. Clause 63 requires the deputies to perform certain duties, and by Clause 74 the responsibilty is placed on the management to see that those duties are performed.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I think the Under-Secretary had this matter completely brought to his consideration by a deputation, and he gave some assurance in regard to it. It is really to protect the deputy from any interference—I do not say such is likely to arise—in the independent discharge of his duties by the management.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 65.—(Examination of Machinery.)
  Competent persons appointed by the manager for the purpose, shall—

  (a) once at least in every twenty-four hours examine thoroughly the state of the external parts of the machinery, the state of the guides in the shafts, and the state of the head gear, ropes, chains, cages, and other similar appliances of the mine which are in actual use for the purpose of raising or lowering persons in a mine; and

  1610

  (b) once at least in every week examine thoroughly the state of all other machinery, gear, and other appliances of the mine which are actually in use, whether above ground or below ground; and

  (c) once at least in every week examine thoroughly the state of the shafts in which persons are lowered or raised; and

  (d) once at least in every week examine thoroughly the state of every airway in the mine;

  and shall make a full and accurate report of the result of the examination, and every such report shall be recorded without delay in a book to be kept at the mine for the purpose and accessible to the workmen, and shall be signed by the person who made the examination.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, after paragraph (d), to insert,
  (e) once at least in every week examine into and make inquiry into all matters and things connected with or relating to the care and treatment of the horses and other animals used in the mine.
  By previous Clauses of this Bill the managers have to look into some matters connected with the machinery, and very properly. My suggestion is that they should look into the matters connected with horses. By common consent of the Committee upstairs certain regulations were introduced into this Bill to provide for the proper care and treatment of ponies and horses in the mines. But may I suggest that it is perfectly useless to put into the Bill any regulations in regard to the ponies unless you have some means of seeing that those regulations are carried out, and the only way of effectually doing that is by having proper periodical inspections. The Commissioners who reported upon this question called special attention to the difficulty of administering the law in places underground where matters are removed from public observation. That commends itself to commonsense. It is true that by Clause 109 special inspectors are appointed for the purpose of looking after the treatment of ponies, and I am sure everyone interested in the question must feel most grateful to the Government and to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Greenwood) for his efforts in getting these regulations into the Bill. But it is not quite sufficient in this case to trust only to the reports of the special

  1611
  inspectors. These reports will necessarily be at somewhat distant intervals, and as matters stand at present there is not even a provision in the Bill that the inspections should be made at any definite period. Even if there were, it would be impossible to ensure that the inspections should be made at sufficiently close intervals to secure proper observation of the regulations.
  In order to supplement the inspection by the special inspectors there should be inspection by persons appointed by the managers. To my mind not only would that be for the advantage of the ponies in giving additional assistance in carrying out the regulations, but it would be to the advantage of the managers themselves. The managers have no interest in having their ponies ill-treated; quite the contrary. Therefore it is extremely desirable that something should be put into the Bill to the effect that they should make this inspection. In well-managed mines probably none of these regulations will be necessary at all; but we are not legislating for the best managed mines. We do not lay down laws against murder because we think everyone is going to commit murder. You lay down these regulations because in a certain number of the less well-managed mines the ponies might not be properly attended to. Such a provision as I propose would, I think, greatly assist the operations of the special inspectors. If inspections by persons appointed by the managers took place at frequent intervals, and the results of these inspections were embodied in the books, it would enormously facilitate the work of the special inspectors. They would look at the book, see what had been wrong, and know if there was anything to remedy. From that point of view it would be most advantageous.
  Possibly we may be told that by a later Clause the horse-keepers are required by the Bill, in addition to their other duties, to keep books relating to the condition of the horses. I think that is a most valuable and important thing, but I would like the House to remember that the horse-keepers are very often the persons responsible for these grievances. Therefore you want reports not merely from the horse-keepers, but from a person appointed by the manager, who will overlook the action of the horse-keepers. If this were going to involve any great cost on the management I should hesitate to propose it, because I
  1612
  agree that to impose duties on the mine-owner which make it impossible for him to work the mine is not wise. The main thing is to protect the men. But in this matter I think we have a duty laid upon us to protect to the best of our ability the ponies as well as the men. I do not want for a moment to say that this shall be done on the same basis as the men, but having protected by this Bill as far as we possibly can the lives and limbs of the men, let us do what we can to protect the lives and limbs of the ponies. I do not think that this will involve any cost in the management. I think it will be a great help to the managers themselves to have this special inspection so that the due observance of these regulations, which everyone wishes, may be observed.
  Mr. RICHARDS: I should like to have the opportunity of seconding that Amendment. I subscribe to every word that the hon. and learned Gentleman has said in respect of the necessity for a periodical examination by some responsible official in connection with the colliery of the conditions under which these horses work and are kept in the mine. I do not want to say more than to state another phase of this question. The proposal is not only in the interests of the horses themselves, but in the interests of the health of the miners. It will be within the knowledge of the Home Office that a little while ago we had to call attention to the deaths of some of the workmen consequent upon disease contracted from some of the horses in the mine. The Home Office at once instituted an investigation. As a result of that investigation—and this is all I want to say—some hundreds of horses had to be destroyed immediately. Such a thing would not have happened if we had had a responsible official like that suggested looking after the horses. It is not a matter of great expense. There are plenty of officials making examinations, and it would not be difficult to include this within their duties at very little expense, or none. I hope the Under-Secretary will accept this Amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER: I do not think that this Amendment is really necessary at all. It certainly is not appropriate to this Clause which is dealing with the appointment of competent persons who have got the special duty of the inspection of machinery. So far as inspecting the condition of the animals is concerned, that is amply covered by the provisions in the Third Schedule, and also in Section (17).
  Mr. BUTCHER: One moment. I pointed out that that Schedule and Clause 109 provides for inspection by special inspectors, not to inspections by persons appointed as I suggest by the management.
  Mr. HUNTER: I was just going to call the attention of the House to the precise words of the Third Schedule, Sub-section (11),
  "Every horse-keeper shall keep a record in a book to be kept at the mine of all horses under his care, and shall make a daily report therein as to the condition of each horse, the driver in whose charge it has been, the time at which it was taken from the stables, and the time at which it was returned thereto."
  In addition to the special provision to which I have alluded, it is also provided in the first Sub-section of Clause 17 that,
  "(1) In addition to the reports specially required by this Act, it shall be the duty of every person on whom responsible duties are imposed with respect to safety or to the condition of the roadways, workings, ventilations, machinery, shafts, shot-firing, safety lamps, electrical plant or animals at a mine, and who shall be required to do so by the regulations of the mine."
  That provision in Clause 17 is in addition to the minute provisions contained in Sub-section (11) of the Third Schedule.
  Sir C. CORY: I think this would be inflicting an onerous duty upon the officials. The other day instructions were given to the hauliers in the Cambrian mine that the horses not having worked for a long time during the strike were in a soft condition and should not be hard worked, and one haulier disobeyed this instruction, and the official reported him. This haulier met the official and asked why he had reported him, and on being told he struck the official in the mouth. On the official taking out a summons against him for assault, the whole of the 5,000 men employed in that colliery went out in support of the haulier.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: May I point out that when we were discussing in the Committee the care of animals, we adopted the policy of dealing with this question in a compact place at the end of the Bill. May I suggest that that is a better place to deal with it. The Noble Lord opposite, who was not on the Committee, has taken up an enormous amount of time dealing with this point.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Why not?
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Because the proper place to deal with it is at the end of the Bill. Hon. Members are wasting time discussing these separate Clauses, and I would appeal to them to leave this matter until we reach the end of the Bill.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I should not have intervened but for the tone adopted by the hon. Member opposite. Under the conditions under which such Bills as this are discussed upstairs it is impossible for hon. Members to take any part in those discussions. I would like to know are those hon. Members when the Bill comes down here to be denied these scanty opportunities of making their views known. I think the suggestion which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Edgar Jones) made is one which ought not to be made. I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for York. I do not think the argument of the Solicitor-General for Scotland meets the point, because it seems that in both the cases he referred us to provision is made only in regard to the persons who are responsible for looking after the ponies. That is not sufficient in our opinion, and we think there ought to be some provision for inspection of the work of those very people who are called upon to make reports. I think this is the only place where that provision could suitably be put in. I feel very strongly that there is need for an improvement being made in the regulations under which the horses are worked in mines, and it seems to me that this provision is one of the most important of all the Amendments which have been suggested. Bearing in mind that all we are asking for is a periodical inspection by some persons not actually responsible for doing the work, I think the Government ought to accept this Amendment in order to meet the case.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to the Solicitor-General for Scotland that the paragraph made out by him relates to horse-keepers. The horse-keepers are no doubt very excellent men, but they want to be inspected just as well as the drivers, and to put upon them the whole duties of inspection is really to make inspection a farce. If you are going to have inspection, have it done in a proper manner. At present the horse-keepers have plenty of horses to look after. I intend to move to reduce the number, and I shall expect to

  1615
  have support of hon. Gentlemen opposite when I endeavour to lighten the work of these men. A horse-keeper who has to clean and look after twenty or even twelve horses cannot be perpetually filling up papers and forms and making returns. If the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland would give us an undertaking that a similar Clause will be introduced on the Third Schedule, I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman is willing to embody the Amendment in the Third Schedule? I have gone into this matter with some little care, and I have before me the evidence of the undoubted cruelties which are occasionally perpetrated upon horses, and of the undue length of time which they are sometimes worked. I think it is very desirable a fuller measure of protection should be afforded. The horse-keeper is an existing institution, and he has now one additional duty which he has not exercised before—that is to report—and I think there should be some check imposed upon him. There is this inspector to be appointed. Why not allow him to extend his inquiries to the ponies?
  Mr. McKENNA: The horse-keeper is at present inspected. In Clause 17 a reference is made to the person responsible for inspection.
  "It shall be the duty of every person on whom responsible duties are imposed with respect to safely or to the condition of the roadways, workings, ventilation, machinery, shafts, shot-firing, safety lamps, electrical plant, or animals at a mine."
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Does that refer to the horse-keeper?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. I have consulted my advisers, and I understand the persons who are responsible for the condition of the horses are the managers. It is the duty of the managers, at stated intervals under the regulations, to make a report. It is also the duty of the Inspector of Mines to inspect the horses like every other part of the mine. We have, therefore, got the security, first of all, of the horse-keeper, who has to make his daily report; secondly, of the manager or his officials; and, thirdly, of the inspector. I have given the House the authority on
  1616
  which I speak, and I hope that under the circumstances the Amendment will not be pressed.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: One of the objects of the Clause is to deal with the inspection of machinery. Are horses less important than machinery? If a special inspector is required to enforce the inspection of machinery, why is it not necessary in regard to ponies? Clause 17 imposes a duty with regard to reports on the inspection of animals, and I would suggest that a similar duty should be imposed on the horse-keeper to make regular reports. I would strongly press on the Home Secretary the advisability of accepting the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. Speaking from personal experience, I venture to assert that you cannot make the regulations for the protection of animals too strong. It is not the pony drivers who want to do wrong, but very often the pressure of the work and the conditions of the collieries result in cruelties being imposed on the animals which, if they were known, would force the House of Commons out of sheer sympathy to take any necessary action.
  Mr. McKENNA: I may have been misunderstood. If I am wrong in my reading of the Bill I will take care to place the responsibility on some higher person than the horse-keeper. I will see that some one else is made specifically responsible.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance. What I am anxious is that it shall be made necessary for some competent person to report on the horses.
  Mr. McKENNA: I appreciate the hon. Member's point.
  Mr. BUTCHER: On that assurance I ask leave to withdraw.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I am specially interested in the ponies employed in these mines, and have some knowledge of the way in which they have been used and abused. I cordially support the suggestion of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that the Government should bring in a general Clause for proper inspection in the mines. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) was a member of a deputation to the Prime Minister upon the subject, when the right hon. Gentleman gave what we understood to be a definite pledge that there should

  1617
  be inspection of the ponies and the way in which they do their work, so that the intolerable abuses of the past should not be repeated in the future.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I understand that we are going to have another opportunity of discussing the matter. For myself, I say, we shall do our best at the proper stage to get proper Government inspection.
  Mr. RICHARDS: I desire to express regret that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Sir C. Cory) has introduced into this matter a colliery dispute in South Wales. His statement of the facts was totally inaccurate.
  Sir C. CORYmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 69.—(Provision of Means for Extinguishing Fire.)
  At all parts of a mine where timber grease or other inflammable material is stored, and at all insets where timber is used for the construction of the staging, and at the pit head, and in every steam engine room and boiler gallery in the construction of which timber is used, means of extinguishing fire shall be provided.
  (2) In any mine, being a mine newly opened after the passing of this Act, and in which the total number of persons employed below ground exceeds thirty, no inflammable material likely to cause danger from fire to the persons employed below ground shall be used in the construction of the pit head frame or of the roof, if any, over the pit head.
  (3) No inflammable material likely to cause danger from fire to the persons employed below ground shall be used after the passing of this Act in the construction of any engine house below ground.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "passing" ["the passing of this Act"], and to insert instead thereof the words "coming into operation."
  Further time is required to enable mine-owners to purchase the materials. They will only have a very short time if the Sub-section reads "after the passing of this Act."
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I really do not think there is a case for this. We cannot do impossibilities, and we cannot ask anybody to do impossibilities. The request that no inflammable material likely to cause danger from fire to the persons employed below ground shall be used after the passing of this Act, is a request which I think should immedately be put into operation. It is quite different from structural alterations. So long as it is being arranged that no inflammable material should be used that will be taken as complying with the Act. There could be no prosecution for an impossibility, otherwise we want to see it carried out as soon as possible.
  Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 76.—(Provision of Washing and Drying Accommodation.)
  (1) Where a majority of two-thirds ascertained by ballot of the workmen employed in any mine to whom this Section applies represent to the owner of the mine that they desire that accommodation and facilities for taking baths and drying clothes should be provided at the mine and undertake to pay half the cost of the maintenance of the accommodation and facilities to be provided, the owner shall forthwith provide sufficient and suitable accommodation and facilities for such purposes as aforesaid:
  Provided that the owner shall not be bound to provide any such accommodation and facilities if the estimated total cost of maintenance exceeds 3d. per week for each workman liable to contribute under this Section.
  (2) General regulations shall be made under this Act for determining what is sufficient and suitable accommodation for the purposes of this Section, and any such regulations may make different requirements as respects different classes or descriptions of mines.
  (3) For the purposes of this Section cost of maintenance includes interest on capital expenditure (not exceeding 5 per cent. per annum), and if any question arises as to the estimated cost of maintenance that question shall be referred to an arbitrator to be agreed upon between the parties, or in default of agreement as to an arbitrator then shall be settled in manner provided by this Act for settling disputes.
  (4) Where any such accommodation and facilities have been provided every work man at the mine to whom this Section applies shall be liable to contribute a sum equal to one-half of the cost of maintenance (but not exceeding 1½d. per man per week), and the owner shall be entitled to recover such contributions from the workmen liable to contribute by deduction from their wages, notwithstanding the provisions of any Acts relating to truck or any contract to the contrary:
  Provided that the obligation to contribute shall not apply to any workman who is exempted on the ground of health in accordance with the regulations of the mine.
  (5) The management of the accommodation and facilities provided under this Section shall be under the control of a committee to be established in accordance with the regulations of the mine, and consisting as to one-half of members appointed by the owner of the mine and as to the other half of members appointed by the workmen liable to contribute under this Section.
  (6) The workmen to whom this Section applies are all workmen employed underground, and all workmen engaged on the surface in handling tubs, screening, sorting, or washing coal, or loading coal into wagons.
  (7) This Section shall not apply to any mine where the total number of the workmen employed at the mine to whom this Section applies is less than one hundred, or to any mine held by the owner under a lease of which the unexpired term is less than ten years.
  (8) If the owner of any mine fails to comply with the provisions of this Section, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "shall" ["shall be referred to an arbitrator"], insert the words "in accordance with regulations as to procedure and costs to be made by the Secretary of State."
  Leave out the words "then shall be settled in manner provided by this Act for settling disputes," and insert instead thereof the words "to a person appointed by the judge of county courts for the district, or in Scotland by the sheriff of the county, in which the mine is situate, and the decision of the arbitrator or of the person so appointed as the case may be, shall be final."
  In Sub-section (4), after the word "applies" ["to whom this Section applies"], insert the words "(whether he was or was not employed at the mine at the time when the ballot of the workmen for the purposes of this Section was taken)."
  In Sub-section (5), at the end, add the words,
  "The powers and duties of the committee in relation to the management of the accommodation and facilities shall be such as may be laid down by general regulations, and the owner of the mine shall not be liable to any penalty as for failure to comply with the provisions of this Section in respect of any act performed by the committee in pursuance of their powers or of any failure by the committee to perform any of their duties."—[Mr. Masterman.]
  Colonel HICKMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (7), to leave out the word "lease" ["held by the owner under a lease "], and to insert instead thereof the word "mining lease, as defined by the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910."
  Mr. HUNTER: I do not think the Amendment is required at all. The Clause deals only with mines, and it is quite unnecessary to refer to another Act in order to define "leases."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: At the end of Sub-section (7), add the words "or to any mine as respects which the Secretary of State is satisfied that it will be worked out within ten years."
  After Sub-section (8), add,
  "(9) Where a majority of two-thirds of the workmen at a mine represent to the owner of the mine that they desire that this Section should cease to have effect as respects the mine, this Section shall, unless the owner by notice affixed at the mine within one month after the receipt by him of the representation declares that he does not assent thereto, cease to have effect accordingly as from a date to be agreed upon between the owner and the workmen.
  "(10) A fresh representation shall not be made as respects any mine either under Sub-section one or under Sub-section nine of this Section before the expiration of five years from the date of any previous representation made with respect to that mine."

  CLAUSE 84.—(Provisions as to Coroners' Inquests on Deaths from Accidents in Mines.)
  (1) Where a coroner holds an inquest on the body of any person whose death may have been caused by any accident of which notice is required by this Act to be given to the inspector of the division, the coroner shall adjourn the inquest unless an inspector, or some person on behalf of the Secretary of State, is present to watch the proceedings.

  (2) The coroner, at least four days before holding the adjourned inquest, shall send to the inspector of the division notice in writing of the time and place of holding the adjourned inquest.

  (3) The coroner, before the adjournment, may take evidence to identify the body, and may order the interment thereof.

  (4) If an accident has not occasioned the death of more than one person, and the coroner has sent to the inspector of the division notice of the time and place of holding the inquest at such time as to reach the inspector not less than twenty-four hours before the time of holding the same, it shall not be imperative on him to adjourn the inquest in pursuance of this Section, if the majority of the jury think it unnecessary so to adojurn.

  (5) An inspector shall be at liberty at any such inquest to examine any witness, subject nevertheless to the order of the coroner.

  (6) Where evidence is given at an inquest at which an inspector is not present of any neglect as having caused or contributed to the accident, or of any defect in or about the mine appearing to the coroner or jury to require a remedy, the coroner shall send to the inspector of the division notice in writing of such neglect or defect.

  (7) Any person having a personal interest in or employed in or about or in the management of the mine in or about which the accident occurred shall not be qualified to serve on the jury empannelled on the inquest; and it shall be the duty of the constable or other officer not to summon any person disqualified under this provision, and it shall be the duty of the coroner not to allow any such person to be sworn or to sit on the jury.

  (8) Any relative of any person whose death may have been caused by the accident with respect to which the inquest is being held, and the owner, agent, or
  1622
  manager of the mine in which the accident occurred, and any person appointed by the order in writing of the majority of the workmen employed at the said mine, and any person appointed in writing by any association of workmen to which the deceased at the time of his death belonged, or by any association of employers of which the owner is a member, shall be at liberty to attend and examine any witness, either in person or by his counsel, solicitor, or agent, subject nevertheless to the order of the coroner.

  (9) Every person who fails to comply with the provisions of this Section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.

  Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "order of the coroner," and to insert instead thereof the words "power of the coroner to disallow any question which, in his opinion, is not relevant or is otherwise not a proper question."
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is this a special disability imposed in regard to a coroner's court under this Act which does not apply to the law generally or to other inquiries held by a coroner, because, if that is so, it is rather an invasion of the powers and responsibilities of those who will represent the interests of the miners. It seems to me most undesirable that there should be any limitation whatever. Unless some very good reason can be shown for the insertion of these words, I think they ought not to be inserted.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: These words are merely proposed in response to an appeal from my hon. and learned Friend during a Debate in the Committee in order to limit the power which the coroner possesses under the Act of 1887. My hon. and learned Friend made out a case then. I think he satisfied the Committee, and I promised to bring up words on Report. He pointed out that the coroner possessed tyrannical power to refuse to hear witnesses, and that practically he could do what he liked.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir IVOR HERBERT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (8), after the word "manager" ["or manager of the mine in which the accident occurred "], to insert the words "or the fireman, deputy, or examiner of the district." The object of this Amendment is to give statutory right to the persons named to be represented at

  1623
  the coroner's court. Hon. Members will remember that, under Clause 63, the duties of these men are of a very onerous and responsible character. They are duties upon which questions as to the cause of a disaster may easily turn, and therefore it seems to me equitable that they should have the right to be represented at the coroner's inquiry as well as the other persons mentioned in Clause 84.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand the object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that there should be representation at the coroner's court of persons who may be affected by the inquiry, and specially the under officials of mines who might be seriously incriminated. I think the Amendment which is to be moved later meets the case. It is that, after the word "member" ["association of employers of which the owner is a member"], to insert the words "or by any association of firemen, examiners, or deputies, representing the firemen, examiners, or deputies employed in the said mine."
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not think that that covers the point, because there are a number of firemen belonging to no association whatever. These words would not cover my hon. Friend's objection, because in many districts these people are not allowed to belong to an association.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Representations were made on this subject by the associations, and I thought this covered the ground, but if there are cases which are not covered, I think it is perfectly right that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment should be accepted.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I know an instance where the coroner would not allow certain men to attend the inquest to give evidence against the fireman.
  Sir IVOR HERBERT: I received this Amendment from the Association of Firemen, and they were of opinion that the point was not covered.
  Mr. McKENNA: We accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (8), after the word "member," insert "or
  1624
  by any association to which any official of, or workman employed in the mine who is likely to be incriminated belongs."—[Mr. Masterman.]
  Mr. RAFFAN: I do not think that these words meet the case. The representative of the association should be able to attend even when the manner in which the member is likely to be involved may not be of an incriminatory character. The case might be met by some word such as "affected" instead of "incriminated."
  Mr. McKENNA: The word suggested has precisely the same meaning. I ought to remind the hon. Member of the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for South Monmouth (Sir Ivor Herbert).
  Mr. RAFFAN: That Amendment refers to the fireman, deputy or examiner of the district. This deals with another point, the representation of people who may desire representation through their association when there is no suggestion of anything of a criminal character.
  Mr. McKENNA: It does not mean of a criminal character.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: The words suggested are of a serious character, because, before the representative can appear, he has got to satisfy the coroner that he may be incriminated or is likely to be incriminated. With all respect to the Home Secretary, it does mean incriminated in the sense of being liable to be proceeded against criminally afterwards. Therefore I would suggest that the words "may be" should be inserted before "incriminated."
  Sir A. MARKHAM: May I suggest that it would be better to leave the words out altogether.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There is really no reason why they should be represented, and therefore I propose to leave out the words "who is likely to be incriminated." I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, in order to move it in its altered form.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after "member" ["member shall be at liberty"], insert the words, "or by any association to which any official of or workman employed in the mine belongs."—[Mr. Masterman.]
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: Seeing we are not likely to finish to-day, can the right hon. Gentleman state how long we are likely to sit?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not let the House rise before eight o'clock, as there are some very controversial points still to be discussed.
  Mr. McKENNA: Various representations have been made to me on the subject. Though the progress made has not realised my expectations, still I recognise that it has been satisfactory, and I propose to ask the House to sit until we have completed Clause 90.

  Part V.
    REGULATIONS.

      CLAUSE 86.—(General and Special Regulations.)
      (1) The Secretary of State may by order make such general regulations for the conduct and guidance of the persons acting in the management of mines or employed in or about mines as may appear best calculated to prevent dangerous accidents and to provide for the safety, health, convenience, and proper discipline of the persons employed in or about mines, and for the care and treatment of horses and other animals used therein, and any such regulations may vary or amend any of the provisoins contained in Part II. of this Act.
      (2) The regulations made under any such order may apply either to all mines or to any specified class or description of mines, and may provide for the exemption of any specified class or description of mines, either absolutely or subject to conditions.
      (3) The provisions contained in Part I. of the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the procedure for making orders under this Section.
      (4) An order made under this Section shall be laid as soon as possible before both Houses of Parliament, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
      (5) An order made under this Section may be revoked, altered, or added to by an order made in like manner and subject to the same provisions as the original order.
      Sir C. CORY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after "mines" ["mines, and may provide"], to insert the words "in any inspector's division, or any district thereof."
      1626
      Without the Amendment, the Clause makes the regulations apply to the whole coalfield, though the conditions vary, anthracite, steam, and other coal being found in different districts of a county. There should be different regulations to suit the varied conditions.
      Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I bog to second the Amendment.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not belong to the association of mine-owners in South Wales, the companies with which I am associated being private ones. One of the chief troubles we have had is on account of these large companies joining together. The companies with which I am associated are not members of the federation of employers, and the representatives of those companies do not want to be running to them cap in hand. I do not belong to the federation of employers, and I do not want to ask their assistance.
      Mr. McKENNA: I recognise the strength of the point of my hon. Friend. This Amendment was moved in Committee, but withdrawn. One of the main objects of the new procedure proposed in this Clause is to secure so far as possible uniformity in the regulations throughout the country, in place of the present system of special rules differing between district and district, and even between mines in the same district. The Royal Commission, in their Report, say,
      "One of the most noticeable features of the existing codes is that while they are generally similar in character and deal with the same questions, subject to local differences of custom, yet there is a bewildering divergence, not only in the requirements of the rules, but in the language in which they are couched. There is no doubt a marked difference of practice in certain departments of mining in the different coalfields, and it may be urged with some force that it would not be practicable to reduce the present rules to one general code identical in requirements and in language. Since, however, the system of Special Rules was established the barriers of local custom and practice have to a large extent been removed, and, subject to local differences of terms, there is room for much greater uniformity in the rules. It is apparent that a considerable part of mining practice is common to all the coalfields, and this has already been recognised in the case of the Special Rules for the installation and use of electricity. There are many other matters which are equally capable of a uniform treatment, such as the provisions in regard to shot-firing, the use of safety lamps, etc., and we think that the time has come for emphasising the similarities rather than the differences of practice in the various coalfields."
      I think, in view of that very striking report, the House will be well advised to take the same course as in Committee.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: The Under-Secretary promised to consider the point, and deal with it on Report.
      Sir F. BANBURY: There is no necessity to have any doubt about the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield. There is nobody in this House better able to look after himself that the hon. Baronet, and the doubt about combinations of employers is quite beyond the mark.
      Amendment negatived.

      CLAUSE 87.—(Special Regulations).
      (1) Where the inspector of the division, or the owner of, or a majority ascertained by ballot of the workmen employed in, any mine is of opinion that the general regulations for the time being in force with respect to the mine ought in their application to that mine to be supplemented or modified, the inspector or the owner or such majority of workmen may transmit for the approval of the Secretary of State special regulations for the mine.
      (2) The provisions set out in Part II. of the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the procedure for obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State.
      (3) When special regulations have been approved by the Secretary of State or by a referee they shall, as respects that mine, have effect until revoked, as if they formed part of the general regulations applicable to the mine.
      (4) Where any special regulations are in force with respect to any mine they may be revoked, altered, or added to at the instance of the inspector of the division, or of the owner of, or a majority of workmen employed in, the mine in like manner and subject to the same provisions as the original special regulations.
      Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "ballot" ["ascertained by ballot"], to insert the words "of three-fourths."
      Under this provision the workmen are to change the regulations, and I think it must be clear that it should be by more than a bare majority.
      Sir C. CORY: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope this Amendment will not be passed. It is clearly against the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which stated:—
      "We are of opinion that if the owner is allowed to retain a right to propose rules for his own colliery, the majority of the workmen employed at that colliery should have a similar right to propose rules which may be rendered necessary by the special circumstances of that colliery."
      1628
      The hon. Gentleman talks about a bare majority being able to alter rules, but they have to go through an elaborate course of procedure, including sanction by the Home Office. We think the majority of the workmen should have the right to propose alterations of rules which affect their lives.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert, "And any such regulations may vary or amend any of the provisions contained in Part II. of this Act."
      I hope the hon. Member will see his way to accept the Amendment. Clause 86 provides that the Home Secretary may vary or amend the provisions of the regulations in Part II. of the Act. The meaning of the Amendment is that a coal-owner or workman at a particular colliery by a special rule, if accepted by the Secretary of State or decided to be reasonable by arbitration, should also have the right to vary or amend Part II. Both parties will then be on an equality.
      Mr. BAIRD: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Mr. HUNTER: The acceptance of this Amendment would be absolutely contrary to the whole principle of the Bill. Part II. deals with safety provisions applicable either to all mines or to all mines of a particular class, and it would be contrary to that principle to allow any particular mine to be exempted.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "or by a referee."—[Mr. Masterman.]
      Sir F. BANBURY: In order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to move the adjournment of the Debate, I will formally move the omission of Clause 91.
      Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now Adjourned." I am obliged to the hon. Baronet for giving me the opportunity.
      Question, "That the Debate be now Adjourned," put, and agreed to.
      Debate adjourned accordingly; to be resumed upon Monday next.
      Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
      Mr. MARK SYKES: May I ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has received any information from the Italian Government that that Government is about to blockade the Dardenelles?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): No, Sir.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two minutes past Five o'clock till Monday next, 27th November.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were Presented during the week and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
MONDAY.
Shops Bill—Petition from Garrock, for alteration.

TUESDAY.
Licensing Acts—Petition from Walkden, for alteration of Law.
Shops Bill—Petition from Greenock, for alteration.

WEDNESDAY.
Licensing Acts—Two Petitions from Liverpool, for alteration of Law.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill—Petition from Manchester, in favour.

THURSDAY.
National Insurance Bill—Petition of the Brussels and Wilton Carpet Manufacturers Association, against.

FRIDAY.
Licensing Acts—Six Petitions for alteration of Law from Liverpool.
National Insurance Bill—Petitions from Huntly, and other places, for alteration.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill—Petition in favour, from Newton Heath.
Shops Bill—Petitions from Inverness; and Dumfries and Penpont, for alteration.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  Part II.—UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

    STANDING COMMITTEE B.
    [Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES in the Chair.]
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): By permission of the Committee I should like to make one or two observations with reference to the course of our proceedings. I think we may assume that the principle of the Bill, that of a compulsory contribution from the employer and the workman, combined with a compulsory contribution from the State, has been accepted, and that therefore the question we have to discuss in Grand Committee is one of detail. May I just say in reference to this that this Bill has been in preparation a very long time—going on for three years—and the Departments concerned, including the Board of Trade, have given the utmost possible consideration with a view to producing as workable and as water-tight an Act as possible. We have spared no pains in meeting those who are interested in the matter, one way or the other, and in discussing questions and Amendments which they have desired to bring forward. I have no doubt hon. Members will desire to bring forward other Amendments for discussion, but I hope the Amendments which will be put forward on behalf of the Government will meet a good many of their possible objections, and facilitate the progress of the Bill through the Grand Committee. May I say, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will meet my Amendments with consideration, and in that friendly spirit which it will be our desire, from the point of view of the Government, to meet such Amendments as they may put down. I am extremely anxious, as hon. Members will understand, this Bill being in no sense a Party Bill, that it should go through the Grand Committee and through the House in its amended form with general assent. I have looked at the Amendments on the Paper, and I would suggest to hon. Members—although I am anxious not to impose any undue burden upon them—that we might continue our sitting to-day until four o'clock; we could meet next week, in any case, on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, and we could see what progress we make at the Monday and Tuesday sittings before deciding if it is necessary to have a sitting on the Wednesday.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not quarrel with any of the general observations made by the right hon. Gentlemen. I am sure that the proceedings of this Committee will be conducted, so far as we who sit on these Benches are concerned, in the spirit in which the right hon Gentleman has introduced to-day's proceedings. There will be no attempt at delay; there will be nothing in the nature of obstruction from these Benches, but may I venture to suggest, in the event of that being the spirit-in which the proceedings are conducted, we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that we should have sufficient interval for lunch and, possibly, time for a smoke afterwards. If he would grant us an interval of, say, three-quarters of an hour, I think it would be found that that is sufficient.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: There is a proposition that this Grand Committee should meet on Monday, but if the Bill is not going to be fought on party lines I think it might be advisable it should be borne in mind that a Monday morning sitting would be very inconvenient to most of us. If it is necessary to meet on Mondays, of course we should have to do so, but if it can be otherwise arranged I think it would meet the convenience of most hon Members.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I think that in fixing the arrangements for next week, it should be borne in mind that a very important Bill affecting Scotland stands adjourned until Wednesday. It is quite certain that none of the Scotch Members will be able to attend this Committee should it meet on Wednesday next. I trust the right hon. Gentlemen will keep that in mind in making the arrangements for next week. We hope the Scotch Bill may be disposed of on that Wednesday, and that other sittings will not be necessary for it.
    Mr. BUXTON: With regard to Monday's sitting, would it meet the views of hon. Members if we met at twelve instead of at half-past eleven? At present it is really rather difficult to say how we stand. Part I. of the Bill is to be reported about the 21st or 22nd inst., and it is necessary that this part of the Bill should be reported somewhere about the same time in order to allow an opportunity for Amendments to be put down before the Report stage is taken. Consequently, our time is considerably limited in this respect. If we could come to a compromise to meet at a

    1639
    rather later hour on the Monday, I think it might be desirable, otherwise it might be necessary to sit on Friday, which, in many other ways, would be more inconvenient to hon. Members. Perhaps in the interval for luncheon I shall be able to find out what will best meet the views of hon. Members.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the suggestion as to the luncheon adjournment the practice of this Committee has been to adjourn about half-past one for half an hour. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee, and should it wish to adjourn for three-quarters of an hour it can be so arranged. Under the special order of the House, the Committee goes on automatically sitting until four o'clock unless there is a motion for adjournment. With regard to the meeting on Monday, that also is a matter in the hands of the Committee, and it will be for the right hon. Gentlemen at the close of to-day's sitting to move that the Committee do assemble on whatever day, and at whatever hour may meet with the general approval of hon. Members.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Is it understood that we adjourn for luncheon to-day at a quarter past one?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think we can settle that without a Division. Judging from the expressions of opinion I think we had better arrange to adjourn at 1.15 and reassemble at two o'clock.
    Sir HENRY NORMAN: If the question as to Monday's sitting is not settled, I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to bear another point in mind. I gathered from his remarks he thought it would be sufficient to sit on only three days in the week, and it might, perhaps, meet the convenience of a large number of hon. Members if we met on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays instead of Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. I gather that next Wednesday will be very inconvenient for Scotch Members, but that difficulty will apply to only one week.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I understand that is so.
    Mr. BRADY: May I point out the inconvenience which will result to hon. Members from Ireland if the Grand Committee meets on Mondays. Many go over to Dublin and other parts of that country for the week-end, and a Monday sitting
    1640
    would involve their travelling back on Sunday night. While I have no wish to introduce a matter of personal convenience, I think it would be of advantage if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to avoiding Monday sittings.
    The CHAIRMAN: When the right hon. Gentleman makes his Motion for Adjournment to-day, these various points can be raised. In the interval there may be an opportunity for hon. Members to consider what will be the best arrangement.

  Part II.
    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

      CLAUSE 60.—(Right of Workmen in Insured Trades to Unemployment Benefit.)
      Every workman who, having been employed in a trade mentioned in the Sixth Schedule to this Act (in this Act referred to as "an insured trade"), is unemployed, and in whose case the conditions laid down by this part of this Act (in this Act referred to as "statutory conditions") are fulfilled, shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, to receive payments (in this Act referred to as "unemployment benefit") at weekly or other prescribed intervals at such rates and for such periods as are authorised by or under the Seventh Schedule to this Act, so long as those conditions continue to be fulfilled, and so long as he is not disqualified under this Act for the receipt of unemployment benefit.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move after the word "trade" ["employed in a trade"], to insert the words, "desires to become insured under the provisions of this Act." With regard to the observations with which the President of the Board of Trade prefaced these proceedings, I must say I do not think that the principle of compulsion has been altogether accepted by the House.
      Mr. BUXTON: I said the principle of three contributions had been accepted.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Bill as it stands is clearly a Bill for absolutely compulsory insurance for all men in particular trades, whether they like it or not. It is quite true that on the Second Reading of the Bill it might be imagined that we had assented to the compulsory system of Unemployed Insurance set out in the Bill; but I would remind the Committee that during the Second Reading Debates the greater part

      1641
      of the attention of the House was directed to the sickness portion of the Bill, and it was quite impossible for any hon. Members who objected to the compulsory part of the insurance, to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, because, by so doing, they might be voting against the invalidity portion, with which they might have been very strongly in sympathy. I do not think we heard, either during the First or Second Reading Debates, any argument from the Government in favour of the principle of compulsion, and before we proceed to the details of this Bill we ought, in my opinion, to ask the Government to tell us upon what they are founding this scheme. It is an absolutely new scheme so far as Great Britain is concerned. Nothing of the kind has ever before taken place in this country, and we should like to know from the Government whether they are proposing this scheme in consequence of the great success which similar schemes have met with in other countries. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us that Unemployment Insurance of this kind has been adopted with success in any other country; if he could that would be a great argument in favour of adopting it in this country. I know that Germany, Switzerland, and other countries have tried to tackle this question, and if the right hon. Gentleman can only show to us that they have tackled it successfully, then I should be only too pleased to support the application of the compulsory principle to this Bill. I think we ought to realise that we are putting on the working men, whether they like it or not, an additional burden; firstly, under the first part of the Bill, of 4d. per week. Some fourteen million people are being compelled by Part I. of the Bill to contribute 4d. per week, and under Part II., which we are discussing here, another 1½ million or two million men will be compulsorily bound to pay another 2½d. per week. Whether they be good, bad or indifferent workmen, and whether they are likely to be unemployed or not, this contribution will be compulsorily upon them. I cannot help thinking that a system of compulsorily insurance will hit the good workman and ease the position of the bad workman.
      My experience of commerce is that a good workman is nearly always employed; he is kept, on even in slack times. We know that this Bill does not touch the question of strikes or lock-outs, which, of course, equally affect the good and the bad workmen. I submit to the Committee
      1642
      that in times of bad trade the employer nearly always keeps on the good workman; he always manages to find something for him to do; it is the bad and indifferent workman, it is the loafer, who is the first person to be thrown out of employment in bad times; and I think you will find that while the good workman will get no real benefit under the provisions for this scheme of compulsory insurance, he will be compelled to pay for the relief of the bad and indifferent workman, who is the first person to be thrown out of employment in slack times. I believe there never has been a single instance, either on the Continent or in America, where the compulsory system of insurance has been successful. It was tried once in Switzerland, and it proved a complete failure. In other parts of the Continent there is a municipal system of voluntary insurance against unemployment. At Berne, Ghent, Strasburg, and in Norway and Denmark there are flourishing systems of insurance against unemployment, but they are all on a voluntary and not a compulsory basis. Of course, it is open to anyone to say that what other countries cannot do Great Britain can do, but I do think that the Government, before we pass to the details of this scheme, ought at least to give us some idea that they have considered the mode in which this will work in the light of past experience. I think I am correct, also, in saying that both the Majority and Minority Reports of the Poor Law Commission do not recommend a compulsory system of insurance. These Reports are of great importance, and are entitled to grave consideration on our part. Up to the present we have had no statement and no evidence from the Government of the way in which the compulsory proposals can be applied with success, and it is in order to enable the Government to make some such statement—bearing in mind, too, that I am open to conviction by argument—that I move this Amendment, raising the question of a compulsory as against a voluntary scheme.
      Mr. BUXTON: I have no complaint, to make of the hon. Member for raising this point; as a matter of fact, however, he is mistaken in thinking that this question of the compulsory principle was not discussed on the Second Reading of this Bill. Heaven forbid that I should ask him, or any other hon. Member to listen to any speeches that I may make in the House, but if he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT,

      1643
      he will see that, as responsible for Part II., I did go into some detail into the question as to why we favoured a compulsory, as against a voluntary, system; and I may say also that my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, as he then was (Mr. Churchill), who is likewise interested in Part II. of the Bill, gave additional arguments showing the advantage of a compulsory over a voluntary system. As far as I know it was the general feeling of the House that any scheme which is to be made effective must be upon a compulsory basis. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), speaking after the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said he quite agreed that the scheme, if it was to be successful, must be made compulsory. The hon. Gentleman asked if we are founding our proposals on experiment elsewhere; we are not doing that, but we are founding our scheme on experience elsewhere which has been unsuccessful, and therefore we are trying to avoid the mistakes which they illustrate. Most of the voluntary systems, I think, practically all of them, except the Ghent system, have been unsuccessful. I quite agree with the hon. Member that compulsory proposals also have been tried without success, but I think I may add, with regard to the one which operated with most success, that that was unsuccessful because practically it selected bad lives, and, in the second place, there was no means of collecting the contributions. The workman paid in or not, as he chose. The employer was not brought in, and, consequently, the municipality made a deficit at the end of the year. It is obvious that on such a basis as that the scheme was bound to fail.
      But take the voluntary schemes. Take the Ghent system. The basis of that is a Government grant solely given to recognised associations, and, consequently, only applied to members of trade unions. There is a great deal to be said for that, and we have incorporated in Part II. some of the provisions of the Ghent system. In a later Clause in the Bill, the hon. Member will find we are providing for voluntary insurance as well as compulsory insurance. The result of the Ghent system is this: that while undoubtedly it is an advantage to encourage unemployment benefit being given by recognised associations—by trades unions and others—it really covers a very limited sphere. It covers the
      1644
      sphere of action of those who have already, by their own efforts, provided more or less for an unemployed benefit. We want, by this Bill, not only to assist them in that good object and in that good work which they have done in the past, but we want to extend the advantages of insurance to those who have not, so far, been able to provide such a benefit. Take, roughly, the figure of 2,400,000 adults who will be brought in under this scheme. Something like 400,000 of them already are provided with an unemployed benefit, but the remaining 2,000,000 have provided for no such benefit. Under the Ghent system the 400,000 would have an additional benefit, but the 2,000,000 would be left out in the cold. They can only be brought in by a comprehensive scheme, including all the various trades and grades, and it would be utterly impossible to do it otherwise. That really is our answer to the hon. Member. We desire to bring in new classes under a new system, and we feel that it must be compulsory, otherwise they cannot possibly benefit under this Act. We believe, also, that from the point of view of economy, the system, as proposed, is one that will be workable. Any other system—voluntary system—necessarily picks out the bad lives. These are likely to be unemployed, and obviously such a scheme as that would be financially unsound. Our actuary went into the matter very carefully, and came to the conclusion that a compulsory basis of membership was an essential condition. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied that we have given the matter careful consideration. We are clearly of opinion that unless we have a general compulsory system, the advantages of the Bill will not be available for that particular class to whom we are most desirous that its special benefits should be applied.
      Mr. PETO: I want to say a word or two in support of this Amendment partly because I have got an Amendment later on in the Bill which is designed to lessen what I think is a great hardship underlying the whole of this principle. I notice the right hon. Gentleman said that the result of experience abroad was that they had come to the conclusion that for any scheme of insurance against unemployment to be effective it must be compulsory. I entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Brentford, when he said that he was perfectly in accord with the idea of compulsory provision against sickness, and yet was entirely out of sympathy with the principle of compulsory contributions

      1645
      against unemployment. No matter how skilful a workman may be, no matter how attentive he may be to his business in the early part of his training, all are liable to sickness, and therefore, he has a very definite risk which it is to his interest to ensure against; but I maintain that in the question of unemployment there are countless thousands of men in this country who, when they arrive at the age of twenty or twenty-one, become thoroughly good workmen, and their skill and industry is such that they are practically free from any risk whatever of unemployment until they arrive at a very considerable age, and begin to drop out of employment owing to old age, which is entirely another matter. Therefore it really amounts to this, we must have a compulsory levy upon all workmen—good, bad, or indifferent—in order to make this scheme effective. You are introducing the principle of insisting that the most skilled workman in the country shall pay a levy every week to ensure against a risk which is not a risk so far as he is concerned, but which is run by those who are not so fortunate in being as skilful as himself. I do not consider that that is a just principle. We have already in this country practically adopted the principle of a level rate of wage—a standard rate of wage in different trades. I am now speaking from my own experience in the building trade, and I should like to point out how it really works out in that trade.
      Take the case of a joiner's shop. It is the only example I propose to offer. The men there may all be paid an even rate of 10d. per hour, but it is well known to masters and foremen that there are many men in every joiner's shop in London worth more than the standard rate of wages, and that in busy times there are also a good many men who are worth very much less than that standard rate. There are men who can be put on any class of work, and they are never flung out of employment when once an employer is fortunate enough to get them into his shop. Therefore, I say, is it not reasonable to look into the real operation of things over which any legislation may have control. It may be said that it may be perfectly right from the trade unionist's point of view that there should be a standard minimum rate of wage for everybody, whether good, bad or indifferent. But how it really works out is this: A skilful workman, who is certainly worth over 10d. an hour, is kept on from year to year until he arrives at the age of fifty-five or sixty, but the unskillful
      1646
      workman has no certainty of employment. He is only employed periodically and spasmodically when there is a rush of work, and therefore, although he is paid at the same hourly rate of wages as the skilful workman, in a number of years his average pay is really very much less. That is where unemployment insurance comes in. Personally I do not consider it is fair that it should be so. It is not fair that the most skilful man in every trade who has no fear of unemployment whateyer should be compelled to contribute every week so as to keep those who are less skilful than himself during their periods of unemployment. Therefore, I think if the experience on which the Government are going, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, is that to make this scheme successful it must be compulsory, we must admit at the very start that it means making the most skilful men in a trade pay a weekly contribution out of their wages to those who are less skilful. That is a system of levelling down instead of levelling up, with which personally I am not at all in agreement.
      Sir ALFRED MOND: The hon. Member who last spoke appears to be entirely out of sympathy with insurance of this kind, but I should like to point out to him that the classes in this country which make a point of insuring themselves against unemployment are the most skilled classes. A very large portion of the membership of our trades unions consists of men who, as the hon. Member says, do not run any risk of unemployment. With regard to the Amendment itself, I venture to suggest that if it is carried we had much better abandon this Bill altogether. The universal experience of those who have studied the many attempts that have been made on the Continent to deal with this problem is that the voluntary system is a failure, and one of the chief German authorities on this question—a high German official—who was one of the principal delegates of the German Government to the International Congress, has pointed out in articles in which he has analysed the various schemes, that if we do not have a compulsory system it must fail for one of two reasons. One reason is obvious—that under the voluntary system you get in all the people without employment, the irregularly employed and the worst class of workmen. That was the failing of the experiment tried at Cologne. On the other hand, the Ghent scheme only helped the very class of people who were prepared to help themselves. On certain occasions we

      1647
      have been criticised for helping too much those who are prepared to help themselves, and for not doing enough for those who will not or do not help themselves. A suggestion has been made that the Government should introduce a scheme making it compulsory for men to pay into a trade union before becoming entitled to this benefit, but I think it would be impossible for any Government to introduce such a scheme. It would, too, be an inequitable proposal, and it is very curious that such a proposal should emanate from the Conservative party. If you do not make this thing compulsory, you will not reach the very people you want to reach. Anyone who has studied the statistics must know that trades are subjected to cycles of depression during which a very large number of the unskilled labour class are thrown out of employment. If all these people were in a financial position to join a trades union, some provision would be made for them, but they are not able to do so, and therefore this scheme has been devised for the purpose of assisting this class of people. If you make it a voluntary scheme, you will find that it does not deal with the problem at all, and you will also find that a very small number will join trade unions and thereby voluntarily ensure themselves. You will, too, by the compulsory scheme have, when a period of trade depression comes along, made provision for those who otherwise would have to depend upon charity, either from the State or from the rates in their own locality. There is another reason why the scheme should be universal. Unemployment is a national and not merely a local question, and, therefore, in the locality where there is the greatest distress you have the greatest burden upon the locality. One reason why we welcome this scheme is that it will pool the whole unemployment question throughout the country. I sincerely hope that this Amendment will not be pressed, and that the Bill will be proceeded with in the shape in which it is being presented by the Government.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It is perfectly true, under the conditions as they are, if you adopt the Ghent system, it will be the trade unionists who will benefit. The hon. Member who last spoke seems to assume that we on the Conservative side are hostile to trade unions. I am going to be perfectly frank. From the time the trade unions became captured by a
      1648
      particular political party, and became a political organisation, I was opposed to them; but from the point of view of the purposes for which trade unions were created—the purpose of using combinations of the men to obtain better terms for themselves, and a larger share of the profits of the business in which they work—from that point of view I am entirely in favour of trade unionism. I am not at all sure if the Ghent system were adopted we might not eventually see the last atom of socialism disappearing from this movement. We as a Party have no reason to do anything but wish the trade unions success in their efforts to obtain a larger share of the profits of their industry.
      I confess I have some hesitation in taking sides on this question. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, did full justice to the argument in favour of making the Bill compulsory. At all events, he used one argument which did not impress me. He said we had used the experience of foreign countries to avoid what is bad. That is a very good principle in itself. What has been done in this case of unemployment insurance? Such insurance has not been very successful anywhere, and admittedly the place where it has been the most complete failure has been that where it was made compulsory. I hope, under the circumstances, however, my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, and I will say why in two sentences. One is that obviously it would be an end of the Bill. The whole Bill is based on compulsory insurance, and certainly, at this stage, we do not wish to produce that effect. If, as I believe, there is a great deal of force in what has been said both by the President of the Board of Trade and by the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, and if this insurance is to become general, it would hardly do so if it is left to the voluntary decision of each individual worker. In that case I do not see how it could work at all. I could labour this point at much greater length, but I hope that my hon. Friend after the interesting discussion we have had, will agree that it would be better not to press the amendment.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: After the appeal addressed to me by my right hon. Friend, I certainly will withdraw the Amendment, not because I am personally convinced that compulsion is better than a voluntary system, but because I think that the opinion of the Committee

      1649
      generally is in favour of trying some compulsory system. In reply to the hon. Member for Swansea, I cannot for one moment admit that the voluntary system on the Continent has always been a failure. In many parts—in Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy, France, Norway, and Denmark—good work has been done by it against the hardship of unemployment. But I will not go into that now. I will simply ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move to leave out the word "prescribed" ["other prescribed intervals"].
      The object of this Amendment is to remove any possible doubt as to the time at which the payment of the unemployment benefit shall be made to the workman. It is suggested in the Clause that it should be at "weekly or other prescribed intervals." I think it is an essential point of this Bill that its administration should be uniform and simple. The word "prescribed" of course includes a shorter period as well as a longer period. Many workmen may be so circumstanced that even a week may be too long a period for which to wait for the benefit. I believe in some trade unions the unemployment benefit is paid out daily, and no doubt some would prefer to receive it daily rather than weekly. Under these circumstances I think it would be better if the word "prescribed" were struck out, and if the sentence read "at weekly or other shorter periods." That, I suggest, is a reasonable proposal, and I hope it will be accepted.
      Mr. JOHN WARD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not in any circumstances accept an Amendment for a shorter period. If you take any of the trades of the country you will find that such an Amendment will create a want of discipline. In fact, very often it tends to rob the family of what is really intended for it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] If a man can get, in our trade for instance, a sub of 1s. a day, or something like that, it does not go to his family at all, but is spent in the public-house before he gets home at night. That is one of the worst features of the proposal. You can have weekly payments if you like, and longer payments if there are circumstances in which weekly payments cannot be made, but under no circumstances should you make the payment less than a weekly payment.
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): May I suggest by way of explanation to the hon. Member who has made this proposal, this further point. Supposing that the workman falls out of work in the middle of the week, on a Tuesday and supposing we keep the provisions of the Bill as they are, there is no payment for the first week. He will agree that it is desirable to have the possibility of coming to the man's assistance without necessarily waiting until a week has elapsed. The reason for putting in the word "prescribed" is that regulations can be made to have that result. Supposing that the general date of payment is a Saturday, he does not get anything for the first week. If he falls out on a Saturday all he has to do is to wait seven days before he gets something, but if he falls out on a Tuesday the first Saturday comes before the seven days, and the next Saturday will be more than seven days, and very nearly a fortnight. I do not think anybody would desire that we should put in our Bill that there should be no power to adjust our Bill to the payment that is to be made. It is for that reason that we want power to prescribe the adjustment of the payment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move at the end of Clause 60 to insert the words, "Provided that unemployment benefit shall not be paid in respect of any period of unemployment during the six months following the commencement of this Act."
      This Amendment must be taken in conjunction with Amendments to Clause 62. Under that Clause it is necessary for the Act to have been in operation six months before the benefit accrues. It is quite clear to all Members of the Committee that the Fund must have some finance behind it before it comes into operation. I believe in nearly all the trade unions it is twelve months before benefits begin to accrue after contributions begin. You must have some margin before they accrue. The second part of it requires a qualifying minimum of contributions from the workman before he can acquire benefit. Under Clause 62 he has to prove that he has been employed in an insured trade during each of not less than twenty-six separate calendar weeks, during which of course he will have paid his contribution. It was represented to us by the building trade, and the engineering trade in particular, that supposing the Act came into force on

      1651
      the 1st of May that during the next six months ending the 1st November—a time specially in the building trade where there are considerable fluctuations—that a man may be, through no fault of his own, out of employment during a portion of that period and not able to pay his twenty-six contributions, and therefore he would be disqualified from benefits until some later period, although he was in an insured trade. That seemed to us to be a hardship which should be met, and we meet it in this way by not necessarily requiring that these twenty-six weeks of the qualifying period should be subsequently to the passing of the Act, but that he can qualify for this benefit at the end of six months by twenty-six weeks' payments during which he had work after the Act came into force.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 61.—(Contributions by Workmen, Employers, and the Treasury.)
      (1) The sums required for the payment of unemployment benefit under this Act shall be derived partly from contributions by workmen in the insured trades and partly from contributions from employers of such workmen and partly from moneys provided by Parliament.
      (2) Subject to the provisions of this part of this Act, every workman employed within the United Kingdom in an insured trade, and every employer of any such workman, shall be liable to pay contributions at the rates specified in Part I. of the Eighth Schedule to this Act.
      (3) Except where the regulations under this Part of this Act otherwise prescribe, the employer shall, in the first instance be liable to pay both the contribution payable by himself, and also on behalf of and to the exclusion of the workman, the contribution payable by such workman, and subject to such regulations shall be entitled notwithstanding the provisions of any Act relating to truck or any contract to the contrary, to recover from the workman by deductions from his wages or otherwise the amount of the contributions so paid by him on behalf of the workman.
      (4) Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary the employer shall not be entitled to deduct from the wages of, or otherwise recover from, the workman the contributions payable by the employer himself.
      (5) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, the Board of Trade may make regulations providing for any matters incidental to the payment and collection of contributions payable under this Part of this Act, and in particular for—

      (a) payment of contributions by means of adhesive or other stamps affixed to or impressed upon books or cards, and for regulating the manner, times and conditions in, at and under which such stamps are to be affixed and impressed;

      (b) the issue sale custody or delivery up of books or cards and the replacement of books or cards which have been lost destroyed or defaced.

      (6) A contribution shall be made in each year out of moneys provided by Parliament equal to one-third of the total contributions received from employers and workmen during that year, and the sums to be contributed in any year shall be paid in such manner and at such times as the Treasury may determine.
      Mr. SIMEON (the Clerk): It is my duty to read to the Committee the Resolution of the House of July 7th last as follows:—
      "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for insurance against loss of health, and for the prevention and cure of sickness, and for insurance against unemployment, and for purposes incidental thereto, it is expedient:—
      (1) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

      (a) Sums not exceeding two-ninths (or in the case of women one-quarter) of the cost of providing the benefits specified in Part I. of such Act and of the administration of those benefits, together with—

      (i.) as respects medical benefit, one-half of any excess expenditure on medical treatment and attendance (including the provision of medicines) for insured persons which may be sanctioned by the Treasury;

      (ii.) as respects sanatorium benefit, including research work in connection therewith, a sum not exceeding one penny a year for every insured person;

      1653

      (iii.) as respects benefits for persons who have been in the naval or military service of the Crown such additional sums as may be provided by the said Act;

      (b) A contribution not exceeding one-third of the total contributions received from employers and workmen in any year towards the cost of unemployment benefit and other payments to be made out of the unemployment fund established under Part II. of the said Act, and of a contribution by way of repayment to associations of persons of a part (in no case exceeding one-sixth) of the aggregate amount expended by such associations in payments to persons while unemployed; and

      (c) The salaries and remuneration of any commissioners, umpires, referees, and other officers and servants appointed in pursuance of such Act and other expenses incurred in the execution thereof;

      (2) To authorise the Treasury to make for the purposes of Part II. of the said Act advances out of the Consolidated Fund, and to borrow money for such advances by the issue of Treasury bills or Exchequer bonds, the principal of and interest on such Exchequer bonds to be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund."
      The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) is clearly out of order. It would increase the charge and is contrary to the Money Resolution just read by the Clerk.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: On a point of Order, and not so much in respect to this particular Amendment, but in reregard to a general ruling, cannot such Amendments be put that the employé is prepared to accept reduced benefits so that the mere reduction of the contribution on the part either of the employer or the employed—
      The CHAIRMAN: When I called attention to the Amendement I did not notice that the hon. Member for Blackburn is not a member of the Committee.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I think he is.
      The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Leicester propose to move the Amendment?
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I understand that you rule the Amendment out or order.
      The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment on the Paper is out of order, for the reason I stated.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: My point of order is that in respect of this Amendment it need not necessarily be out of order, because it may be consequential to Amendments on the Schedule reducing their benefits, and that therefore an Amendment of this character reducing the contributions of either employé or employer need not be out of order in consequence of the Financial Resolution passed downstairs.
      The CHAIRMAN: I need not have referred to the matter at all, as the hon. Member for Blackburn is not here, but I thought it right to do so, because I thought it possible that some hon. Member might wish to move the Amendment. Does the hon. Member for Leicester propose to move the Amendment? If so, then I will rule upon the matter.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: In order that we may get your ruling, I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words, "partly from contributions by workmen in the insured trades and partly from contributions from employers of such workmen and partly."
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Is there any consequential Amendment on the Schedule, because we need to see that?
      The CHAIRMAN: My ruling is perfectly clear, because the Amendment as it stands upon the Paper is one that throws the whole burden upon the contributions made by Parliament. I rule that the Amendment is out of order. When an Amendment is moved to the Schedule I will of course consider whether that Amendment is or is not one which imposes an additional charge.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am very sorry to press the point, but it is rather important. The Committee has not yet decided what the benefits are to be. The benefits may be altered by any Amendment we may put down on the Paper, and the point I respectively ask you to reconsider is that until we have settled the benefits the mere alteration of what the employer is to pay or the employé is to pay has no reference whatever to the Financial Resolution that was passed downstairs.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: On a point of Order, according to the Financial Resolution, Parliament is to contribute one-third of the contributions made by the employer and by the workmen. The hon. Member's Amendment is to knock out the employers' and the workmen's contributions. That would leave Parliament to contribute one third of nothing, which is absurd.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: Would not the proper course have been for the hon. Member to move that this particular Clause should be postponed until some other part of the Bill has been dealt with, and not to press you to accept an Amendment now which is prima facie out of order.
      The CHAIRMAN: My ruling is that the Amendment proposed to be moved by the hon. Member for Leicester is out of order. It will impose upon the Government a larger contribution than is provided by the Money Resolution. That is quite sufficient for my present ruling.
      Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "The United Kingdom" and to insert instead thereof the words "Great Britain."
      I move this Amendment chiefly in order that we may now have a statement from the Government as to the Amendments which the Leader of the Irish Nationalist party intimated the other day in the House had been agreed upon. At present we have no information regarding the Amendments that we understand are to be presented either by the Leader of the Nationalist party or by the Government. We want to know the alterations which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) said the other day he took for granted that the Government were prepared to accept. I do not think it is necessary at this stage to point out the peculiar position in which we Irish Unionist Members find ourselves in reference to this Bill. We know that substantial and far-reaching Amendments are to be accepted by the Government. We have certain Amendments dealing with Clause 59 to come before the House very shortly. Now we are asked to deal with a later Clause. Our whole attitude to this Bill must be largely governed by the Amendments that we understand have been agreed upon between the Government and the Irish Nationalist Party. While I formally move the Amendment, I have no
      1656
      desire to press it to-day, because our real attitude towards the Bill must finally depend upon the nature of those Amendments. I move the Amendment now in order that we may have a statement from the Government as to their whole attitude to Ireland regarding the provisions of this Bill.
      Mr. BUXTON: I understand from the remarks of the hon. Member that he chiefly refers to Part I., because the Amendments to Clause 59 deal with Ireland, and will be put down in reference to that particular Clause. As regards Part II. no Amendments have been put down, except that of the hon. Member, which is to exclude Ireland from the operation of the Bill. I propose to include Ireland in the general provisions of the Bill for reasons which, if it is necessary to give, I can easily do so. If the facts show that there are special provisions necessary in regard to Ireland I will carefully consider them. As at present advised, although it may be possible in the course of this Committee that I shall have to meet special cases, I should rather hope that such Amendments as deal with those difficulties that arise indifferent parts of the United Kingdom may be made by general Amendments rather than by one applying specially to Ireland. That is a matter for consideration, and I shall be glad to have the opinion of hon. Members interested in Ireland, or in rural districts, in order to see how far we can go. My general opinion is that Ireland should not be excluded from the benefits of this Act, and therefore we put in the words "United Kingdom" which the hon. Member proposes to exclude.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us whether there are any Amendments suggested to him by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. We understood the hon. Member to say in the House the other day that he was going to suggest Amendments to this Bill which he took it for granted would be accepted. I am bound to say that I took it for granted that any Amendments the hon. Member for Waterford suggested or insisted upon are bound to be accepted by the Government. We are entitled to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question with regard to this matter, because we want to know what this part of the Bill is going to be, and whether the hon. Member for Waterford has suggested to him any Amendments which we may take it for granted will be accepted.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This Amendment is not one that can be persisted in at this stage. It is clearly necessary that we must see the Bill in its final stage before we decide what to do. Neither the hon. Member for Waterford nor any member of his party has any Amendment on the Paper with regard to this part of the Bill. Therefore we are in a position of some difficulty. We do not know what their views are. The right hon. Gentleman will see that there are in Ireland, as there are in some rural parts of England, and particularly in the Highlands of Scotland, where the conditions approximate to the conditions in Ireland, difficulties that will undoubtedly have to be faced at some time or another under this Bill. I want the right hon. Gentleman to realise that fact, then we shall be in a position to say whether we consider the Amendments he suggests meet the case. If they do not meet the case we shall recur to this Amendment and place greater insistence upon it.
      The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member (Mr. Barrie) insist upon the Amendment?
      Mr. BARRIE: No, I do not think it is advisable, but I must express my disappointment even now that we are not to have a statement as to the final decision in regard to this part of the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade said, that so far as he was aware no Amendments were to be brought on for this part of the Bill by the Nationalist Party. I can only express my surprise if that is so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say so. I can understand many reasons which may be urged in favour of the first part of the Bill, but I have yet to hear any substantial reason why agricultural Ireland would desire in any shape or form to be saddled with this.
      Mr. DEVLIN: I think it would have been a much more courageous course for the hon. Gentleman to adopt if he had moved the Motion in the name of his colleague, who had not the courage to come here and move it. So far as we are concerned, Ireland is in favour of being included in this scheme; there is not a single body in Ireland which has spoken against it; the whole of Ireland is in favour of it being included in the provisions of this Bill. We will submit our case when it suits our own purpose.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I certainly am glad my hon. Friend has withdrawn the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
      The CHAIRMAN: I asked the Committee whether it was their pleasure that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) rose apparently to oppose the withdrawal.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope it will be withdrawn, if for no other reason than that I have a connection still with Glasgow, and I should not like to see Glasgow shipbuilders handicapped by a burden which was not borne by Belfast. I am sure every Member of the Committee will agree that the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Devlin) confirms in every particular the speeches which have recently been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) that we can rely absolutely on the tolerance of the majority towards the minority.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. PETO: I beg to move in Subsection (2), after the word "workman" ["and every employer of any such workman "], to insert the words "save and except such employers and workmen as are engaged in carrying out any engineering or building contracts that were entered into or commenced prior to the passing of this Act in respect of such contracts."
      This Amendment will probably meet with the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, because it is absolutely required to meet a very obvious hardship, and is one which is on the lines certainly of precedent in other matters of taxation. My attention has been called to the fact that the moment this Bill is passed it obviously imposes a charge for every workman upon every employer who is employing men. In an ordinary trade where the work is of a small character—in an engineering shop—that does not produce any hardship; but take the case of large building contracts, large engineering contracts. Work of great magnitude is taken on a tender which has already gone in, and the contractor has had no idea that there would be an additional 2½d. per week to be paid on the wages of every man he employs, and a case has specially been brought to my notice of a contractor in the north who has entered into a contract to erect an asylum in Lancashire at a cost of £450,000—very nearly half-a-million sterling. He points out that the passing of this Bill will mean an addition to his liability under the contract of several thousand pounds, of which he had no idea whatever when he entered into

      1659
      the contract. I cannot give the exact date of the contract, but it was entered into before July 8th. There is no desire whatever by the Amendment to do anything to interfere with the operation of the Bill, or to defer it unreasonably, but it seems perfectly obvious that, when an addition is made by Parliament to the amount of the duty we will say on an article like tea, it is perfectly understood in trade, and it is a recognised principle, that any contract entered into for the delivery of tea at a certain price naturally carries with it the power to transfer to the purchaser the increased duty. But I do not think it is possible for a contractor in the case of this Bill, where practically an additional tax—for it comes to the same thing; it is money out of his pocket—is imposed upon him to transfer the cost of that to the person employing him. In the case I have quoted, the employer is an asylum authority in Lancashire. It is perfectly obvious that that would be breaking the contract, and he would have no power to get any revision of the contract in order to meet the increased expenditure. I only wish to deal with the case of large engineering and building contracts which were entered into prior to the passing of the Act, and to say that the Act shall not apply to the employer in respect of those particular contracts, because he would have had no knowledge that he had to provide for it.
      Mr. J. WARD: I do not think it will be possible to accept this, and I do not think the arguments used by the hon. Member are so cogent as he thinks. For instance, this gentleman, this northern contractor, is certain to be as acute a business man as the hon. Member himself. He knows perfectly well that within six months from now, by the agreement of any body of workmen there is in the building trade from John o'Groats to Land's End, he may receive a notice for an advance of wages of anything up to one penny an hour—not 2½d. per week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Strike Clause."] The Striker's Clause is only with reference to delay of the work. I have examined hundreds of these tenders, and the hon. Member knows that what I am saying is true. It applies to the delay of the work, and not to the price. The hon. Member will always, I will warrant, being an acute business man, when he enters into a contract, take that into account, and always make provision. If he is lucky enough to get through the job without having a demand for an increase of wages
      1660
      so much the better for him. If he is not lucky enough to get through, so much the worse for him, of course. But anyone can see that provision will have been made, especially in a contract signed so recently as July, by an ordinary business firm for the exigencies of this Act. In addition to that, see what it will mean. Some of these contracts must run, in the case of big public works, into six or seven years. Look at the awkwardness of the situation. There may be some men working on jobs which will be taken a week or a fortnight after this Act comes into operation, and these sets of men working on one part of the firm's work on certain contracts which were arranged before the Act, would not come under the Bill, and no deductions would be made from their wages, but if they worked for a day or two on another part of the firm's work, where the contract happened to be signed within the period of the Act, deductions would be made. It would create untold confusion, and you may take it, there is no great firm that has not made provision to meet a 2½d. advance in the workmen's wages, supposing there could be such a thing as a 2½d. advance per week. If they have not made provision for a considerable sum beyond 2½d. per week, they might be landed into difficulties. Therefore, I do not see any hardship, and I do not see any necessity whatever for the Amendment.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I should like to point out in addition to what has been said by the hon. Member (Mr. Ward) in regard to any burden which may be imposed by this Act on contractors, that a contractor is not merely, as the hon. Member remarked, facing a risk as in the case of a rise in wages. He is facing an addition to his burden that he really knew would come about. For instance, the knowledge that this Bill was coming has been before the business world for a period of three years. Further, the Bill has actually been before us for six months and the very contract to which the hon. Member alluded has been made since the Second Reading of the Bill.
      Mr. PETO: I cannot say positively. I only know that it was prior to 8th July. It may have been before March.
      Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Let us assume that date. If the contract was made after the Second Reading of the Bill, it was

      1661
      made with a fair expectation that the Bill would be carried, and was no doubt provided for by these contractors. If you now carry the Amendment, you will be making to the contractor, a present of the very provision that he had made. He will be getting the advantage of the arrangement he had made to meet the burden, and we are actually relieving him of the burden. Further, the Bill does not come into operation till May, 1912, and this Amendment again would deliberately invite all sorts of contractors to make this provision on the strength of the Bill passing now, while you allow them to remain free of any burden under any contract made even after the discussion has taken place here. I quite admit that there is an appearance of a burden in the case of an old standing contract, but the lines of the Bill were indicated three years ago in a speech of a former President of the Board of Trade—as early as 1908. We have had a very full indication of the prospect of a rise in wages. Further, as the hon. Member (Mr. John Ward) has pointed out, whatever may be the appearance of hardship to the contractor, the hardship to the workman by the carrying of the Amendment would be immense. The workman would have to pass from an insured to an uninsured job, when he was doing the same kind of work, simply because one job was made under the contract dealt with in this Act, while the other was not. Further, as regards the principle, though there is something to be said for the hardship on the contractor, under the Workmen's Compensation Acts no contracts have been exempted. If the principle of the hardship to the contractor could be raised in this case, it would be raised in that. I think, even in the case of the Workmen's Compensation Acts introduced by the other side, no attempt was made to exclude contracts from the operation of the Acts. In fact, whatever may be said of the apparent hardship to contractors, the proposal is impracticable. It would raise enormous difficulties in administration, apart from the hardship to the workmen, and if the Amendment were carried it would go a very considerable way to stultify the Bill.
      Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I really am very sorry the Government are not prepared to meet us in this matter. I quite agree that the actual wording of the Amendment may be capable of improvement, and in the actual shape it takes now might cause a certain
      1662
      amount of confusion, but it cannot be denied that there is a real grievance here. You are putting on employers a very great burden. You are putting 2½d. a week on the top of what has to be paid in the first part of the Bill, and surely in a special case like this, of contracts entered into without the knowledge that the Bill was going to pass, you ought to do something to meet it. For the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. M. Robertson) to say that every contractor, every business man, knew three years before that this Bill was going to pass, is really playing with the Committee It is nothing else.
      It is quite true we have had programmes from hon. Members opposite for years, containing all sorts of wild suggestions which have not passed, and probably will not pass, and because in a programme some three years ago they outlined the possibility that at some time, if they were still in office, they were going to carry an Unemployment Insurance Scheme, to suppose that that could be taken into account all the three years since then is a suggestion not worthy of a Member of the Government. As a matter of fact, this is an entirely new risk. The hon. Member (Mr. J. Ward) quite rightly pointed out that when a contractor enters into a contract it always may happen that after that there is a rise of wages. I agree. But that is an ordinary trade risk, and he takes it into account when he makes his tender. But this is an entirely new risk, which he could not foresee except on the strength of the vague promise made by the Government three years ago. It is quite true that in the instance given by my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) this particular contract was apparently entered into after the Bill had been introduced. Even if it was, it does not in the least follow that this particular part of the Bill was going to pass. It is quite true that he might have been wise enough to foresee that it possibly would pass, but there are no doubt lots of contracts still running which were entered into before the Bill was brought in, and considering that this is the first Session of a new Parliament, surely in such a case as that—my hon. Friend limited it to that—the Government ought to meet us in a matter of this sort. Whenever some of us, who are in favour of the Bill but realise the large burden it must put upon British industry, have pointed this out, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others invariably say that it is an ordinary charge

      1663
      upon the industry and the purchaser will put it on the consumer. I have always doubted the argument that in the case of competing goods the cost of a tax on foreign imports cannot be put on to the consumer. I will not go into that now. But in the case of a contract already settled it is clear you cannot. There can be no doubt whatsoever. That entirely breaks down the argument which is always used by apologists of this part of the Bill in regard to that particular point. I would therefore appeal to the Government, while I admit there are practical difficulties in the actual wording of the Amendment, to see if they cannot meet, at all events, the case of those people who enter into contracts before either the Bill was brought in or before it passed.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I want to suggest, if I may, that my hon. Friend should slightly alter the wording of the Amendment. So far as the general principle has gone, I think my hon. Friend has completely answered the only two arguments which were brought forward. One was the question of the risk, but this is in a different category from the question of wages. I do not think we need attach very much importance to what I may call the prophecy argument. After all, if we are going on that line we might turn round some years hence and make similar observations with regard, let us say, to the reform of the House of Lords or any other subject of that kind. I do not think really that the hon. Gentleman himself attaches much importance to that line of argument. I quite agree that the actual wording of the Amendment would open the door not only to firms that have entered into contracts since the Second Reading, or the introduction of the Bill, or even up to 12th May, when the commencement of the Act takes place. I would suggest that the Amendment should be amended by leaving out the words "the passing of this Act," and putting in 1st May, 1911, or three days before the Bill was introduced. I think that meets to a certain extent the objection which was made, and in which there was considerable force, by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Let me point out to him and impress upon the Committee that there is not merely one contract of this kind in the country. There are no doubt a great number of contracts, and there are contracts between the Government themselves
      1664
      and contractors. Take, for instance, a contract like the Rosyth contract. In that case Messrs. Easton, Gibb and Co. are engaged making docks under a contract with the Government of this country on the basis of certain estimates which were made some years ago when the undertaking was first commenced. There are still two, three or four years of the work to run. The Government step in and by action of their own actually alter the conditions under which the work is being carried out. I really do not think anyone can say that is fair. I cannot think that the Members of the Committee will not say that an Amendment of some kind is necessary. I think the Amendment as amended would hold water and is urgently required.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I quite agree that a very real hardship has been brought before the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for the Devizes division (Mr. Peto), who moved the Amendment, but I submit that this is not the real remedy for it. I believe the real remedy is to postpone the date when the Bill may come into operation. It seems to me to be a great mistake to hurry the time when making a great social change of this kind. I shall state the reason why I cannot support the Amendment. I do not see why a workman who is engaged under a contract which has been entered into should lose the benefit of the State contribution and lose the benefit which others will receive under this part of the Bill. The hardship is no doubt a great one, but it is almost incidental to all legislation of this kind, and it is a form and method of legislation in which I do not think it is desirable to make exceptions, barring contracts entered into in this way. I do not think it is a good method of legislation, and I would suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he should postpone the date. In the case of great public works it is not a question of one contract, but of many contracts entered into, and there would necessarily be great confusion if such contracts were excepted. But supposing the date were postponed, that would give greater time during which contracts already entered into might expire. No doubt some contractors would suffer a certain amount of hardship, but it seems to me there is no reason why they should have a windfall in the shape of their own contributions. Therefore, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be

      1665
      able to deal with the matter in the way I suggest. I do not suppose he will accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, but I would ask whether he could deal with the matter in the way I suggest by postponing the date. Though that would not do away with every hardship, it would give existing contracts more time.
      Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: I really think hon. Gentlemen opposite are attaching too much importance to this matter. We all know that the contracts entered into from time to time carry risks. They carry trade risks, and they also carry many other risks. [An HON. MEMBER: "What risks?"] Well, take the case of the Port of London when a penny per ton was put on coal, and when other charges were put on goods. There were contracts running in the Port, of London.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I thought the consumer paid.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: Not at all. There were contracts running, and the extra charges could not be put upon the consumers. That is always the case when these large contracts are running. There are all manner of risks, and whether a large contractor makes a profit out of a contract which he has entered into, is a matter that depends very much on a variety of risks, and on a whole concatenation of circumstances in which the trade is concerned. I do not think employers would thank hon. Gentlemen opposite for amending this Clause if the Amendment were carried. How would it work in regard to large contractors in dealing with their men? A contractor does not want to be bound hand and foot in the case of a man who is engaged in one particular part of his work which has the benefit of the unemployment scheme, and who, if he moves from that work to other work, is outside the insurance scheme. I am sure, from the point of view of the administration of the Act by the Board of Trade, and from the point of view of the employer himself, it would be an undesirable thing to carry the Amendment. I am sure it would not work. Hon. Members opposite are not rendering any service to employers by bringing it forward here. I believe every large employer when this Bill passes into law will desire that his workmen should come in. He would be very much interfered with and greatly inconvenienced if
      1666
      some of his men were in the scheme and some were not. Therefore, I think hon. Gentlemen opposite are making too much of this point. No one will thank them for it. It is better that the Clause should remain in its present form, and that there should be no postponement of the date as proposed by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson). Employers are used to these difficulties arising from time to time, and they do not want this assistance.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think there is any need for further discussion on this point, because the matter is one on which all of us have already made up our minds. I have no hesitation in saying that I shall vote for the Amendment. A burden imposed by the State, it seems to me, should not apply to contracts which were made before it was known that this burden would be enforced. The hon. Member who has just sat down (Sir E. Cornwall) pointed out the difficulties in the way. Does he admit that the same difficulties apply to the whole of the Bill, that men will go from an insured trade to an uninsured trade?
      Sir E. CORNWALL: My point was that with the same employer and the same workmen going from an insured to an uninsured trade would be so inconvenient.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a different point from what I thought the hon. Member was making, but the real difficulty is the same man may go from an insured trade to an uninsured trade and get over the difficulty as best he can. The hon. Member for Stoke's (Mr. John Ward) objection practically amounted to this, that if you are going to sea you run the risk of being drowned, and therefore you should not object to a man throwing you over. As for the hon. Member the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. J. M. Robertson), whom I heartily congratulate on filling an office which I once filled myself, his contribution to the discussion was this, that every manufacturer and contractor must read carefully the speeches every morning and base his tenders on what has been last said by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
      Sir JOHN SIMON: I would like to add one word from the Government point of view. I confess I think that the Members of the Committee have a good deal of sympathy with the general position expressed by the hon. Member for Mile End

      1667
      (Mr. Harry Lawson), that in view of the risks and chances of legislative change, which do, we all agree, one way or another closely affect industry, it is a bad principle to say that whenever you make a change you must try to provide for all those who are experiencing the change. The short answer is that you cannot do it. There may be one employer who has paid more attention to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman opposite than another, or one who has shown perhaps more caution than another, or one man who is a better prophet than another. If this Committee sets itself to endeavour to adjust these inequalities between one contractor and another by putting a clause into an Act of Parliament trying to do it, it attempts something which no legislature could face. When laws are changed it often happens incidentally that some people may find the change hard while others may find it soft. Having said so much for the general principle I should feel some sympathy with the general position of the hon. Member for Mile End, who says that the only way to deal with the problem is to consider whether you have chosen the right time for the Bill to come into force. For my part, I want to say that when the time comes to consider that question these arguments are very material in my judgment, and in that of the Government, to choose a proper time. I do not mean to say that anything which we can do will avoid all hardship, but we want to do the best we can to choose a proper time, having regard to the admitted urgency of the general subject matter.
      It is all very fine to discuss this question from the point of view of the contractor who has made out his quotation and has preferred to run a risk rather than provide for emergencies; but what about the working man? After all we are here endeavouring to set up this universal and compulsory scheme within the bounds of its operation not merely in the interests of one part of industry, but in the interests of all parts of industry. The position is absurd if it is said that out of a series of workers living in the same street, engaged in the same work, earning the same wages, and paying the same sort of taxes, because one of them works for a man who happens to have made a contract before a particular date, he shall be treated differently from the others who are not working for such an employer. The analogy pointed
      1668
      out by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade is an analogy so strong that it is extremely difficult to see how this can be regarded as a hard case in comparison with what occurred when the Workmen's Compensation Act was introduced, which put quite a new kind of burden upon the employer. The employer in that case was in this position, that he had in many cases actually contracted with his workers that they should have no claim on him in respect of accident and the Workmen's Compensation Act did not except those employers who had already got running contracts, but actually broke the very contracts the employers had made with their own workmen that the workmen should have no right to compensation. Surely, if to improve the conditions of the workmen you break a contract which a workman has entered into with his own employers it is not unreasonable to say that in the present case the way proposed is a proper way to deal with it. It does occur to me that anybody who descends from the general to the particular and tries to draw a clause dealing with this matter will find it impossible to draw a clause that will work without producing hard cases on one side or the other. With regard to the method of dealing with the matter, which was suggested by the hon. Member for Mile End, that can be considered when the time comes.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) has handed in the following Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "passing of this Act," and insert instead thereof the words "1st of May, 1911."
      Sir HENRY NORMAN: There is one point which I do not think has yet been mentioned. An employer who is not insured will find great difficulty in finding the best workmen to go into an uninsured contract, and a man might leave his employment to go into an insured contract, so that the employer instead of finding this a source of help would find it a serious embarrassment.
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
      Question put, "That the Amendment, as amended, be inserted in the Clause."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 35.

      Division No. 1.]

      AYES.

      Banner, Mr. Harmood-

      Dickson, Mr. Scott

      Law, Mr. Bonar

      Barrie, Mr. Hugh

      Harris, Mr.

      Peel, Mr.

      Benn, Mr. Hamilton

      Hills, Mr.

      Peto, Mr.

      Bigland, Mr.

      Hoare, Mr.

      Thomson, Mr. Mitchell-

      Bird, Mr.

      Joynson-Hicks, Mr.

      Worthington-Evans, Mr.

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

      NOES.

      Alden, Mr.

      Holt, Mr.

      Primrose, Mr.

      Brady, Mr.

      Jones, Mr. William

      Robertson, Mr. John

      Buxton, Mr. Sydney

      Joyce, Mr.

      Roch, Mr.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin

      Kelly, Mr.

      Scanlan, Mr.

      Cowan, Mr.

      Leach, Mr.

      Smith, Mr. Albert

      Devlin, Mr.

      Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

      Solicitor-General, Mr.

      Denman, Mr.

      Mond, Sir Alfred

      Ward, Mr. John

      Hackett, Mr.

      Murray, Captain

      Watt, Mr.

      Harmsworth, Mr. Cecil

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Williams, Mr. Penry

      Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edward

      Nugent, Sir Walter

      Wilson, Mr. Tyson

      Haviland-Burke, Mr.

      Nuttall, Mr.

      Wood, Mr. M'Kinnon

      Hayden, Mr.

      Palmer, Mr.

      Mr. BUXTON: On the question of meeting on Monday next, obviously next Monday would be inconvenient to Members, and therefore I do not propose to ask them to attend. It may be necessary to meet on the following Monday, but it will be avoided as far as possible. Next week we shall meet on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not ask us to meet on Wednesday.
      Mr. BUXTON: I cannot give up all the days. We will talk about it.
      The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), but the hon. Member cannot move it, as he is not a Member of the Committee.
      Sir J. SIMON: On behalf of my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, I beg to move in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "relating to truck" ["relating to truck or any contract to the contrary."]
      The object of leaving out these words relating to truck is this: If Members will look at the Bill they will see that it provides, subject to regulations, the employer shall be entitled "notwithstanding any provision of any Act relating to truck or any contract to the contrary, to recover from the workman by deductions from his wages or otherwise, the amount of the contributions so paid by him on behalf of the workmen." The only reason for proposing to leave out the words "relating to truck" is that on examination we find there is another Act of Parliament which may otherwise conflict with the present Bill, the Trades Boards Act, 1907, which
      1670
      happens to contain the provision in Section (6) that the minimum rate of wages fixed in that Act must be paid by the employer clear of all deductions. It is of course the intention of the Committee or anybody who has followed the scheme of the Bill to make no specific exception of that sort, and leaving out the words gives protection to the employé.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move in Sub-section (4), to add, at the end, the words, "and, notwithstanding anything contained in the Trades Disputes Act, it shall be unlawful for employed contributors, either in pursuance of a trade dispute or not, to attempt to recover from the employer the amount of their contributions."
      Sub-section (4) gives protection to the employés. It prevents the employer in any case deducting from the wages of the employé his contribution or recovering in any way the contribution he has paid on behalf of the employé. What I wish to urge is that there shall be given a similar specific protection to the employer at the same time, and make it unlawful in any case for the employés to attempt to recover their contributions from the employer. It is quite true that the words we have just passed deal to some extent with the question; but may I call the attention of the Government to the very wide powers which are given in the Trades Disputes Act, passed in 1906. Unless the words which I propose to insert are put in, it will be perfectly open to men in any trade who have had this deduction made to strike, or at all events to attempt by means of a strike, or by threatening to strike, to force the employer to increase their wages to cover their contributions.

      1671
      They might lay their tools down to strike. It would be a perfectly legal strike unless the words I propose to be inserted are inserted, and, in that case, the Trade Unions would enjoy absolute immunity under the provisions of the Trades Disputes Act, 1906. What I suggest, therefore, is that, inasmuch as the Bill specifically protects the employé, it should also specifically protect the employers by the words I propose. Those words would make it perfectly clear that a strike engineered for this purpose—namely, to compel the masters to raise their wages to meet the contribution, would be an illegal strike, and therefore the immunity they enjoy under the Trades Disputes Act would not apply. I do not think the Amendment would make any real difference in the general effect of the Bill. It would not interfere with what I believe to be the intention of the Government, who certainly mean that nothing should be deducted in any case from the employer, and that no strike should prevent that intention. I think it does give the employer a certain protection which is denied him as the Bill stands at present.
      Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman has supported his proposal by the suggestion that he is really endeavouring to introduce into the Bill a provision which is correlative to the provision already found in it in regard to workmen. He suggests that what he proposes would be some protection to the employer, whereas what is already in the Bill would be some protection to workmen. Certainly, so far as the Government are concerned, their desire is to hold an even hand between the two. But I would point out that the hon. Gentleman is really labouring under a mistake. What he proposes is not in the least correlative to the provision already contained in the Bill, and which he proposes as though it was analogous. The provision in the Bill is designed to prevent the employer, the man who pays the wages, from deducting from those wages that he pays, not only the workman's contribution, which he is entitled to take, but his own contribution. The reason that it is in the Bill is because nothing you could do would provide a corresponding provision in the case of the workmen, for the very simple reason that the workman does not pay money to the employer at all, and the two things cannot be made analogous. Provision is in the
      1672
      Bill, that the employer in paying wages to the workman, may deduct from those wages the workmen's 2½d., but he cannot take also the employer's contribution. Now it is proposed (I do not understand what is the meaning of the reference to the Trades Disputes Act) that "It shall be unlawful for employed contributors, either in pursuance of a trade dispute or not, to attempt to recover from the employer the amount of their contributions." The hon. Gentleman explains that what he means is that the workmen should not be entitled to strike for higher wages.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not say they should not have the right to strike for higher wages, but that they should not have the right to strike merely to recover this contribution of 2½d. which they are legally compelled to pay.
      Sir JOHN SIMON: Will the Committee observe what justification there was for the suggestion that this proposal was analogous to the proposal existing in the Bill in order to protect workmen. What the Bill says on behalf of the workmen is that the employer shall not deduct from wages or any other bonus that he pays the 2½d. paid for the employer, and the thing which is put forward as analogous to that is that the workmen should not have the right to strike for an increase of wages if it can be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that their reason for desiring a greater wage is that they have a contribution to pay under this National Insurance Bill. But it must be obvious, I think, to anybody who considers the matter, whatever be the abstract merits of such a proposal, that it has no conceivable relation to practical working. You cannot legislate that a workman shall not strike any more than you can legislate that an employer shall not dismiss a workman, and the real corelative suggested by the hon. Member to put in the Bill, is that no employer shall ever be entitled to dismiss any workmen, on the ground that the National Insurance Bill prevents him from any longer making a profit.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: On the question of the relative significance of the two things. I wish to ask the Solicitor-General does he or does he not think that under this Bill, the employer shall not be permitted to say to his workmen, "I am going to lower your wages precisely to the sum which is an additional burden I have got to pay."
      Sir JOHN SIMON: That is a perfectly fair question, and, as usual, put very fairly by the right hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt about the answer. As regards this burden or any other burden which falls upon any party to the contract, it is always open to either party to the contract to give proper notice of the termination of the contract, and to say that he is only prepared to make a new one on different terms. No legislation that ever could be passed could alter that. No doubt, the workmen of this country have got their interests to consider just as the employers, and there is nothing on either one side or the other can ever prevent the employer from saying for whatever reason, or for no reason at all, "I give you notice I shall not require your services from the day this notice expires." No sensible representative of the interest of the workmen ever suggests that you could legislate to the contrary. In the same way, nobody can prevent the workmen saying, "I give you notice (for whatever reason) that I require a higher rate of wages," and if that is not prevented I fail to understand that you can introduce into the Bill a provision which is going to prevent it if it is shown that it has some relation to the National Insurance Bill.
      The real truth is that this, like everything else, is adjusted by the strength of the forces on one side and the other, and by considerations which are economic and industrial, and nothing which an Act of Parliament can do will ultimately determine which of the parties gets the benefit of such an advantage. For that reason I most confidently suggest to the Committee that, however sincerely my hon. Friends opposite suggest, that this is an analogy to what is in the Bill, that there is no analogy at all. The provision in the Bill is that the employer as paymaster shall not deduct from that which he pays anything more than the workmen's contribution. That is a perfectly easy thing to understand and to put in an Act of Parliament. The thing which is now suggested, forsooth, is that workmen shall not combine to say "we want a greater wage" if it can be shown that one of the reasons why they want it is because this contribution is asked for from them. That is not practicable, and I do not think it would be right. Just, as I have no doubt, that the employers would be entitled to give notice to their workmen that they require to terminate their contracts and make new ones in view of this Act, so I say the workmen
      1674
      are entitled to give notice if they so desire that they also require the terms of their contracts to be revised. As to which of them succeeds it is a question as to which of them is the stronger and has the better argument. That is not a matter that can be determined by Act of Parliament.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Solicitor-General is trying to argue as if Free Trade governed everything. What we are trying to do by this Bill is to arrange for something which the workman and the employers have not up to the present been able to arrange together. If this Act had not been passed, and if Free Trade had been left to work it out on voluntary principles, the Solicitor-General's argument would have been a perfectly true argument, that it must be left to the balance of the market to decide whether the employer is going to reduce wages by 2½d. or whether the workmen is going to get an increase of 2½d. I assumed, through the whole of the discussion, not only on this Part, but as well on the first Part, that it certainly was the aim of the Government to leave things as they are, as between employer and workmen, and to charge a fair charge to the employer with regard to his proportion, and a fair charge on the workmen as to his, and that each should pay their own proportion, and that there should not be any attempt on the part of the employer to get his contribution out of the workmen, or any attempt on the part of the workmen to got his contribution out of the employer. The Solicitor-General has put quite a different complexion on the matter; he has openly told us that as far as he can see, as soon as the Bill is passed, there will be these disputes leading to lock-outs and strikes, and in saying that I think I am carrying his argument to its logical conclusion. If, immediately the Bill is passed, an employer in one trade is going to set about to try and get the 2½d. out of the workmen, and if the workmen try and get the 2½d. out of the employer, the Act is bound to lead immediately to a succession of trade disputes ending in lock-outs and strikes.
      Sir JOHN SIMON: As the hon. and learned Gentleman says he is representing what I said, may I say I did not suggest that, and I do not think anything of of the kind. What I did suggest is that when this Bill becomes law that the industrial and economic process, which settles rates of wages, will not suddenly come to a dead stop. That is what I said.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really think the hon. and learned Gentleman has not improved his position by that explanation that that economic process will not come to a dead stop. I assumed, and I think the whole House did so, that the economic process should not take place in respect of contributions in respect of this Bill. That is the idea of the people throughout the land. No workman, I am perfectly certain, either in this part of the Bill or the other half, expects that his employer's contribution is to be at once made a process of economic disturbance between the employer and the workmen. If the Solicitor-General is correct, that will be the inevitable outcome of this Bill. The Bill provides perfectly clearly in Sub-section (4)—
      "The employer shall not be entitled to deduct from the wages of, or otherwise recover from the workmen the contributions payable by the employer himself."
      I am bound to say if I were a workman reading that Clause, and if my employer came and said to me "I have got to pay an extra 2½d. after next week and I am going to reduce your wages," I should say, "Here is a provision that you are not to attempt to recover it from me, and it does not say you shall not attempt to recover it by process of law. The Act says "You shall not attempt to recover from workmen contributions payable by the employer," and if the employer attempted to reduce any employés' wages by 2½d. there will be liable to be an outcry among the insured throughout the whole country. The Solicitor-General said that my hon. Friend's proposition is not on all fours with the Sub-section regarding the employer. I agree, but there is nothing pari passu as between workmen and employer. The Solicitor-General agreed so far, and that there was no possibility of the workman taking proceedings to recover his 2½d. at law. The only thing he can do is to throw down his tools and say, "I am going to fight unless the employer pays my 2½d. as well as his own." If that is the position of the Government that they want to encourage or want not to provide against, I should be perfectly prepared to accept that the employer should not declare a lock-out to force his 2½d. from the workmen if on the other side it was provided that the workmen should not strike in order to force their 2½d. from the employers. I think I have endeavoured to put the point clearly, and to answer as fairly as I can the statement
      1676
      of the Solicitor-General. I do say we want a distinct assurance from the Government whether they are going to leave this matter to economic bargaining, leading inevitably and undoubtedly to strikes and lock-outs, or whether they are going to make the employer pay his contribution and to make the workman pay his.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: The Solicitor-General's argument, as I understand it, is that this Amendment is not fair because it prevents and takes away the chance of the workmen striking to get back their 2½d., and that it does not similarly treat the employer. I think that could be met by a reciprocal Amendment affecting both employer and workman, and which I will mention in a moment. Before we do that, however, I think the Committee ought to make up its mind what it really does intend to arrive at by Subsections (3) and (4). Why is Sub-section (4) there at all? It is there to prevent the employer trying to deduct from the wages of the workman or to otherwise recover the 2½d. To otherwise recover the 2½d. might be by means of a lock-out, and that Sub-section might have the effect of preventing the employer if it could be shown it was for the purpose of recovering the 2½d., or it might limit the employer in a totally different way from the workman. I am quite prepared myself to limit the employer precisely as I would wish to limit the workman. I do not want to limit the workman and not to limit the employer. The Solicitor-General says after this Act is passed there is nothing to prevent the employer giving notice to his workmen to terminate the existing contract at the end of a week or a fortnight or a month, as the case may be, and then re-engaging them at lower wages, but if he did that, that would be "otherwise endeavouring to recover from the workmen." The learned Solicitor-General does not think it would be, but I can quite imagine considerable argument being applied to the fact that after the employer terminated his existing contract he re-engaged precisely the same men at precisely the same wages less 2½d., and that that was in itself evidence that he was endeavouring to circumvent Sub-section (4). Parliament is intending that the employer shall pay his 2½d. and that the workman shall pay his 2½d. I am not going to suggest that you can alter economic forces by anything you put in this Act, but I wished to put into the Act, if

      1677
      it were possible, words which would remind both workmen and employers of their moral duty. If the Committee follow me so far, I would ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, but rather to accept the Clause which I have had drafted as follows:—
      "(5) That notwithstanding the provisions of any Act it shall be unlawful, whether in pursuance of any trade dispute within the meaning of the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, or otherwise (a) for any employer or combination of employers to recover or to attempt to recover from any workman any part of the contribution paid or payable by the employer himself under this part of this Act, or (b) for any workman or combination of workmen to recover or to attempt to recover from any employer any part of the contribution which the employer under this part of the Act has paid or is directed to pay on behalf of any workman."
      That is absolutely fair to both classes. The Trades Disputes Act would apply equally to both parties, and there is in addition the Conspiracy (Protection of Property) Act of 1875 which I think also applies. Consequently I have put in the words "notwithstanding the provisions of any Act." I do not pretend that the addition of this Sub-clause will alter at all the economic force of the ordinary bargaining power between man and master, but it will register the desire of Parliament not to encourage strikes on the one hand or lock-outs on the other. I propose, in due course, to move that Amendment to follow Sub-section (4), if my hon. Friend will withdraw his present Amendment, which on the face of it appears to be, although perhaps not in fact, somewhat one-sided, and would handicap the workman by applying to him a different law from that which applies to the employer.
      Sir J. SIMON: I cannot for the moment see how the words just read carry out the observations with which the hon. Member began his speech. He said that he quite recognised that you could not interfere with the play of economic forces, and he powerfully pointed out that the Amendment before the Committee might be an attempt so to do. If the hon. Gentleman's anxiety is lest under Sub-section (4) the words "otherwise recover from" refer to a prohibition on the employer's part to lock out, I can assure
      1678
      him with the greatest confidence that they have nothing in the world to do with it. The only reason why the Clause refers to otherwise recovering the money from the workman is that you might have the case—not a common case—of a bonus or something which is not, strictly speaking, wages, but money passing from the employer's pocket to the workman. The employer may deduct from that money, whether it is a bonus or any other form of payment, the workman's 2½d., but he may not deduct the 2½d. which the employer ought to pay. That has nothing to do with a strike or lock-out. We do not imagine that we are going to stop lock-outs any more than strikes by this proposal.
      The CHAIRMAN: A discussion on the suggested Amendment would not be in order on the Amendment before the Committee.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have no desire to suggest anything which would not be equally fair to both sides. I agree with the criticism of the Solicitor-General. Much that he has said shows that I went further than I intended. All I want is something which is fair to both sides. Therefore I will ask permission to withdraw my Amendment in order that the discussion may take place on the proposal of the hon. Member for Colchester.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move after Sub-section (4) to insert:—
      "(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of any Act it shall be unlawful, whether in pursuance of any trade dispute within the meaning of the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, or otherwise:

      (a) For any employer or combination of employers to recover or attempt to recover from any workman any part of the contribution paid or payable by the employer himself under this part of the Act; or

      (b) For any workman or combination of workmen to recover or to attempt to recover from any employer any part of the contribution which the employer under this part of the Act has paid, or is directed to pay on behalf of any workman."

      I will only add one word in reference to the observations of the Solicitor-General. He was trying to re-assure the Committee that the words "otherwise recover from"

      1679
      meant nothing more than deducting from a bonus that might be given in addition to wages. If that is really the meaning of the words, why not say deduction from wages or bonus? On the contrary, it opens up an entirely new vista, because the words are put into the Clause in contradistinction to deduction. It is some other process of recovering—a process which will suggest itself to the minds of hon. Members. The process that suggested itself to the mind of the Solicitor-General was that the employers might terminate their contracts and re-engage the same men at a lower rate of wages. That is, in my view, otherwise recovering from the workmen.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The Government have only themselves to thank for the proposal to amend this Sub-section. They will insist on putting into their measures bunkum clauses. When you propose to put in a bunkum clause, naturally to give it an appearance of fairness you must make it apply to both sides. What on earth do the Government think they gain by this Sub-section? Trade disputes will not take the simple form that has been anticipated in this discussion. Even the Solicitor-General seriously argues as if a strike or lockout would take place over the deduction of 2½d. Of course if there is an economic movement of this kind it will take an entirely different form. If the burden is too heavy there will be a substantial reduction in wages, and that may end in a strike. But to imagine that a good intention expressed by Parliament in a Clause of this kind will have the smallest effect is obviously futile. I do not think an expression of good intention has much effect on the public mind. I doubt whether employers, considering the way in which Parliament has treated them of recent years, will pay much attention to the expression of a pious hope on the part of the House of Commons. That being so, what is the use of inserting these words? If, however, they are to go in at all, they ought to be in the form proposed by my hon. Friend and to apply to both sides. But in neither case will they mean anything. In neither case will they stop a single trade dispute. It is only because the Government think they satisfy the opinion of a certain number of Members of the House and of certain people outside that they propose to insert these words. Would it not be far better to withdraw the Sub-section?
      Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member at any rate admits that the Amendment is a bunkum clause. We shall all agree on that.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The original suggestion.
      Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: The mover of the Amendment agrees that it is really a kind of moral exhortation. We are agreed on that. We are agreed that the Amendment is useless; the only point not agreed upon is whether the Sub-section in the Bill is equally useless. There is an obvious reason for putting in Sub-section (4). By putting in such a Clause you prevent the precipitation of a strike by a process that an employer might resort to—that of simply and straightforwardly deducting the 2½d. No one expects that when this prohibition is put in there will ensue an outbreak of strikes and lock-outs as hon. Members opposite predict. The probability is that both sides will regard the burden as equal, and that they will face the situation as equalised by the contributions equally imposed upon master and man. The clause which the hon. Member objects to as being bunkum is really practical up to a very important point. Beyond that point everybody agrees that if the master is determined and is able from economic conditions to reduce wages he is likely enough to do it, just as the workmen if they are economically competent to force wages up are likely to do it. That can happen irrespective of this proposal. But who expects that there is going to be an epidemic of strikes and lock-outs for 2½d.? This particular prohibition will prevent the resort to certain actions on the part of some employers which might precipitate a strike. In that particular way it is a useful proviso. But we are all agreed that the Amendment can satisfy no useful purpose at all. It is surely a peculiar line to take to suggest that because it is beliveed that a few lines inserted by the Government will have no particular effect you ought to insert a much longer passage which would have equally little effect.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: One of the previous speakers seemed to assume that those of us who represent Labour imagine that something is going to happen as the result of Clause 61, which, I can assure him, we do not. I do not think that Sub-section (4) will go very far. But it will do this; it will make it very difficult for an employer to deduct from the

      1681
      wages of his workpeople the additional 2½d. That is really the point. It comes in in this way. You get, for instance, a particular class of workman working at a declared scale of prices. They hand in their work at the end of the week, and the employer has to pay for it, say 20s. From that 20s. he says, "I can deduct 2½d." He cannot say, "I can deduct 5d." In order to enable him to legally deduct the 5d., a thing which he will very likely try to do, he has to determine the whole of his contracts. In this way you are putting obstacles in his way, and are preventing him doing what it is the intention of the Act of Parliament that he should not do. I am bound to confess that this is a small point, but it will just help those who are least capable of helping themselves. The well-organised unionist will fight his employer, if need be, on this matter, and will not accept deductions not contemplated by this Clause. But it is the weak person who will be most benefited by this. Therefore, I am going to vote for the retention of the Clause as it is, without the Amendment which has been moved.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The incidence of this payment will depend upon the course of trade and other considerations which the Act of Parliament cannot determine. There is something more than that to be considered, and I am bound to say that I am rather surprised by some of the observations in the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tyneside (Mr. J. M. Robertson). He is a man of most logical mind and like men of that stamp, is fond of making a kind of syllogism. He says that what we propose is merely moral force, and, therefore, merely nonsense.
      Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: I did not use the expression "nonsense." [HON. MEMBERS: "Bunkum," "Bunkum."]
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not agree. I think that moral force has a great deal of actual weight. All that my hon. Friend wants to do is to get that inserted in this Bill at the beginning, in order that the Act should be carried out in the way that Parliament intends it should be. The hon. Members for Brentford and Tyneside both say that the object of Sub-section (4) is that it should prevent the employer from deducting the 2½d. which he ought to pay. It is quite obvious that if the employer chooses he can get over that difficulty by deducting 3d. or lowering the men's wages 6d. The fact that this is here shows that the
      1682
      Government think that this will make it more difficult for a man to do that, because it is obviously unfair. Very well; what is there unfair in putting in at the beginning of the Act words against the same obvious unfairness on the part of the trade unionist trying to make the employers pay the workman's part of the contribution? We are simply asking for both to be treated alike.
      It should be made perfectly plain, as far as Parliament is concerned, and has any power, that neither shall the employer be entitled to deduct his contribution from the workman, nor the workman entitled to make a strike for the sole purpose of getting his contribution out of the employer. That is the whole object. I cannot see why the Government should object to the Amendment in the form in which it has been proposed. It will at least work as well as Sub-section (4). I am bound to say that unless the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade wants to confirm the objections which have been sent to him from many employers, he is bound to do one of two two things. He is bound to either accept the Amendment or something like it, or he is bound to leave out Sub-section (4), and leave the matter to be settled in the ordinary course of law.
      Sir ALFRED MOND: This is a very important discussion on the Sub-section, and it has not been made easier by the fact that the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester moved, and with which I have sincere sympathy, has not been put on the Order Paper, and that it is quite impossible for many of us really to follow the very difficult technical language. But the interpretation given by the Solicitor-General of Sub-section (4) came as a great shock to many of us, who, in reading the Bill in the ordinary way, without legal sophistries, certainly were under the impression that its object was to prevent the employer reducing the wages of his men by 2½d. per week in order to cover his contribution. I understand now that the real object of Sub-section (4), and the reason why it is to remain in the Bill is, that under this Bill, we do legally entitle employers to deduct the workman's contribution from the wages.
      If, it is said, you are silent in the Bill as to the employer's contribution, the employer might argue that his contribution should come in the same way as the workman's contribution, and he may therefore deduct 5d. The workman would have no

      1683
      statutory or other authority to answer that argument as against his employer. It is not a question as to whether, when this Bill is passed, the employer will give an argument for reducing the wages of these men; that is not an essential point at the moment. The essential point is, that these words do not clearly say that the employer is not legally entitled or by statute to deduct his contribution. If you leave that point obscure—and remember that he has already got a legal right to deduct the one contribution—the analogy will be that he has quite a legal right to deduct the other. On the other hand, it will be very hard for the workman to argue that point, and it will probably be ultimately settled by the House of Lords. That surely is a reason for leaving it in. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester, the difficulty I feel is this, that I do not see how, in the event of a dispute, you are going to differentiate this 2½d. from any other demand for an increase of wages. Suppose that the workpeople are not asking for 2½d. a week increase, but 6d.; are they to be debarred by Statute from striking for the balance on the ground that it is unlawful? Practically, I cannot see an answer to that very simple dilemma. I cannot see how to get over that practical difficulty. Somewhat reluctantly I have come to the conclusion that I cannot support the Amendment in its present form, although there is a good deal to be said for it.
      Mr. HOLT: I do not see much point in discussing Sub-section (4) as it stands, because it has already been accepted by the Committee. With regard to this Amendment, speaking of an employer in one of the scheduled trades, I hope the hon. Gentleman who has moved will not press it. It seems to me to be absolutely unworkable. Why should not the employer or the workman try to shift the burden of

      Division No. 2.]

      AYES.

      Baird, Mr.

      Goldman, Mr.

      Law, Mr. Bonar

      Baldwin, Mr.

      Harris, Mr.

      Lawson, Mr.

      Benn, Mr. Hamilton

      Hills, Mr.

      Peel, Mr.

      Bigland, Mr.

      Hoare, Mr.

      Peto, Mr.

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

      Ingleby, Mr.

      Stewart, Mr. Gershom

      Dickson, Mr. Scott

      Joynson-Hicks, Mr.

      Worthington-Evans, Mr.

      Gilmour, Captain

      NOES.

      Alden, Mr.

      Denman, Mr.

      Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund

      Brady, Mr.

      Goldstone, Mr.

      Haviland-Burke, Mr.

      Buxton, Mr. Sydney

      Hackett, Mr.

      Hayden, Mr.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin

      Harmsworth, Mr. Cecil

      Holt, Mr.

      the 2½d. if they think fit? It is their own private and domestic concern. The effect of this Amendment will be to compel persons to avoid saying that the Insurance Bill was their motive in asking for more wages, or employers in asking for a deduction. My experience of trade negotiations between employers and workmen is, that it is very much better and simpler to carry them on when the motives are admitted by everybody at the outset. Then you know what people want and why they want it.
      Mr. BAIRD: There was one point in the speech of the hon. Gentleman for Swansea which struck me. He pointed out that any rise or diminution of wages would be covered by the Clause such as it is suggested we should insert. If you leave in this Sub-section, surely you make it impossible for any employer to reduce the wages at all on any pretext? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, No."] Why not? Any diminution would, of course, include a deduction of contribution which you have to pay towards the Insurance Fund. It does seem to me that leaving in the Sub-section would be to inflict a hardship upon the employer. That putting in the new Sub-section might entail a hardship on the workman, I agree, might have some force, but if the reasoning of the hon. Baronet is correct—and I am inclined to think it is—there is no doubt that this is standardising wages. Everybody knows it is practically impossible to do that, because the exigencies of business may make it impossible for the man to carry on his business unless there is a reduction of wages. If the Committee is not prepared to accept the Amendment, which is designed to make the thing even for both sides, then in fairness the least we can do is to take out Sub-section (4).
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
      The Committee divided. Ayes, 19; Noes, 30.

      Jones, Mr. William

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Scanlan, Mr.

      Joyce, Mr.

      Nugent, Sir Walter

      Smith, Mr. Albert

      Kelly, Mr.

      Nuttall, Mr.

      Solicitor-General, Mr.

      Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

      Primrose, Mr.

      Ward, Mr. John

      M'Callum, Mr.

      Robertson, Mr. John

      Williams, Mr. Penry

      Mond, Sir Alfred

      Roch, Mr.

      Wilson, Mr. Tyson

      The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment in order is that handed in in writing by the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Goldman).
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move in Sub-section (6) to leave out the words "Treasury may determine" and to insert instead thereof the words "Board of Trade may require."
      The Clause, as it at present stands, leaves the Treasury to determine what the payment of the central body shall be. My Amendment proposes to substitute the Board of Trade instead of the Treasury. I think the course proposed in the Clause as it stands is not the most desirable course. It is conceivable, for instance, that you may have a depreciation in trade leading to a good deal of unemployment, and a heavy drain consequently upon the central fund. In that case I think the proper authority to determine the amount of money to come from the central fund should be the Board of Trade, and the object of my Amendment is to so provide.
      Mr. BUXTON: This is a question as to how the contribution of the State shall be paid and in what manner, and at what time. I am very gratified by the confidence which the hon. Gentleman's Amendment shows in the Board of Trade. I can assure him we are quite capable of taking on the duty, but clearly the Committee will see that the best method of payment, and the best method in which the money should be paid, is one for the Treasury and not the Board of Trade to determine. As between the two Departments there can be no question that it is the duty of the Treasury, who have a special staff for that purpose, and not the Board of Trade.
      Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
      Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I should like to say that I think the retention of Sub-section (4) is a distinct mistake, because it introduces inequality between the employer and employed, which I think should not be allowed to remain there, especially since the Trade Disputes Act. Since that Act there is a great deal more reason for putting in a Clause against infringement
      1686
      of the Act by the workman. So far as I am concerned, I shall protest again at a later stage against this Sub-section passing as it is. May I point out with regard to what the Solicitor-General said as to the bonus, that it would be a great deal better in my judgment that if instead of the words "otherwise recover from" we said, "every sum payable to." As it stands, it seems to me it is a clear case of not keeping the ring as the phrase goes between the employer and the employed, and it is a distinct blot upon the Section. I do not propose to divide against the Clause, but I desire to say that, as the Clause stands at present, I think it is unfair, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill whether the point cannot be considered between now and the Report stage. We should keep a fair hand as between the two parties.
      Sir JOHN SIMON: There is every intention of keeping a fair hand, and as far as I am concerned, I should be most anxious to consider the words suggested. Meanwhile, the phrase "or otherwise recover from" appears also in Sub-section (3).
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: That is all the more reason for taking it out here.
      Sir J. SIMON: I will consider the matter.
      Mr. J. WARD: I hope when the Government consider this matter they will remember that the principle applied here is exactly the same as that applied in the Truck Act. We are told distinctly that employers shall not make reductions for certain purposes, but you do not prevent them sending an ultimatum to the whole of the workmen to reduce wages in order to make up for reductions. Here we are only carrying out the Statute Law and regulations as between the workman and the employer. I hope the Government will take that into account. If they follow the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, they will be altering the State regulations existing between workmen and employers.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I entirely agree with the arguments of the right hon. and

      1687
      learned Gentleman. I will not touch upon the Amendment which has been ruled out of order, but I want to say a word in reference to the finance of the Clause. Under the Resolution of this House, the employers and the employed are to pay equal shares. Parliament is not to bear an equal share with them, and is to pay only one-third instead of one-half. A good many people assumed the payments were to be one-third by the State, one-third by the employer, and one-third by the workman. That is not the case, and if the Amendment which was put down by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) to increase the State contribution was in order, I should have supported it. Under Clause 76 there are provisions that at the end of every five years, the rates of payment on the part of the employers and the workmen may be reconsidered, but if there is any deficit in the working of the Bill the workmen and the employers are to have their rates altered. Many of us feel there will be a deficit, and that the Government contribution is not sufficiently high.
      Of course, we have the Actuary's report from Mr. Acland, who is a man of the very highest position. If you study the report you will find it is entirely based upon the rates of unemployment in trade unions, because no other figures are available. There are no figures as to what unemployment there is outside the existing trade unions, and many of us are of opinion that the rate of unemployment is likely to be higher in the non-trade unions than in the trade union groups. The trade unions have the very pick of the workmen in their particular trades. I should be quite prepared to admit that there is less unemployment among the trade unionists and in their particular trades, and that being so, I think there is likely to be that fault in the Actuary's report, and that the figure he has allowed for unemployment is not sufficient, and ultimately I believe the Government will be forced to an additional contribution. It is quite possible for the House to revise and to reconsider the financial Resolution it has already passed, and I should like the Government before we get to Clause 76 to consider whether it would be possible to reconsider the financial Resolution to the extent, at all events, of the Government paying half the sum should that be necessary. If at the end of five years it should
      1688
      be found that there is a deficit to the extent of the sum that comes from the employer and the employed, and if the Government are not prepared to reconsider an increased contribution, I am bound to say I shall have to move an Amendment to Clause 76.
      Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 62.—(Statutory Conditions for Receipt of Unemployment Benefit.)
      The statutory conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit by any workman are—

      (1) That he proves that he has, since the commencement of this Act, been employed in an insured trade during each of not less than twenty-six separate calendar weeks.

      (2) That he has made application for unemployment benefit in the prescribed manner, and proves that since the date of the application he has been continuously unemployed.

      (3) That he is capable of work but unable to obtain suitable employment.

      (4) That he has not exhausted his right to unemployment benefit under this part of this Act.

      Provided that a workman shall not be deemed to have failed to fulfil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined an offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a trade dispute involving a strike or lock-out, or an offer of employment at a rate of wage lower than the rate which he habitually earns when in employment, or, in the case of an offer of employment in a district other than that in which he resides, at a rate of wage lower than the rate current in the district in which the employment is offered.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "since the commencement of this Act."
      Mr. HILLS: I do not think the Sub-section can stand as amended. We have inserted in Clause 61 a provision that no unemployment benefit is to be paid in the first six months. Now this Clause 62, Sub-section (1), says that any person who is in an insured trade for six months will come on the fund. It cannot mean that a man who was six or ten years ago working in such a trade should come upon the fund. You must make some date from which you have to start or else you will

      1689
      get into hopeless confusion. I am afraid the Government have not given this Amendment the attention it deserves.
      Mr. BUXTON: Our object is to protect the funds in the first six months. At the present moment you must, before the Act comes into force, be a member of a trade, and qualified by employment for twenty-six weeks. The Bill, as it originally stood, said that for the first six months a man would not be entitled to any benefit. It must not be thought that if a man is not qualified under the Schedule he will receive benefits. They have to qualify, and the Bill as it now stands gives them a greater opportunity to qualify than as it stood originally. Both employers and workmen brought the matter to our attention. I think the point is not disturbed by my Amendment.
      Mr. HILLS: Perhaps I did not make my point quite clear. Suppose a man is out of work now for two years, but was employed in an insured trade for twenty-six weeks before that, does he come upon the fund? A man who is six months in employment in an insured trade at any time before the commencement of the Bill would benefit to the extent of coming upon the fund. He may have been employed for six months three years ago, and he may have since been out of work, and he may have paid no contribution for the whole of these three years. It cannot be the intention of the Government that that man should come upon the fund.
      Mr. BUXTON: He comes upon the fund in this sense in that particular case. The man has paid no contribution will receive no benefits, but so far as the future, and as he has paid contributions in the proportion set out in the schedule, and he will be entitled to benefits because he has been in an insured trade in the past. As the Bill originally stood, this particular man could not have come upon the fund until he paid twenty-six contributions, and it was pointed out that in many trades this particular man might be barred out from obtaining the benefits until a much later period. I do not think the hon. Member clearly understands that the benefits the man receives will be in proportion to the contribution he pays.
      Mr. HILLS: Then this Sub-section is useless.
      Mr. HOLT: Can a person be said to be employed in an insured trade previous to
      1690
      the day on which the Act comes into operation. In my opinion there is no such thing as an insured trade until the day the Act comes into operation.
      Sir J. SIMON: As the list of insured trades are scheduled, I do not think there is any difficulty about this point. The hon. Member opposite appreciates that if a man asks for benefit he can only get it at the rate of one week for five contributions.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the discussion has rather trenched upon the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley, I should like your ruling as to whether it will be possible later to discuss that Amendment.
      The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite appreciate the point of order. What the President of the Board of Trade has moved to leave out of the Clause is the sentence "since the commencement of this Act." I understand the point of order is whether, if those words are left out, it will be in order to move to insert the words, "in the year immediately preceding any period of unemployment."
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will not press my point, and I assume it will be in order to move the insertion of those words.
      Mr. HOLT: Is my hon. Friend quite certain upon this point? Supposing the man was employed in an illegal trade, I think I am right in the point I have put forward because the schedule can only apply from the date on which the Act comes into operation.
      Sir A. MOND: I understand that the object of this Clause is to give some guarantee that a man applying for unemployment benefit is a bonâ fide member of an insured trade. I see that twenty-six separate calendar weeks are provided for, but I do not know how they are to be calculated. I think it would be better to leave out the Sub-section altogether, because the words do not constitute a bonâ fide test as to whether a man is a bonâ fide member of an insured trade. If we leave out these words we ought to have some period fixed, it might be a pretty long period, say, five years, if you like, during which a man can show that he has worked twenty-six separate weeks.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I ask the Committee to pass this Amendment.
      Question, "That the words 'since the commencement of this Act,' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Mr. BUXTONmoved in Sub-section (1) after the word "employed," ["been employed in an insured trade "] to insert the words "as a workman."
      Question, "That those words be inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words, "within the last twelve months immediately preceding any period of unemployment." I think this Amendment is necessary to complete the object of the Bill. This Clause does not apply to all trades but only to certain selected trades, and we want to make this provision definite in regard to those trades. A man may be employed in the engineering trade for twenty-six weeks, thereby qualifying under the Bill; then for five or ten years he might be out of that trade altogether and yet be qualified, when he is out of work and following another trade altogether, to come back and claim his insurance, made five or ten years before. The limit I wish to suggest is in the year immediately preceding. I am not wedded to any particular form of words, but I do say that there ought to be a limit because I am sure it would not be the intention of the Government that a man should go out of the trade, become employed in another trade altogether, and then subsequently claim his unemployment benefit. I think if the Committee thought it was desirable it would be possible to amend Clause 2, so that a man who has once been a contributor and has left his trade, providing his time limit has not expired, could have his contributions returned. That is a matter for further consideration.
      Mr. HILLS: I am afraid my hon. Friend will think me rather hard to please, but I hope he will not press this Amendment. When I spoke on the last Amendment I did not want to limit the number of men coming on the fund. All I wanted to do was to point out the definition of that Clause was so wide that every single person would come in, and that therefore the Clause would practically have no effect at all. If we pass this Amendment I am afraid we shall impose an undue restriction. I think the words are too narrow. Let the Committee appreciate what this means. It means that no man
      1692
      could claim unemployment insurance unless he had been employed for at least half of the preceding twelve months. You do not want a restriction of that kind to protect the fund; the fund protects itself and it is automatic, and once you have got that I do not see why you want to restrict the number of people who come on the fund. I am certain an artificial restriction of this kind would operate with great hardship, and it would give rise to the very hard case of a man who had been employed for twenty or twenty-five weeks in the preceding year and could not come on the fund, whilst one employed for twenty-seven weeks could. My point was an entirely different one. I tried to show that the Government Clause excluded nobody, and I still think the Bill is better without Subsection (1) of Section 62. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: If there be no time limit, how will it be possible to work the fund when a man may be for this number of weeks employed, then be abroad ten years or in some other part of the country, and afterwards come back, when the whole of the account connected with him will have disappeared?
      Sir J. SIMON: The actual proposal of the hon. Member would lead to this result. If a man during the twelve months preceding his claim on the fund had worked for one day less than six months, he would be outside the benefit altogether. I think that is much too strict a limitation. Whatever the difficulty may be, I do not think it is necessary to lay down so strict a rule as that to avoid cases of this kind which might arise. The view of the Government is that we certainly could not require the man as a condition of getting benefit, to show that he has during the last twelve months worked more than six months at an insured trade. It may be that he had worked continuously for three or four years, and accumulated considerable claims on the fund, and then had the misfortune to have a bad year in which he was out of employment for the greater part of the year. I think in a case of that kind it would be much too hard to say that the man had no claim on the fund. The form of the Amendment needs reconsideration, although I think the substance of the hon. Member's suggestion deserves attention. Is it practical to allow a man to claim if you do not concern yourself as to whether he worked before or

      1693
      after the passing of the Act at the trade, however far back he may go to prove his twenty-six weeks?
      I understand the hon. Member is not wedded to this particular proposal, and I invite the Committee to consider what is the best course to take. There are two propositions in which I think we shall all agree. One is that we all desire to be certain that the genuine workmen in all these insured trades is not going to be deprived of any benefits he has earned, merely because he has been particularly unfortunate in the matter of getting work. On the other hand, we want to have such a limitation as will prevent the absurdity occurring which has already been pointed out. I think the sort of period much more worthy of consideration would be something like five years. If a man could show within five years that he had worked twenty-six weeks at an insured trade, I suppose he might be regarded as satisfying the conditions of the fund. The very basis of the scheme is that the trade, and those genuinely concerned in it, ought to bear this burden of fluctuation in that trade. I suggest to the Committee, if they will generally agree that the period ought to be extended beyond twelve months, it might be desirable to collect opinion as to whether five years is a proper period or not.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I myself should prefer a shorter period. I would recommend three years, and if this Amendment is withdrawn I will submit another suggestion. The point at issue is really very important, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed further with the Bill to-day. I think he will admit that the Grand Committee has got on very well for the first day, and when this Amendment has been disposed of we might agree to adjourn.
      Mr. BUXTON: I am perhaps hardly in order, but I will readily respond to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. We have made very good progress to-day, and I think there has been a real desire on the part of Members to arrive at a friendly agreement.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment, but I certainly should like to know beforehand what period is to be suggested. My recommendation is one year.
      Sir J. SIMON: If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment I will move,
      1694
      or will ask him to move for that will be the same thing, some such phrase as "in the preceding three years."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Solicitor-General mentioned five years. I mentioned one. I am quite willing to take three.
      Sir J. SIMON: It is not a question of bargaining. It is a question of what is the right period.
      Mr. JOHN WARD: I think the Solicitor-General's suggestion of five years is by far the best.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am not quite sure of that. Remember there must be a certain amount of genuineness about the man. Twenty-six weeks in five years is an exceedingly small average. I would suggest that, more particularly in the trade with which the hon. Member is associated, the men would be protected by a shorter period than five years.
      Mr. JOHN WARD: I was just looking at the case of a man on the margin between insured and uninsured trades. You are laying it down that though a man may have been practically in permanent employment in some other trade which is not insured, because he was not employed in an insured trade during the whole time, he is to get no benefit. You would thereby exclude many men who have been honestly employed during the biggest part of the time in some other trade closely connected with those trades that you are insuring, and thereby you are doing a great injury to a number of men.
      Mr. DENMAN: Three years is too short a period. On what ground do you say if he has not been to work twenty-six calendar weeks within the last three years he will not be entitled to receive benefits for which he has paid? I admit that for practical working you cannot go back centuries, but surely three years is too short, and I very respectfully submit five years would be a reasonable period to decide on at once.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment in order to allow five years to be inserted.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, after the word "weeks" ["twenty-six separate calendar weeks"], to insert the words, "in the preceding five years."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think five years is too long, but perhaps the Government will agree if we allow that period to go through now to reconsider it on report.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The argument of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) applies just as much to five as to three or ten years. A man on the margin of a trade who quits it and goes to another might have the same reason for coming back after twenty-five years as after five years. Looking at the accounts that will have to be checked and the responsibility of the employer, I think five years is ample.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move to leave out all the words of the Clause after the word "declined" ("Provided that a workman shall not be deemed to have failed to fulfil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined an offer of employment"), and to insert instead thereof the words:—

      "(1) An offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute; or

      1696

      "(2) An offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those which he habitually obtained when in employment or would have obtained had he continued to be employed; or

      "(3) An offer of employment in any other district at a rate of wage lower or on conditions less favourable than those generally observed in such district by agreement between associations of employers and of workmen, or, failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in such districts by good employers."

      I do not propose to make my observations about the Amendment now, because we will consider this and other questions at the next meeting.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move "That the Committee do now adjourn till Tuesday next, 7th November, at 11.30 o'clock a.m."
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at Thirty-eight minutes past Three o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  Part II.—UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

    STANDING COMMITTEE B.
    [Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES in the Chair.]
    Mr. GOLDMANhad given notice of an Amendment in Clause 62, Sub-section (2), after the word "Unemployed," to insert the words "not only in his own trade, but also in any other trade or calling."
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which appears on the paper in the name of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth is clearly out of order, because the question raised by the amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was raised before the Committee adjourned on Thursday last.

    STANDING COMMITTEE B.

      REPORTS OE DEPUTATIONS.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: May I, simply to keep myself in order, move "That the Committee do now adjourn," so that I may call attention to a matter in which I am sure hon. Members are interested. It arises out of the answer to a question which was put to the President of the Board of Trade in the House yesterday in regard to matters which are to come before this Committee in which we are engaged. I am sure that everyone will recognise that we all wish to deal with this Bill—the principle having been admitted—in the best way we can. I am sure that everyone feels, as I do, that the matters with which this part of the Bill deals have not been fully discussed in the country, and that, therefore, the views of those concerned have not been brought to the attention of Members of the House of Commons in the way they would have been had the deputations to the Government been treated in the same way as the deputations with respect to Part 1. Under these circumstances, I think every member of the Committee must feel that we are not in a position to realise now what are the objections to the Bill which are entertained by people outside to the extent that we ought to be able to realise them. In my judgment we should be in that position if we had concise summaries of the interviews which took place with the deputations when they met the President of the Board of Trade and placed their objections before him and of
      1698
      the answers he made to the deputations. We have an analogy for this in the case of the Insurance Bill in relation to Part 1. There the Chancellor of the Exchequer did publish a summary of the interviews on those questions which were brought before him. During the past few months everybody's mind was full of the Insurance Bill, and hon. Members were receiving communications from every kind of interest with respect to the proposals in Part I. We were pretty well informed what the objections were to the proposals in Part 1, but in the case of the unemployment clauses in Part 2 that is not the case. We are not informed how the people who will be affected regard these proposals, and what the objections are. I wish to make an appeal, which, I trust the President of the Board of Trade will consider immediately. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to publish with the least possible delay a summary of the deputations received and the answers he gave to the representations made by the deputations.
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I had notice that this question was going to be raised, and I do not complain of the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The point is this: I was asked yesterday how far I could lay before hon. Members a report of the various deputations the Board of Trade had received with reference to the matters dealt with in Part II. of the Bill, and my answer was that I thought that in every case, or at all events in a large majority of the cases, the interviews were private. I think I stated that they were private at the request of the members of the deputations, on the ground that in these matters you can really, as I said in the House, talk over matters more easily if you have a private deputation than if you have a public interview, with the speeches on the one hand and on the other reported. That being so, I find it difficult to know how far information could be given to the Committee as to the deputations. I have nothing to conceal in the matter, and I would be glad to give any information and assistance to the Committee I could. I will see how far from the memorials sent in they could be in a few sentences summarised, and how far also the replies given could be summarised; but I cannot off-hand commit myself to saying how far that could be done. I do not know how far we have kept a record of these interviews, which were private interviews, nor do I really know what

      1699
      would be the real value or assistance to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman's request were complied with. I can give this statement: The substantial points made on the one hand by the representatives of the employers, and on the other hand by the representatives of the workmen, have already been practically put down on the Paper in the form of Amendments, and I am very glad that they should have been. In addition to that a very considerable number of the points put to me by both sides have been met. I hope, at all events, that I have met them by the Amendments I have put down after consideration of the various representations made to me. I will consider what I can do in the direction the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but I venture to ask the Committee not in consequence of this to delay their proceedings. I do not think that the proceedings of the Committee should be delayed for that reason, nor do I really think that the information I could give them would be of much advantage to their proceedings, on the ground that in regard to these matters we have endeavoured to meet by the Government Amendments the objections which were made. We hope to be able to deal sympathetically with the Amendments of which notice has been given on both sides. Under these circumstances I think every point as it arises will be fully brought before the Committee for consideration.
      Mr. HOARE: Perhaps I may be allowed to say one word without in any way delaying the procedure of the Committee. It seems to me that the President of the Board of Trade does not quite realise our position. We have here the Insurance Bill in two Parts. We have a Report both by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade that all the information will be placed at the disposal of all parties in the House of Commons. In reference to the first Part of the Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer met us by publishing a White Paper giving a report of the views put before him by the deputations he had received with reference to the sickness part of the Bill, and what I fail entirely to understand is why, if a report was published with reference to the first Part of the Bill, a report should not also be published with reference to the second Part. It seems to me that the case is even stronger with reference to the second Part
      1700
      of the Bill. We have not had that public discussion in the country with reference to the unemployment part of the Bill which we have had with reference to Part 1. The President of the Board of Trade has just said that the material points have, in his opinion, already been brought out—that is to say, the points that were raised by the various deputations—and that he himself has met certain of them by Government Amendments. With all due respect, I cannot agree with that at all. There seem to me to be many details both for and against the Amendments he has put on the paper which do necessitate the publication of the very important interviews which took place with the deputations he received. Owing to the courtesy of the President of the Board of Trade, I received yesterday a list of the deputations that have been received by the Board. I will not take up the time of the Committee by going through the whole list. It is enough to say that no less than sixteen important deputations have been received at the Board of Trade. I find that they represent a whole variety of interests, not only employers but workmen as well, and not only members of one party, but members of several parties. I find, for instance, that they begin with the Shipbuilding Employers Federation, and end with the Social Democratic Party. I think the Committee will thus realise the catholicity of the interests that have been represented before the Board of Trade. It shows the very widespread interest which is felt in this particular Part of the Bill, and it therefore strengthens our case when we ask that all the available information should be generously placed at the disposal of this Committee.
      Mr. W. PEEL: The President of the Board of Trade told us that he had considered the representations that were put before him, and that he had introduced amendments to meet the objections. That is all very well; but, of course, it is very important also to know, first of all, at whose suggestions and from what parties these different ideas came. After all, you cannot in a Bill of this kind consider all these matters purely from the point of view of abstract right and reason. You have to know what are the forces behind, what interests are involved, and the number of people bringing forward different suggestions. You have to consider also proposals from the point of view of the

      1701
      different deputations, and how many they represent, in order to be able to criticise their proposals in the light of the special interests they are sent to represent. I think it is almost a pity, if I may say so, that the precedent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not followed, because I should have thought that these matters could be discussed quite openly and a report published, as was done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to Part I. I do not see that we gain very much by private interviews in these matters. We ought to know who put forward the separate points.
      Mr. BUXTON: I think there is some confusion in this matter. I had not seen this White Paper before, but I have it now in my hand. I find that it contains reports of thirteen deputations, but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that he had received considerably over a hundred deputations. Those referred to in the White Paper were obviously public deputations at the request of the persons concerned in them. Therefore, they were no doubt quite rightly published, but I would like to repeat that none of the deputations I have received were public deputations of that kind. Certainly there was a very large number of cases. I distinctly remember, in which those who came to us desired that the deputation should be regarded as private for the reasons I have already given.
      Mr. PEEL: Were the thirteen the most important?
      Mr. BUXTON: No, they were public deputations it was not a question as to whether they were important or not. I have no desire to keep anything back, and if the Committee will allow me to look into the point, I will see what I can do in reference to it. They will certainly have the information as to what these deputations were, and I will let them have every information which I feel I can furnish.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think there has been any confusion. What we want is what the Chancellor has already done with regard to Part I. of the Bill. It is quite true that only thirteen out of 100 deputations were published, but those are the most important. Besides, the Chancellor has done much more; he has published the correspondence, I think in two White Papers, on the questions that have been submitted to him,
      1702
      and as to points of difficulty on the construction of the Bill, and the replies that have been given by the Treasury, with a lot of information about the German schemes, all of which I have read through. But, with regard to unemployment, no assistance has been given from the Board of Trade. The President says that the suggestions that have been made have been met by Amendments. The business of this Committee is to see whether those Amendments do really meet the grievances put forward. It is not enough for the President to say that he has met them. It is up to the Committee to say that they are met. The Committee therefore should be put in possession, as far as possible, of the information which the President himself has obtained from these deputations. The President has said that the information was not of much value. We are the judges as to whether that is so. It may not be of much value to him, because he may know the subject so thoroughly, but we cannot possibly know it so well, as we have not the same means of information that he has. Certainly, if the best work is to be got out of this Committee, all information possible ought to be given to it. If the President looks at the list which he gave in his answer yesterday, he will see that industrial insurance companies, small employers, unions, and all these various bodies have made some sort of suggestions. We are entitled to know what they are, and where the shoe pinches. We cannot possibly know, unless we correspond with all these various people and get the information, unless the President himself publishes it. I would ask that he should publish it at once. There is no use in getting it in four or five days or a week's time, when we are three-quarter's through the business. At the pace at which we are going now, we shall have finished this part of the Bill in a week or two. What we want is, to get the information when it would be useful.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure that the President sees the reasonableness of the suggestion made. The whole point is this. I suppose I am in the same position as other members of the Committee. I have no means of knowing what are the objections to this Bill except through my private correspondence. What I want is the point of the objections that have been put before the Board of Trade, so that we may judge whether the Amendments put down do fairly and properly meet those objections. All I ask the President to say

      1703
      in supplement of what he has already said is that he will at once, to-day, publish what he can in the way of giving us further information, and that he will supplement that when the Board of Trade has more time to-morrow in the way of giving us the means of properly considering this Bill, which is of vast importance, and which no single member of the Committee, except those connected with the Board of Trade, have the means of properly considering.
      Mr. BUXTON: I see what is in the minds of hon. Members, and I will see what I can do to meet them. Subject, of course, to the fact that these deputations were of a private character, and were so at the request of those who came to see us, I will endeavour to do what I can. I can assure the Committee that there is no desire to keep anything back. How far I shall be able to meet the actual proposals made is another matter, but I shall consider the matter carefully.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Will you send out anything to-day?
      Mr. BUXTON: I cannot say; I will do what I can.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

      CLAUSE 62.—(Statutory Conditions for receipt of Unemployment Benefit).
      The statutory conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit by any workman are—

      (1) that he proves that he has, since the commencement of this Act, been employed in an insured trade during each of not less than twenty-six separate calendar weeks;

      (2) That he has made application for unemployment benefit in the prescribed manner, and proves that since the date of the application he has been continuously unemployed;

      (3) that he is capable of work but unable to obtain suitable employment;

      (4) that he has not exhausted his right to unemployment benefit under this Part of this Act:

      Provided that a workman shall not be deemed to have failed to fufil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined an offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a trade dispute involving a strike or lock-out, or an offer of employment at a rate of wage lower than the rate which he habitually
      1704
      earns when in employment, or, in the case of an offer of employment, in a district other than that in which he resides, at a rate of wage lower than the rate current in the district in which the employment is offered.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move to leave out from the word "declined" ["that he has declined an offer"] to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the following:—

      (1) An offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute; or

      (2) An offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those which he habitually obtained when in employment, or would have obtained had he continued to be employed; or

      (3) An offer of employment in any other district at a rate of wage lower or on conditions less favourable than those generally observed in such district by agreement between associations of employers and of workmen, or, failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in such districts by good employers.

      It may be for the convenience of the Committee before we get on to the actual Amendment, that I should make a statement in reference to this matter. What the Committee has to decide is the case of a man who is out of employment and is receiving unemployed benefits, and is offered a job. The question is, in what circumstances should such a man be entitled to refuse that particular job without forfeiting his benefit? The offer of work is the safeguard which the fund has against the man out of employment, and the offer of work is a test whether the man is genuinely unemployed, or whether he is entitled to continue in benefit? On the other hand, the man himself is clearly entitled to be in the position of not having offered to him work which in the nature of things is unsuitable, and he is entitled to the protection of the Bill against the pressure which might be brought to bear on him or the threat that might be held over him of withdrawal of benefit if he did not accept a particular form of work. The words which originally appeared in the Bill were not altogether clear, and the object of my Amendment is to adapt to a certain extent what was in the Bill before, but also to a large extent to make it clear.

      1705
      There are three branches to this subject. The first is the case in which a trade dispute is proceeding, and the question is whether the Fund is entitled to say to a man, when obviously there would be an opening for employment where a strike is taking place, "If you do not take that employment you will not receive benefit in future." I do not think there is any difference of opinion among Members of the Committee that in such circumstances the man is entitled to refuse work. That is to say, the Fund is not entitled to force him, practically, to take part in a trade dispute by the threat of taking away his benefit. Therefore, as regards that part, I do not think I need dwell upon it. The next two questions are, in the first place, the question of the district in which the man has been habitually at work, and in which he is continuing to work, and the other is a fresh district in which he has formerly worked. I lay down here a proposition or two which it appears to me govern the conclusion at which the Committee may come in reference to this matter. The first is that all the three parties, the workman and employers on the one hand, and the State on the other, contribute to this Fund. It is quite clear that the Fund itself should not be used, either in this part of the Bill or any other for the alteration of the existing conditions of service which may prevail, and that the State, through the Fund, should in this matter preserve impartiality and hold the balance between the two parties, that is to say, that the Fund should neither be utilised for raising wages in the particular district in question, nor still less for reducing the rate in the particular district or the other district.
      That can be best brought about by putting the workman in the same position, when he receives employment, as he was in before he went out of that employment. He is entitled to stand out for what he was earning before, and he is not entitled, I think, to stand out for better conditions than those under which he was before. What we are trying to meet is the general proposition which I think ought to govern the plan at which the Committee arrive in this matter. Take first the particular district, which governs 90 per cent. of all the cases in question. What we want is a very simple method of judgment on the part of the insurance officer, so that those cases will solve themselves simply by matters of fact, and not by matters of opinion. The proposal we make in regard to the particular district in which the man has been working and proposes to continue
      1706
      his work, is that we should take the rate of wage as proposed in Sub-section (2) of the Clause. That will be the rate which he "habitually obtains when in employment or would have obtained had he continued to be employed." Those last few words I think are only fair. There are cases in which a man out of employment has been in employment in a higher position and receiving a higher rate of wage, and he is entitled, I think, in those circumstances, to say that he should go back on the terms he would have been receiving if he had remained throughout in employment. Then this question arises: In the interval between a man having been out of work and his receiving employment in the particular class of work in which he has been engaged, there may have been a rise of wages, and therefore it is clear that if he has been receiving the ordinary wage before, he is entitled to assume that he will receive the new rate which has come into force since the time he was out of work. Otherwise, with slight exception, the proposal in the particular district is that the man should be able to stand out for the rate of wages which he had habitually earned before. This is practically an individual test, that is to say, the man will go back substantially to the same position that he had when he became out of employment. This proposal has several advantages. It protects, in the first place, the trade unionist, or the man who will only work at the prevailing and recognised rate. It protects him because, presumably, he has been working at that rate before, and he can stand out for that rate again. It will at the same time, I think, protect the fund against the incompetent man who has never earned the particular rate, and is not entitled to remain on the fund indefinitely until he receive a rate which is higher than that which he could previously earn. That has the great advantage, from the point of view of the machinery and administration of the Bill, of dealing simply with questions arising in each individual case or what is or is not in the particular district the prevailing rate. As far as the wage fund generally is concerned it will be in exactly the same position at the end of the transaction as it was at the beginning. The point was raised to me by one of those deputations to which reference was made—the deputation of the engineering employers. I do not think they objected at all to the principle of the Clause, but they said, take the case of a man who is earning in a

      1707
      particular case the sum of 38s. per week by reason of his being an especially good workman, and therefore receiving a special rate of wage. He may lose his employment and he may go to some other employer to work. The employer probably, in that case, would offer him, to begin with, 36s. a week, the prevailing and recognised rate. But the man himself has been earning 38s. a week, and they asked whether, under those circumstances, he would be entitled to stand out for the 38s. instead of accepting the 36s. I said that under those circumstances I certainly thought the man was entitled to stand out, if he chose, for the personal rate which he had been habitually earning. But I pointed out to them that I really did not think the question was a serious one from the point of view of this Clause, because obviously if a man is a very good workman, and in no sense a malingerer, he would not stand out for the extra 2s. over the recognised rate of 36s., seeing that the only benefit he would get is 7s. a week. I said that really the question would solve itself.
      Let me point out, with reference to this matter, that I think there is some misunderstanding in some of the remarks made, and also some misconception as to what we propose, as though we were saying a man was not to accept any other rate. The only position the fund takes up is that, under certain conditions, they offer a man employment. If he does not take it he loses his benefit. In the particular district, therefore, the wage which a man has been habitually earning personally is the fair rate. But when we come to the district outside, the matter is rather different. There I think the best basis is the collective rate as compared with individual rate. By collective rate I mean the rate generally prevailing, the standing and recognised rate paid by the employers. In accordance with that it will arise that a particular man receiving 25s. a week, the habitual rate, might be offered work in a district in which the recognised rate is 28s., and I think it is quite obvious, when that arises, that the man should not be forced to go into a district at a rate lower than the recognised rate, because obviously that would tend to reduce the prevailing rate in that district; and, similarly, the man should not be able to stand out for an individual rate which is over the recognised standard rate in another distrct, though it might be lower than he had been receiving in his particular
      1708
      district. I hope the Committee, in considering this proposal, will look at it from the point of view that we are desirous as far as possible to avoid any interference with the standard rate of wages. We desire to have a simple test in each individual case, and we desire, as we have under the Fair Wages Resolution, to take the basis of the recognised rate.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3).
      I think by moving the omission of those two paragraphs I will raise very conclusively the point I desire to bring before the Committee, and which, to my mind, is a most important one, and is really the crux of this entire measure. The President of the Board of Trade is going to suggest certain safeguards by which men shall not be bound to work on certain terms when they are unemployed but it seems to be generally admitted that no man is bound to take a place that is vacant during a trade dispute. That, I may say, is universal in foreign systems of unemployment benefit; but with regard to the other two conditions, they are most strongly opposed by, I think I may say every employer, certainly with whom I have come in contact, by the London Chamber of Commerce, the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, and the Associated Chambers of Commerce, because they feel that the retention of these Amendments making it possible for men to refuse either in his own district or in any other, a rate of wages less than that which they have been receiving is in effect by a side wind an attempt to establish a standard rate of wages in this country. I for one, am very strongly in favour of increases in wages, but I agree with the Solicitor-General that those things are better left to the play of economic forces than to attempt to do so by Act of Parliament. I do not want to say anything harsh against the workmen. I quite agree with the President of the Board of Trade as to those men who earn 38s. and who would accept 36s. —
      The CHAIRMAN: I put the Question in a somewhat limited form, but I would apprehend from the observations made by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) that the Committee would like a general discussion, so that the form in which I shall put the Question is as follows:—
      "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

      1709
      Then upon the Motion of the Amendment any detailed Amendments to the Amendment can be proposed.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I assume, then, I am in order in initiating a general discussion?
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is in order when I put the Question in the way I now suggest.
      Mr. BUXTON: I think it would be to the convenience of the Committee to have a general discussion, but I take it, that we will not discuss the same points on the various Amendments.
      The CHAIRMAN: Oh, no. The rule against repetition provides for that.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: My proposition is that this Clause which it is now sought to amend will undoubtedly be an inducement to an unemployed workman to draw unemployed pay for a maximum period rather than accept, as he would do, and as he does to-day under existing circumstances, temporary employment in another trade under less favourable conditions. Let us take the example of the building trade. There you have labourers and you have also excavators or navvies, very closely allied to the work of the labourers. The labourer at present has a slightly higher rate of wage than the navvy. When the labourer for some cause is thrown out of employment, he very often accepts work as a navvy, and a navvy's rate of pay.
      Under the provisions of this Bill, there would be a distinct inducement to that man to say, "No, I will not accept work, I will go on the unemployed benefit as long as it lasts, and until I have got a five or six or seven weeks' holiday at the expense of the fund, I will not accept work on any less basis than that." I suggested a moment ago that this was really an attempt in another form to raise under this Bill a standard rate of wages, and I am justified in thinking that by the remarks which were made on the opposite side of the House below the Gangway, particularly by two hon. Members whom I see present, when this Bill was downstairs upon its First and Second Reading. I want to call the very special attention of the Committee to this. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) in dealing, I think, with the First Reading of the Bill, said:—
      "Just one final word of a general character with reference to unemployment. The proposal that we
      1710
      once made about maintenance in connection with the Right to Work Bill can undoubtedly be met to a large extent by insurance, and so far we accept it, but I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will impose certain conditions upon these unemployment benefits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1911, col. 657, Vol. XXV.]
      I am bound to say I should like to see the hon. Member move those conditions. The hon. Member for Blackfriars went a little further. He said, dealing with this Unemployment Bill:—
      "We stand for a perfectly easily understandable principle when we say we are banded together to maintain a standard rate of wages. We say that as workmen we are just as much entitled to a standard rate of wages as a Cabinet Minister or anybody who find their way on that Front Bench, and we are not going to assent to any Bill or anything which will endanger the maintenance of that standard rate of wages"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1911, col. 313, Vol. XXVI.]
      And the result is, pressure is brought to bear on the Government to put these conditions in the Bill, in order that the standard rate of wages, as it is generally understood, may be maintained in regard to any workmen who may be thrown out of employment and seek benefit under the Bill. It is admitted that this Bill is experimental; its provisions are experimental. I suggested here last week, and I asked the Government whether they had made inquiries as to the experiments which had been made on the Continent in reference to unemployed benefit. They were bound to confess that there had been no compulsory scheme, except one small one, which had been a failure, but there had been a considerable number of voluntary schemes. I did my best in this matter to find out exactly how trade unions working in conjunction with employers' associations had dealt with this question of what I may call, and it is so, the standard rate of wages to be adopted for all men out of employment. I find, so far as I can ascertain, that there is not at present any society or organisation on the continent of Europe dealing with the unemployed which has anything like so stringent a condition for the establishment of a standard rate of wages as is proposed to be placed in the provisions of this Bill.
      Under the scheme at Ghent the workman is bound to accept any suitable work that may be offered to him through a Labour Exchange. I should be prepared to accept an Amendment on those lines, if any suitable work is offered through a Labour Exchange. In Denmark the provisions go so far as to encourage the workmen to accept any kind of work they can

      1711
      get rather than throw themselves on the funds. A man who throws himself on the funds rather than accept work at a less rate of wages is really doing harm to the State. He is not using to the best possible advantage his labour which should be an asset to the State. He is wasting a certain amount of productivity. In Denmark, if a man gets temporary work at less than his usual rate of wage, the provisions there are that the Fund may pay the man the difference up to the amount of the unemployed benefits. That strikes me as an exceedingly fair proposal. With regard to the man who would accept the 36s., that man would be entitled to get his 12s. out of the Fund. In the Strasburg scheme, agreed upon at a Conference between employers and trade unions, it was decided that persons who are no longer able to get skilled employment, must accept any unskilled work for which they are suitable. Under the provisions of this Bill, as proposed to be amended by the President of the Board of Trade, any man who is on the border-land between skilled and unskilled labour, is still entitled to say, "While I am unemployed, I will not work at a less than the skilled rate. I shall insist on standing out, and I shall take my unemployed benefit." I quite agree that a man is perfectly entitled to stand out for any rate of wages he likes.
      Under the play of economic practice, to which the Solicitor-General referred last week, a man is quite entitled to stand out and say he will not work, but in this case, the man is receiving money not from his own fund, to which he has paid in, not from the Employers' fund, who might be considered to have made the burden, but from the General fund of the State. In other words, you are taking, under the provisions of this Bill, a tax from the earnings of the agricultural labourer earning 15s. or 16s. per week in order to provide that the skilled artisan, when he is out of employment, shall not take anything less than the rate of wages to which he has been originally accustomed. If it were not for the taxes, I quite agree that you would be entitled to do it, but I submit to the Committee that you have no right to make taxpayers—the poorest in the land—contribute to a fund to keep the skilled artisan and trade unionist employed at the standard rate of wages. Under those circumstances I do submit to the Committee that the proper course is to omit Sub-sections (2) and (3), leaving
      1712
      Sub-section (1), with regard to which we are all agreed. I do not know whether this would be the right time to move the omission of those paragraphs.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I believe the Amendment moved by the President of the Board of Trade to be unworkable, in the first place, and an undue burden on the fund in the second. I prefer the Clause as it originally stood. The Amendment neglects the facts of trade, and the facts of human nature. The facts of trade are that you are taking specially as the subject of this Bill, a trade, which trade, to use the words of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, consists of a succession of jobs. I do not see how, having regard to the conditions of the building trade in particular, it is possible for the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade to work. The Royal Commission on the Poor Law said that a great cause of unemployment in the building trade was the minute sub-division into different departments which were not really severed, and yet with different rates you are going to prevent a man in unemployment from passing from one branch to the other branch, and you are doing it, of course, as my hon. Friend who has just sat down said, in defiance of foreign examples. You are treating labour as if it were a constant thing. A man takes a job and grows old, and because he falls into unemployment he is no longer, by reason of age, entitled to earn the wage he was accustomed to earn before, and you prevent him from earning any other. That, it seems to me, is an absurdity. You are also legislating—and this will be a heavy burden on the fund—to prevent the man who has been found to be a three-cornered man in a square hole, taking another job for which he is fit, and he has to plead as an excuse for not taking employment that he was in a particular job doing a particular class of labour, for which he received the standard rate in the district in which he was employed. Of course these theories do not fit in with the facts of trade, and they do not fit in with the facts of human nature, and therefore, I think it would have been far better to take the definition of the current wage as it was proposed.
      I now go on to point out that the term "good employer" is an absurdity in an Act of Parliament. A man may be a good employer who does not pay the standard wage because he may provide other benefits for his men which the trade unions refuse to accept as a substitute,

      1713
      yet according to the average opinion, that man may be a good employer. I know some employers who are looked upon as good employers, although they may not be upon the best of terms with the trade unions. I therefore object to this Amendment, and I think that the President of the Board of Trade would much sooner, if he had not had pressure brought to bear upon him, have had the Clause as it originally stood.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: Are you putting the whole Amendment now?
      The CHAIRMAN: No, I am only putting that the words from "declined" onwards, be left out.
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put and negatived.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move to leave out all the words after the word "declined" ["declined an offer of employment"] and to add instead thereof the words:—

      (1) An offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute; or

      (2) An offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those which he habitually obtained when in employment or would have obtained had he continued to be employed; or

      (3) An offer of employment in any other district at a rate of wage lower or on conditions less favourable than those generally observed in such district by agreement between associations of employers and of workmen, or, failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in such districts by good employers.

      The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Joynson-Hicks has an Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I move formally to omit Sub-sections (2) and (3). May I ask, on a point of Order, whether if I move that it will shut out the rest of the Amendments?
      The CHAIRMAN: I will take care to put the question so that they are not shut out.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then without further words I move to leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3), and that will raise the discussion.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is it not in order to discuss generally the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend?
      The CHAIRMAN: I must see now. That is the question. If there were no other Amendments on the Paper the general discussion might now continue.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have moved an Amendment to omit those two paragraphs, and surely it was in order for my friends and myself to support it or for my friends to object?
      The CHAIRMAN: I have put the Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brentford, but I wish to put the question in such a way as to save certain Amendments to the Amendments which follow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brentford. The hon. Member for Devizes has an Amendment.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: On the point of Order. If you only put a few words of my hon. Friend's Amendment it would be open to us to discuss the whole of his Amendment and still to say that the Amendment to his Amendment follows later. I suggest that you should only put the first few words, and that would enable us to raise the discussion.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon Member for Dudley, I think, puts the situation quite correctly, and therefore I have simply read the Amendment which the hon. Member for Brentford proposes. In order to save the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes, I propose to put the question down to the words "an offer of employment" of the Amendment. The question I have to put, therefore, is that the words "an offer of employment in the district," stand part of the Amendment.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I take it we are at liberty to discuss the whole of the Amendment, as proposed by my hon. Friend. I only want to make one or two remarks. The first is that I cannot for myself support his Amendment to leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3). I think there can be no doubt that what we want

      1715
      to do in this Bill is to hold the scales perfectly fair between the masters and the men. We ought not to seek either to raise wages by means of the Unemployment Fund, or to depreciate them, and I certainly think that if we left out Sub-sections (2) and (3) the effect would be to depreciate wages by putting pressure on the men to take a lower rate of wage than they were accustomed to, or a lower rate than obtained in particular districts. The hon. Member far Mile End seemed to think that the Clause would not work. Is it not a fact that this Clause is only to be interpreted by the insurance officers? It has to come before the Court of Referees and an umpire, and is it not a fact that the umpire who decides this matter will be the person who will ascertain whether these conditions will apply or not? I do not think, therefore, that the difficulties will really arise in the practical working that my hon. Friend suggests. He also seemed to think that in the case of an old man who was no longer capable of earning the same amount of wages that he earned before, that man would be prevented from earning any wages at all. I want to deal with this matter quite fairly. I do not think that is the fact. The man can take the lower wages, or else he will only get 7s. a week.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Not an old man; I was thinking of a man who was ageing.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That is precisely the same case. Take a man who has been earning 32s. a week, and, owing to the fact that he is ageing, he only gets an offer, say, of 28s. a week. He is not prevented by this from taking 28s. On the contrary, he has the choice of taking the 28s., or of only having the 7s. a week for five weeks. I think, therefore, that that difficulty will not arise. I raise the point now because I do not want to have two discussions with regard to it. It is rather a substantial one. I have an Amendment, which I have handed in, and I call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to what it is. In his Amendment I propose to insert after the word "in" the words "his usual." The Amendment will then run, "or on conditions less favourable than those which he habitually obtained when in his usual employment," and before the word "employed" to insert the word "so." Perhaps I may just mention what the
      1716
      point is, and we can raise it specifically later. There may be a man engaged in some special temporary work, and he is getting for a short period, higher wages than he usually gets. What we want to prevent is that he should be able in such a case to refuse work at a lower rate than what he receives in that special job, but which is equal to what he ordinarily gets in his usual employment. I will not press the matter further at this stage if my right hon. Friend thinks it had better be raised when I move the Amendment.
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: But I hope that the particular case of a man earning more than his usual wages in consequence of being in a special temporary job will be taken into consideration.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. It is perfectly true, as both he and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. H. Lawson) have pointed out, that the Insurance Bill, so far as it goes, does tend to produce the evils which they wish to prevent; but I think the answer given by the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) is a sufficient one, namely, that it does not go far enough to have that effect. At all events, I could not support the Amendment, and I hope my hon. Friend will allow it to drop.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: In response to the appeal made to me, although I should have liked the matter to be further discussed, particularly by the Labour Members, I will ask leave to withdraw.
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. HOARE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2) of the proposed Amendment, after the word "employment" ["an offer of employment"] to insert the words "in the same situation or." I have in mind the case of a man who for no less than thirteen years was earning 25s. a week in the employment of a firm of some standing. During the last few weeks he has been informed that he cannot continue in this job unless he is prepared to accept 23s. a week. I want to know if that case is covered by the proposed Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade, so that if such a man, through no fault of his own, is asked to receive a lower rate of wages, he will be able to receive unemployment benefit. If it is covered, there will be no need to press my proposed Amendment.
      Mr. BUXTON: I understand the point to be this: an employer says to a man who has been receiving 25s. a week, "Unless you will take 23s. a week I will dismiss you." The question is whether, if such a man is dismissed, he will come on the unemployment fund. There is no question about it. That man would be protected and would receive unemployment benent during the time he was unemployed. That would be met by Clause 63 (2). At any rate it is fully intended to be met, and if the hon. Member can show that the case is not covered, we will have words inserted.
      Mr. HOARE: I was aware of that Sub-section, but it seemed to me that "just cause" was rather vague. If, however, I am assured that such a case as I have mentioned is covered, I will withdraw my Amendment.
      Mr. BUXTON: Of course this is outside the trade dispute Clause.
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) of the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "lower, or on conditions less favourable than those which he habitually obtained when in employment or would have obtained had he continued to be employed," and insert instead thereof the words, "which is habitually earned in that employment by men of equal efficiency." The object of my Amendment is to define more closely the conditions under which a workman shall have the right to refuse any employment offered him. The words "habitually obtained" are, in my opinion, altogether too wide. If you adopt the proposal as it stands you will really be stereotyping the wage of a man at his best, and you will not allow for failing physical conditions.
      I have been trying to look into the future to see what effect it would have on the conditions of employment, and there appears to me to be considerable risk in insisting that a man should have the right to refuse good employment on the ground that the wage offered is not that which he has been habitually receiving. Take the case of a man who has been in steady employment for thirty-five or forty years, during which time his wages have been gradually increased to a point higher even than the standard rate. But as the actuaries have told us over and over again, as a man increases in age the more liable he is to sickness and the greater liability there is
      1718
      to physical degeneration. That being so, if you enable that man when he loses his employment to say, "I will refuse a job unless it is at the same wage that I have been habitually receiving," you will encourage the false hope that you are going to find employment for him at that wage. Does anyone here suggest that if a man who has reached a certain age loses his employment you will find employment for him at the rate of wages he has been habitually receiving? If that is the case, you will simply be creating a fund for the reception of this class of man who refuses employment on the ground that the wages offered is not that which he has habitually received, and you will very likely exhaust the fund which was intended for a totally different purpose. If the Fund is absorbed by men on account of physical deficiency or physical deterioration through age, you will be making a wrong use of the Fund. I think it is necessary that workmen should be protected in this direction, and my suggestion is that a Court of Referees should be set up, composed solely of working men, who should fix a maximum rate of wage which a workman should be within his right in refusing. If such a Court were established consisting of workmen whose interests it is to see that the fund remains solvent, the interests of the workmen would be sufficiently protected. I think it is to the interest of a workman that he should not refuse good work if the wage offered is in keeping with his efficiency at the particular time at which the employment is offered. For these reasons I move the Amendment.
      Mr. WATT: On a point of Order. Is that Amendment, as worked, in order?
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Make the words "other than which."
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to read to us Sub-section (2) as amended in accordance with his desire?
      Mr. GOLDMAN: That the workman has declined an offer of employment at a rate of wage "lower than that" which is habitually earned in that employment by a man of equal efficiency.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you will put the words down to the word "when"; that is the word I wish to omit in my Amendment.
      The CHAIRMAN: I need not read all the words over again, but I will put the question down to the words "habitually obtained" ["or on conditions less favourable than those which habitually obtained"].
      Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman's proposal really, as I follow the speech which he has just made, raises this point; as my right hon. Friend's Amendment now stands the test as to whether or not a man who claims unemployment benefit is to be refused it because he has failed to take a job offered to him in the same district is an individual test. It is a test as to whether the job offered to him is a job offered at the rate of wage lower than that which is habitually earned. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment would have the effect: it would substitute for that individual test the normal general average to be arrived at by inquiry as to what is the earning capacity of persons of equal efficiency with the applicant in question. The Committee will, of course, see that whatever be the theoretic advantage of that alteration it plainly makes a complication. You have to deal with the workman who presents himself at the office and says to the insurance officer, "I claim the 7s.," and the insurance officer has to decide, and to decide promptly, whether or not the man is right or wrong in his claim.
      It is a comparatively easy thing to find out whether a job which a Labour Exchange offers a man is a job at a rate of wage lower than that which the man has in the past earned. It may be a very difficult thing to find out whether it is a job at a rate of wage lower than that habitually earned by men of equal efficiency, because it plainly involves the inquiry as to what the man's efficiency is. No doubt the man, when questioned, will assert the maximum efficiency. I suggest, therefore, that is one reason why it is not desirable to make the change. There is a second reason. The Hon. Member supported his proposal by putting a hard case which he thought was not met. I think I can show the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that it is really met. He was putting this case. He said, "Is it reasonable that a man who in his best years has been able to earn a certain rate of wages should be entitled to refuse a job that is offered to him merely because the job is at a slightly lower rate, the change being due to the man's decreasing efficiency and decreasing physical powers" That is an
      1720
      important point. I may point out, however, that it is a point which arises in both directions. You may take the case of the young workman who is earning a small wage, and who is going forward in the ordinary course, and will expect to get a higher wage. We believe we have provided for both cases, and that we have provided for these cases in this way. We have suggested as a proper test this: Is the wage which is offered in connection with the new job such a big wage as the man would earn if he had continued in employment and having in view the changed conditions of the man? The last words of Sub-section (2) in the Clause say that a man who applies for the 7s. is not to be refused because he declines to take an offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wages lower or conditions less favourable than he up to that time had habitually obtained, or would have obtained had he continued to be employed. Let me put the two cases. If you have a man who is losing his physical powers and who is no longer able to earn the full rate, even if he had continued to be employed, that would become evident, and he would have to drop to a lower rate. Take the reverse case of a young workman gradually rising to full efficiency; if he had continued to be employed he would be claiming a higher rate. Our intention is to meet both these cases, and we believe that the words at the end of Sub-section (2) form that adjustment which the hon. Gentleman very properly says it is desirable to provide. I ask the Committee to leave it to the Insurance Officer to apply simple individual tests as to what is the wage that this man has earned, and to relieve him from the very difficult task of making inquiry as to what is the average earnings of persons in the man's walk of life, having regard to their respective individual efficiency, which I venture to think is a problem which no Insurance Officer would very much like to decide offhand.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I agree in the main with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General has said, but I think he has practically admitted that the Insurance Officer would have to do what he says it is impossible for him to do. The whole point of my hon. Friend's Amendment—and I consider it is really a very important one—is that he wants to prevent the effect of this Bill tending to

      1721
      drive old men out of employment because they cannot get the rate of wages of the younger men. His idea is that a man shall not be entitled to go to the unemployed fund because he cannot get as good a wage as he got last week, and his test is that the insurance officer is to judge whether or not he is offered a wage as good as his efficiency as a workman entitles him to receive. Now the Solicitor-General tells us that that is exactly what the Bill does; that it meets precisely this case of the man who is getting old, and that the words in Sub-section (2) are meant to imply that the insurance officer would take into account the failing health and lower wage, and that he has to deal with it.
      Sir JOHN SIMON: I do not want to quarrel with the way the right hon. Gentleman is putting it, but the difference is this: our proposal would at any rate in the ordinary case, apply an individual test, and it is only in the rare case where the man is not a man of full efficiency that any complicated or difficult question would arise. The hon. Member proposes to substitute in every case, for every workman, however normal the test as to what a man of equal efficiency would earn. Our suggestion was that it was perhaps simpler to take the individual test in all cases where it would fairly apply, and reserve this much more difficult inquiry to apply to cases which the hon. Member desires.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Evidently from the hon. Gentleman's speech he meant precisely what the learned Solicitor-General says.
      Sir J. SIMON: Well, his Amendment does not achieve it.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend's object is precisely the same as that of the Solicitor-General, and the only question is whether the words in the Amendment of the Government or the suggestion of my hon. Friend are the better.
      Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member wants to make the test habitual.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That was not his intention. Judging from the speech of my hon. Friend I am right, I think, in saying that that was not what was in his mind. I had already considered the point in my own mind and the effect of these words at the end of the Clause, "or would have obtained had he continued to be employed." I thought these words were intended to meet the cases the
      1722
      Solicitor-General has explained. So far as I can judge I think the Government's is a more practical way of dealing with the difficulty than that suggested by my hon. Friend's Amendment, and one more easily worked out. I think in practice it will be found to be more effective than the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
      Mr. PEEL: I agree as to the point made as to the difficulty in this particular matter. It seems to me the same difficulty will arise in the case of the old man as in the case of the young man in some future time, but I am not very much troubled by this particular difficulty, as it seems to me the general answer is that the amount of benefit is very low. Take an old man earning 30s. a week. It will be a very difficult thing to explain to him that he is not as efficient as he was.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: We all realise that.
      Mr. PEEL: It need not be represented to him that he is not as efficient as he was, but that for some reason or other he is not going to earn more than 26s. a week, and that in the alternative he can only get 7s. a week of employment benefit. Unless he is a Scotchman or something of that sort—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh," and "Withdraw."]—he will accept the lesser wages. I am bound to say I was going to have used the name of another nationality, but I will not do so. I think that is the general answer. At the same time I do not think it fair to say only 7s. a week is obtained in the case of a man belonging to a trade union. He will get unemployment benefit at the same time. The trade unions will give them benefit in the case that they are offered lower wages than before and refuse, and therefore we will have to add what they get from the trade unions to the 7s. a week. But even so, I believe people will take a lower wage instead of insisting on the higher.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to ask the learned Solicitor-General the same question as was put to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I agree it is not much matter what Ministers say if they seem to say the same thing. Supposing a man is getting 38s. a week in an employment in which he is a favourite, but that for some reason or another he is dismissed, and that in a neighbouring shop he is offered 36s. a week. Is he to refuse to accept the 36s? That is what the President of the Board of Trade said.
      Mr. BUXTON: I said the very reverse.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then I am sorry to say the mistake is mine, and that both Ministers have agreed.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel) in saying that as a matter of practice a man will sooner take lower wages than accept 7s., as the case may be. I say when you introduce legislation you should make sure that it should apply not to the general but to the exceptional case. I think we can show many instances under this National Scheme where it may suit a person to say, "I will take the unemployment benefit; my wife has a small shop and she will help, and it suits my convenience to go on the Unemployment Fund rather than accept the lower wages." The learned Solicitor-General tried to make a strong case, but he has not met this particular point, and I say it is a mistake to try and encourage a man to hold out against taking a job except at a particular wage. The Clause does not make provision for such cases as I have indicated. I am looking at this matter from the actuarial and financial side, and I think it is a very dangerous thing not to meet the case I put, I am not going to press the Amendment, but I do think the Government ought to accept it.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: The defence of the Clause by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton really amounts to this, that it does not matter in the least how unworkable your legislation is, for no one is likely to attempt to work it. That seems a rather disheartening basis of argument. Of the two proposals, the Government proposal is the less unworkable. It does seem to me to be a most amazing power to put in the hands of the unhappy insurance officer to make him the judge as to whether an individual has become less efficient or more efficient. By what process of medical examination or of industrial research is he to do this? I expect he will always say a man is within the terms of the Bill. The Clause is put in for some purpose. If this Clause is really necessary to prevent people coming upon the Unemployment Fund, and the Fund becomes insolvent, it is perfectly plain that the purpose of the Clause will fail. Everyone will come upon the Fund of whom there is any doubt.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade if he is not aware, as
      1724
      a London Member, that in the relief works in London hundreds of men are employed who do not want to work more than two days a week?
      Mr. BUXTON: Questions of that kind would depend upon contributions. I do not see that this point touches this particular Amendment.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move to leave out the word "when" ["he habitually obtained when in employment"], and after the word "in" to insert the words "his usual."
      This is simply to carry out the point already mentioned in the case of a man doing a temporary job at a high rate of wages, so that he should not be allowed to stand out for this high rate, but only for his usual rate, and that if he does so stand out he should not be entitled to get the unemployment benefit, I am advised these words would strengthen the Clause considerably without altering what I believe to be the intention of the Government.
      Mr. BUXTON: We think the word "habitual" would cover the point. The intention was in regard to work at which he was habitually employed, and not upon some special job which would enable him to stand out for a special rate of wages. Although these words make the matter quite clear we do not think them necessary, but we will accept them.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: How many weeks' work would make it "habitual?"
      Amendment agreed to.
      The CHAIRMAN: A good many manuscript Amendments have been handed in. The course of handing in manuscript Amendments is extremely inconvenient, and it is very difficult to keep a proper record of them at the table. It is a caution that often has to be given in this Committee. Before I can put the consequential Amendment of the hon. Member for Dudley, I must put an Amendment in the name of Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I must apologise to the Committee for not giving notice, but I only move this Amendment with a desire to help the Government. I

      1725
      am suggesting that in order to make the Clause clear, we should insert after the word "employment" the words "in that district."
      The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move?
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes; I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment in Sub-section (2) after the word "employment" ["when in employment"] to insert the words "in that district."
      Mr. BUXTON: I will accept that Amendment, subject, of course, to reconsideration.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
      Further Amendment made to the proposed Amendment: In Sub-section (2) after the word "be" ["to be employed"] insert the word "so."
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I wish to raise a point of Order. We have decided that a man is not to be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit by reason of his refusing an offer of employment at wages lower than that which he habitually obtained when in employment in his district, or which he would have obtained had he continued to be employed. That, I take it, is perfectly clear. If the man refuses a job at less wages than that amount, he is not debarred from unemployment benefit. Then we go on to say in the next paragraph that in an adjoining district, or any other district, the man must accept an offer of wages at what may be called the current rate of wages, or the rate "generally observed in such district by agreement between associations of employers and of workmen or, failing any such agreement than those generally recognised in such districts by good employers." I have an Amendment on the paper to insert after the word "employment" the words, "in the district where he was last ordinarily employed." Under the proposal of the Bill, the man is a favoured worker, and he gets something above the ordinary rate of wages in the district. For some reason that employment goes. Now I suggest that there is no reason why he should not accept what is offered. We are going to make him accept in an adjoining district, or an offer in Somerset or Dorset, work at the current rate of wages. I suggest if the man cannot get employment
      1726
      in his own district, the same conditions ought to apply to his own district as would apply to the outside district. This workman is not to have unemployment benefit if he declines employment in his own district, provided he is offered the current rate of wages such as is paid by associations of employers and of workmen, or failing any such agreement, those wages generally recognised by good employers. Under the provisions of Sub-section (3) the man has got to accept those wages. Why should you make him accept those wages in Dorset and not in Lancashire? I submit this Amendment raises a slightly different point to that which was raised in the second Sub-section, that a man is not merely entitled to refuse to go to his own work at less than the wages he has already had, but he has to decline benefit unless he accepts the current rate of wages in that district or any other district.
      The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is in order.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in Sub-section (3), after the word "employment" ["an offer of employment"], to insert the words "in the district where he was last ordinarily employed."
      Sir J. SIMON: I really think the Committee has some reason to complain of the hon. Member, and I will point out why. In his first speech he said he objected to our proposals because they were calculated to set up a standard rate of wages. He then made a speech in which he proposed to leave out Sub-section (2), which deals with an offer of employment in the district where the man had previously worked, and consequentially to insert in Sub-section (3) words which would make it apply to the man's native district and outside district. Now the hon. Member makes a speech as if his consequential suggestion was an independent proposal, and he proceeds to support his argument by saying that we ought to set up a standard rate of wages. If I may say so, that does not show the usual acuteness he generally exhibits in the contributions he makes to our Debates. I ask the hon. Member to consider whether it is quite reasonable, first to argue against the standard rate of wages, and secondly to propose that you are going to use Sub-section (3) as the sole test, and leave out Sub-section (2), and then propose this

      1727
      consequential Amendment, as though it stood on its own bottom. The result is that he has in fact provided by the present Amendment that every man who has not hitherto had the trade union rate of wages might refuse the job provided for him. The proposal of the hon. Member is entirely contrary to everything which has been said by him and his friends.
      The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member press his Amendment?
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly I do, because I object to the whole thing. Surely a Member of Parliament because he is beaten upon the whole thing is not prevented from trying to make the whole thing better. I think the Solicitor-General has been a little hard upon me, and I venture to suggest that he has not answered my point. My proposal is not consequential, and it does not set up the standard rate of wages. I do not strike out Sub-section (2), but I do say that the man before he gets his benefits has to go through two processes. First of all, if he is offered a rate of wages which he has already had, he cannot have unemployment benefit. In the second place, if he is not offered that, but is offered a standard rate of wages in the district and refuses, he cannot have unemployment benefit. If the Solicitor-General will look at these two points, he will see my Amendment is not inconsistent with the retention of Sub-section (2). I see no reason why I should not press my Amendment.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move in Sub-section (3) to leave out the words "or on conditions less favourable."
      What I wish to ascertain is whether this provision does not cover a wider case. Supposing a foreman loses his employment, and work is offered to that foreman at the same rate of wages he has been receiving before; he is no longer in the position of a foreman if his status is changed. In that condition, is he entitled to refuse employment. I cannot contemplate that the status should affect the position. I should like to have an explanation of that point.
      Mr. BUXTON: Our attention was drawn to this point. It is not always a question of wages, because there are conditions of labour working hours, methods
      1728
      of work, and so on, and they ought to be taken into account. That is the sole object of putting these words in. With regard to the particular case mentioned by the hon. Member, foremen do not come under the Act, but if there is a dispute in reference to what are the conditions and whether they are similar or otherwise in the district and the outside district, there is an appeal from the insurance officer to the referees, and they can again appeal to the umpire. On both sides, employers and workmen are fully protected, and it is quite clear that you cannot take wages solely as the test, and you must take the conditions as well.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: After that explanation, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Proposed Amendment, as amended: Leave out from the word "declined" ["declined an offer of employment"] and insert—

      (1) An offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute; or

      (2) an offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those which he habitually obtained in his usual employment in that district or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed; or

      (3) an offer of employment in any other district at a rate of wage lower or on conditions less favourable than those generally observed in such district by agreement between associations of employers and of workmen, or, failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in such districts by good employers.—[Mr. Buxton.]

      Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 63.—(Disqualifications for Unemployment Benefit.)
      (1) A workman who loses employment by reason of a trade dispute involving a strike or lock-out by which he is directly affected shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit so long as the strike or lock-out continues.
      (2) A workman who loses employment through misconduct or who voluntarily

      1729
      leaves his employment without just cause shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit for a period of six weeks from the date when he so lost employment.
      (3) A workman who has been convicted of an offence and ordered to be imprisoned without the option of a fine or to suffer any greater punishment shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit for a period of six weeks after his release from prison.
      (4) A workman shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit whilst he is an inmate of any workhouse or other institution supported wholly or partly out of public funds, and whilst he is resident temporarily or permanently outside the United Kingdom.
      Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "A trade dispute involving a strike or lockout by which he is directly affected," and to insert instead thereof the words "a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed."
      This is an Amendment which we think will render more easy and certain the application of the principle that a workman becomes entitled to unemployment benefit if he falls out of employment owing to fluctuations of trade, but that he does not become entitled to unemployment benefit if he falls out of employment in connection with a strike or lock-out, or the like. The principle that the Fund should be safeguarded to provide for the man who finds himself out of work owing to fluctuation of trade as distinguished from being a fund which will support either one side or the other in industrial warfare, is a principle, I think, which everybody on the Committee will accept, and the question, therefore, is not whether that is the right principle. I am sure that that principle is accepted by those who are here directly representing labour as well as by the others. The question is, what is the best way to embody that principle in the Bill. The first Sub-section of Clause 63 at present reads:—
      "A workman who loses employment by reason of a trade dispute involving a strike or lock-out by which he is directly affected shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit so long as the strike or lock-out continues."
      The words in the middle of that Sub-section, "by which he is directly
      1730
      affected," bring the minds of the Committee to the central point in this important matter. It appears to us, and I think the Members of the Committee will generally share our view, very desirable, that we should have a test which is capable of being clearly and swiftly applied. After all, the question is a very practical one for the man who applies for the 7s. per week. He does not want to have a lengthy involved inquiry; he wants to have the thing decided quickly, and if it is decided wrongly to have the opportunity of challenging it by an appeal. It appears to us if we say that his disqualification depends upon whether he loses his employment by reason of a trade dispute by which he is directly affected, that that is likely to give rise to endless disputes as to whether he is directly or indirectly affected, and a whole series of most difficult questions, which, if the Committee will take it from me, I well remember in courts of law require not the summary decision of a gentleman sitting behind a desk dealing out 7s. per week, but the elaborate consideration of judges and juries sometimes for weeks on end. In order, therefore, to have an understood and easy test, we propose that the Sub-section shall read as follows:—
      "A workman who loses employment by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed, shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit."
      The advantage of our suggestion where there is a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute is first of all, of course, that it provides a perfectly simple test. In order that it may be carefully followed by the Committee, let me point out the not uncommon case where there is, in the first instance, some dispute at Factory "A," and in consequence of it, there is either a lock-out ordered or a strike, which involves the stoppage of work in factories "B," "C," "D," and "E." All those factories are workshops and places where a trade dispute exists, and causes a stoppage of work. It does not make any difference whether it is the place where the dispute originated or the place where the dispute has spread to, so that the sympathetic strike is covered.
      On the other hand, we think we provide not only a clear limitation but a reasonable limitation. It is impossible, as it seems to us, to pursue ultimate consequences and causes, and it is neither possible nor fair

      1731
      to deprive a man of a benefit because, though himself not employed at any place where there is a trade dispute, either original or derived, he finds himself in consequence of other people having a trade dispute out of a job. That in modern industry not infrequently happens. Those people, therefore, would be entitled to benefit. We think the test whether there is or is not a trade dispute at the place where he works is a test not only easy to apply, but on the whole fair. It may be said it will produce hardship on one side or the other. The truth is no rule which we can hope to lay down would entirely avoid possible hard cases on one side or the other, and we have got to see we have a fair and clear rule. And this in justification for its fairness: every workman who finds himself out owing to a trade dispute where he works at any rate has this connection with the dispute, that he is working at the same place, is employed by the same employer, and that he and those who are the immediate cause of the trade dispute are fellow workers. While that does not unduly favour one side or the other, it is much to be preferred as a test to the extreme vagueness of the words at present in the Bill. I therefore ask the Committee to accept this Amendment as one really designed to produce clear and fair working. It is one which I hope the Committee will generally feel is not designed to benefit one set of people against another set, but to draw, it may be a rough, but at any rate a clear and fair line.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I think that the Amendment which the Solicitor-General has just moved is a very substantial improvement on the original wording of the Clause. As he says, we are all in agreement with what we want to do; we do not want to subsidise those who are on strike or locked out from this fund; they must look after themselves and get what they can from their trade union fund or from other funds available. There is no dispute on that point at all. We feel, and I think the whole Committee will agree with us, that the Clause, as it was originally drafted, might have been very oppressive; it was so vague, and it might have applied to persons whom we did not desire to bring under it at all. I should like to suggest to the Committee one point upon which the draft is not quite clear—not quite so water-tight as we should like it to be. Supposing a dispute arose say
      1732
      between the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and some employer. Suppose that the labourers who had nothing whatever to do with that dispute, although they are employed by the same employer and at the same factory or on the same premises, are, in consequence of it, locked out of employment. If the dispute is successful so far as the engineers are concerned, the labourers get nothing at all. In no way, and in no sense are they the gainers; yet they are brought into the dispute, and under the wording of the Amendment they will be unable to get any benefit from this Unemployed Insurance Fund.
      The point I should like to suggest to my hon. and learned Friend is that surely he could differentiate a little bit more as between the effective factory and the general trade. The effective factory is to be sliced up, as it were, on horizontal lines, and where the dispute takes place in a watertight department amongst engineers the victims of the dispute—the men thrown out on account of the dislocation of industries in that particular factory, although they are not involved and are not going to be benefited by any result—these men I suggest ought to be beneficially treated under this Clause. That is the point we want to raise. We have no Amendment down, but we think it very likely the Committee would desire to come to some sort of agreement on this point in an amicable way.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I agree in principle with what has been said both by the last speaker and by the Solicitor-General. I am not quite sure that this Amendment does really meet the case of men who are thrown out by a sympathetic strike. One of my hon. Friends has an Amendment which he thinks will make it clear that, as we are all agreed, the ordinary sympathetic striker should not come on the fund. But we are also equally agreed that it is a very hard case which has been suggested by the last speaker. I frankly admit I do not see how the difficulty is to be overcome, and therefore I hope we may be allowed to discuss the point on the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I should like to say we had an Amendment down before the Government brought theirs in, and I understood the object of the Government Amendment was to cover the various suggestions which had been made on this point, but they have not covered these particular suggestions which I have raised,

      1733
      and we certainly shall move our Amendment if necessary.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think there is a real hardship, and if I can see any way in which it can be met I shall be glad to support any such proposal. If the hon. Gentleman will put his suggestion into words I shall be very glad to consider them.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Although I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that there is great hardship in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester, I think the Committee should be very slow to limit the area which is covered by this exception. Of course there is great damage and dislocation caused by a strike, and we do not want to make strikes easier by legislation. We do not want to relieve the men of the consequences of their action should it involve damage being done to other bodies of men unaffected by the dispute but employed in the same mill or factory. That one fact, I think, constitutes a real reason tending to diminish the number and frequency of strikes. It is a reason which is weighed by those who either promote strikes or take action by way of locking out their men. Although the cases of such men are hard and deserving of sympathy I think it would be a great mistake for the Committee to take any action to limit the full efficacy of the words proposed by the Government that the strike area must be excepted. I therefore hope the Government will stick to its Amendment.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope that when the hon. Member for Leicester takes his particular point into consideration he will also bear in mind another point, and that is the very hard case of the man who is prevented from continuing his employment by reason of the raw material which is necessary for his trade being cut off from his work. There may be a strike, not at the factory but at some other place—it may be a transport strike—which prevents the raw material necessary for the employment of a whole group of labourers arriving at the factory at which they are employed, and if, through no fault of their own, if, through no cause over which they have any control, they are put out of work, it seems to be very hard that they should not be allowed under this Clause to come on to the funds. I hope the Solicitor-General will bear that point in mind. It seems to me that no provision is at present made for men thrown out of work
      1734
      under such circumstances, and that they would come within the disqualification Clause, as their unemployment would be due to a stoppage of work owing to a trade dispute—a stoppage, it may be indirectly due to such a dispute. I think their case should be considered in connection with this Clause.
      Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman opposite has made an important point. I may indicate how it strikes us. If the hon. Gentleman is dealing with a case where the raw material is produced at one factory and in the ordinary course of trade is sent from that place to another factory where it is worked up, if that is the case, I venture to think the workmen who are indirectly dispossessed of work because the ordinary flow of raw material ceases will, under our Clause, be entitled to benefit, although it may be quite true that they are out of employment owing to a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute, for it is not at the factory where they are employed. [An HON. MEMBER: "It might be abroad."] If the raw material comes from abroad to a factory in this country and, in consequence of some trade warfare, the supply ceases, there will be no difficulty. But where two branches of an industry, though not normally found in a factory, happen to be in one factory, it seems to us it is desirable to consider how far we can deal with an undoubted difficulty of that kind. As the Committee is generally disposed to think that the Government suggestion is preferable to the words contained in the text of the Bill, I would suggest that it might be embodied in the Bill, with an undertaking that we will consider if anything further can be done to meet the difficulty, and we invite the co-operation of hon. Gentlemen to see whether we can provide any further limitation which is fair.
      May I point out two difficulties that have presented themselves to the minds of some of us, and both of which have to be faced? The first is, it is all very well to say, "Is it not rather hard that a skilled workman who strikes should thereby throw out of employment a labourer who does not strike, but who is, in consequence, to be denied the benefit of this Clause." It is hard, but what is going to happen in a case where you have a single grade of workmen, some of whom belong to a trade union which calls for a strike, while others do not belong to the union, and do not strike. It may be said,

      1735
      indeed it has been suggested by the Labour party, that they stand by to take advantage of the strike, although they cannot themselves be described as persons who are striking or are being locked out. Is it the desire of the Committee that we should put these non-unionists on the Fund, while trade unionists do not come on it? I am sure that that is not the desire of anybody. There is a second difficulty which we have to face. If you provide, to use the language of my hon. Friend, for these horizontal divisions, classifying one grade of workman from another inside the same factory, are you not putting it in the power of an employer, who is thinking of carrying the industrial warfare to an extreme, to serve lock-out notices on the whole body of workmen instead of upon merely the section which is raising the dispute, with the result that the labourers may be thrown out accordingly as the employer chooses to give lock-out notices to all grades or only to one grade of men.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: But the others might not be able to go on with their work.
      Sir J. SIMON: I am pointing out the very considerable difficulty which lies in the track of anybody who approaches the consideration of this Clause. If a Clause can be designed which does not throw it into the power either of an employer or of a trade union aptly to frame notices which should either enlarge or diminish at leisure the list of people to whom they apply we shall be glad to consider it. If a Clause can be designed which does not deal unfairly as between the combatants in a dispute and non-combatants in the same grade then, I think, we might perhaps be able to come to an agreement. I merely throw out these observations as it is obvious that hon. Members on both sides are earnestly desirous that this problem should be completely and satisfactorily solved.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: In order that the matter may be clearly before the Committee, may I state the intention that we had in framing our Amendment before the Government put their Amendment on the Paper, our object would be met if we moved to add after the word "premises," the words "in the branch or grade of trade or calling at which he was employed." That gives the horizontal differentiation. So far as I am concerned, I think the case
      1736
      of the non-unionist is met simply in this way: that where you have a strike or lock-out, you have frankly to confess that you have a general dispute affecting the whole grade of that employment. Everybody has to share, and the non-unionist gets the benefit if the unionist is successful. It is the ordinary rough and ready way of adjusting these industrial disputes that the sweets have to be mixed with the bitters in experience, and, in the long run, things come out fairly well. The other point made by the Solicitor-General was that an employer may have, if he likes, a kind of fraudulent lock-out: he wants to lock out his engineers, and, in order to prevent the labourers from getting any benefits under this Act, he does not merely post notices locking out his engineers, but he also posts notices locking out the labourers. I do not think an employer would do that sort of thing unless there was a dispute. If there is a dispute with the labourers, of course they ought to be locked out if there is to be a lock-out. The employer would simply lock out the engineers and the labourers because he had a dispute with both. Nobody will object to that. But to assume that an employer who has a dispute with his engineers will, out of spite for his labourers, post lock-out notices affecting his labourers, so that they may not get the benefit of this Act, I do not think that that is an objection of which the Committee need take very much account. But if the Committee desire I am perfectly prepared, when the time comes, to move; but we thought that the Committee would probably desire, in view of the phrasing of the Government Amendment, to think the whole matter over, and that is why we did not put anything fresh on the Paper.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The difficulty seems to be that we are dealing with two distinct sets of people who may be indirectly affected. There is, first of all, the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester, where one class of men in a works strike and thereby throw out another class. The hon. Member's suggested words would very likely deal with that point. But there is also a different case altogether, where, in the same class of employment, the union men strike and the non-union men do not. The words suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester would not meet the case at all. But I think the hon. Member will admit that that is a very hard case. You may have a factory where, in a particular class, say, the

      1737
      riveters, half the men are unionists and half are non-unionists; the union men strike, and cause a stoppage, thereby inflicting this penalty on the non-union men. What we want to do is to find a form of words which would meet both these cases. This matter is of very great importance, and I really think this Committee ought to settle it. I do not quite know whether the Government will be willing to consider it and see later on if they can suggest a form of words to meet the case, but if we are any good at all in this Committee, this is just the kind of point we ought to try to settle. Of course, we know the conditions under which we are discussing these Amendments—
      Sir J. SIMON: This particular one was on the paper from the beginning.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Well, there have been matters of this sort, and new points are very naturally raised as we are discussing them.
      Sir J. SIMON: Where do you suggest to alter the words?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I suggest after the word "dispute" to insert the words "to which he himself was a party." I do not know whether the Government are prepared to consider these words.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think there is a good deal in what the hon. Member for Dudley has suggested. I feel that it is very difficult to hustle the Government or the Committee in this matter. But I was going to suggest to the Government and Committee whether it would not be well to postpone this Sub-section until after we have considered the other three Sub-sections of the Clause, so that we, at all events, should have the night to think over the matter, and be able to begin this Sub-section to-morrow. May I incidentally call the attention of the Solicitor-General to the fact that I do not think the phrasing of even his Amendment is beyond the resources of legal ingenuity to find some difficulty in the interpretation of. If he and the Committee will notice, it is possible to read the phrasing of this Amendment in two different ways. I will read it in the first way, and then in the second. Firstly: "A stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed." That is one way. The
      1738
      other way is this: "A stoppage of work, due to a trade dispute, at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed."
      HON. MEMBERS: They are the same.
      Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Oh, no; there is quite a difference. It depends where the commas are placed. The one means a stoppage of work at a factory, workshop, or premises, where the man is, and the other means a stoppage of work due to a general trade dispute. These are two quite different things, and I am perfectly certain that the resources of the lawyers would at once pounce on that flaw in the wording of the Amendment. I have been trying to re-draft it for the last few minutes, but I have not been able to find a form of words that I think will entirely meet the case. Would it be out of order if I were to move the postponement of this Sub-section until after we have taken the other three Sub-sections of the Clause? Perhaps, on second thoughts, it would not be the wish of the Committee. I will not put that Motion forward, but I threw out the suggestion, as it seemed to me a good one.
      Mr. BUXTON: In regard to the particular Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dudley, it really raises difficulties which we have had in mind all the time. What we want is that the Insurance Officer at the time of dispute, when the question arises, shall have no doubt as to the decision which he shall give. Nothing will be worse, in our opinion—and I am sure the Committee will agree—at the time of a trade dispute that it should be a question as to what decision the Insurance Officer should then arrive at. It is then a moment of excitement or bitterness between the two sides, and we are very anxious—and I am sure the Committee also desires—in such a matter that the Insurance Officer shall be said by neither parties to be partisan. Therefore, it is very essential before the dispute arises that some definite conclusion should be arrived at in reference to this matter.
      Why we dropped our former words and suggested these was, to make the thing definite, as the former words would make a question one of doubt. The question of premises is a definite and geographical fact which can be decided beforehand, and therefore decided at the time. We have looked carefully into the matter. I think the Committee are agreed as to what they desire. We will certainly consider

      1739
      the matter not only again ourselves—we have considered it on more than one occasion—to see what words suggested could meet the view of the hon. Member for Leicester and others—and we will welcome also the assistance of every hon. Member. But I would appeal to the Committee to allow these words now to be inserted in the Clause. There will be plenty of time between now and Report to consider the matter, and for Amendments to be put down to meet the point. The real point—I would impress this upon the Committee, that the decision we come to ought to be a conclusion of the form the Bill in this respect should take—is so to instruct the insurance officer before the time of a dispute, and not leave any discretion to him at that time; not because he is not able to take discretion, but that is just the moment when he ought not to be asked to do so. I would appeal to the Committee to allow these words to go in, and we shall only be too glad if we can arrive by general consent at some words to meet the point.
      Mr. BARNES: I suggest a small point which I think might be covered now, and I agree we might leave the other point for further consideration, because I do not think that by making hurried suggestions we can cover it. There is a point in the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade which I think might be dealt with now. I quite see the object is to limit the application of the disqualification in a geographical sense, but it is not clear. You speak of the stoppage of work by a trade dispute at a factory or workshop, but there may be a stoppage of work at a factory due to a dispute not arising in that factory. I suggest the words "arising out of any dispute."
      Sir J. SIMON: The same thing would be secured if it were to run "stoppage of work which is due to a trade dispute at the factory."
      Mr. BARNES: That is the object I have in view.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I understand the President of the Board of Trade assumes that the Committee is of opinion that all these branches of the trade not directly affected should be excluded from the operations of this Amendment. I do not know that this is so. And these informal understandings, on which no vote is taken, are apt to be rather dangerous,
      1740
      and I would point out to my hon. Friends on this side that this is directly subsidising strikes by setting free particular funds that would otherwise be absorbed and voting them to strikes.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: In order to assist the right hon. Gentleman, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you should put at once the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," and then my hon. Friend below me has an Amendment which deals with the exact point.
      Questions, "That the words 'a trade dispute involving a strike or lock-out by which he is directly affected' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Sir J. SIMON: I am anxious to meet the difficulty pointed out, and I think it would be met if you substitute the words, "a stoppage of work which is due to a trade dispute at a factory or workshop or other premises." You would thus make it quite plain that the qualifying words go with "trade dispute" and not "stoppage of work."
      Question, "That the words, 'a stoppage of work which is due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move after the words last inserted to insert the words, "or by reason of a trade dispute in which he participates in sympathy with those who are directly affected by another trade dispute."
      The object of this Amendment is to provide that where a man, or a body of men, go out on strike in sympathy with a body of men who have struck in consequence of a dispute, that these men shall be prevented from being qualified for unemployment benefit, the same as those where the dispute has arisen. I do not think that the Amendment proposed by the President of the Board of Trade provides for this contingency.
      Sir J. SIMON: The intention, I think, of everybody is that the workman should be disqualified from unemployment benefit if he is out owing to a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute arising where he works, whether that strike is what I may call an original strike, or whether it is a sympathetic strike. Therefore the only thing that remains is to be sure that we have expressed it properly. I confess I think it is expressed in the Amendment

      1741
      as it stands, but I should a little doubt whether the words proposed by the hon. Member are the most desirable. If the Committee will just follow for a moment a rather technical matter, they will see an alternative way of dealing with it. The Clause uses the expression "trade dispute," and a trade dispute is defined in the Trades Disputes Act as being "any dispute between an employer and workman, or between workman and workman, which is connected with the employment, or non-employment, or terms of employment, or conditions of labour, of any such person." The object which the hon. Gentleman has may be conveniently secured if we added a few words to make it quite clear that this disqualification, due to the fact that the man is out by reason of a trade dispute, is to apply whether the persons—with whose employment or non-employment, or terms of employment, or conditions of labour, the dispute is concerned—are employed at the same factory or workshop, or elsewhere. That does not introduce into an Act of Parliament expressions which are not known to the Legislature, such as "sympathetic strike" and the like, which, I fear, might now and again produce that very difficulty of decision we are anxious to save the insurance officer from. If we put on the face of the Bill that, if there is a dispute which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment, or the conditions of labour, it is perfectly immaterial whether the man who applies for the benefit is a man who is employed at the same factory where that dispute originated, or whether he works elsewhere, then, I think, we have it in appropriate legal form. If the hon. Member would allow his Amendment to be withdrawn I will move instead these words: "Or whether the persons with whose employment, or unemployment, or terms of employment, or conditions of labour the trade dispute is connected, are or are not employed at the same factory, workshop or other premises."
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I have no intention of opposing the idea embodied in the Amendment of either the hon. Member opposite or of the Solicitor-General, but I would like it to be clearly understood that if we accept these words and allow them to go in, it is on the condition that the whole of this Sub-section is to be reconsidered in view of the discussion we have just had, and the point raised by the hon. Member's Amendment. We are
      1742
      not opposing the intention at all, we only want to be very careful that the words express precisely what we intend.
      Mr. BUXTON: I am quite willing, of course, to give that undertaking, especially in regard to these words. We will bear in mind the general feeling of the Committee, and endeavour, so far as possible, to meet it.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, "Whether the persons with whose employment or non-employment, or terms of employment, or conditions of labour the trade dispute is connected, are or are not employed at the same factory, workshop, or other premises."
      The Chairman proceeded to put the Amendment.
      Sir J. SIMON: May I ask the Committee's indulgence. It is pointed out to me by the draughtsman, that we are getting ourselves, probably, into a tangle with reference to another qualification which should come at the end of the Clause, under which it is desired to save a man from being deprived of unemployment benefit, if after being out on strike he gets a perfectly new job and then loses it. We do not want to deprive him of his benefit for that. I think the best course will be for the Committee to allow me to withdraw my proposal, and we will endeavour to propose in the Definition Clause a definition of a "trade dispute" which will provide for this point in the original form of words. Otherwise we should involve ourselves in a sentence of prodigious length, and I think we may have some difficulty in finding out its meaning.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am quite willing to accept the suggestion made by the Solicitor-General. I fully realise the difficulties, on the condition that on Report he makes it perfectly plain to the satisfaction of any reasonably-minded lawyer that sympathetic strikes are not included.
      Sir J. SIMON: Certainly.
      Mr. BARNES: I do not want to be pledged to the idea embodied in the Amendment that we should include a "sympathetic" lock-out.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: A lock-out is not included.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "strike or lock-out" ["so long as the strike or lock-out continues"], and insert instead thereof the words "stoppage of work."—[Mr. Buxton.]
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words, "except in a case where he has, during a stoppage of work, become bonâ fide employed elsewhere in employment similar to that lost."
      This is intended to meet the case of a man who may be thrown out by a trade dispute which may go on indefinitely, who may get employment similar to that he was in, and then again goes out. By these words we provide that if he gets fresh employment and loses that in another way — for instance, through lack of work — he will come into unemployment benefit. The words "bona fide employed" are inserted to guard against such an arrangement as a trade union giving temporary work not of the usual trade kind to a man so employed. The words, "bona fide employed," are simply to limit the operation of the Clause whilst securing to the workman, who loses his work in a trade dispute, and who then gets other work, and then loses that, the unemployment benefit.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words: "Provided that where any workman claims that a lock-out has been influenced by the prevailing depression in his trade, the insurance officer shall have power, subject to an appeal to the Court of Referees, to permit the payment of unemployment benefit in such case as if no lock-out had occurred."
      The object of this Amendment is to try and provide for the case where the weapon of a lock-out is used by the employer instead of his discharging men. Frequent cases have arisen in the past where you have a trade depression and it suits the particular employer to produce a lock-out rather than to dismiss his men. Under my proposal there would be an opportunity for a workman to go to the Court of Referees and put his case before them and, possibly, it might then be found that the lock-out itself was merely a pretext and
      1744
      that, in fact, under ordinary circumstances he would have become unemployed. But it has this effect upon the working man, that in the case of a lock-out he would be disqualified for benefit while, if he can prove that in ordinary circumstances he would have become unemployed without the lock-out, he will be entitled to unemployment benefit. For these reasons I should like to protect the workman in such an eventuality.
      Mr. BUXTON: I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment because I think I can show him that it would lead to great complication. In the first place, I do not know that any employer, simply because of a depression in trade, would lock his men out. What he would do would be to part with his workmen and they would come under benefit. If it is a question of a trade dispute it comes under the other provisions of the Bill, but it really asks the Insurance Officer in the first place to declare whether there is a depression in trade; in the second place to find out what was in the mind of the employer when he gave his lock-out notice; and, in the third place, he has generally to look into the whole merits of the particular case. It would throw on him a burden with which he would not only be unable to deal but which no human being in this world would really be capable of dealing with. I hope, under these circumstances, the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I do not wish to press it, though cases are vividly in my mind where small disputes have arisen under the same particular pretext, and where men have lost their employment and been locked out, and in that case they would be disqualified under the Bill for the benefit, and that would be a great hardship.
      Mr. BUXTON: There is always, of course, an appeal in the case of the benefit being refused from the decision of the Insurance Officer to the Referees, so that in case of hardship there would be that appeal.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: Is there an appeal in a case where you lay down that a man shall be excluded from benefit in the case of a lock-out?
      Mr. BUXTON: No, not in the case of a trade dispute.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3). This Sub-section, if allowed to stand, really constitutes in my opinion a very great injustice.
      Mr. BUXTON: We accept the Amendment.
      Sir J. SIMON: I hope there will not be a discussion on this. The Sub-section goes much too far, because it deprives a man, not while he is in prison—that comes as a matter of course—but after he has left prison for six weeks, of unemployment benefit he might otherwise get, even though he has been sent to prison for an offence which has nothing to do with his industrial occupation. That I do not think is justified, and it seems to us that it ought to be withdrawn. The only stipulation we must make is that, if the Committee agree that the Sub-section should go out, when we come to Sub-section (4) we should put in the word "prison" so that it will run:—
      "A workman shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit whilst he is an inmate of any prison, workhouse, or other institution."
      I do not suppose anyone will suggest that he should get benefit while in prison, but we had better make it clear that he should not.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not oppose the withdrawal. The reason why the Sub-section is withdrawn is that the man has committed an offence and condoned it. He has paid the penalty. But there really is a reason connected with the unemployment fund why the Sub-section should be inserted. He is out of employment on account of the offence. If he had not committed the offence he would not have been on the fund, and I really think there is something in it.
      Sir J. SIMON: Of course, he is still disqualified if he has lost his employment through misconduct. If he went to prison on that account that would be another matter, but it appeared to us to be too wide if it had nothing to do with his employment.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the Solicitor-General whether, in his opinion, misconduct covers any offence involving moral reprobation for which a man might be sent to prison?
      Sir J. SIMON: They are two things which are quite distinct. It is one thing
      1746
      to say that a workman has lost his employment through misconduct and it is quite another to say that a workman is in prison through misconduct, and it by no means follows that the two things are the same. If a workman has lost his employment through misconduct and then, in a fit of rage, as he walks down the street, breaks a plate-glass window, he very likely goes to prison, but he goes because he has broken the plate-glass window and we say that if he is disqualified, it is not because he has broken the window but because he lost his employment through misconduct. The two things are not the same. They may be the same and again they may not. If they are the same he is disqualified. If they are not the same he goes to prison for a different offence.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: If he steals from a third party would not that bring him within the Clause?
      Sir J. SIMON: I think I can imagine a case. Supposing he steals from his employer, and the employer thereupon dismisses him. I conceive that he has lost his employment through misconduct. But suppose that his employer prosecutes him and he goes to prison. The reason he loses his benefit is not because he has gone to prison, but because he lost his employment through misconduct. The hon. Gentleman says, supposing he steals from a third party? The answer depends upon whether he loses his employment through misconduct. Certainly the mere fact that he stole from a third party—a thing which has nothing to do with his work—would not, in my judgment, submit him to any further penalty than the penalty of going to prison, serving his time, and getting no benefit until he comes out.
      Mr. PEEL: If he goes to prison for three weeks he scores, does he not? If he is guilty of misconduct and the employer does not prosecute, he loses his benefit for six weeks. On the other hand, if he is prosecuted and goes to prison for three weeks he gets his unemployment benefit for the fourth week, so it is better for him in some circumstances that he should go to prison. It seems a peculiar result.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "any" ["an inmate of any workhouse"] to insert the words "prison or."
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: It seems to me that this is an Amendment of false sentiment. There is no reason for having made it.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should like to ask the Solicitor-General where the disqualification in this Bill is which prevents a man from getting both sickness benefit and unemployment benefit at one and the same time?
      Sir JOHN SIMON: It is in the Clause which we have just passed—Clause 62. The statutory conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit are, amongst other things, that he is capable of work.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move, after the word "funds" ["out of public funds"] to insert the words "or is in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit under this Act, and whilst he is."
      The object of my Amendment is to prevent a man, while unemployed, from receiving sickness benefit at the same time. It is quite conceivable that a workman, being unemployed, should fall sick and go to the insurance officers and claim his benefit. In that case there is nothing to prevent him getting both sickness benefit and unemployment benefit, and it is to prevent this that I suggest that, where a man is receiving sickness benefit, he shall not receive unemployment benefit, and where he is receiving unemployment benefit shall not receive sickness benefit.
      Mr. BUXTON: It has already been pointed out to the hon. Member that, in order to obtain sickness benefit under Part I, the man in question must be unable to provide his own maintenance, and in order to obtain the benefit under Subsection (2) he must be capable of work. He cannot be both things at once and cannot get both benefits at once.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I am afraid I disagree with the Solicitor-General. It is quite conceivable to me that a man may lose his employment, and, being unemployed, may fall sick. Being an insured person he may claim sickness benefit, and, under the circumstances, while receiving unemployed benefit, he is simultaneously on the sick list and gets sickness benefit, and there is nothing in the Act to prevent such an occurrence.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. HORNERrose to move, in Sub-section (4), at the end, to leave out the words "the United Kingdom" and to insert instead thereof the words "Great Britain."
      I have an Amendment to Clause 59 to exclude Ireland from the scope of the Bill, and all the Amendments in my name from and after that Clause are in the same terms—to leave out "the United Kingdom" and to insert "Great Britain."
      The CHAIRMAN: I quite understand that. I called on the hon. Member in order that he might explain his position. His Amendment is consequential on an Amendment rejected by this Committee, and therefore I cannot accept it.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 64.—(Determination of Claims.)
      (1) All claims for unemployment benefit under this Part of this Act, and all questions whether the statutory conditions are fulfilled in the case of any workman claiming such benefit, or whether those conditions continue to be fulfilled in the case of a workman in receipt of such benefit, or whether a workman is disqualified for receiving or continuing to receive such benefit, or otherwise arising in connection with such claims, shall be determined by one of the officers appointed under this Part of this Act for determining such claims for benefit (in this Act referred to as "Insurance Officers"):
      Provided that—

      (a) in any case where unemployment benefit is refused or is stopped, the workman may require the insurance officer to report the matter to a court of referees constituted in accordance with this Part of this Act, and the referees after considering the circumstances may make to the insurance officer such recommendations on the case as they may think proper. If the insurance officer disagrees with any such recommendation he shall, if so requested by the referees, refer the recommendation, with his reasons for disagreement, to an umpire appointed under this Part of this Act, whose decision shall be final and conclusive;

      (b) the insurance officer in any case in which he considers it expedient to do so may, instead of himself determining the claim or question, refer

      1749
      it to a court of referees, who shall in such case determine the question, and the decision of the court shall be final and conclusive.

      (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing an insurance officer or umpire, or a court of referees, on new facts being brought to his or their knowledge, revising a decision or recommendation given in any particular case, but where any such revision is made, the revised decision or recommendation shall have effect as if it had been an original decision or recommendation, and the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply accordingly.
      (3) The Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply to proceedings under this section except so far as it may be applied by regulations under this Part of this Act.
      (4) For the purposes of proceedings under this section in Ireland regulations may apply all or any of the provisions of the Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1856, with respect to arbitration.
      Mr. BARNES: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) after the word "determined" ["shall be determined by one of the officers appointed under this part of this Act"] to insert the words "by the trade union in those cases where the benefit is paid by the trade union under this part of this Act, and in other cases."
      I might point out that, of course, most of the insured trades would probably be administered under Clause 79, and, therefore, provision is made for what I want in Clause 79, so far as those trade unions are concerned who adopt the Act. There may, however, be trade unions who do not adopt the Act so far as Clause 79 is concerned. There are those unions who are only going to get a subsidy under this part of the Act, and in those cases, of course, it would be absurd to expect every applicant for unemployment benefit to make an individual claim. The object of my Amendment, therefore, is to protect those unions who are only going to get a subsidy under the Act in the ordinary carrying out of their own business. They, themselves, will determine the conditions under which their members are entitled to unemployment pay, and they will recover from the insurance officers in the usual way.
      Sir J. SIMON: I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to withdraw this proposal, because we feel obliged to resist it. Let me first make plain that Clause 64 has
      1750
      not got any damaging effect upon Clauses 79 or 80. Clause 64 deals with a claim for unemployment benefit, and that is a claim which the workman who is within the scheme makes direct to the insurance officer. Then, as the Committee probably knows, in Clause 79 we propose an arrangement which has a certain analogy to the arrangement under Part I. of the Bill where sickness benefit is worked through and with the assistance of the friendly societies. We propose under Clause 79 in a corresponding way that in certain cases and under proper safeguards, an association, such as a trade union, which already pays unemployment benefit to its members may continue to pay unemployment benefit to its members and may get a corresponding grant from the Central Fund. In those cases, therefore, the trade union workman will not go direct to the insurance officer but will continue to draw from his trade union. There will, from time to time, be an account kept and a proper audit effected, and grants will be made to the trade union in indemnity of what it has done. My hon. Friend proposes that the trade union should be the judge as to whether the workman is or is not within the Act, not in connection with Clause 79 or 80, but under Clause 64.
      Mr. BARNES: If Clauses 79 and 80 are quite self-contained and leave the trade unions without supervision, then I am quite satisfied.
      Sir J. SIMON: I think the hon. Gentleman will see, if he follows me, that Clause 64 deals with claims for unemployment benefits, and Clause 79 deals with the payment of grants in lieu of paying unemployment benefit. I can assure him on its true Construction the provision in Clause 64 has no application to Clause 79 at all. I think that really meets the hon. Member's point.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a) after the word "stopped" ["where unemployment benefit is refused or is stopped"] to insert the words "or where the amount of the benefit allowed is not in accordance with the claim."
      This is really a drafting Amendment. It might be held as it stands without these words, "or where the amount of the benefit allowed is not in accordance with the claim," a workman could only have an

      1751
      appeal where the whole of the benefit had been refused. We think it only fair to the man claiming the benefit that he should also have the right of appeal in reference to a part of the benefit. The insurance officer might say he should have rather less than he claimed. It is purely a drafting Amendment.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. BAIRD: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "to the insurance officer such recommendations on," and to insert instead thereof the words "such award in."
      The object of this Amendment is practically to eliminate the umpire. We are setting up a very competent Court of Referees on which both the employers and the workmen are represented, and the chairman of which is appointed by the Board of Trade, and it seems rather strange, if the insurance officer is not able to decide a point, that body should not be competent to decide it finally without having it still further referred to an umpire. Two points arise on the Amendment. First, there will be very great delay which might entail considerable hardship on the man who has to wait for his case to be settled. Secondly, it seems rather a curious thing that it should be competent for the insurance officer to refuse to accept the decision of the Court of Referees if it does not happen to suit him, and to insist on the matter being still further referred to an umpire. That seems to make the decision of the Court of Referees a rather superfluous one. Considering how they are constituted from a panel of representatives of both sides with an independent chairman, it does seem they ought to be sufficient to carry out the work. I went to Strasburg last Easter to see how the unemployment scheme worked there, and I found they had precisely this kind of board of referees composed exactly as this is composed, and there was no necessity whatever in the experience of the Strasburg Unemployment Bureau for anything additional Consequently, I trust the Government will see their way to omitting these words for the purpose of limiting the amount of machinery to the lowest possible margin sufficient to discharge the duties, and at the same time to secure that any difficulties should be settled with the least possible delay.
      Mr. BUXTON: There are two points really in connection with this matter raised by the hon. Member and also by the Amendment in which the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) is interested. I have had an opportunity of talking it over with the hon. Member for Dudley. In the first place, there is the question whether it would be advantageous or not that an apepal should be had from the referees to the umpire, and, assuming that is so, there is in the second place the question whether some provision should not be made for the delay which necessarily may take place and during which the workman would be out of benefit. Taking the last point first, I would like to explain how matters stand. A workman is unemployed, and he applies for his benefit. The insurance officer agrees he should receive his benefit, and no further step is taken; the man gets his benefit. If the insurance officer for any reason thinks the man should not receive his benefit, there is an appeal on the part of the man to the referees. If the referees agree with the view of the insurance officer that the man should not receive his benefit, there is no further step and no further appeal; but, in the event of the referees finding that the man is entitled to his benefit, and the insurance officer is not convinced or converted by their arguments, and still feels the man is not entitled to the benefit, the insurance officer can appeal to the umpire, and in that event the umpire gives the final decision. I do no think it is any reflection on the referees that there should be an appeal on behalf of the insurance officer as against their decision in the event of this dispute arising. I do not anticipate many such cases will arise, but there may be such a case, and I think there ought to be an appeal to such an authority.
      There is something to be said as regards the question of delay. The hon. Gentleman has said that in the event of there being an appeal by the insurance officer to the umpire—there may be a great pressure of work—there must be a certain amount of delay during which the man would be out of benefit, though he was unemployed and though in the final resort he might have the decision given in his favour, in which case, of course, he would receive his back-pay. I think there is a hardship there. I communicated with the hon. Member for Dudley and suggested to him something which I hope may meet

      1753
      with the views of the Committee. I suggested that as far as the appeal from the insurance officer to the referees, which is a rapid process, is concerned, there should be no benefit paid until the matter has been decided; but, if the appeal were taken to the referees, and there was a dispute between the insurance officer and the referees and the case went to the umpire, that during that period and until the appeal was decided, the man should receive benefit in any case. His claim to that is this: though the insurance officer has decided against him, the court of referees, the representative body, has decided in his favour, and it is not therefore unfair he should receive his benefit during that interval. If the decision is given in his favour, he will, of course, get his back benefit as well. If it is not, these weeks of payment will naturally go against his contributions. We obtain under a later Clause power to deal by regulations with this point, but I want to state that is the view we should take in reference to this matter. I understand it meets the views of the hon. Member for Dudley, so that as regards the question of delay there is no difference of opinion.
      Then we come to the question whether we should have an umpire at all. The hon. Member says that at Strasburg there was no umpire, but you have your Court of Referees there in one locality, and there is symmetry of dealing. We desire to have this one umpire for the whole of the Kingdom, chiefly—and I think the hon. Member will agree—because it is important in a matter of this sort, especially at the beginning, there should be uniformity of administration, uniformity of decision, and uniformity of treatment. We shall have, perhaps, thirty or forty Courts of Referees, and it might easily happen, without any reflection on them, that there might be a considerable number of diverse decisions in reference to this matter. I press quite strongly on the Committee the necessity for having this final appeal to an umpire, chiefly because we shall get symmetrical dealing in reference to this matter, and all these questions of appeal will be dealt with by the same person on the same lines. I have dealt, I think, with what is the practical difficulty of the umpire in reference to the delay. That, I think, met the views of the hon. Member, and I hope he will give me the umpire while I give him the benefit.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: In spite of what the President of the Board of Trade has said, I think that this provision with
      1754
      regard to the umpire, is unnecessarily cumbersome, and if it is only to secure uniformity of decision, it means that one official is going to lay down exactly the lines which ultimately are going to prevail. The umpire will really be the man who will lay down the lines on which all decisions are to be given, and in any case, if it is thought desirable to have this at first, I would ask, is it necessary to keep the umpire perpetually in existence?
      Mr. BUXTON: I will not say that.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I would point out that it means expense and a considerable amount of extra legal work being involved which is undesirable, and therefore I suggest, if the President says that he considers it essential, there should be one in the first instance, that there will be a limit set to the activities of the umpire in order that there may not be a perpetual flow for many years to come of decisions involving the employment of legal talent.
      Mr. PEEL: I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman that you should have the umpire in order to harmonise decisions. But I want to point out certain inconsistencies in the Clause, as far as I understand it. You have a double appeal in cases where decisions are arrived at by the insurance officer, but where he does not come to any decision, and where the first hearing is in the Court of Referees, you do not have any appeal at all. It comes, therefore, to this, that in difficult or troublesome cases, or in somewhat delicate cases where the insurance officer does not want to have to decide—and I can quite understand him not wanting to do so in a great many cases—those cases go straight to the Court of Referees, and in that event the decision of the referees is final. Those are exactly the cases where you want to have the umpire, but it is precisely in those cases where you do not have an umpire, and I think the right hon. Gentleman puts it in the wrong place. He gives you it where it is least wanted, and where it is most wanted you do not get it at all. In the difficult cases you only get one hearing, whereas in the less difficult cases you get three hearings. It is much easier, as everybody knows, for the Court of Appeal to come to a decision after there has been a hearing in the Court below and the points have already been discussed. It seems to me, therefore, that this is an inconsistent proposal.
      Mr. BAIRD: I am quite prepared on behalf of my hon. Friend to accept the benefit, as the President has said, that there is at present, and I do not much mind giving him the umpire in return. I see the point of his argument. He wants to have uniformity, and he quite rightly points out the difference between the practice which exists in Strasburg and the practice suggested in the Bill, and although these umpires are to some extent undesirable, as the whole thing is an experiment, I do not think it would be desirable for my hon. Friend, on whose behalf I move this Amendment, to press it further, and I beg to withdraw it.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Although it seems to me that the appointment of the umpire is undesirable from some points of view, it seems desirable that there should be something like uniformity in the way decisions are given, and if the referees are taken from one place to-day and another place to-morrow you will have no uniform principle on which they can act. Therefore, I think it perfectly right that some concession should be made from that point of view. But if the object is uniformity, then why have Sub-section (b), because as it stands it seems to me the insurance officers are going to send to the Court of Referees the difficult cases. How then will you get uniformity in that case? I should like, therefore, the learned Solicitor to explain to me why (b) is necessary if at the same time it is desired to have uniformity in all the other cases.
      Sir J. SIMON: I appreciate that this is a point which fairly calls for a little explanation. But on the other hand I am sure the Committee will understand that the Clause has been framed, not wildly, but really after considering a series of difficulties, and we think we have arrived at the right conclusion, but the Committee will judge of that. The scheme at present is this: A man applies for benefit; if the insurance officer who decides it says "Yes, you shall have benefit," the man gets it. There is no need to challenge that. That is the simplest case of all. If, on the other hand, the insurance officer says "No," then the man has a right of appeal to the Court of Referees. If the Court of Referees confirm the insurance officer, we think it is necessary, as a matter of administration, that the man should accept that decision. If the insurance officer in the first instance says "No" and the Court of Referees says "Yes," so that there is one decision one
      1756
      way and one the other, that, we agree, is a case which the umpire may deal with. Now with regard to Sub-clause B. All that Sub-clause says in effect is this: If the insurance officer, whether it be to save time or whether it be that he is confident that it is a case that employers and workmen represented on a Court of Referees should be asked to decide, says, "This is a claim I am not going to adjudicate on, but I am prepared to take the decision of the Court of Referees, and abide by it," no damage is done to the man, because if the Court of Referees' decision is in favour of the man he gets the money, but if their decision is against him he is no worse off. So, although it is a little difficult to work out, there is a reason for it. I agree, if I may say so, that inasmuch as there is not an appeal to the umpire in every case, you do not have at its maximum the opportunities for uniformity, but that is really necessary because if you give an appeal to the umpire in every case you will have every discontented and unreasonable applicant refused his money by the insurance officer appealing to the Court of Referees, and if refused by them insisting on going to the umpire. Therefore the matter stands in this way: If the insurance officer says "Yes," there is no appeal; if he says, "No," the man may appeal to the Court of Referees, and upon such appeal, if the Court of Referees says "No," the man must accept it because everybody has said "No." If they say "Yes," then the insurance officer may appeal, but if the insurance officer says: "I take the decision of the Court of Referees and offer no opinion of my own," he must abandon any right he had to appeal.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask, is the system to be permanent?
      Sir J. SIMON: I am not in a position to say that, but it is intended for the present to be provided in an Act of Parliament which is permanent. If the system does not work, let us by all means consider hereafter how it is to be amended, but I do not see that it is an advantage to prophesy with regard to the point during the experimental stage.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will the Law Officer appear before the umpire?
      Sir J. SIMON: I am afraid not, and I do not know that it would be of any advantage to him or to anybody else if he did.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As I listened to the Solicitor-General, I was reminded of an old saying that when a good speaker speaks fools think he is right and wise men think he is a good speaker. I am afraid that is all I can say.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) paragraph (a) after the word "proper" ["such recommendations on the case as they may think proper"], to insert the words "and the Insurance Officer shall, unless he disagrees, give effect to those recommendations."
      This is a drafting Amendment. Without these words, in the event of the Insurance Officer disagreeing with the referees or the referees disagreeing with the Insurance Officer, there is nothing as the Clause now stands to compel him to give effect to their recommendations, and it is in consequence of that I move these words.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (a) to add the words "Provided always that any inquiries or proceedings under this Act shall be held under conditions which shall enable the public to have access."
      Clause 64 lays down the procedure for dealing with claims and disputes. It may be for very good reasons that all these proceedings are withdrawn from the Law Courts, but I do not think it would give to the employed the safeguards that publicity affords. It is for these reasons that I think it necessary the public should have access to these proceedings.
      Mr. BUXTON: I think if the hon Member will consider this matter a little further, it would hardly be desirable to have these public inquiries. In the first instance, the insurance officer makes his inquiries in the ordinary way, and I think that to bring in an informal Court of Law with regard to each claim would make it quite impossible to work. There are perhaps some plausible reasons for having the Court of Referees held in public, but I think there are two very strong cases to be cited against them. In the first place, you would do what I am sure everybody is very anxious not to do, you would tend to make these two representatives of the employers on the one hand, and the workmen on the other a partisan body on each side if it was made public, and everything
      1758
      reported, instead of, as we desire to make them all work amicably together in regard to these matters. In the second place, I think it would be very hard on the workmen themselves if, in every case where a question of misconduct was involved, the whole of the proceedings were to be made public, and I think the workmen ought to be protected from such publicity. I cannot see any possible advantage to be gained by it, and I do see the great disadvantages which I have referred to.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: What happens when the Press is not admitted is that there is usually a garbled version which really misrepresents what happened, and it probably is a more or less disadvantage to everybody concerned if a fair opportunity for reporting is not allowed. I know that a Government Department is allowed to hush up everything it can, but I think they ought in these days to allow in the case of the superior tribunal at all events, public access, which means the Press. I think certainly before the umpire there should be such access.
      Mr. BUXTON: My hon. Friend seems to imply that unless these words are inserted none of the processes can be made public, whereas there is full power reserved to make the inquiry public if necessary.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Can you leave it to the Court?
      Mr. BUXTON: No, the Board of Trade has power, but the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would make from the first proceedings to the last necessarily public. There is nothing under the Act to prevent them being made public if it is thought desirable.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (a), to add the words—
      (b) Any person directly concerned in maintaining the solvency of any unemployment fund may require the insurance officer to report the payment of unemployment benefit in the case of any workman to the Court of Referees, and the referees, after considering the circumstances, may make to the insurance officer such recommendations on the case as they may think proper.
      The object of this Amendment is to give an opportunity to any person interested

      1759
      in the solvency of this fund to make representations against any decision that may be given by an insurance officer or a Court of Referees, or an umpire. The objection he may make is not so much against the claim that has been sustained in a particular case, but may arise from some very important principle which is involved. For these reasons, I think that the parties who are contributors to this scheme and interested in maintaining the solvency of the fund should have an opportunity of making representations to the Courts that are established, and of having their representations heard.
      Sir J. SIMON: I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press this matter further, although it is, of course, quite a proper point to raise. It would, in the first instance, be very difficult indeed to know what is meant by "any person directly concerned in maintaining the solvency of any unemployment fund." One possible view would be that all employers and workmen and all taxpayers. There is no doubt about the taxpayers, at any rate. The substance of the hon. Member's suggestion is really to meet a case where no useful purpose is served by so doing. If a workman applies, the employer would be communicated with if there was any question of how he came to be out of work. The insurance officer in that case would go to the employer, and the employer would then have an opportunity of stating his view. It does seem that, after all, you have got all the light thrown on this problem that can fairly be thrown upon it, and the Amendment would involve the introduction of what might be undesirable and far-reaching effects. Is it really desirable that the fellow workman of a man who applies should have an opportunity of coming and challenging, and it may be asking to reverse, a decision that has been given? That, it seems to me, would be a very undesirable extension of the existing machinery, and a bad complication of it. We certainly could not agree to embodying it in the Bill.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I have no desire to introduce complications, but it did seem to me that it prevented any person who was directly concerned from making any representations at all. I do not, however, propose to press the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to move, "That the Committee do sit after four o'clock to-day."
      I make this Motion so that we may reach Clause 66 to-day. The next two Clauses are consequential, and if we reach Clause 66, I propose not to ask the Committee to sit to-morrow.
      Question, "That this Committee do sit after four o'clock to-day," put, and agreed to.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 65.—(Appointment of Umpires, Insurance Officers, Inspectors, etc.)
      (1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act umpires and insurance officers shall be appointed by the Board of Trade, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, and the insurance officers shall be appointed to act for such areas as the Board direct.
      (2) The Board of Trade may appoint such other officers, inspectors, and servants, for the purposes of this Part of this Act as the Board may, with the sanction of the Treasury, determine, and there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the umpires and insurance officers and to such other officers, inspectors, and servants such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine; and any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in carrying this Part of this Act into effect to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament:
      Provided that one-tenth of the receipts, other than advances by the Treasury, paid into the unemployment fund on income account shall, in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury, be applied as an appropriation in aid of money provided by Parliament for the purpose of such salaries, remuneration, and expenses.
      Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Subsection (2) to leave out the word "umpires" ["the umpires and the insurance officers"], and to insert instead thereof the word "umpire."
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will these names be laid on the Table of the House of Commons, or will any statement be made?
      Sir J. SIMON: I do not think I can promise that.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is the umpire to be a paid officer?
      Sir J. SIMON: Yes.
      Mr. BUXTON: Until a Bill is actually through it is very difficult to give the name of the person who is likely to be appointed. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me just to consider the point, and then, perhaps, I can give him an answer on Third Reading.
      Sir F. LOWE: I should like to ask whether he will be exclusively employed on this work, or whether he will be a man engaged in other employment as well. It seems to me that the work for the umpire and for the referees too will be rather intermittent. I should like to know whether they are supposed to occupy the whole of their time over this business, because sometimes, when trade is prosperous, I should think they would not be at all fully occupied.
      Mr. BUXTON: I think at first the umpire would be very fully occupied. Our present idea is to have a salary and let him appoint such staff as he requires.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I really think it is very desirable the conditions with regard to the appointment of the umpire should be known before the Bill goes through. There is a suspicion abroad sometimes that such posts as these are given to people who are not quite suitable for them, and I think it would simplify matters if we had some information.
      Mr. BARNES: I cordially support the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and I have a personal motive in so doing. I am at the present moment receiving letters from aspirants for these jobs, and I do not want to be bothered with any more of them. I hope the President at the earliest possible moment will say these jobs will not be by patronage, but by competition.
      The CHAIRMAN: This is really out of order.
      Question, "That the word 'umpires' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Question, "That the word 'umpires' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) after the word "that" ["provided that one-tenth of the receipts"], to insert
      1762
      the words "such sum as the Treasury may direct not exceeding."
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I wish to ask how the insurance officers are to be appointed. It seems to me very important that the President of the Board of Trade should not be subject to the sort of pressure which is sometimes applied by applicants who have no special qualification. I should like him, shortly, if he can tell us in a few words, to say whether the officers will have to qualify in any way, either as members of the Society of Actuaries or some society which has an examination test itself, or whether they will have to pass some examination, or in what way they will be appointed?
      Mr. BUXTON: I have been in communication already with the Civil Service Commissioners with reference to the matter, and hope to be able to come to an arrangement with them whereby these appointments, or the great bulk of them, will be carried out in co-operation with the Commissioners.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will not the hon. Gentleman say that the whole of the appointments will be carried out in that way, because the moment it is known that there are a great number of berths of this sort being declared open, many people will try to get them, and he had better make up his mind to a hard and fast rule.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: This is, I think, an extremely important question, and I considered this morning whether it would be possible to put down an Amendment to make it perfectly plain that jobs of this kind are no longer to be given for any reason unless the applicant is suitable. It seems that a Government which is in office now has almost as much to give away as American Governments used to have, and that is a deplorable state of things that ought to end. If the President is not able to make it perfectly plain that there will be no political patronage in connection with these appointments, I shall certainly take steps to have the question raised, and, if possible, settled so far as this Committee is concerned.
      Mr. BUXTON: I am entirely in accord with the hon. Gentleman. As far as my party and myself are personally concerned, that is the view we hold very strongly. I have already said that with regard to the bulk of these appointments, we shall carry them out in co-operation with the Civil Service Commissioners. I cannot give a

      1763
      definite pledge with regard to the others, but I can assure him that the principles we hold are entirely in accord with what he has said, and I repeat I, personally entirely agree with him that political patronage is a bad thing for everybody concerned.
      Mr. H. LAWSON: We are to understand, then, from the President of the Board of Trade, that these appointments will not be treated as political spoils.
      Mr. BUXTON: As far as I am personally concerned, I can give my absolute pledge with regard to that.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 66.—(Courts of Referees.)
      (1) A Court of Referees for the purposes of this Part of this Act shall consist of one or more members chosen to represent employers, with an equal number of members chosen to represent workmen, and a chairman appointed by the Board of Trade.
      (2) Panels of persons chosen to represent employers and workmen respectively shall be constituted by the Board of Trade for such districts and such trades or groups of trades as the Board may think fit, and the members of a Court of Referees to be chosen to represent employers and workmen shall be selected from those panels in the prescribed manner.
      (3) Subject as aforesaid, the constitution of Courts of Referees shall be determined by regulations made by the Board of Trade.
      (4) The regulations of the Board of Trade may further provide for the reference to referees chosen from the panels constituted under this Section, for consideration and advice, of questions bearing upon the administration of this Part of this Act, and for the holding of meetings of referees for the purpose.
      (5) The Board of Trade may pay such remuneration to the chairman and other members of a Court of Referees and such travelling and other allowances (including compensation for loss of time) to persons required to attend before any such Court, and such other expenses in connection with any referees, as the Board, with the sanction of the Treasury determine, and any such payments shall be treated as expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in carrying this Part of this Act into effect.
      Clause agreed to.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move "That the Committee do now adjourn until Thursday next, November 9th, at 11.30 o'clock a.m."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly, at Ten minutes past Four o'clock, till Thursday next, 9th November.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  Part II.—UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
    STANDING COMMITTEE B.
    [Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES in the Chair.]
    STANDING COMMITTEE B.

      CLAUSE 67.—(Regulations.)
      (1) The Board of Trade may make regulations for any of the purposes for which regulations may be made under this Part of this Act and the schedules therein referred to and for prescribing anything which under this Part of this Act or any such schedules is to be prescribed and—

      (a) For prescribing what occupations are to be deemed employment in an insured trade for the purposes of this Part of this Act; and for excluding—

      (i.) any occupations which are common to insured and uninsured trades alike, and are ancillary only to the purposes of an insured trade; and

      (ii.) any occupations which are ancillary only to the trade carried on by the employer where that trade is not an insured trade; and

      (iii.) any occupations in businesses which, though concerned with the making of parts or the preparation of materials for use in an insured trade, are mainly carried on as separate businesses or in conjunction with trades other than insured trades;

      (b) as to the determination, on application being made for the purpose, of questions whether contributions under this Part of this Act are payable in respect of any workman or class of workman;

      (c) for prescribing the evidence to be required as to the fulfilment of the conditions and qualifications for receiving or continuing to receive unemployment benefit, and for that purpose requiring the attendance of workmen at such offices or places and at such times as may be prescribed;

      (d) for prescribing the manner in which claims for unemployment benefit may be made and the procedure to be followed on the consideration and examination of claims and questions to be considered and determined by
      1766
      the insurance officers, courts of referees, and umpires, and the mode in which any question may be raised as to the continuance, in the case of a workman in receipt of unemployment benefit, of such benefit,

      and generally for carrying this part of this Act into effect, and any regulations so made shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
      (2) The regulations may, with the concurrence of the Postmaster-General, provide for enabling claimants of unemployment benefit to make their claims for unemployment benefit under this Act through the Post Office, and for the payment of unemployment benefit through the Post Office.
      Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: I beg to propose in Sub-section (1) after the word "may" ["the Board of Trade may"] to insert the words "by Special Order made in accordance with the provisions of the 9th Schedule to this Act,"
      This is an Amendment which provides that the Commissioners should have the same power to make regulations under this Clause as they have under the 9th Schedule, that matters of detail are matters proper for the Commissioners to deal with, but that matters of policy and principle dealt with under this Clause should be dealt with in the same way as all these regulations under Schedule 9. I think the Government would desire this course to be adopted, and I move this Amendment feeling confident that they will accept it.
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, because, as the Committee may observe, it would apply to a large number of questions of procedure for which really the special order, which involves public notice and public inquiry, with considerable delay, would really be out of place. If the Committee take the various Amendments which I have put down, they will see that the Board of Trade, in consequence of representations made in reference to this Clause, have considerably curtailed the powers which we propose to take under this Clause. For instance, in reference to prescribing what trades should be included, and to a certain extent also what trades should be excluded, and in other ways, we have diminished the powers of which the Board of Trade propose to take, so that the matters which are left are

      1767
      really administrative matters, and are not matters, therefore, affecting the various trades in the same way as the Clause did in its original form. That diminishes very much the reason for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: Where are your Amendments?
      Mr. BUXTON: They are all on the paper. The real pith of them is that paragraph (a) in the old Clause, prescribing what occupations are to be deemed employment, is practically cut out, and we only now retain power to exclude from occupations which are to be deemed employment for the purposes of this Act occupations which are common to several industries, and are ancillary to them. This is a considerable limitation of the existing proposal.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Do you cut out (a) (i.), (ii.) and (iii.)?
      Mr. BUXTON: (a) (i.) and (ii.) are taken out, but we leave (iii.). That, however, is a minor matter compared to the other. Also, as far as the Bill is concerned, there are three methods of proceeding. One is the special procedure order, detailed in the 9th Schedule, in which certain notice has to be given to the various parties concerned, an inquiry has to take place, and various proceedings have to be gone through before the order comes into force. That is applied to what we consider the proper purposes of the Act, namely, I think it is under Clause 76, where there are continual variations, and under Schedule 7, where the question of reducing the benefit below the prescribed rate is concerned. A special order also was going to be applied in the case of Clause 77, which is the Clause enabling the extension of the Act to other trades and industries. It has been represented to us that that might be somewhat strengthened as against the power of the Board of Trade to extend the Clause to trades, and to put down an Amendment in view of that which will come later on the paper, in consequence of representations made to me by those interested in the matter. In addition we have these regulations which will be made by the Board of Trade itself, and we do not think that in regard to the various matters to which it is applied, under Clause 67 and elsewhere—they being practically administrative matters—that it will be necessary to have the Special Order procedure. When
      1768
      we get the new Paragraph (c), where a decision has been given in regard to a particular case of employers and workmen as to whether they are in or out, that will be done by procedure of the Board of Trade; but, no doubt, the ultimate authority on all these questions in dispute would be the umpire. As regards (b) and (d) and (e) they are all matters really for administrative powers only. As regards (a), if the Committee felt that it was giving too great powers to the Board of Trade, without any check upon them, we should be prepared to consider whether that might come under some other procedure—some procedure, for instance, such as laying the Order on the Table of the House of Commons for a certain time, so that it might possibly be criticised, and, if necessary, revised. As regards (a) I am prepared to consider suggestions and references to that matter. The others I really think are questions purely of administration, and any additional procedure would, I believe, delay the matter so much as to greatly diminish the elasticity which is necessary in these matters, I hope, therefore, that the Committee will not insist on extending the special procedure or anything of that sort to those particular regulations. As regards (a) I am open to consideration, and as to procedure under Clause 77, I am proposing to strengthen it. As regards Special Procedure Orders, they apply to all the matters in which employers and workmen are interested.
      Mr. HAMILTON BENN: I agree that the speech just made by the President of the Board of Trade does cut away some of the strong objections which I felt to this Clause, but it by no means meets the case in my opinion. The proceedings under this Bill allow of three courses—Order of the Board of Trade, Special Order, and Act of Parliament. There are some matters bound to be dealt with by Special Order which appear to me to come under Act of Parliament, and there are in this Clause matters that will certainly be the subject of a Special Order, and dealt with simply by Order of the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade referred to paragraph (a), and appeared to think that occupations which are to be deemed employment in an insured trade should be settled by pure Order of the Board of Trade. That is one of the most important matters, not only for the workmen who come under this Act, but also for

      1769
      the employers. It really strikes at the whole root of the working of this Act, and surely that is a matter in which there should be some other authority than the Board of Trade.
      There should be some means of influencing the decision of the Board of Trade in regard to it. The Bill provides a very useful piece of machinery in the 9th Schedule, one point in regard to that being that at least twenty-one days are allowed for objections to be lodged by people who consider that their interests are hurt by the regulations proposed. That is not too short a time to allow classes of workmen, or classes of employers to put their views before the Order is laid upon the Table. I have a very great respect for the officials of the Board of Trade, and for all the other Government departments, but I do not think it is humanly possible for them to know everything about every trade, or about every class of employment, and at least time should be allowed to those who are engaged in them, and who feel they are hurt by this Bill, to make objections to the Board of Trade before the orders are made. I know that in this democratic age we are coming to a time when in England, everybody, from the cradle to the grave, is to be shepherded by an official, but I do not think we have arrived at the stage yet when the regulations under which we live should be made without our having an opportunity of objecting to them. That is the point of the Amendment down in my name, which provides that the regulations should be made by Special Order, giving us the opportunity to put in our objections, and then afterwards to have them laid on the Table.
      The President of the Board of Trade referred to the regulations as being merely administrative regulations, but I do not thing he fully considered all the Clause. For instance, paragraph (c) prescribes the evidence to be required as to the fulfilment of the conditions and qualifications for receiving or continuing to receive unemployment benefit. That is one of the utmost importance for the workmen who come under this Bill. These regulations ought to be subject to the most careful consideration, not only by a Government Department, but by those who receive the benefit, and by those who have to pay. That will have a very far-reaching effect upon some trades. There is another aspect of the matter, which is that the Order of the Board of Trade can be issued at any time. Employers may be under contract
      1770
      and under certain regulations, and this new order may come out at any moment altering the regulations and putting the employers in a totally different position from what they were in at the time they undertook the contract. It applies in the same way to the workmen. I hope the Government will see their way to agree to this Amendment, and, if necessary, exclude certain matters which are purely administrative from the operation of the Clause.
      Mr. HOLT: I think the speech of my right hon. Friend and the Amendments of which he has given notice go a considerable way towards meeting the very strong objections many of us entertained to this Clause. I understand that now we have not got in any shape or form to discuss Clause 77.
      Mr. BUXTON: No, and indeed as I pointed out, I propose to strengthen it.
      Mr. HOLT: I only wish to make that quite clear.
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): It is out of it for this purpose.
      Mr. HOLT: It is also clearly understood that my right hon. Friend will move the Amendment, of which he has given notice, in regard to paragraph (a). That I consider a very material matter, and it goes a long way towards meeting my objections to the Clause if the powers under paragraph (a) are reduced in the manner proposed. I would like to ask for one further concession. Will the President of the Board of Trade be willing to leave these regulations—I quite agree there may be circumstances in which the regulations are required to be made promptly, and one does not want unnecessarily to put people to the expense of procedure by Special Order—would my right hon. Friend be willing to agree that these regulations should first of all be publicly advertised before they are made in the "London Gazette" or other proper publication, and that the Board of Trade should give persons affected by the regulations an opportunity of raising objections and of being heard at the Board of Trade before these regulations finally come into force. Most of us engaged in trade feel very great confidence in the justice and fair-play of the Board of Trade. It is one of the Government Departments against which we do not make any complaint. If the right

      1771
      hon. Gentleman will give us an undertaking, or insert an Amendment in the Clause itself, that these regulations, before coming finally into force, should be advertised, and that the objector should have an opportunity of coming before the Board of Trade, I think we should be very much helped. I do not want to put difficulties in his way. I should not object to these regulations having force ad interim, in order to get on with business which is urgent. If that right hon. Gentleman sees his way to meet us on that point, I think that on the whole, subject to one or two small matters of detail, the interests of the large employers and of the large public authorities who are concerned in this matter will be considerably met.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The President of the Board of Trade has lightened the objections to this Clause, but still there are three categories into which the regulations, prescriptions, and alterations may be said to fall. First, there is the ordinary regulation for carrying out the Act, which is a complement to the Clause, but does not alter or extend the Clause. As regards that class of regulations there should be some quite simple procedure, and I think that there we must trust the Board of Trade officials to carry that out.
      The second category, at least, in my opinion, are such things as are included in Paragraph (a) (iii.) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 67. That is a very important Sub-section. I do not think that ought to be left to the Board of Trade without any consultation with the employers and workmen and without any objection being taken. I think the President of the Board of Trade will agree that something is necessary to meet the representation made by the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce, and that special consideration should be given to the proposal that some of the matters which are mentioned in the Clause shall be dealt with by general orders, while others shall be dealt with by special regulations. I think a number should be dealt with by special regulations, and that those matters should be taken out. There are other things in Clause 77, which I do not intend to discuss now, to make the category complete. Those other things dealt with in Clause 77, it seems to me, ought only to be dealt with by Parliament itself, and I believe in that way we should have a logical method of dealing with the various points likely to
      1772
      arise. I am not sure that the President of the Board of Trade did not indicate in his opening statement that the Board of Trade meant something of that sort. It was a little difficult to follow, because as the Amendment at present stands these matters are gathered together in one new Clause, and it is difficult to say how far he does intend to go. I think the Committee would have their labours lightened if the President of the Board of Trade would say exactly what the matters are he is prepared to put into Clause 77.
      Sir J. SIMON: The speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down indicates, I think very justly, this important fact, that Clause 67, even if it be modified in the way the Government propose, will deal with regulations which do not all fall under quite the same category. I think that is a perfectly just observation, and it follows from that that there is much force in the contention that perhaps some of those regulations might be checked and supervised by one procedure, whereas others could probably be dealt with as being matters of mere detail. Certainly we could not do that which the Amendment proposes, because the Amendment before the Committee is an Amendment which would require every single regulation, of whatever category, and however minute, to be put through the extremely severe test which is set out in Schedule 9 of the Bill. The Committee will recognise that clearly if they look at the Schedule. They will see that the Board of Trade are to consider objections, and, if they think fit, hold a public inquiry. Then there is an elaborate procedure with which some of us lawyers are not unfamiliar in the very important departments of industrial legislation, which would certainly be inappropriate to some of the matters which have to be dealt with under Clause 67. So far, on reflection, the Committee I think will be agreed. May I indicate to the Committee what would be the effect of Clause 67, supposing the Government proposals are introduced into the Clause. I sympathise with the observation of the hon. Gentleman who thinks that it will be very difficult to follow until the thing is seen more or less as a whole. For the convenience of the Committee I will summarise Clause 67, as it would run, supposing the Amendments put down by the Government are accepted by the Committee. The result in substance will be this: The Clause will provide that the Board of Trade "may make regulations

      1773
      for any of the purposes for which the regulations may be made," and then there would follow this list: First you would have regulations excluding occupations which are to be deemed employment in an insured trade for the purposes of this Part of the Act, and any occupations which are common to insured and uninsured trades alike and are ancillary only to the purposes of any insured trade. So far, the Committee will see that is cutting down what is at present undoubtedly a very wide power, and I think meets the objections which are felt. Still continuing my first category under the Clause we find in the Bill, under the Roman numerals (iii.)—"any occupation in businesses which, though concerned with the making of parts or the preparation of materials for use in an insured trade, are mainly carried on as separate businesses," and so forth.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is that excluded or included?
      Sir J. SIMON: All these are governed by the words for exclusion.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I understand that those are to be subject to the Board of Trade regulations.
      Sir J. SIMON: If the hon. Member will excuse me, I propose to continue my preliminary observations concerning the different categories. We propose to break them up, and then indicate what we propose to do. That is what I call the first category. The Committee will observe that so far we are dealing with the regulations which include the occupation as a whole. I mean it does not touch the individual workman, but it deals with his occupation. Now, on that part of the Amended Clause, as my right hon. Friend indicated, we should not be unwilling, if it be the desire of the Committee, to apply the Special Order procedure. It seems to us, so far as that is concerned, that we are dealing with a thing which is very important in itself. We are dealing with a thing which affects the branch of trade both of the employer and workman and the Special Order procedure is not inappropriate.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is all right.
      Sir J. SIMON: So far the Committee will see that it is not unreasonable. May I return to the amended Clause in order to indicate the second category. The
      1774
      second category in the Clause would be for regulations in regard to workmen employed "under the same employer partly in an insured trade and partly not in an insured trade being treated with the consent of the employer as if they were wholly employed in an insured trade." That is to say, both are as though in a wholly insured trade. I am confident that the Committee will agree that the special order procedure could not be applied where it is essentially a matter of the individual, more particularly because what is done is with the assent of both parties concerned. That is one case. The third subdivision is also indicated in the new Clause—for giving the employers and workmen an opportunity of obtaining the decision by the umpire appointed under this part of this Act on any question where the contributions on this part of this Act are payable in respect of any workman or class of workman—and so forth. The object of that is to put both the employer and the workman in this position, that if he gets a decision, he knows where he stands. He is not going to be prosecuted for failing on the one hand, nor will he find afterwards that he has been paying to no purpose on the other hand. There again it appears that the special procedure should not apply. An hon. Gentleman, who spoke a little time ago, called attention to the next proviso in regard to regulations, "for prescribing the evidence to be required as to the fulfilment of the conditions and qualifications for receiving or continuing to receive unemployment benefits." That is in paragraph (c) of the Clause, but in the new classification, it would take a lower place. May I submit to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee, that on reflection they will see that the Special Order Procedure would be quite inappropriate to that. The object is really to avoid technicalities of law preventing the plain working of this Act of Parliament. If we do not have regulations prescribing the sort of evidence that will do, it may be said that you must have first-hand evidence on oath from the man, no hearsay, all documents produced, and that sort of thing.
      In connection with Clause 62, what we desire is to make regulations which will show in what circumstances the statutory conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit will be satisfied. That Clause says that the workman has to prove that he has been employed in an insured trade and the like. This sort of evidence, of course, will be on documents

      1775
      that will be taken in the place of viva voce evidence, and under proper conditions inquiries could be made, and things of that sort. But surely we could not have an inquiry in which all the workmen of England may offer their respective opinions of the law and lawyers before deciding what the regulations are to be. Surely the Insurance Officers of the Department in this matter must decide, and it may be sometimes vary their decisions, under the regulations, as to how it should be done. For these reasons I suggest to the Committee that if the Government make the alterations they propose in the Clause, and if they apply those alterations to what I described as the first category, we shall really be meeting the objection—and there is great substance in the objection—taken by my hon. Friend and those who support him. On the other hand, I have shown to the Committee that to apply all and sundry regulations without distinction or classification would make confusion worse confounded.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: This is a very important matter, and it is one which is especially raised by the Board of Trade, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the President of the department for the attention which he has given to the matter, and for his promptitude in supplying us with information which will be so useful. May I ask him, not in the way of pressing him, whether it is his intention and within his power to give us any further information?
      Mr. BUXTON: I will state later.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Everyone has felt precisely the difficulty referred to by previous speakers. Nobody wants in any way to hamper the Board of Trade in regard to the matter. We wish them to have a free hand. On the other hand, nobody, I think, wishes to increase bureaucratic powers unnecessarily, to enable the rights of groups of individuals to be taken away without the express authority of Parliament. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down thinks that procedure by Special Order is too cumbrous for anything in the amended Clause except as regards the particular section to which he has referred. There are other matters which are too great to be left simply to be decided by the Board of Trade without any further consideration whatever, and, what
      1776
      I propose, and what I hope the Government would accept, is that they should adopt the plan followed in the Finance Bill, and simply allow these regulations to lie on the Table of the House of Commons for a certain length of time, and if there is no objection to them then they may come into force. I do not think that is making a great demand. I am sure I must say it would do away with a great deal of feeling among the employers, and I am satisfied that the Committee will think it a wise procedure to help the Government to get through the Bill in the most smooth and simple manner possible.
      Mr. BUXTON: I hope the Committee will recognise, indeed the right hon. Gentleman has recognised, that it is not only our desire to give all the information we can, but also to give it with promptitude. In these matters Government Departments are sometimes supposed to be slow. The Board of Trade is never slow, but in this case they have shown special promptitude. As regards the question of further information may I make an appeal to the Committee. We have given information which, in a sense, is public property. That is to say, these communications were all published, or were in written correspondence and known to the public. But, as I have mentioned, in addition to that course we received a large number of deputations and communications of all characters. I put it to the Committee that it would be a very disastrous thing, I am sure, from the point of view of the public interests and from the point of view of the utility which the Board of Trade exercises, not only in regard to this particular Bill but to questions generally, if in any way at all it was thought that the free intercourse which at present takes place between all sorts and conditions of men and the Board of Trade was at all, in any sense, hampered. At present, every day the President and the Permanent Secretary and others spend most of their time in seeing people and talking fully and frankly in regard to all matters which are brought before them, and I am quite sure it would be a very serious matter if it was thought by those who come to see the Board of Trade that notes, in regard to their conversations or in regard to what passes on either side, would be likely to be called for or could be produced. It would be a very serious and disastrous state of things from the point of view of the public interest, so I ask members of the Committee not to press me to produce

      1777
      anything of that nature. We have produced really all I think I can produce with justice to those interested and in the public interest. It really covers all the points which practically were brought before us in regard to both sides. Of course, we had further discussion in reference to all these matters, and we were able to meet them in a large number of cases.
      As regards the proposal of the hon. Member, my learned Friend has explained clearly how the matter stands and what we propose to do in regard to the first Section. I am sure, in this, I am voicing the views of every member of the Committee and of every Member of the House. I think it is one of the evils of our system of Amendments, which the clerks at the table will never allow us to improve upon, that you cannot, as I should like to have done in this case, leave out from so-and-so to so-and-so and "insert the following words." That is not supposed to be the rule at the table, and one has to cut it up into a lot of various paragraphs, which makes it difficult for Members to follow, but that is not the fault of the Member of the Government who has to put these things down. He, of course, would like to put it more clearly.
      Mr. W. PEEL: Could not you circulate the print of the Clause as it appears as well?
      Mr. BUXTON: It is not very easy to do unless it can appear on the paper generally. My learned Friend has dealt with paragraph (a) as it will be. We gave the matter great consideration, and before the Debate we had come to the conclusion that the Amendments down were right and proper, and that paragraph (a) should be taken out of the Clause and taken into Clause 77, and that Special Order procedure should be applied to it. As regards the other paragraphs, the hon. Member wants them but admits that they should be done by regulations, but that they should be brought under Procedure without which they would be laid for forty days on the table of the House of Commons. That is carrying out the Procedure under the Finance Act and substantially the Procedure laid down in the Labour Exchange Act. The proposal which we are making about that will enable the Board of Trade to introduce the regulations. They will not necessarily have to be hung up until the House of Commons may be meeting and
      1778
      the forty days have elapsed, but they will be able to put them into force, though it will always be in the power of the House of Commons, when it meets or afterwards, to repeal them. It is by no means an ineffective Procedure, because, at the beginning of this Session, there was a Home Office regulation which had been issued, and was in force, and there was also the Finance Act, so it is really a perfectly effective weapon. We must guard ourselves against a possible delay of even six months in making the regulations. Subject to that, I am prepared to accept the Amendment at the end of the Clause.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: The President of the Board of Trade has, I agree, gone a long way to meet some of the objections which have been raised, but in dealing with paragraph (b) of the Amendment, although, indeed, it gives the employers and the workmen an opportunity of obtaining an authoritative decision, he does not convey in this Amendment who the authority is going to be who shall have the decision on this particular point. He gives us no indication whatever who is to be the authority who is to decide upon the question whether the contributions in this part of the Act are payable from all classes of workmen or employers. It is very necessary that we should have this explanation from the President of the Board of Trade, and if he agrees that the authority shall be the Board of Trade committee, so far as I am concerned, I think the control of that authority should not rest in the Board of Trade, but should be referred to a higher authority, and it is for that reason that I support my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) in suggesting that important questions as to the particular trades that come under the provisions of this Act should be referred to Parliament and laid before the House of Commons and dealt with by that authority.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: The object I had in putting down this Amendment was to ascertain from the Government whether they were prepared to deal with this matter in a different way from what was in the Bill. As far as I am concerned, I am quite satisfied in the main with the attitude taken up by the Government, and I am very glad the Committee as a whole has agreed as to what we really want. We do not want to give unnecessary power to the Board of Trade, nor to handicap them in their work. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared

      1779
      to make that provision quite clear. It is difficult, of course, in Committee to follow the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to put into the Bill, but we shall have an opportunity when he moves his Amendment later, and as we are agreed at present, and I take it we shall have another opportunity on Report of getting the words right, I desire to withdraw the Amendment.
      Mr. BAIRD: Was I correct in understanding from the right hon. Gentleman that he was prepared to consider the Amendments appearing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Goldman) and myself to insert at the end of the Clause words to secure that these rules shall be laid on the Table of the House?
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), and to insert instead thereof—

      "(a) for excluding from the occupations which are to be deemed employment in an insured trade for the purposes of this Part of this Act any occupations which are common to insured and uninsured trades alike and are ancillary only to the purposes of an insured trade; and

      "(b) for permitting workmen who are employed under the same employer partly in an insured trade and partly not in an insured trade being treated with the consent of the employer as if they were wholly employed in an insured trade.

      "(c) for giving employers and workmen an opportunity of obtaining an authoritative decision on any question whether contributions under this Part of this Act are payable in respect of any workman or class of workmen, and for securing that a workman, in whose case contributions have been paid in accordance with any such decision, shall, as respects any unemployment benefit payable in respect of those contributions, be treated as a workman employed in an insured trade, and that employers and workmen are protected from proceedings and penalties in cases where, in accordance with any such decision, they have paid or refrained from paying contributions."

      Mr. BUXTON: That will cut out the whole of (a) and (b), and the result will be that of course as regards (a), we shall have to consider it later on in the Bill with a view to putting it under a special order of procedure, and so to amend it.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: On a point of Order—I desire to ask, does that include the whole of the Amendments down in the right hon. Gentleman's name? Is he now moving the whole of the Amendments on page 96 of the Paper, in his name?
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes, as printed on the Paper.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The Board of Trade has power to make regulations in regard to procedure, and I want to know something about the cost. I want to know whether the employer or the workman, seeking "an authoritative decision," will be out of pocket for the cost. Of course, the President of the Board of Trade may say this is a matter for regulation, but I should like some assurances on the subject. It seems to me the decision ought to be without cost to the applicant.
      Mr. BUXTON: The answer to that is this: That as regards all questions of official procedure, the umpire and so on, it will be at the cost of the State. If either side chooses to go to the expense of bringing in counsel they would have to bear their own cost to that extent, but they need not go to any expense, because all the expense of the procedure itself will be borne by the fund.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want to make it quite clear that we are now dealing only with what we may call the unimportant Clauses, which are to be dealt with by regulations of the Board of Trade. When does the Government propose to deal with the important Clauses, and how does the Government propose to deal with them?
      Mr. BUXTON: As new Clauses or under Clause 78?
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On that understanding, and that they will be dealt with by Special Order or under Clause 78, I do not now press the point further. One other question, and that is with regard to that "authoritative decision." That point was not dealt with. The learned Solicitor-General took a note of it, but in the confusion it was not answered. "Authoritative decision" is

      1781
      rather a sloppy form of words, if I may say so. Whether it is to be by the Board of Trade or a court of law, or a court of summary jurisdiction is not quite clear?
      Sir J. SIMON: I quite agree that the points mentioned are important points. As regards the first, what is proposed is that since what I had called the first category of regulation is now to be made by special order, it should be removed altogether to that part of the Bill that provides special orders in such cases. The result will be you will have regulations under Clause 67, and Special Orders under another Clause. That is the first point. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) and also the hon. Member for Falmouth, asked if the Government Amendment provides that regulations may be made for giving the employer and the workman an opportunity of obtaining an authoritative decision. They ask, and the question is a most pertinent one, "What is the authority?" We contemplate and should be prepared to put into the Bill that the decision should not be by the Board of Trade, and that it should not be by somebody who is in the Board of Trade, or anyone subordinary to the Board of Trade. On the other hand, it goes to my heart to say that it appears to us that probably this is a matter in which the employment of lawyers might be regarded as not to the public advantage. I recognise the prejudice, though I do not share it, or sympathise with it; and in these circumstances what appears to us to be the proper course would be to say that this new and independent functionary, the umpire, who will be in no way subordinate to the Board of Trade, but will be acting, not indeed as a judge in a court of law, but in other respects judicially, is the very best person to deal with the matter. What we should propose to do if the Committee so desired, with regard to the decision by the umpire, is to make it plain that the Board of Trade is not free to decide these questions itself.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We were told at the last meeting of the Committee that there was only to be one umpire. Are you not putting upon him an amount of work which is too great? How on earth is he to hear all the appeals between the referees, and the insurance officers? Now he may have to give this "authoritative decision" under this new section prepared by the Board of Trade; is not the umpire going to be a lawyer?
      Mr. J. WARD: I hope not.
      Sir J. SIMON: He will be the best man, I am sure.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Notwithstanding the self-denying ordinance of the Solicitor-General, it appears the umpire will be a lawyer after all. I do not object to that, but I raise the question now, and I think it is an important one, that if you decide to have only one umpire for all the purposes of this Bill, you are going to give him more to do than he can possibly do.
      Mr. PETO: I have an Amendment down to create an authority, and in spite of what the Solicitor-General said I should like to move it.
      The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on the Motion to leave out those words.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: It seems to me this is giving very large powers to the Board of Trade, and some difficulty will arise under Clause (b) with regard to the proper people employed under the same employer with the consent of all the parties. Suppose you do not get that consent. You are making regulations, and the Board are going to make regulations with a view to obtaining an authoritative decision. I am sure these questions are going to create a good deal of difficulty in the future, and members of Parliament will be brought to task about them. I do not want to do anything to prevent the Board of Trade getting on with these orders, but they should be under some obligation to make some report to Parliament, so that we may know what is being done in regard to the matter. It is all very well to pass this legislation giving these wide and sweeping powers to the Board of Trade, but Members of Parliament will be questioned very much upon these matters, and I should like the Committee to consider whether it should not be obligatory on the Board of Trade to make reports with regard to them.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I should be the last to suggest that the Solicitor-General is insincere, but what he said in reality amounts to nothing because in any case lawyers will have to be brought in. Sitting as arbitrator for a friendly society I find that when a workman presents his own case it is always badly done, but that when he brings in a friend, whose

      1783
      profession is not specified but quickly guessed, things are presented in a better form in his interest. Therefore barristers or solicitors will inevitably appear and represent the different parties, and what I wanted to insure is that so far as possible there should be some—I will not say-contribution—but where there is a well-founded cause some of the costs should be paid by the State or out of the Insurance Fund as the case may be. I do not know whether I am in order in commenting on the looseness of the phraseology later on.
      The CHAIRMAN: No, the question now is whether certain words are to be omitted. When the alternative words are proposed, the hon. Member would be in order.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As we are all agreed about leaving out certain words, I think we should do so.
      Question, that the following words stand part of the Clause, put and negatived:—

      (a) for prescribing what occupations are to be deemed employment in an insured trade for the purposes of this part of this Act; and for excluding—

      (i.) any occupations which are common to insured and uninsured trades alike, and are ancillary only to the purposes of an insured trade; and

      (ii.) any occupations which are ancillary only to the trade carried on by the employer where that trade is not an insured trade; and

      (iii.) any occupations in businesses which, though concerned with the making of parts or the preparation of materials for use in an insured trade, are mainly carried on as separate businesses or in conjunction with trades other than insured trades;

      (b) as to the determination, on application being made for the purpose, of questions whether contributions under this part of this Act are payable in respect of any workman or class of workmen."

      Question proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
      Mr. PETO: I beg to move in paragraph (c) of the proposed Amendment to leave out the word "authoritative."
      I understood from the Solicitor-General that he is proposing to insert the word "umpire," and I think the word "authoritative" is practically without meaning.
      Mr. HOLT: Is it in order to proceed to discuss the second part of this Amendment until we have definitely adopted the first part of the Amendment?
      The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member for Devizes is proposing to leave out the word "authoritative."
      Mr. BUXTON: I accept the Amendment.
      Mr. BARNES: Do I understand that the Government is accepting the Amendment?
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes.
      Mr. BARNES: I should like to know some reason why. I think the proposed Amendment is far better with the word in. Why I say that is because it seems to me that with the word "authoritative" the decision would carry finality with it. In the absence of the word it seems to me that there is a loophole for bringing in the Law Courts and judges. I do not want the Law Courts or the judges brought in in connection with this matter. I would just as soon trust the Board of Trade, and sooner trust the Board of Trade than a judge. Therefore, I would like this word retained.
      Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps my hon. Friend has not observed the last word. Practically this will be a final decision whether given by the umpire or any alternative, and the word "authoritative" is really unnecessary. The decision being that of the umpire, whoever he may be, will be an authoritative decision, and there will be no appeal from it.
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. J. WARD: I should like to move to insert the words "by the Board."
      The CHAIRMAN: There is a prior Amendment.
      Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move in paragraph (c) of the proposed Amendment after the word "decision" ["with any such de-decision, shall"] to insert the words "by the umpire appointed under this part of the Act." I think my proposal will very likely satisfy my hon. Friend. It will, on the one hand, exclude the Law Courts and litigation, and, on the other hand, it will prevent the matter being a merely Departmental matter with the Board of Trade. It appeared to us that this would probably secure the object which different Members had in view.
      Mr. BALDWIN: Would the hon. Gentleman be willing to put into the Clause words giving expression to what he said just now, that the umpire should not be anyone permanently employed in the Government service?
      Sir J. SIMON: There may have been a little misunderstanding. I do not know whether the umpire will have any other work to do but the work of umpiring.
      Mr. BALDWIN: Why suggest it?
      Sir J. SIMON: I do not wish to be understood as saying that the umpire was meant to be appointed by an outside authority. What I meant was that it would not be any subordinate of the Board of Trade. That is the point. The umpire and his status have really been dealt with in an earlier Clause of the Bill by which we have determined that the umpire shall be appointed. It was there, I conceive, that that sort of question would arise. I do not wish to be understood as saying that the umpire would be brought in casually from other occupations.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I suppose the umpire is sure to be what is known as a gentleman of the Long Robe. It is to be a quasi-judicial appointment.
      Sir J. SIMON: Certainly.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I had intended to propose an Amendment, but I will content myself by saying a word on the Government Amendment. I desire to protest against the remarks that have been made against the judges. I think it would have been very much better to have maintained the old system. I am not ashamed of the legal profession myself. The old system has been maintained in Acts of Parliament in this country for years and years. Why not refer the decision of this point to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The Amendment I intended to propose was that instead of an umpire, we should adopt the old system of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. That system is easily accessible, and, moreover, there is a very good reason in the Bill why such a court should give the decision, because under Clause 75 the employer or the workman who has failed to carry out these regulations is subject to a fine in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Thus you are going to set up two courts to do what one could do. You are going to have the regulations interpreted by the umpire, and to take that to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and
      1786
      ask the court to fine the man for not complying with the umpire's decision. I do suggest that Courts of Summary Jurisdiction have held the balance perfectly fairly in times past between employers and workmen on all kinds of Acts of Parliament. All this could have been entrusted to them, and it would have been very much better in the interests of justice and of quickness, certainly of quickness, because you would get the decision much more rapidly from those Courts than by going to the Board of Trade and having the matter referred to an arbitrator, who might perhaps be blocked up for months with decisions waiting for him, whereas you could take the point to the nearest police magistrate and get a decision in a week. The same magistrate would apply Clause 75, and fine either the employer or the workman for disregarding his own decision. I do not want to move hostilely, but I should like the Government to reconsider this point between now and Report.
      Mr. J. WARD: I certainly am against the umpire being placed as the arbitrator and the decider of this part of the proceedings of the Bill. I think it would have been much better for the Board of Trade to have insisted on maintaining this part of the business, which is quite a minor part. I suppose this will deal largely with individual cases under the Orders that will be provided under Clause 77. Where classes of workmen are involved proper Orders will have to be made, and proper inquiries will have to be held, so that almost the whole of the cases which will come under this Clause we are now dealing with will be cases of individual workmen or of individual employers, as the case may be. I feel certain, so far as individual workmen are concerned, that you will rarely have complaints from them relating to this particular point. We are really setting up machinery before which, as a rule, the complaints of employers will be heard. In addition to that, it will be a class of case with which lawyers are really not competent to deal. It is not a question of law at all. It is the question whether a certain man works sufficiently in a trade. That is really a practical proposition. The legal mind is just about the sort of mind that ought never to be allowed to decide such a matter. If the umpire is a lawyer, that will be a greater reason why the Board of Trade should have the decision of a matter of this description. If an umpire

      1787
      is appointed, it almost necessarily supposes that you will have to present a case to him and employ all the legal paraphernalia for the purpose of presenting that case. On that understanding there is a moral certainty that the individual workman will always be at a serious disadvantage. I would much prefer that the officials of the Board of Trade, who are always dealing with these particular matters and have an immense amount of information at their disposal for deciding as to whether a man ought to be included within this Section or not, should be the body to decide. It will be an umpire before whom legal gentleman will possibly appear to confuse the whole issue, and if the results of similar decisions in the past are to be taken as any criterion relating to this part of our proceedings the workmen will always come off second best.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Mr. BALDWIN: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words—
      "Provided that any regulations shall provide that the umpire or other person to whom a decision is remitted under the paragraph may at any stage of the proceedings, and shall, if so directed by a judge of the High Court, which direction may be given on the application of the employer or of any workman concerned, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court any question of law arising in the course of the inquiry."
      I should like, in moving this Amendment, to express the obligation that all we who are interested in industry feel to the President of the Board of Trade for the way in which he has met several of the points that have been under discussion this morning. As far as I am able to speak for the industry with which I am connected, I think the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has met us on the question of the Special Order constitutes a very valuable concession, that will be of service to all who are interested under this Act. With regard to the Amendment, it was said a good many years ago by a very distinguished servant of the Board of Education, that what the English people were most in need of was sweetness and light, and that although no
      1788
      one who takes part in politics can ever hope to achieve sweetness in life, he may yet strive towards the light. We people in business want as much light as possible thrown on the proceedings of Government Departments when they interfere with British industry. It was to secure more light that we supported the procedure of the Special Order, and the President of the Board of Trade has given us more light. That is the reason why I am appealing for more light still. I quite appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward), and had this Clause applied only to individual workmen I think there would have been a good deal in what he said. But it does not only apply to individual workmen; it applies to classes of workmen, and it seems to me that a real danger may arise.
      We must all remember that the Insurance Bill will throw a considerable extra burden on British industry as a whole, and this second part of the Bill will throw an additional burden beyond what is thrown on the industry by the first part. It is spread over all classes, masters and men, but it is a charge on the productive power of the country. Therefore, those of us who are primarily concerned in the conduct of industry and know the difficulties we have to face in meeting world-wide competition, want to be protected in every way possible against decisions that may be given, more or less in the dark, by Government officials, that may bring whole sections of men within the province of the Act, and impose un-expectedly upon us, and upon them, and through us and them on the industry as a whole, increased charges which may make all the difference in some industries between carrying on at a profit and carrying on at a loss. It is for that reason that we feel we want some further protection beyond what was called "the authoritative decision" of a highly competent man, no doubt, but one who still is practically a Government official. When a subject can be brought before a Court of Law you get the utmost amount of publicity, and it is publicity that we want. We invite it; we want as much as we can have; we want the people in the country to know exactly what charges are being put on our industry, how they are being put on, and why they are being put on. I think that is the whole essence of my case. I am sure that any hon. Members who are concerned directly in industry will feel that, at any rate, there is a good deal to be said for what I have proposed.
      Sir J. SIMON: Certainly none of us will complain of the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has made this suggestion, and we realise that in making it he has the desire, as all the Committee desire, to secure the smooth and fair working of this Part of the Act. The question is whether it really is a desirable thing after you have selected the ultimate tribunal to go on and say that either party concerned may demand, and if he is refused, that he may appeal to the court to support his demand, and that there shall be a statement of the facts of the case in order that the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice may pronounce upon matters of law which appear to arise on the case. Though I have not the slightest intention or desire to speak otherwise than with the greatest respect of the part which the bench plays in solving difficulties that arise in connection with Acts of Parliament, I confess that I think it a very doubtful thing myself whether in the circumstances of the case this is desirable. For one thing I very much question whether the matters which are likely to cause difficulty will be matters of law, and, of course, the Committee realise that it is only on matters of law that the Court can decide if a special case is stated. It has probably happened in the experience of many who are not lawyers that when a case has been stated for the decision of the Courts the Courts have ultimately discovered that there is really no question of law involved, but really a question of fact, and the ultimate effect is that the appeal has been wasted, and probably the very question affected may be left in an unsatisfactory condition. On the other hand, if you say to your tribunal, which in this case is the umpire, "You have cast upon you the responsibility of final decision, you are to make a decision which is not unlikely hereafter to affect others than those immediately before you," and if you choose the right qualities in your tribunal, and put him in the right position in relation to his work, I suggest that it is better to leave it at that.
      The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. John Ward) just now pointed out that the case of the individual workman was perhaps not always suited for the whole paraphernalia of the final tribunal. May I explain that what is in the mind of the Government in suggesting the umpire is this? The umpire would be a man of independent position, who would be in no way the servant of the Board of Trade,
      1790
      and who would have all the independence properly associated with a judicial office. On the other hand, I hope he would, by the very fact that he had nothing to do but this work, be more suited to deal with the technical difficulties of the work than a lawyer dealing with one thing to-day and another to-morrow is likely to be. His position, as we conceive it, would be a position of authority and independence, which would enable him to become used to the work, and to deal with it as satisfactorily as you could expect a tribunal of three judges to do it.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: He will be a new judge.
      Sir J. SIMON: He will be a new judge with this difference. He will be a judge who will do nothing else but this, and in that respect he would be in a position not unlike that of the Comptroller of Patents, who discharges most important duties to the industrial community, and in all cases without appeal to the law courts, not only personally, but with the assistance of a certain amount of staff. That is our view, and therefore, I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have some difficulty in saying that I do not agree in the main with what the hon. Gentleman has said. In his interesting speech he showed us that he has a great appreciation of the gentlemen of the long robe, but, as far as I can gather, it does not go to quite the same extent as that of those who wish an appeal to the Bench, and in my opinion this Amendment does undoubtedly decrease the evil which was complained of by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke. There is another point to which I would call the attention of the hon. Gentleman. He is proposing to leave these things to the officials of the Board of Trade, but you cannot get rid of lawyers so easily as that. There is a Solicitor's Department in the Board of Trade, and how is he to know that they will not decide it?—and they will be as much lawyers as anybody else. [An HON. MEMBER: "Lawyers seem to be everywhere."] There is some point in my hon. Friend's Amendment. His case is that nothing can be more important under this Bill than that a large class of employers who think they are not in the Bill should not be put into the Bill unless there is an authority to which they can appeal. I quite agree with every word the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that that case is just as likely to be

      1791
      decided properly by an umpire as anybody else provided he is what he says he means him to be, an independent person and in the position of a judge. That is our whole case, but there is nothing in the Bill to show that he will be in that position. I am sure my hon. Friend would not press his Amendment, and I should be content, if the President of the Board of Trade were to tell us now that the umpire's position will be defined, and that we shall see he is completely independent and not merely an official under the authority of the Board of Trade.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really want to say a word or two with regard to the Solicitor-General's speech, because I feel myself that he did not make as good a defence as my hon. Friend seemed to think he had done, but that he was exceedingly uncomfortable while he was speaking. The logical conclusion of it, as it seemed to me, was that he proved that there was no possible need for any court of appeal at all. He said, if you take the umpire and select him with care, he is just as likely to give a good decision as anybody else.
      Sir J. SIMON: I said so in view of the circumstances that the questions he will have to deal with will be largely questions of fact, and that habit and experience will make those questions familiar to him.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then the learned Gentleman went on to quote as an example the Comptroller of Patents, but he did not tell the Committee that the Comptroller is subject to an appeal on very technical points to the Attorney General—not perhaps to the Solicitor-General—who has not the technical knowledge that the Comptroller of Patents has. That has been done by the wisdom of Parliament because Parliament thought that it was wrong to put so important a matter as the whole of the Patent legislation of our country into the hands of one man to decide, however much he may devote the whole of his time to it, as the umpire would do in this case. What is asked for is not for an appeal on matters of fact. The Solicitor-General said that it was not necessary to have an appeal because there would be very few points of law on which an appeal could take place. I agree, but there is no reason why, if there are any points of law on which the
      1792
      umpire has gone wrong, there should not be an appeal. Many of our judges confine themselves to particular branches of law. Take, for instance, the Judge of the Divorce Court, who, year after year, sits deciding certain points connected with that law, and is an expert in it, but if he goes wrong there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal. All our legislation and judicature is based upon the principle that the human mind is liable to err, and the human mind in the case of this umpire is just as likely to err as in the case of any magistrate or judge or comptroller throughout the world. Are the Government going to say that they intend to appoint this man to deal with the whole rights not merely of employers, but of workmen? The hon. Member for Stoke told us that no workman is likely to go to law, and I agree with him, but he knows perfectly well that the workman has behind him all the power of the trade union, and no one would be quicker to try and get a decision which they thought was wrong reversed than the trade unions. I remember several cases decided in the courts of law where the trade unions have come off not second best but first best, and I do venture to suggest to the learned Solicitor-General that he is raising a very new proposition of legislation here if he says that a big official is to be appointed in this matter to decide questions of law and fact, and that there is to be no means whatever of putting him right if he goes flagrantly wrong on a point of law. That is all that the Amendment of my hon. Friend asks—that if a prima facie is made out to show that the umpire has made a mistake he shall be ordered to state a case for the decision of the Court of Appeal. Surely that is not asking too much, and in the interests both of employers and workmen I suggest it is right that there should be such a power of appeal.
      Mr. BUXTON: I think what the hon. Gentlemen opposite really want is some undertaking that the umpire appointed under this Act shall be an independent person, and not under the influence of the Board of Trade or any other Department. We certainly intend that the umpire, once appointed, shall in all these matters be entirely independent—that is to say, that there can be no possible influence brought to bear upon him. That is a thing that we have considered before, and it is not an easy thing to put into words to make it quite clear. For instance, the appointment

      1793
      might be by the Crown instead of by the Board of Trade, or in some way to make it clear on the face of the Bill that it was intended that this officer should be an independent officer. At all events, that is our intention, and if the Committee will allow me between now and Report to consider whether we can put in some words to that effect—there is no difference really between us—we will endeavour to meet the desires of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment.
      Sir F. LOWE: I think we really want a guarantee that the umpire in a case of this kind, having to decide questions of this sort, should be something more than an independent person. I think every member of the Committee will admit that this is a most complicated Bill.
      Sir J. SIMON: No, it is quite a simple one.
      Sir F. LOWE: If it becomes an Act of Parliament it will certainly he one of the most difficult Acts of Parliament that any judge has ever had to construe, and I think we want some guarantee that the umpire who will have to decide these complicated questions under this Act shall be a person who is accustomed to construe Acts of Parliament. We have not even a guarantee that he will be a lawyer who has had any training at all in the construction of Acts of Parliament, and I take it that my hon. Friend's Amendment simply means that there shall be an appeal from the umpire on questions of law. I quite agree with the Solicitor-General that most of the questions the umpire will have to decide will be questions of fact, but there certainly might arise some complicated question such as, for example, whether a particular employer came within the four corners of this Act, and on a question of that kind it would, in my opinion, be very useful and desirable that there should be such a power of appeal as is suggested by my hon. Friend's Amendment. I hope the President of the Board of Trade and the Solicitor-General will take this into their careful consideration, and bear in mind that it is simply on a question of law, and not on a question of fact, that we are asking for an appeal. I think they might very reasonably do something to meet it.
      Mr. J. WARD: I hope, considering the way in which the Bill has been treated so far, that the hon. Member will withdraw
      1794
      his Amendment. I quite agree that if this Clause suggested bring in any large classes of people under the Bill, that then, at once, it would open up such questions, and that this investigation and inquiry would be absolutely necessary. We might then really have to go to the High Court, and almost to the House of Lords, to decide whether an individual workman, just on the margin, it may be, of some particular trade where it is well known that in the ordinary course of events the employer ought to pay—that if there is some doubt about some special work ancillary to the ordinary occupation—whether the employer or the workman ought to pay. That cases of that description, which are now confined practically to the subject of our discussion, should be given the right, if necessary, to go to the House of Lords, seems to me an unnecessary proposition. Having made the arrangements which the Government have made, I think the whole case has been met, and that there can be no hardship in allowing these cases to be decided in the way suggested.
      Mr. HOLT: I must say that if the Clause referred only to what my hon. Friend has just said, I should be inclined to agree with him; but surely, under this provision, it would be quite possible for a thoroughly wrong-headed man to exercise the powers given under Clause 77. There is absolutely no limit to what may be decided under this Clause. He may decide what class the workman is to be included in under the Act. A man sufficiently determined to go wrong can, under those circumstances extend or drag the Act to an almost unlimited extent. That is clearly possible under the words of this Clause. I do think in some form or other, we should have such protection as will prevent a wrong-headed man—if a man be irremovable and independent, there is always a chance of his being wrong-headed, that, and we do not find that making a man irremovable prevents him from being wrong-headed—some protection against something like a whole class of workmen being swept out of the Act without any appeal whatever beyond this particular umpire.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: It seems to me that this difficulty might be avoided if the President of the Board of Trade would tell us the name of the gentleman whom it is proposed shall be umpire; and whether he is a Member of this House, or a Member of the Government?
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

      Division No. 3.]

      AYES.

      Baird, Mr.

      Goldman, Mr.

      Lawson, Mr.

      Baldwin, Mr.

      Harris, Mr.

      Lowe, Sir Francis

      Barrie, Mr. Hugh

      Hoare, Mr.

      Peel, Mr.

      Benn, Mr. Hamilton

      Holt, Mr.

      Peto, Mr.

      Bigland, Mr.

      Ingleby, Mr.

      Rutherford, Mr. John

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

      Joynson-Hicks, Mr.

      Thomson, Mr. Mitchell-

      Cassel, Mr.

      Law, Mr. Bonar

      Worthington-Evans, Mr.

      NOES.

      Barnes, Mr.

      Hackett, Mr.

      Nuttall, Mr.

      Brady, Mr.

      Harmsworth, Mr. Cecil

      Primrose, Mr.

      Buxton, Mr. Sydney

      Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund

      Robertson, Mr. John

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin

      Jones, Mr. William

      Scanlan, Mr.

      Cowan, Mr.

      Joyce, Mr.

      Solicitor-General, Mr.

      Denman, Mr.

      Loach, Mr.

      Ward, Mr. John

      Ferens, Mr.

      Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

      Wilson, Mr. Tyson

      France, Mr.

      Mond, Sir Alfred

      Wood, Mr. M'Kinnon

      Goldstone, Mr.

      Nugent, Sir Walter

      Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (c) leave out the word "prescribed" ["as may be prescribed"] and insert instead thereof the word "required."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]
      Mr. PETO: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to add to paragraph (c) the words, "but in no case shall such regulations compel any workman, as a condition of receiving unemployment benefit, to register at and seek employment through a Labour Exchange when he can show that he is bonâ fide seeking employment through channels by which he has a reasonable expectation of obtaining employment in his own trade at the rate of wages current in his own locality."
      I raise the question involved in this Amendment not with the slightest hostility to the working of the Labour Exchanges, but in order to raise this question: There is no doubt that in the five scheduled trades in this part of the Bill the people concerned are very largely, in fact, almost entirely, of the highest class of mechanics—joiners, engineers, fitters, and so forth. They are not the people for whom the Labour Exchanges were specially designed, or the people, who, in a great majority of cases, either in the past or the present, have to find their new employment, if unfortunately they should happen to be out of work, through the Labour Exchanges. I think it would be very unfortunate if this new Act, when it becomes an Act, were made the vehicle for changing the existing means by which men have always been in the habit of finding employment. The best workmen in all these five scheduled trades are perfectly well known. They know perfectly well
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 26.
      through the trade union and in other ways where to find employment when out of employment. I think it would be very hard if the officials had the power to say that a man is not entitled to receive unemployment pay unless he has attended at a Labour Exchange or sought to get further employment through a Labour Exchange. If he can show, as he would in many cases be able to show, that he had been constantly in employment, and had aways been in the habit, on the rare occasions when he had had to seek further employment, of finding it through the ordinary channels that had been open to him long before Labour Exchanges were instituted, and that he was, in the words of my Amendment, "seeking employment bonâ fide through channels by which he has a reasonable expectation of obtaining employment in his own trade at the rate of wages current in his own locality," that should do.
      Therefore, I think, as there is probably no intention of trying to get an entirely fresh class of clients for the Labour Exchanges, that there is no possible harm, but a great deal of good, in making provision that no regulation should be made which positively compels men to seek employment through any such channel, and to compel him to attend at the Labour Exchange, where the vast majority of people who are seeking employment are a totally different class of workmen altogether to those who are his mates in his own trade. I do not wish to put the thing any higher than that; it is purely a negative. I am not asking to put anything into this Bill to enforce any special form or regulation,

      1797
      but that merely in no case shall any regulation made compel a workman on condition of receiving unemployment benefit, to do something or the other which, in the ordinary course, he would never think of doing if it were not for that regulation. I would only like to add, I am quite sure it will be the experience of every hon. Member of this Committee who has had anything to do with workmen—and that includes the vast majority—that the people of the class for whom I speak are perfectly able to find new employment when out without the assistance of the Labour Exchanges; therefore, it would be undesirable and unnecessary to make it an absolute rule that a man should attend there and should be compelled to find his employment through the Labour Exchanges.
      Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "exchange."
      2.0 P.M.
      I move this Amendment for the purpose of discussion and in order to get some statement which I trust will be satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peto) will probably be aware that the last part of his Amendment is impossible in any case because we have already dealt with that point and we struck out reference to current rates of wages and put in other words which we think are more satisfactory. Therefore that part of the Amendment is disposed of. But the first portion lays down a principle which is at least worth discussing, that the Board of Trade shall not make it a condition of a man getting unemployment benefit that he should sign at a Labour Exchange. That is a proposal of some importance to us, having in view the fact that a good many men will be covered by this part of the Bill who are members of trade unions, but as the Bill is at present constructed it does not mean all trade unions that come under Clauses 79 or 80. There will be a good many builders' labourers and men like that belonging to unions that do not pay unemployed benefits, many of them being too poor. We want to maintain the rights of those men somehow or other to work in conjunction with their own trade unions. Take a man who may belong to a building union and he comes out of work and is entitled to unemployed benefits under this Bill.
      1798
      As at present drawn the Bill makes no provision for that man's union administering this benefit; it must be done through the Board of Trade. The man may live close to a place where his union has a meeting house or a place where he may register himself as out of work in accordance with the provisions laid down by his union. On the other hand the Labour Exchange might be three or four miles away from his home. We do not want the Bill, and we do not want any regulations of the Board of Trade to require that poor man in addition to making his union acquainted with the fact that he is out of work to register himself in accordance with their requirements as being able and willing to take work that they may find for him. We do not want, in addition to that, to enforce upon the man an obligation to walk three or four miles to a Labour Exchange. That would be a great hardship upon the man, and there is no need to impose that hardship, because we think that the Board of Trade might make an arrangement with the man's union to avoid this. The union might meet at the Labour Exchange, and in that event the man would sign there. We certainly think that this should not be made a condition, and that is why I am moving to strike out these words, which cover ground already covered, although I am willing to leave in the words down to the word "exchange."
      Sir J. SIMON: I think I can say something which will deal both with the original Amendment and with the Amendment to the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow has suggested. I rather apprehend that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peto) and my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Barnes) have made the Motions which they have rather for the purpose of ventilating what is an important part of the Act. I may point out at once that if we were to accept these proposals—I do not make any complaint of their having been put forward—the consequences upon the Bill would be of the most serious character, because these proposals are disabling Amendments. They are not Amendments which say that it shall not necessarily and always be the case that the workmen must go to the Labour Exchange, but they are Amendments which say in effect that he shall never in any circumstances be required by regulation to go to the Labour Exchange. We cannot

      1799
      work the Bill with such an Amendment. I have not now in mind the class of workmen referred to by the hon. Member, but I would ask the Committee to consider how could you work a Bill which gives unemployment benefits not only to organised labour and skilled labour, but gives it to the unskilled and out of work, who have none of the esprit de corps of a trade union and none of the checks which organised labour gives. How could you work the Bill if you had not the power to require attendance at the Labour Exchange? The Amendment as it stands could not be accepted except at the expense of destroying this part of the Act.
      The questions which the hon. Member opposite puts are none the less relevant and reasonable. It is not the intention of those who are considering how this Act should be worked for the Board of Trade to lay down in their regulations in all circumstances that there must be without any exception such attendance. I can imagine cases where it would not be necessary. What we could not contemplate is laying down on the face of the Bill that no regulation ever in any circumstances is to be required; but what is normally contemplated is that when the workman is out of work, and when he leaves his employment his employer gives him the card or book which the employer has been stamping during the currency of the job. The first necessity, of course, is that the man who is out of work with that card or book—which is his voucher to show he is entitled to come on the Fund—should present himself to the insurance officer and register as a person who claims to come on the Fund. It is a necessary part of the machinery that the insurance officer should be found at the Labour Exchange, and that is not unreasonable considering that one of the conditions which must be satisfied if the claimant is to get his weekly money is that he should not refuse an offer of work satisfying certain conditions. It is quite impossible for us to accept the restrictive covenant that there never shall be a regulation which requires a man to attend at a Labour Exchange. The qualification which has been suggested would hardly be suitable in the present circumstances. I am authorised on behalf of the Government to say that we contemplate the possibility of cases where this constant attendance would not be necessary, and we are very glad to have the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Gentleman behind me showing that in drawing
      1800
      up regulations we must be careful, while securing good administration, to see that we do not impose any hardship on the people where it is not necessary. I hope in view of this explanation my hon. Friends will feel that they may be able to withdraw this Amendment, because I am confident their proposal could not be put upon the face of the Bill without damaging considerably its structure.
      Mr. PETO: In view of what has been said by the Solicitor-General. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I was going to ask the hon. Member to withdraw his proposal, because it would diminish the prospects of those who otherwise would legitimately come on the funds.
      Mr. BARNES: Would it be possible for the Board of Trade, under the circumstances I have described, to make arrangements with a trade union to report a man providing he complied with their regulations, and signed at the meeting house?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: May I say that I think this proposal would be hampering the Board of Trade in a very unnecessary way. The whole case has been put so clearly by the Solicitor-General that there is nothing more to say except that obviously, however high a man may be in this labour scale, and however far he may differ from those who generally go to Labour Exchanges, he would come on this fund unless he is in dire necessity, and under such circumstances no one has the right to give him money unless he has taken every opportunity of taking the kind of situation provided for him under the Bill. Unless Labour Exchanges are to be a farce altogether—I may say that I voted for them, and should like to see them extended—I do not see why they should not be used for workmen of all classes, as in Germany, and it would be a misfortune if anything were done to make it obligatory on the part of the Board of Trade to throw any restriction on the further development of Labour Exchanges.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: If the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman were adopted it would be putting a degrading status on those who had to go directly to the Labour Exchange and a slur on their character. They would be looked upon as inferior to those who reported to their

      1801
      trade unions. I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to cast such a slur upon them.
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. GOLDMAN Mr. GOLDMAN rose to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words, "Provided always that all such regulations shall lie upon the Table of the House of Commons, after due notice given, for two calendar months while Parliament is sitting, before such regulations come into force."
      The object of my Amendment is to provide that certain regulations should lie on the Table of the House of Commons before they receive the force of law.
      Mr. BUXTON: My Amendment covers that.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I understand the principle of my Amendment is contained in an Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade, and I do not therefore move.
      Mr. BARNES: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words, "In such regulations provision shall be made for giving effect to The Friendly Societies Act, 1896, Section 97 (1), in respect of payment of fee by an insured person to a registrar of births or deaths."
      We have got on fairly well so far without reference to other Acts, and I make this reference leaving the Government, if they accept, the principle of the thing, to put it in order. It deals with a matter of considerable importance to trade unionists and a large number of people who come under this Bill. The section to which reference is made makes provision whereby members of friendly societies can get a copy of the registration of birth or death for 1s., whereas the ordinary fee, I think, is 3s. 7d. I know the rank and file of trade unionism very often complain of having to pay 3s. 7d., while their more fortunate brethren of the friendly societies get these things for 1s. My Amendment provides that this particular section which confers that privilege upon members of friendly societies shall for all purposes come under this Act. We are bringing a great many poor people in, to whom the difference between 3s. 7d. and 1s. is a very great consideration.
      Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the object he has in view is one with which the Government sympathise, and it seems to us it is an object which may very well be secured. I do not think it can be done by adding this as a subject matter for regulation, because you cannot very well by a subordinate regulation practically say another Act of Parliament shall extend to a completely new subject matter. That would be really reversing the position of regulations in Acts of Parliament. We can, however, do it in some other form, and, if my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment, we will consult those who guide us in these technical matters and see we put it in what is considered the best shape.
      Mr. BARNES: Might I suggest that Clause 74 would be a more profitable place?
      Mr. BUXTON: Or a new clause, one or the other.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (2) to add the following new Sub-section:—
      "(3) All regulations made under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and, if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within forty days on which that House has sat next after such regulation is laid before it praying the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may, if he sees fit, annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of any new regulation."
      This, I think, meets the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goldman). I have already explained to the Committee, in reference to these other Sub-sections, that it will be necessary these regulations should be laid before both Houses of Parliament for forty days, but I explained, and I think it was clearly understood, that would not necessarily delay the issue or the getting into practical working shape of the regulations. It might so happen regulations were necessary at once, and the House might not be sitting for another six months. If the House of Commons in any way desired to vary or cancel the regulations, they would cease to be in force, but anything done under them would be valid, and they would not be invalidated in consequence.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Apparently these regulations are to lay on the Table of both Houses for forty days. An Address may be carried in the House of Commons praying that a regulation should not be carried out, and then His Majesty may, if he thinks fit.… That apparently gives a discretion to the Government still to persist in the regulation even although an address has been carried in the House of Commons praying it may be annulled. Surely, if either House of Parliament decides against a regulation, that should be absolute upon the Government. Perhaps the Solicitor General can satisfy me, but it seems to me it still gives a discretion to the Government, which I do not think ought to exist.
      Sir J. SIMON: This is the provision which has been used hitherto. We have exactly this provision in Section 93 of the Finance Act 1909–10, and it is also used in other places. We have only followed the usual course of events. After all, if a majority in the House of Commons decides one of these regulations is to be cancelled, and if the Government of the day none the less resists, well, the majority in the House of Commons has its remedy. It might conceivably, however, for one reason or another, be that the thing required either re-consideration or some other treatment.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: What about the House of Lords?
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Oh, they do not exist.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Solicitor-General tells us that if the majority in the House of Commons come to a decision of this sort they have their remedy; but has the majority in the House of Lords an equal remedy? I think we might have that point explained.
      Mr. BUXTON: There was a regulation under the Old Age Pensions Act, in which, if the majority of the House of Lords decided in favour of cancellation, the Government, though they till possessed a majority in the House of Commons, accepted the decision of the House of Lords. As a matter of common practice, they would do so in such a case.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite agree that, so far as the present Government is concerned, at all events, there is no danger of their risking their skins on a measure of this kind. We run no risk on that point.
      1804
      But the other point is important; will the Lords have power to make their views good in a case of this kind? I suggest we should leave out these words. Perhaps it is mere laziness that has kept them in.
      Mr. BUXTON: I am quite willing to take them out.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Should I be in order in moving to omit the words?
      Mr. BUXTON: This is a new point. The words are in the common form, but if the hon. Gentleman will allow the matter to stand over, I will undertake to look into it between now and the Report stage, when I can explain to the House of Commons how the matter stands. I would rather not make the alteration at the moment.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I quite agree. I am only desirous it should be made perfectly clear that the decision of the other House is equally binding.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 68.—(Unemployment Fund.)
      (1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act there shall be established under the control and management of the Board of Trade a fund called the Unemployment Fund, into which shall be paid all contributions payable under this Part of this Act by employers and workmen and out of moneys provided by Parliament, and out of which shall be paid all claims for unemployment benefit and any other payments which under this Part of this Act are payable out of the fund.
      (2) The accounts of the Unemployment Fund shall be audited in such manner as the Treasury may direct.
      (3) Any moneys forming part of the Unemployment Fund may from time to time be paid over to the National Debt Commissioners and by them invested in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury in any securities which are for the time being authorised by Parliament as investments for savings banks' moneys.
      (4) The National Debt Commissioners shall present to Parliament annually an account of the securities in which moneys forming part of the said fund are for the time being invested.
      Mr. HOLT: I beg to move in Sub-section (3) to leave out the words "savings banks' moneys," and to insert instead thereof the words "trust funds, or in any other securities for the time being approved by the Insurance Commissioners."
      The object of this Amendment is to give the National Debt Commissioners powers of investment on exactly the same terms as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put down as a suitable power of investment to be given to friendly societies for their money under the other portion of the Bill. I do not think I need defend the particular proposition I have made as being in itself a prudent and cautious one; the fact that it has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought, I think, to be quite sufficient to reassure everybody as to its financial prudence. It is quite clear that, under the Bill, these funds can only be invested in Government securities, such as Consols, etc., bearing a low rate of interest; and seeing that under the Bill if the fund is not sufficient to meet its liabilities, the Board of Trade are to take power to call upon both employers and employed to make a larger contribution, surely it is very much to their interest and to the interest of all classes that this fund should earn the hightest amount of interest that it is possible to obtain with complete security. It is a matter of importance that we should get this higher interest from another point of view. Many of us feel that as, under this Bill, those who promote great municipal or semi-municipal enterprises are being asked to make very large contributions to these funds, they ought, at least, to have this advantage, that where the State is satisfied that the enterprises are prudently and carefully conducted, the State should be in a position to give them that assistance to which I think they are entitled, and that they would derive from the investment of these funds in these enterprises.
      I would ask the Government to observe that there is nothing compulsory about this Amendment. It would not prevent them from investing every single farthing they could raise under the Bill in Government securities. There is nothing in this Amendment which would compel them to invest a halfpenny in any security except Consols. It merely gives the National Debt Commissioners a discretion which it is thought proper to give to friendly societies as to the investment of their funds. I should think it would
      1806
      be difficult for any representative of the Government to get up and solemnly tell us that the National Debt Commissioners are not as well able to exercise discretion in this matter as the managing committee of an approved friendly society.
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): My hon. Friend has founded his Amendment on a comparison with a provision which is made in the first part of the Bill. But if he examines the two cases he will find there are great dissimilarities between them. The powers which he asks are given in the first part of the Bill only as regards the contributions of the employed persons; they are not given in regard to the State contributions. The provisions in the first part of the Bill, which it is proposed by the hon. Members to extend to the second part of the Bill, stand on an altogether different basis. The Government has a greater degree of responsibility with regard to this fund. The whole question of amending the Amendment raises a very large question as to how the Commissioners should be allowed to invest their money. It is a question which, of course, was considered very exhaustively by a Special Committee which was appointed in 1902 to deal with Savings Banks funds. I need not go into that particular question now, but I think there is one consideration which will satisfy my hon. Friend that he should not press his Amendment.
      The facts about this fund are altogether different from the facts relating to the fund in Part I. of the Bill. We are now dealing with a small reserve, and, what is most important, a fluctuating reserve. This is money which will be drawn out from time to time during the year; sometimes there will be little or no money in the fund; at times there may be none; but at other times there may be, perhaps, a million or two in it. It is not a question of a large fund built up as in the case of Part I. If we are dealing with a fluctuating amount, if this is a fund which is constantly changing, an important consideration is as to the realisability of the fund. You want a fund which you can realise cheaply, and if you leave it to the securities provided in the Bill the Commissioners can deal wth the fund, and very often may be able to realise without any cost at all. At any rate, the cost will be small. But if you are dealing without large securities, such as are suggested by my hon. Friend,

      1807
      you will, of course, have to take the chances of the market, and you will probably be selling these securities at a time of depression, because that is the very time when you will want money from the fund.
      Mr. HOLT: Do not you take the chances of the market in Consols?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, but if you keep the matter in the hands of the Commissioners you can very often avoid the necessity of dealing with them in this way. You can deal with the fund in a different way—in a way in which you cannot deal without outside securities. Of course, the margin you have to allow on the buying and selling of other funds is very different from the margin you allow in regard to Government securities. You have a more expensive dealing with the fund quite apart from the question of the depreciation or appreciation of the securities. At a period of trade depression outside securities, such as good railway securities, are most likely to be depressed, but it does not follow that Government securities are necessarily depressed when there is not a large demand for capital for trade purposes. The really important point is this: If you did this you would have a very costly way of dealing with a fluctuating fund, and that I think is the real answer to my hon. Friend's Amendment. If you allow these powers the question of depreciation of the Fund would seriously arise. There would be a question, too, of periodical valuations of the Fund, and I do not think my hon. Friend gains as much as he loses by his proposal. I think he would lose more than he could possibly gain from any increase in the rate of interest, and therefore the Government is unable to accept his suggestion.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am very sorry the Government is not able to accept this proposal. I am surprised that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should have put forward what, without wishing to be discourteous, are to my mind arguments which equally apply to the Investment Clause the Government themselves have inserted. He told us that the facts were different in regard to the money to be invested under Part II. as compared with that dealt with in Part I. One admits that it is so. There is not a large accumulating fund in Part II.; you have a reserve more or less temporary—a fund which may
      1808
      be drawn upon quickly or not. When I have made that admission I have admitted all that there was in the right hon. Gentleman's argument. The Amendment does not propose that it shall be compulsory upon the Insurance Commissioners to make a non-marketable form of investment. On the contrary, it proposes that power to earn a larger rate of interest should be given to the Commissioners over the surplus funds. That part of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was beside the point. The other argument was that the Insurance Commissioners would in that case have to take the chance of the market. If they invested in Consols, would they not have to take the chance of the market? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that if this Bill had been in force for the last five or ten years, they would not have been prepared to take the chance of the markets if they had invested in Consols, instead of in loans on local rates.
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Gentleman need not be so contemptuous of the argument, because the Government is the owner of Consols, and what it may lose in one way, it may gain in another.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is a still more extraordinary argument. The right hon. Gentlemen says that the Government, as the owner of Consols, make a profit out of the rise or fall of Consols. Is it the business of the Government, where they can, to make a profit, to reduce the price of Consols? I do not know whether they have done it in order to redeem them at a cheaper rate. That is an extraordinary argument for the Secretary of the Treasury to advance. If this argument were carried to its logical conclusion it would be the duty of the Government to depreciate the value of Consols in order that they might redeem them at a merely nominal value for less cash under the Sinking Fund.
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I really must interrupt the hon. Member. There are the Commissioners of the National Debt. What is to prevent them from borrowing balances from another Department or the Savings Bank Department? Then there could be no cost of realisation and no loss on realisation. There is one other point—
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have not finished with your first argument yet. The right hon. Gentleman points out that there is nothing to prevent the Insurance

      1809
      Commissioners from borrowing from another Department. That knocks the bottom out of his previous argument, that they would be landed with unmarketable securities, because they could borrow from another Department, and so avoid the very difficulty the right hon. Gentleman pointed out.
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Does the hon. Member suggest that they can borrow from the Savings Bank on outside securities? That is his suggestion.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is not my suggestion at all. The right hon. Gentleman has made the suggestion that they could borrow from some other Department, and if they could in any case do it, they could do it still, if they judiciously exercised the widened powers of investment this Clause proposes to give one. I hear the Secretary of the Treasury say they could not borrow, but it was his proposition that they could borrow, and not mine. The Secretary of the Treasury said that in time of depression securities like railway securities would be reduced. I do not anticipate that under the Amendment the Insurance Commissioners are going to invest in the ordinary stocks of railway companies. Was that the Secretary to the Treasury's fear? If so, I do not think he apprehended the scope of the Amendment that is actually before the Committee. If he did not mean that, and if he meant railway securities, both Debenture Bonds or any other class of money securties, he must know that in time of depression money securities, as a rule, have rather a good price and not a bad price, because in times of depression money is not required for trade to the same extent, and it flows back again into money securities, and the prices are likely to be better rather than worse. I hope the Committee will not pass over this Amendment. I do not think it goes nearly far enough, and I shall ask the Government to consider whether they cannot make the powers of investment under Part II. of the Bill precisely similar to the powers of investment under Part I. That is the effect of the Amendment as it now stands.
      We have other Amendments down to Part I. to enlarge the sphere of investment; for instance, we want to provide that moneys may under Part I. be invested, as they are now commonly invested by friendly societies, in loans on local rates. If that Amendment is accepted in the latter part of Part I.,
      1810
      whatever Amendment is made to Part II., I hope the enlarged powers given under Part I. will be given under Part II. If the hon. Member presses the point to a division, I shall certainly support him.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think we ought to hear something from the Board of Trade about this, apart from the Treasury point of view. It is obviously to the interest of this Fund that the money should be invested in such funds as are compatible with security. The whole point of the argument of the Secretary to the Treasury amounted to this, that the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made in Part I. is not financially sound.
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I did not say so.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Because the argument he used was this, that this is a fluctuating security; that it differs from the Part I. investment. That does not amount to anything if the Commissioners have common sense. All that we ask is, that they should have the power to invest in precisely the same class of security which the House of Commons has already permitted them to invest in under Part I. This is really a matter which any Government ought to look at from the point of view of common-sense. I cannot see any sense whatever in the Government accepting downstairs one principle, and refusing to accept the same principle upstairs. I hope that for once, if the Government do insist upon this, that Gentlemen on the opposite side will recognise that there is no party question involved in it.
      Mr. BUXTON: There is a considerable difference between the position of the unemployed fund, for which the Government and the State ultimately is responsible, and the position of the fund of the friendly societies in respect of Part I. This is a Treasury matter, and I have to be very careful in what I may propose in regard to it. I understand that this particular point is to be further discussed on Part I., and I would ask the Committee, therefore, not to press me now to say how far we may be able to meet the suggestion made. Let us see what is eventually decided in regard to this point under Part I., and what the Treasury agree to, and then I, in consultation with the Treasury, will see how far we are able to meet the desires expressed in various quarters of the Committee to bring it into form with Part I. I hope the Committee will not press me further in

      1811
      regard to it for the moment. I cannot promise things on behalf of the Treasury to which they do not agree.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman unduly, but this is a matter which should be decided now. What is there to hinder this Committee from going so far as this Amendment, and then, if it is found later on that the House has gone further, the right hon. Gentleman can go further on the Report stage. This is a thing we understand, and there is no reason for postponing a decision.
      Mr. HOLT: I wished to raise this point on Part I. last night, but I was prevented by the guillotine Closure from doing so. [Laughter.] I would ask the hon. Gentlemen opposite who laugh to remember that I voted against guillotine Closure. We have lost our opportunity of discussing this point in Committee downstairs. That has gone, except as regards the new Clause which is going to be moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer referring only to a part of the Fund. I therefore suggest, that in these circumstances, the Committee are fairly entitled to take their own line, because they have no security whatever that they will have an opportunity of discussing it later.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I hope that the Government, after the appeal of the hon. Member, will agree to this Amendment. As he said, the opportunity for discussing it under Part I. has gone. Fortunately we are not guillotined here, and we now have an opportunity of discussing it. After all, the principle is a simple one. The Amendment simply gives permissive power to the Commissioners. If the Commissioners are worth anything they are not likely to invest in securities which are securities which ought not to be invested in. The President of the Board of Trade used a most extraordinary argument. He said there was a difference between the two funds, that one was the Government's own fund and the other was the fund of the friendly societies, and that even if there was more latitude allowed in the case of the fund of the friendly societies the Government must take very good care of their own fund. Surely the Government does not really pretend that they are to be less careful of the funds committed to them by friendly societies than they would be in the case of their own funds. I do not think
      1812
      that that argument can really stand. I hope the hon. Member will press the matter to a division.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: I want to support the Amendment. It seems to me that the effect of investing the money from the Unemployed Fund in Consols will be to increase the price of Consols by creating, as it were, a greater competition for this security. If that be so there will be a less return because the competition will increase the price. In the first stages of the operation of the Teachers' Superannuation Act the Government were restricted to Consols as the security in which the money should be placed. An appeal was made and there was a variation which helped to improve the fund, from the point of view of the contributor, by widening the area in which the money might be invested. For the same reason it seems to me that those who are in the fund would be assisted by widening the area of gilt-edged securities in which their money might be placed. I strongly support the Amendment.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: I think there is something to be said for the case put forward by the Mover of the Amendment in regard to giving as wide a scope as possible for the investment of funds. On the other hand I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) that this is a simple point. It seems to me a very serious point to ask that we should give the Insurance Commissioners absolute power to invest the funds in any security which may suit them.
      Mr. HOLT: The investment is made by the National Debt Commissioners.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: If that is so my argument loses force.
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This is altering the whole structure of this Clause. The proposal is that the National Debt Commissioners should have control of this money. Of course, if you give them power to invest in outside securities you take the matter out of the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, who could not do that. The National Debt Commissioners can only deal with Government money. As there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about what I said, which perhaps I put rather too briefly, I want to point out, in the first place, that this is not a large question, but a very small question. It is a question in which

      1813
      the nature of the fund renders the question of the amount of interest much less important than the question of the cost of realisation. At certain periods of the year there will be a great demand for money for the unemployed. In other periods there will be a less demand. It is therefore from the business point of view that I oppose the Amendment. A business man wanting to have money for a short time, which he would not require at other periods of the year, would take an easily realisable security. He would not look for high interest, but for a thing to deal with quickly and cheaply. In drafting this Bill it was considered that the National Debt Commissioners were the proper people to deal wtih the fund. They can only deal with Government securities. They can deal with Government securities economically, and, really, the business point in this is that you should keep the thing to these securities and not squander it over a number of other securities for the purpose of obtaining interest, which is the least important point in this case. Under these circumstances I am afraid, on behalf of the Treasury, I cannot give way. I hope the Committee will appreciate that to make this alteration alters the whole basis of the Clause, and it is rather a serious alteration in the Bill. The case of the friendly societies, who are allowed to invest in these securities funds which are contributed by their own members is quite a different case from this, where the Government, for example, under Clause 79, takes a considerable and a real responsibility in regard to the funds.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has made the case a bit better. His whole speech has been on the assumption that the Commissioners were compelled to invest the money in unsuitable funds. He talked of squandering it over all kinds of investments; but surely they are going to be people of ordinary common sense. They are going to take into account the circumstances of the funds; not only the rate of interest which they will get, but the probability of their having to realise it at a given time. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken—and I speak with a considerable amount of experience, having been connected with a trust company for a good many years—in supposing that you will invest in Consols on a given day and sell three months later with more certainty of not losing by the transaction than by investing in anything else. This really is a very simple point, and it amounts to this:
      1814
      What is good enough for the Insurance Commissioners downstairs in regard to Part I. ought to be good enough for the Insurance Commissioners upstairs in regard to Part II. I hope the Government will give way, and accept the Amendment without the necessity of a Division in regard to it.
      Sir ALFRED MOND: I would not waste more time, after the Debate we have had, but for the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. A good many of us are not in the least convinced by the arguments we have heard. We are starting a new Fund, the size of which we do not know and the amount of which is unascertained, and although the Fund will fluctuate no one can tell at what amount the reserve will be left. I do not think that Fund will naturally and automatically go up and down every year, because in a year of good trade there may be considerable accumulations. All we are asking is that this thing should be treated in a businesslike way—that is to say, that the Insurance Commissioners should be allowed to obtain as good an investment as they possibly can in a reasonable manner. The National Debt Commissioners, I understand, can only invest in Consols. No prudent business man of to-day would look on that as any great security. The only thing that my firm ever lost any money in was an investment in Consols. On the other hand, when you talk about realising quickly, surely it will not be contended that there are not other gilt-edged securities as good as Consols which are quite as realisable in large quantities on the Stock Exchange in London as Consols—London County Council securities and London Water Board Stock. Surely, except for a very technical kind of opposition I have heard no argument to induce me not to support the Amendment. The promise made by the President of the Board of Trade scarcely carries us far enough. If he will give us an undertaking that the Government will insert in this Clause a similar provision to what is in Part I. we shall be satisfied, but it is extremely unlikely that we shall have another opportunity of discussing the matter after to-day. I shall reluctantly feel compelled to vote for the Amendment failing an undertaking of the kind.
      Sir J. SIMON: I do not desire to keep up the discussion, especially as the matter is one on which I am not particularly well qualified to speak. My hon. Friend's

      1815
      Amendment would have this consequence, which I cannot believe he really desires. He suggests that approval by the Insurance Commissioners should determine the availability of the particular form of security chosen for investment by the National Debt Commissioners. Now, the Insurance Commissioners have nothing to do with Part II. of the Bill. You can search Part II. from one end to the other, and they are not to be found. What this Amendment asks the Committee to do is to show ourselves so excessively businesslike that we should, as the result of this discussion, introduce into Part II. of the Bill the approval of the Insurance Commissioners who have nothing to do with that Part. That is the first difficulty. [An HON. MEMBER: "Let somebody do it."] My hon. Friend says "Let somebody do it." I agree that it is a matter that requires consideration, but is it fair to say to the Government here that this matter has been so clearly understood by the Members of the Committee when it appears after half-an-hour's discussion, and after business gentlemen have given the Committee the benefit of their business experience, that many of us do not realise that we are introducing the approval of a body that has nothing to do with Part II.? I would ask the Members of the Committee to consider whether or not the course which has been suggested is not open to this objection. Amendment is easy enough. One is glad to reflect, in view of the amicable way in which our proceedings are carried on, and the way in which we are getting through so rapidly, that there is no reason to suppose that with the considerable time we are to have on Report, there should not be time for this topic to be discussed. I suggest that it is in the highest degree undesirable that the Treasury should foe asked now to accept this Amendment, or that we should be prepared to move another Amendment to give effect to it. We are dealing with this matter, not important in some ways, but very important in others, without really all of us having understood what are the pros and cons of the proposal. I do suggest that it is not wise that the National Debt Commissioners should have put upon them the direction that they are to submit their suggested investments to the Insurance Commissioners, and I suggest that this question involves considerably deeper
      1816
      consequences which require consideration in view of the discussion which has taken place.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. and learned Gentleman has a good deal depreciated his own ability when he said that he was not able to deal with this matter. He has put before the Committee the only possible case for the Government, but it is a very bad case. His point is that the Amendment as it stands alters the framework of the Bill, and brings in new people. Our point is that in some way this fund should be invested in such a manner as will be most profitable to the fund. Will the President of the Board of Trade get up now and undertake that in some way or another he will enable people to control the Fund and to invest it in the same kind of securities which can be invested in under Part I. of the Bill? If he is not willing to do that, then I think there is no alternative but to vote for the Amendment before the Committee, and if that is carried, then I guarantee that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, with his technical advisers, will very quickly find words which will make it applicable.
      Mr. BUXTON: I venture to say to the Committee that if they would be good enough to give me the opportunity of considering this proposal in consultation with the Treasury I would endeavour to meet the point. The real difficulty in connection with my hon. Friend's Amendment is that it does alter the framework of the Bill. If the Committee will allow it to stand in that way I will undertake, with the Treasury, to see how far we can adopt the principle which is in Part I. and extend the powers of investment of the Fund.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Why not do it now?
      Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid I cannot go further than that. That is an undertaking which I really think the Committee might be satisfied with.
      Mr. FRANCE: I am afraid what the President of the Board of Trade has said does not satisfy those who look with favour on the Amendment of my hon. Friend. If we look to the Report stage to see whether the President of the Board of Trade and the Treasury will be able to discover some way of agreement on this matter, we may find that they have not been able to come to an agreement, and we may have thrown upon us the responsibility

      1817
      of voting against the Bill, and thereby destroying a great measure. I agree entirely with what fell from the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Bonar Law), that we should have some definite assurance that those who will have charge of the Fund will have the widest

      Division No. 4.]

      AYES.

      Barnes, Mr.

      Hackett, Mr.

      Nugent, Sir Walter

      Brady, Mr.

      Harmsworth, Mr. Cecil

      Nuttall, Mr.

      Burke, Mr. Haviland-

      Jones, Mr. William

      Scanlan, Mr.

      Buxton, Mr. Sydney

      Joyce, Mr.

      Solicitor-General, Mr.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin

      Leach, Mr.

      Wilson, Mr. Tyson

      Ferens, Mr.

      Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

      Wood, Mr. M'Kinnon

      NOES.

      Baird, Mr.

      Goldstone, Mr.

      Lawson, Mr.

      Baldwin, Mr.

      Harris, Mr.

      Mond, Sir Alfred

      Benn, Mr. Hamilton

      Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund

      Primrose, Mr.

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

      Hoare, Mr.

      Ward, Mr. John

      France, Mr.

      Holt, Mr.

      Worthington-Evans, Mr.

      Goldman, Mr.

      Law, Mr. Bonar

      Motion made and question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I want to know from the President of the Board of Trade if he will kindly inform the Committee whether it is intended to create one fund or more than one fund as the Unemployment Fund under the Act, because there seem to be very obvious objections to creating one fund. Unless it has been definitely decided to create one fund, and if it is not too late, I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the Government's decision upon that point. Under Part I. of the Bill, they are creating at least two funds, and probably three. There is to be a male fund and a female fund, and possibly there may be another for Ireland. In this Bill we have two different and distinct sections of trade included, and I suggest that there ought to be a fund created for each of the two broad sections of trade. That the incidence of unemployment in these trades is different is apparently admitted, and some sort of equalisation has been attempted by limiting the benefit in the building trades to 6s., whereas the benefit in the engineering trade is 7s. Apparently, this last measure of safety which the Government thought was necessary to introduce into the Bill is to be put on one side, and therefore it is all the more important that each of these large sections should have separate funds. I have no doubt that the Government have made up their mind, but I wish to put on record a short protest against dealing with this matter in this hotch-potch fashion. The
      discretion in investing it in the most profitable way.
      Question put, "That the words 'savings banks' moneys' stand part of the Clause."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 17.
      only compulsory scheme that ever existed failed largely because of the dissatisfaction which was felt in the case of people who were charged an equal premium for unequal risks. If you keep both groups of trade in one fund, and it is found that there is a considerable difference as the Act goes on working, between the risks, you will have prevented yourself from giving bonuses, or reduced contributions, or increased benefit, to that section of trade which ultimately proves it has the least risks. If you do keep them separate, you will be able to deal with the trade which has the least risks by apportioning part of the surplus of its own fund back among the people in that trade. If you do not keep them separate, then I say you are going to run the risk of great dissatisfaction through one trade having to pay for a large portion of the other trade's risks. I should like to have from the Government a statement of policy, because this is all a question of policy which was not dealt with on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is really a point of fundamental importance in considering the whole question of unemployment insurance.
      Mr. BUXTONI think it is clear in the Bill that we are to have one fund for the whole of the unemployment contribution. This matter was very carefully considered, and it was certainly thought that in a matter of this sort, based upon the principle of insurance, it would be very much more effective, more solvent, and in every way more simple, to have one fund instead of several funds side by side. The hon.

      1819
      Gentleman really founded his suggestion on the idea that in the various sections of trade, and groups of trades, it might be that in one case there would be a greater amount of benefit to be paid than in others. As the Bill was originally introduced, we did have different benefits, but after careful consideration of the representations which were made to us by both groups of trades, we came to the conclusion that the benefits and the contributions in those two great branches should be the same. I am glad to say that the financial position will be able to bear the additional charge. The hon. Gentleman overlooked the provision under Clause 76. There will be an opportunity every five years of considering as between the trades the contributions and the benefits whether the contributions and the benefits shall vary, and I think it is quite clear in the experimental stage that they ought to be put, so far as possible, on terms of equality, and that there should be one fund. I believe it will be found by experience that whatever may be done in future, one fund will be best in the first instance. The difficulties and possible hardships to which the hon. Gentleman alluded will be dealt with by Clause 76.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not going to press this matter, and I certainly have no intention of moving an Amendment, but if, as was pointed out, the programme of my hon. Friend has not sufficiently taken into account this suggestion. I am not at all sure that the Government may not be right, but the point I have in my mind, which would have made me on the face of it favour the suggestion of my hon. Friend, is this: this part of the Bill is obviously experimental. We were told in the House of Commons we should get from our experience under this part of the Bill information and assistance that would enable us to extend the scope to other classes. It seems to me that if we have one fund only you will have much less opportunity of getting the experience which is desirable.
      Mr. BUXTON: I should have said that, although we have only one fund, it is intended—I do not know whether it is expressed in the Bill—to keep separate accounts as between the various trades so as to get the information which we shall require for the quinquennial alteration.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That completely answers the point I was putting, but I think
      1820
      it ought to have been put in in some shape or form.
      Mr. HOARE: There is another point I would like to put to the Chairman. Several hon. Members of this Committee on both sides, including myself, have amendments down that would bring young persons between the ages of fourteen and sixteen within the scope of this Bill. I do not know what is the position of the Government with reference to such a proposal.
      The CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on any possible construction of Clause 68.
      Mr. HOARE: What I was going to ask was whether, in the event of these young persons being included, the President of the Board of Trade would consider the advisability of having a fund specially for them?
      Sir J. SIMON: That is rather hypothetical.
      Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 69.—(Treasury Advances.)
      (1) The Treasury may out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof advance on the security of the Unemployment Fund any sums required for the purpose of discharging the liabilities of that Fund under this Part of this Act: Provided that the total amount of advances outstanding at any time shall not exceed three million pounds or such larger sum as the Treasury may fix.
      (2) If whilst any part of any such advance is outstanding it appears to the Treasury that the Unemployment Fund is insolvent, the Board of Trade shall, if the Treasury so direct, by order, make such temporary modifications in any of the rates of contribution, or the rates or periods of unemployment benefit, and during such period, as the Treasury may consider necessary to secure the solvency of the Unemployment Fund:
      Provided that no order made under this Sub-section shall reduce the weekly rate of unemployment benefit below the sum of 5s., or shall increase the rates of contribution from employers or workmen by more than 1d. per workman per week, and no such order shall remain in force more than three months after all the advances and interest thereof have been repaid.
      (3) The Treasury may for the purpose of providing for the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund under this Section, or for the repayment to that Fund of all or any part of the sums so issued, or for paying off any security issued under this section, so far as that payment s not otherwise provided for, borrow money by means of the issue of Exchequer Bonds or Treasury Bills, and all sums so borrowed shall be paid into the Exchequer.
      (4) The principal of and interest on any Exchequer Bonds issued under this section shall be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof.
      (5) Notwithstanding anything in any other Act, money in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt shall not be applied to purchasing, reducing, or paying off any Exchequer Bonds or Treasury Bills issued under this Section.
      Mr. BAIRD: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "three" ["three million"], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
      The idea of my hon. Friend (Mr. Peel), in putting down this Amendment, was to draw attention to the financial provisions of the Bill, and in particular to the very large sum which the Treasury would be entitled to advance. It amounts in effect to two and a-half times the contributions that are to be expected from the employers, and from the employed for practically one-half year. If you have, say, 2,000,000 people coming under this Act at, roughly, a pound a head, £3,000,000 is the contribution of the employers and the employed for one year and a-half. That is a very large sum for which to make the State liable. What precautions are to be taken for the repayment of this sum? What security is there to be, and what interest will be paid on that deposit? This is undertaking a very wide responsibility for the payment of State money, without providing any sufficient security. Before this sum could possibly be necessary, it would require a sort of industrial cataclysm. There would have to be many hundreds of thousands of men out of work before demands could be made on the Fund anything like so considerable as to equal £3,000,000. Then the responsibility with regard to the sums which may be drawn out by the older men—who will have paid the 500 weeks' contribution, and will then
      1822
      be entitled to withdraw out what they have put in, minus the amount they have drawn in benefits—will be also a further liability which, I suppose, will also be included in this £3,000,000. Altogether, I think that the object of my hon. Friend in putting down this Amendment was with the view of drawing from the right hon. Gentleman some statement with regard to those few points in connection with the finances of the measure, which seem to be somewhat loose and open to doubt in their present form.
      Sir J. SIMON: The Committee, of course, see that in Part II. of the Bill the fund which you create will not accumulate capital reserves in the same way in which it must do under the Sickness and Invalid Scheme. So the point with which we have to start is that even though, as we have every reason to believe, our scheme is founded on a sound actuarial calculation, and even though, therefore, the fund may be quite easily able to pay its way for a series of years, there is always the possibility that you may have a sudden and perhaps somewhat prolonged depression, with the double consequence that the demands upon the fund will suddenly rise and the contributions and their proceeds will suddenly fall. Because, of course, the demands upon the Fund will become greater if more people are out of work, and the contributions to the fund will become less if the number of working engagements is smaller. The way in which the three millions has been arrived at as a wise figure—it is not in any sense a controversial matter. But we want to discuss it with some understanding of the broad point—is, putting roughly, but I hope substantially rightly, this: we have some experience of some twenty years of unemployment figures to regard, and during that period of time this proposition was broadly true. I am not attempting to speak with scientific exactness, but I believe that I am stating what is substantially right—the amount of unemployment in the worst times has been nearly twice the average amount of the twenty years.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: At least that.
      Sir J. SIMON: I do not think at least. I think it approached it but did not exactly reach it. I am deliberately stating the thing in general language, not for the purpose of being vague, but to avoid the complications of a thing which is capable of great complications. Therefore, what

      1823
      we have to contemplate is to ensure that our fund is a fund well able to bear the strain upon it. It may be for a long series of years. It is quite a possibility which a prudent man may wish to provide for, that there may be some time a sudden demand upon it which will, for the time being, weaken it unless it is suddenly able to tide over an acute brief period of distress. It is not by any means a thing to be contemplated as likely to occur, with normal fluctuations of trade which will be sufficiently covered by this, but there might be abnormal fluctuations and serious and sudden depression. The fact that that happens, if it ever does happen, does not go to prove that the scheme is ill-founded or that the actuarial calculations are wrong. It is in the nature of the problem we have to deal with that that particular kind of event may happen, and of course, if it happens it will be the very poorest consolation to those who come suddenly on the Fund to be told that the Fund is all right and will recover itself, but that in the meantime they cannot have their 7s. a week. It is for that reason that we have to provide for the Treasury coming in in order to meet that exceptional claim if it arose. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, raised the question whether three million pounds is or is not too large a sum. We think not, because—again I am using round figures, but I am using them, having regard to a certain number of modifications which have taken place in the Bill—supposing you took the figures of income in a normal year at something like £2,800,000, and you set against it the expenditure in benefits of £2,500,000, leaving the balance for administration, obviously, if you get on towards doubling that expenditure, and at the same time receive some diminution of income—I will point out in a moment that I am exaggerating the actual facts—your fund might find itself in urgent need at that worst time of something over £2,000,000. For that reason the sum of £3,000,000 has occurred to those who have gone into the matter carefully, and to those actuaries who have been assisting us. It appears to be the proper sum. When one comes to go beyond £3,000,000, as the Clause proposes to do, we shall not be at all averse to the suggestion, but would rather welcome the suggestion, that words should be put in to show that the larger sum which the Treasury may fix is contemplated as
      1824
      only arising under entirely exceptional circumstances. It is difficult to define the circumstance; but by all means let us put that in. That being so, I ask the Committee to keep this sum of £3,000,000 as the sum that is mentioned in this Clause; and by that means it will be possible, as it appears to us, to provide for this sudden and exceptional claim upon the fund. I said I would point out in a moment that in making these calculations we have taken everything against us, and there is a modification in our favour to be remembered. There is the one in five rule, and there is the fifteen weeks' rule. Both these rules operate in our favour, to limit the extent to which the normal expenditure is increased. That always has to be borne in mind in making this readjustment, but even after you have borne that in mind it appears to those of us who have had to consider the question and to those very skilled gentlemen whose services have helped us so much that the sum named is the correct one, and I do hope, therefore, that the Committee will not cut it down.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has said quite meets our objections. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be a very hard case for the man who expected to get his 7s. not to get it. That is one hard case. Another hard case that might arise would be this: Suppose that in a distressful state of unemployment, the Fund were used up, £3,000,000 represents the total contribution of workmen and masters for about a year and a quarter; and if the whole of the Fund be drawn upon, those who join afterwards are in this position that we can see no way in which the loss would be made good, and they would have no benefit in the future. The whole point, therefore, is whether there is any real reason to suppose that the Fund would be elastic enough to recover if there happened to be this large draw upon it of £3,000,000. If the President of the Board of Trade can agree to this, we would not press it any further. The difficulty could be got over by an Act of Parliament. Obviously if there happened to be a period of great distress, and the President of the Board of Trade was in a position to show that this would remedy it, we would not have the smallest difficulty in getting an Act passed by any House of Commons.
      Sir J. SIMON: Suppose it were not sitting.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, that is a difficulty; but if present conditions continue, I would like to know in what part of the year it would not be sitting.
      Sir J. SIMON: When we are unemployed.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It is no good putting £3,000,000 in, and then saying, "any larger sum you may fix." That seems to be absurd. Let us stick to the £3,000,000, and we will allow it to stand at that.
      Mr. BUXTON: I understand that the danger the right hon. Gentleman fears is that the Fund might be put in a bad year in this particular position that it would have to go to the Treasury for this amount of money; and he wants to know whether, taking it broadly over a series of years, it would ever recover the elasticity and financial stability that it had before. I certainly thought my learned Friend pointed out that that would be the position. We believe it would recover. From the experience we have had already, and from the report given to us by our very able actuary, we believe that the income and the benefits are so balanced that, taking a series of years, the Fund would recover itself. Let me give a concrete case based on past years, on which our belief has been rather founded. From 1891 to 1910 the average unemployment in these particular trades is represented by 8.6. During the two years 1908 and 1909 those percentages went up almost double. For that period there would unquestionably be a heavy drain on the Fund, but, taking the subsequent and former years into account, the Fund, on the average, would be solvent from beginning to end, and it really is only to meet a pure temporary emergency in regard to such a matter as that, and with no view of burdening the Fund with this large sum, and we believe that it would pay itself off in a number of years. I understand that the hon. Gentlemen are afraid of the words, and I am prepared to accept the words suggested, but I am bound to say, under certain circumstances, I think it may limit us, and even necessitate an application to Parliament at a moment when it would be inconvenient to the Fund But I am willing to meet hon. Gentlemen to that extent, because we never had in our minds that the amount would be more than £3,000,000.
      Mr. HOARE: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to
      1826
      accept the Amendment that these last words be omitted?
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes, I accept that.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question, "That the words, 'or such larger sum as the Treasury may fix,' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Mr. HOLT: The next Amendment standing in my name is consequential.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
      My object in moving the deletion of this Sub-section is to obtain from the Government some explanatory statement of the proposed working of this Clause. In the first instance, I should like to ascertain from the President of the Board of Trade whether the Order that may be issued will give power to impose an increased contribution from all insured trades, or whether the Government desire to take power under this Clause to exact a contribution from any specific trade or branch of trade; whether they propose to take power, for instance, to increase the contributions from the employers, or any employer in a particular branch of trade, or, in the alternative, whether they propose to reduce the contributions from the insured trade as a whole, or whether only from one branch of a particular trade. I would like some explanation with regard to those points.
      There is another important point raised in this consideration of the Clause, that is as to the solvency of the Fund. What is the ultimate point we are going to reach as far as the solvency of the Fund is concerned? The Clause seeks to provide facilities for the Treasury to advance certain sums of money. But in the case of an insolvency, what security are you giving to the contributor who comes in under this scheme—who, when the time arrives for him to expect to get benefit in respect of the contributions he has made—that those contributions shall come to him? Take the case of a man who, joining at the age of eighteen, has been going on for insurance for ten or fifteen years. The time arrives when he loses his employment, perhaps because of defective eyesight. Under the provisions we agreed to the day before yesterday, he is to have the right of refusing employment unless at the same rate of wages that he has been usually receiving. What security has the man joining to-day under this scheme that in ten or fifteen years, when he wants to get his insurance benefit, the Fund will be

      1827
      solvent? He may find the Fund insolvent, and be told by the Government, "This Fund being insolvent, we cannot give you your benefits." Therefore, on this point, it seems to me necessary to consider whether a period should not be limited to the Act as a whole, and whether the Government will consider a proposal that a revision of the Act shall take place, say, in five years' time.
      Take the question of the Post Office contributor under this Act. He contributes a certain sum of money, and knows that, as long as the fund is available, he can draw upon it. But the moment that fund is exhausted he knows he can expect no benefit from it. Here you are accepting a man, and giving him no security that when he is unemployed he will get his insurance benefit. Let me point out to the Committee—and this is after all a very important point—that you want to make this Bill as popular as you can. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced the Bill, stated that the difficulty arises with the class of man who is habitually in good employment coming into this scheme in order to help those who would be likely to be unemployed. What encouragement are you offering to those persons under the Bill? They are not able to analyse the scheme, as we have been able to analyse it in Committee, and they will be likely to look at it from this point of view. Under sickness insurance, for 9s. they are going to receive for a year £19 of benefit. That is to say twenty weeks of sickness insurance at 10s. a week; a further twenty-six weeks sickness insurance of 5s. a week, and the disability of 5s. I am speaking from the workman's point of view, and I ask who is going to judge the one thing as against the other. "Under this Act" he will say, "the Treasury reserves to itself the right of imposing further contributions." A contribution under this Act may amount to 1s. 1½d. per week from the empolyer, from the State, and from the insured person, giving only ten weeks of benefit, which are limited to one branch of trade, at 6s. a week, or 60s. It may also mean that the State, the employer, and the employer, from the State, and from a year to this fund and receive in return 60s. If the men begin to look into that calculation, and see what they are likely to receive under it, I say you are only increasing the difficulties in connection with the Bill as a whole; and in any case it occurs to me that at this
      1828
      stage an opportunity arises on this Clause for the Government to give some indication as to the question of the solvency of this Fund. Let me make the point clear. If the Fund is regarded by the Treasury as solvent under the Act, you may increase the rate of contribution by 1½d. from the State, 1½d, from the employer, and 1½d. from the workman. That increases the contribution from 5½d. to 7½d.
      Sir J. SIMON: Where do you get the 1½d. from?
      Mr. GOLDMAN: There is 2½d. from the employer, 2½d. from the workman, and 2½d. from the State; that is 7½d.
      Sir J. SIMON: One penny and two-thirds, to be accurate.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: Yes, that is right. Under this Act, you can impose a further 1d. from the workman and a further 1d. from the employer, which is another 2d. After five years, if there is still a deficiency, you can impose a further 1d. upon the employer and a further 1d. upon the workman. That brings it up to over 1s., in order to give him 6s. a week in certain conditions—in other words, 60s. Every page of the Bill is stamped with uncertainty; the whole scheme is experimental, and, that being the case, I think it is necessary to give some safeguard to a man coming into the scheme that he is going to get the benefit when it falls due. In view of the question of insolvency arising, and exhaustion of the funds, I suggest there should be a revision of the Bill after the period of years, and I ask the Government to consider that under this Clause.
      The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to move the next Amendment standing in his name, or does he consider it governed by the present discussion?
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I wish to save my Amendment.
      Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Gentleman has raised two points. I would point out to him that the omission of this Sub-section would really not carry out the object he has in view with regard to the solvency of the fund. This is only a method of dealing with it if the fund be insolvent, but, I take it, the hon. Gentleman is really raising it for the purpose of obtaining information. The first point he wanted to know was, assuming that the fund became temporarily insolvent—this is not a matter of permanent insolvency—whether the alteration in the rates of contribution and

      1829
      unemployment benefit would be applied to the whole trades, or to certain specified trades. Certainly we have in view at present, as a general proposition at all events, that it would apply to all the trades equally during these quinquennial periods. I do not entirely put out of question, supposing it was shown that one particular trade or part of a trade was particularly affected in this matter, that it might be dealt with separately; but our general attitude would be that during these quinquennial periods the whole of the trades, both as regards contributions and as regards benefits, should be treated alike.
      His second point was: what was the security to the workman for contributing to the fund, and how far can we guarantee its solvency? We can only show, as we have done already to the House, both in the form of the Bill and in the Reports which we have circulated—the basis on which we have founded the finance of the Bill, taking the contributions on the one hand and the benefits proposed on the other; and our actuary has certified, with the information before him, that, taking an average of years, the fund will not only be solvent, but will have a material balance which, of course, will go towards its solvency. One of the reasons why the Government have been very anxious that this part of the Bill, as well as the other part, should become at an early period an Act of Parliament, is that, fortunately, trade just now is in a satisfactory state. The amount of unemployment is low, and, therefore, we hope we might have, at all events, a few years in which to accumulate an extra balance. But, quite apart from any question of a balance, we believe, from the information that we have had, that, taking an average of years, the fund will be sufficiently solvent to be able to pay the benefits proposed for the contributions given.
      But against that, of course, we have to provide two things. This is, as the hon. Member said, an experiment, and being an experiment, I cannot, nor can anyone, give an absolute guarantee as to what may be the result of it for the next twenty years. We think we have provided satisfactorily for it, but we have to provide for two things. We have to provide, as this Clause does, for the sudden emergency which has been already discussed, in which the fund, in perhaps two years, has a special call upon it. We have to meet that by this Treasury advance. It is quite clear that the Treasury advance must be paid off in some
      1830
      way—by reducing the benefits, or raising the contributions, or both together, as I think the hon. Member himself proposes in another Amendment. It may be found in five years that the estimates of the financial position of the fund have been too sanguine, or, in another event, not sanguine enough, and that, within limits, it may be possible to increase or to reduce the benefits or contributions. It is obvious that such elasticity must be in the fund, and that year after year, as it ceases to be an experiment, as it is extended to other trades, it will become on a more solid basis than it necessarily could have been on at the beginning. But I cannot be held to guarantee any question of the increase or reduction of benefits or contributions. On the best advice we can obtain—and the matter has been gone into as carefully as possible—we are fully satisfied that, taking an average of years, the fund will be solvent.
      Mr. HOLT: This Clause seems to me to give a very wide margin indeed to the Government. The margin on the contribution is one of 40 per cent. The Government take power under this Clause to increase the contribution by 40 per cent., and to reduce the benefits by, in some cases, as much as 30 per cent.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: May I interrupt to make a suggestion to the hon. Member which I think will help us to get on. Would it not be better to take the point he raises by moving an Amendment to remove the power to increase the contribution to the fund?
      Mr. HOLT: I do not desire to make the point the hon. Gentleman opposite thinks that I wanted to make, if he will allow me to say so. It is quite clear, if it became necessary to exercise both these powers, that we should have to admit there had been a very serious miscalculation with regard to the provisions of the Bill. In these circumstances, in whatever form the Sub-Section is passed, I suggest it ought, in such an event, to be compulsory upon the Government to come to Parliament. If the miscalculation was as great as it would have to be—
      Mr. BUXTON: I think my hon. Friend is mixing up Clauses 76 and 69.
      Mr. HOLT: No.
      Mr. BUXTON: Clause 69 deals with the question of emergency, and not miscalculation. We are not going to say in, say twenty years, this Clause will not come

      1831
      into effect, perhaps once or twice. It is a question of averaging, and not of miscalculation, and the point dealt with in this Clause is, taking the average, that there may be a year or two in which the finance of the fund will require an advance from the Treasury. As regards Clause 76, it is a different matter. That does deal with the amount, and the rates and contributions can be altered; but it is purely a matter of emergency, and an emergency which is from time to time almost bound to arise.
      Mr. HOLT: Surely my right hon. Friend is wrong on that point, because if his calculation be right, as regards the average, then there is no emergency.
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes.
      Mr. HOLT: Certainly not. There is no emergency whatever. You have only to take an advance from the Treasury, and repay by degrees. There is no emergency if your calculation on the subject of average be right. The only emergency there can be is if your calculation is wrong on the subject of average, and not only if the fund is insolvent, but is going to remain insolvent. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee on this point, but if the Clause is to be put into operation, I suggest that we should have an assurance from the Government that there shall be a power of appeal to Parliament to discuss the whole financial Clause of this Act, if it be found that, even on emergency, they cannot trust to the doctrine of averages, and are compelled to ask for an increase of 40 per cent. in the contributions and a decrease of 30 per cent. in the benefits.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I am aware it is a most unpopular thing in this Committee to mention the employer as being subject to any great burden under this Bill; but perhaps it may have escaped the notice of the President of the Board of Trade that under this particular Sub-Section the employer's contribution can be raised, and such a provision is not found in any other part of this measure. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is only to provide for a temporary emergency; but that does not alter it. We know that under certain circumstances the employer's rate at present may amount to an Income-tax of 1s. 6d. in the £. The President of the Board of Trade seems to think it right in a special emergency that the employer's contribution should be
      1832
      raised by 40 per cent. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that if an emergency of this sort arises Parliament must further review the financial arrangements of this Bill, otherwise you will be imposing on particular trades a burden that I honestly believe they cannot bear. This is an experimental measure, and we think with certainty that you are putting an enormous tax on the special trades which are included. Although it is said it will be altered hereafter, there are reasons why that may not be done. I protest against this new tax being put upon the employer to meet this emergency.
      Mr. HOARE: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has several Amendments down which will deal directly with this point of the increase of the employers' contribution, and I rise to ask—Should we be in order in discussing that now?
      The CHAIRMAN: If it is the wish of the Committee to take the general discussion on these initial words, it is not for the Chair to interpose, but perhaps it would be better, first of all, to pass these words, and then raise the topic which the Committee is now discussing upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Penryn.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move "That the Committee do sit after four o'clock to-day."
      What I would suggest is that we finish Clause 69, and drop Clause 70—that has to be brought up as a new Clause—and get on to Clause 71. I understand it would not be convenient for various Members of the Committee to sit on Monday. In that case, I am afraid we shall have to sit four days next week in order to finish the Committee stage, but perhaps hon. Members would finish up to Clause 70 to-day.
      Question, "That this Committee do sit after four o'clock to-day," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I desire to move in Sub-section (2) after the word "by" ["Treasury so direct, by order"] to insert the word "special." If an order has to be given to impose either a higher contribution or reduced benefits, I think that is not an authority that should be imposed on the Treasury. I suggest when it comes to the case of imposing either higher contributions or reducing benefits, it should come under the Clause of "Special Order," and my Amendment seeks to include any

      1833
      regulations with regard to reduced benefits and increased contributions under the class of "Special Order."
      Mr. HAMILTON BENN: I wish to support this Amendment; but it seems to me this is particularly a case in which Parliament ought to have an opportunity of expressing its views. It may be that a Special Order is not the most convenient procedure, and the arrangement we arrived at this morning with reference to another Clause—to lie on the Table for forty days—might also here be the more convenient method.
      What we consider should be done is that it should be laid on the Table before we meet, or that some other opportunity should be given of discussing the question in all its bearings, and raise any objection that is necessary. This is really a very serious part of the Bill, because it raises the contribution both of workmen and employers, and also reduces the benefits which workmen can obtain. It has been pointed out that this is only a temporary affair, but surely it is not the intention of the Government to raise the contribution temporarily and then drop it again. If there is any shortage on the Fund at any particular time, and it looks as if the Fund is running dry, and that there should be an increase in contributions or a reduction in the benefits, surely an average must be given a fair number of years to make this right. In that case the matter will be before the Government, and there will be plenty of time. It cannot be said that Procedure, by Special Order, would unduly delay the operation. The Government would have plenty of time to consider the matter. They would know well in advance whether the Fund would become insolvent or not, and there would be plenty or time to consider it.
      Mr. BUXTON: This is a question of emergency, and temporary emergency. It does not seem to me, in those circumstances that the Special Order procedure is really applicable to such a case. The emergency might arise quite suddenly, and it would not be possible for the Treasury to take action in sufficient time. It must, in a matter of this sort, be left to the Treasury to act at the earliest possible moment. I speak from experience as representing, in the first place, the Post Office, and, in the second place, the Board of Trade. I am sure my right hon. Friend opposite, who has been in office, and individual Members of the Committee,
      1834
      know that the Treasury never gives away any money if it is possible to help it. I do not think in this case the Treasury dogs will need any further muzzling. I really think the public interest is absolutely protected by this proposal, because the Treasury will never give this advance unless the matter is urgent, and unless it is only going to be a temporary advance. The Special Order process would very seriously hamper the opportunity of carrying on the fund under insolvent conditions.
      Mr. HAMILTON BENN: This is not a case of the Treasury giving up anything, but that there should be contributions given by somebody else, and the argument used by the President of the Board of Trade would be just the reason why the Treasury should make the order.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I entirely agree with this Amendment, and would be quite glad if my honourable Friend pressed it to a division if there were enough people present to make it worth while, but there are so few here, that I do not think it would be worth while going through the time necessary to take a division. I do not think the arguments used justify giving these extraordinary powers to any Government department. The right hon. Gentleman says it must come as a sudden emergency. Obviously that cannot happen. If this Fund is to extend over a period of years, it goes on an average. You have the means before the three million pounds is exhausted of seeing what is coming, and there would be ample time to make other arrangements. In reference to what has been said about the Treasury, I might point out they have no inducement here to be economical, but even if they had, conditions have changed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer used to be the man who looked to all the other departments to prevent the expenditure of money, but instead of being the watch dog, he has become one of the burglars and he is himself the man who is spending money. Therefore, we have not any of the check which we used to have in the old days.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I do not think that the President of the Board of Trade in the least appreciates the objection which I feel, and that is that the employer is going to be put under the Treasury harrow, without any say whatever, and to be mulcted in another contribution. I think this is a most monstrous proposal, and, personally, I shall vote for my hon. Friend.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: I have put an Amendment down on the Paper in the direction of the hon. Members, but I thought after the discussion to-day that the special order under Schedule 9 was not altogether the way to deal with this. I do not think that the provisions under Schedule 9 would have been the best plan. At the same time there is a point, and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Lawson) has made it, as to giving these very wide powers under an ordinary order to the Treasury and the Board of Trade to impose on employers and working people a charge which, perhaps, they would like to be heard about, and on which they might have something to say. I think the President of the Board of Trade might meet it somehow. I do not think that the word special is the best word bringing in Schedule 9, but I do think that something should be done, and perhaps the Government would find some way of doing it.
      Sir J. SIMON: I quite appreciate the spirit in which my hon. Friend makes the suggestion. While anxious to consider carefully every suggestion, there are two points which seem to me to be not altogether remembered in the course of this Debate. The first is, what is the action which it is thought as a matter of practical administration might be taken under this Clause? Some of the language that has been used would suggest that the Treasury was some autocratic monster, whose misconduct is not immediately visited with tremendous penalties upon the heads of those who are responsible for its administration in Parliament. Just conceive what would happen to a Chancellor of the Exchequer who allowed the Treasury to increase the contribution of an employer and increase at the same time the contributions of the working man, because the two things go together, without abundant and overwhelming cause.
      Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Nothing would happen to Mr. Lloyd George.
      Sir J. SIMON: I am glad to think that, in the opinion of the hon. Member, the popularity of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is so great that even though without cause he exacted a contribution from every workman and employer in the land, they would still make certain that his party would remain in office. That would appear to me to be an extraordinary view. I should have thought it obvious that anything more unlikely than that the Treasury would put into operation this Clause except in cases of extreme urgency
      1836
      ould not be conceived, for the simple reason, that if it was done, the consequences upon the Government which allowed such a thing to happen would be instant and desolating. My hon. Friend, the Member for Hexham, made a point of great ingenuity. He said you do not require to bring into operation this Sub-clause in order to make good the temporary difficulty which is being met by the Treasury advance if your calculations are sound. I think my hon. Friend is right in a sense, but he does not distinguish between two things. If your calculations are right as a matter of average, and if the fluctuations we are going to experience are fluctuations which rise and fall with fair regularity, then what he says is perfectly true. But a case which may arise and which may not in the least destroy the accuracy of our average, is the case where unfortunately there would be some exceptional disaster. You might have a sudden chasm quite out of the ordinary curve of trade, which is not promptly corrected by subsequent good times. It is not an improbable thing. If you have a correct average, and there is a prolonged lean period, it does not prove that your average has been calculated inaccurately, and you must prepare to meet such a period; and the fact that this Clause is devised to meet that does not militate against the fact that a scheme may be sound financially and our average just and right, but that at the same time it is necessary to have this Sub-clause. What we are really doing is we are proposing to give powers to take action which may be necessary in the public interest and the interest of the Fund. If we adopt the course suggested it would mean that first of all, notices are advertised, objections are sent in, the Board of Trade considers those objections and issues a new draft order, and there is to be a public inquiry with everybody giving evidence, and the thing going on as long as anyone wishes to keep it up. That is not the way in which to deal with an emergency which, of course, ought not to arise, if fluctuations of trade are kept within reasonable limits, but which might conceivably arise, and which if it arose would have to be dealt with. It by no means follows that because Sub-clause 1 of 69 operates, Sub-clause 2 operates. Sub-clause 2 is an exceptional provision. It is not in the least correlative to Sub-clause 1. What we are dealing with here is the case that may arise which in its nature would be a very sudden case, and where there is a serious and unexpected chasm in the line of trade which is not in course of being corrected

      1837
      by that resiliancy which we have had in the past usually the good fortune to experience.
      Mr. BAIRD: The whole question seems to me to be this: Are you going to put in the Section a power enabling the Treasury, without any possibility of check from the representatives in Parliament, to increase these contributions. I cannot agree with the Solicitor-General in what he said about the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Many of us think that he has only to come down to the House and explain that it is 9d. or 4d., or whatever it may be that is required, and the thing is done, and there is no more trouble about it. I do not think there is any safeguard in the direction that the Solicitor-General seems to contemplate. There is no provision for preventing the Treasury coming like a thief in the night. What we are bound to do is to make sure that it does not come in that manner, but that people shall have some means of checking the imposition which the Treasury seeks power to put upon them. They are able to look ahead if they are willing to do so. The contingency referred to is not a matter which will arise. The country is not going suddenly to be overwhelmed by a cataclysm which cannot be foreseen. Before such a thing occurs there must have been a period of bad trade when the funds would be depleted, and surely it is the business of the Treasury to look ahead and see what it is they will require. We are omnipotent at present about finance. Let us exercise our omnipotence now in the interests of the people who have to contribute. I think there is much force in the Solicitor-General's contention that the particular method proposed is somewhat cumbersome, but that does not mean that it is not possible to devise another method by which the same point can be safeguarded, namely, that the House of Commons should control the Treasury, and not the Treasury the House of Commons. I hope the Government may approach this question in a friendly spirit, realising that, like other questions, it is not a party question, but is raised with a desire to make the Bill more fair and equitable.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I will not press my Amendment if I get from the President some assurance that if the words proposed are not suitable he will find some other words to meet our difficulty. The Solicitor-General argued, with a great deal of force, as to the financial expediency of this proposal. We are looking at the matter from
      1838
      a totally different point of view. As the hon. Member for Mile End pointed out, you have to consider the question of the employer. As an illustration I may mention a case of a friend of mine who employs 1,000 men. He is just able to carry on his works under the narrowest possible margin. Under the whole Bill he will have to pay an additional £1,250 a year, and it is a very hard case that he should be called on by the Treasury suddenly to contribute another 1d. per week, which would add another £200 a year. I trust that the President will give some assurance that will safeguard the interests of these people.
      Mr. BUXTON: I quite appreciate the way in which this matter has been presented. I quite understand that there may be a certain amount of alarm on the part of some employers and possibly some working men that these contributions may be unduly enlarged without any opportunity of consideration on their part. I am afraid that I cannot go further than this, but I hope it will satisfy hon. Members that the matter will be considered carefully between now and the Report stage to see if there can be any words which will give the final protection which is desired. But it must be clearly understood that there must be something under which we can act promptly, rapidly when circumstances necessitate, and if it is not by Special Order it must be something perhaps like the authority given in the Bill in regard to those Sub-sections in 69. It must be something on which we can act promptly, but I think whether we may be able to give the security which the hon. Member desires, at any rate, he must not press me to say more than that at present. I will undertake to look into it and we will do our best.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Can I persuade the right hon. Gentleman to go a little further? He is a little wrong in the calculations he has made. The contributions are limited by one in five. The fund can be exhausted and become insolvent in two or three years at the worst. Is it suggested that, while this misfortune is going on for two or three years, the Government will not notice it, and will not take the necessary steps to put it right. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that, if he will undertake to bring in something to meet us on Report, we will not press the matter further.
      Mr. BUXTON: We will do our best, but I would point out that the increased

      1839
      contribution is not an emergency matter, and cannot immediately produce a large amount of money necessary to save an insolvent fund.
      Sir ALFRED MOND: I understand this can only come into force when the Fund is insolvent. I cannot believe that any Government would ever allow this fund to get into that position, and stand up in the House of Commons to declare that their great Unemployment Insurance Fund was bankrupt.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member probably will not press the Amendment.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg leave to withdraw.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. HOARE: On behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), I beg to move the next Amendment, and I think it will be seen that the two following Amendments are consequential. I beg to move in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "any of the rates of" ["temporary modification in any of the rates of".]
      It seemed to me, as I listened to what the President of the Board of Trade said, that possibly this and consequential Amendments might tend in the direction of a solution of this difficulty. If he will look at them, he will see that the Subsection will then read, "if whilst any part of any such advance is outstanding, it appears to the Treasury that the Unemployment Fund is insolvent, the Board of Trade shall, if the Treasury so direct, by Order, make such temporary modifications in the rates or periods of unemployment benefit, and during such period as the Treasury may consider necessary, to secure the solvency of the Unemployment Fund."
      I would ask the Solicitor-General, in view of what he has just said in regard to the justification of emergency, whether, from the statistics that are available of unemployment during the last twenty or thirty years, he can point to a single case in which there has been such a depression as that to which he has been alluding.
      Sir J. SIMON: No.
      Mr. HOARE: If any such case does arise, it seems to me that our case is all the stronger, and that Parliament should have an opportunity of deciding where and when the contributions shall be raised. I beg to move the Amendment.
      Mr. BUXTON: As I understand the Amendment, the hon. Member proposes to cut out any part of the varying contribution of the workman and the employer, so that the whole deficiency would practically come upon the benefits. The Bill is founded on the basis of equal sacrifices as regards the contribution of employer and workman, and I do not think it will be satisfactory or just that if the rates are to be altered, the whole loss should fall on the benefit. It may happen, in fact, it would happen, that the time of depression would be just the time when it would be a hardship placed on those who produce the benefits. That is the time when the regular man in employment who has contributed regularly to the Fund is more likely to come upon the Fund than any other, and I think it would be hard at such a time when the regular man came upon the Fund, that he should find the benefits would be reduced. Under the Amendment, the whole of the reduction would come upon the benefits, and none upon the contribution. I hope, after the discussion we have had and the undertaking which I have given, the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
      Mr. HOARE: In view of what the President of the Board of Trade has said, I will withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that he will try to meet my point.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. J. WARD: I beg to move to leave out the words "or the rates or periods of unemployment benefit."
      I think the President of the Board of Trade has pointed out how unfair it would be to impose a reduction of benefit upon the worker who has contributed regularly to this Fund. I can quite imagine that if a particular depression of trade occur he is the kind of man who will in that extreme emergency come upon the Fund, probably, for the first time, and he will be the man who may have been paying continuously for eight, nine, or ten years to the Fund without having received any benefit at all. Just at that particular period, he would suddenly find the benefit fund reduced by nearly one-half. I think that a most unfortunate position of affairs. I believe, myself, that if the subject were submitted, as has been suggested in the previous Amendments, to a thorough investigation by the Government, both employers and employed would be prepared to find the money rather than a reduction

      1841
      of benefits should take place at that critical period. One can quite understand the suggestion made that this is only for use in emergency. What is an emergency? A special occasion that might not occur until after, say, ten or eleven years' cycle of trade, and then the man who has been in regular employment during the whole period finds that there is a serious depression. Although he has been contributing his 2½d. during the whole time, when he gets to this worst period, wants the aid towards which he has contributed—and to which if there is any morality in the scheme he is entitled—he discovers that the Board of Trade by some means or other has the power of reducing the benefits. I think that is the most unfortunate part of this scheme, and I can quite imagine the disastrous effect it would have among the work people of this country, if, at a critical time of depression, a reduction of benefits took place. I repeat, that I can quite imagine both sides would, after full investigation, much prefer to increase the contributions as a means of getting over the difficulty, than that, at this critical period, the benefits should be reduced.
      Mr. BUXTON: I have promised to the hon. Gentleman who moved the last Amendment that if the emergency arose, and if it was thought right that the burden should not fall, both on the shoulders of employers and workmen, that we would do our best to see how far it would be possible to do something in the form of a check on an absolute authority, and I thought the Committee, as a whole, were practically agreed with the view that I took. I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment. I, myself, rather indicated the difficulty I felt there would be in reducing the benefits at that particular time, especially in the case of the man who had perhaps not drawn any unemployed benefit, or anything coming on the Fund. I do not think it would be fair to cut out the whole question of the possibility of some reduction of benefit for any amount or weeks, if, at the same time, the power to alter the contribution is left. I hope, under these circumstances my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment, because this is a question which I hope will not often occur, and full consideration will be given to the arguments he has advanced.
      Mr. HOLT: I feel great sympathy for the hon. Member for Stoke, and inclined to support him as an employer, because the men how would be affected would be the best and the steadiest men in the place; and I
      1842
      believe that almost every respectable employer in the country would rather pay an extra penny himself than see these men done out of their benefit at a crisis like this. I am not altogether an advocate of the workman in every case, but I really do think in a matter like this, the men who have paid for their benefit, whatever else happens, ought to get it, and have every penny that is hold out to them. If we cannot be sure of giving them that, let us hold out a promise which we are certain we can fulfil; but when dealing with a class of people who are not well off, and not rich people, we ought to be scrupulous in seeing that they get the fullest benefits they are entitled to under the Act of Parliament.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: I do not think there will be any necessity for a reduction in benefit or an increase of contributions. I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke, that if the emergency did arise, the working man would prefer to pay an increased contribution rather than have a reduction of benefit. At the same time, I would point out to the hon. Member for Hexham, that the man he refers to, that is the steady workman would be working and receiving full wages while the unemployed man would have to be satisfied with 7s. a week, I hope the hon. Member for Stoke will not now press his Amendment.
      Mr. J. WARD: On the understanding that there is going to be an inquiry held, where both sides will be able to state their case, and that both employers and workmen will prefer to increase their contributions rather than have a reduction of benefit, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: I desire to move an Amendment arising out of the discussion we have had, namely, after the word "the," ["the Treasury,"] to insert the words, "Board of Trade and," so that it would read "The Board of Trade and the Treasury."
      The hon. Member for Stoke withdrew his Amendment, as he said, on the understanding that an inquiry would be held, and that both sides would be heard. There is no prospect of that, because, as we have it in the Bill, it is quite the contrary. It is simply at the Order of the Treasury. The Treasury can intervene, and compel the Board of Trade, because if you come to this Clause, you will see the Board of Trade, whenever the Treasury say that these things are to be done, are

      1843
      compelled under this Section to do it. The Board of Trade will administer this Act when it passes into law. They will have first-hand knowledge, and will have their own ideas as to whether the scheme would be a success or not; but the Treasury may get alarmed about something. Some Treasury official may say: "This fund is going all wrong," and he may step in, and merely, as a Treasury official, compel the Board of Trade, and the whole of the people in the scheme, to alter and modify the arrangement. I think that is entirely wrong. I do not say that the words I have proposed are the proper drafting words that you can put in a Bill; but I think the President of the Board of Trade will see that this is a very important point.
      If we let the Clause go through exactly as it is, we are handing the whole of this scheme over to the mercy of the Treasury, who have no practical knowledge, no experience of administering the Act, and no knowledge of how it is working. Merely because they are alarmed the whole thing has to be altered at their request. I think that is highly dangerous. I can quite understand the difficulty the President of the Board of Trade may be in—that he must act as a loyal colleague towards the other Departments, and he may say, "We cannot do this because it might offend the Treasury." Never mind about the Treasury, let us stick up for the Board of Trade; let us put so much backbone into the President this afternoon that he can go to the Treasury and say he, as President, did not agree to this. It would not be fair that he, as head of one Department, should agree to take away powers from another Department. So let it go forth that we as the Committee, took this matter entirely into our own hands, and insisted that in the administration of this Act the Board of Trade were to have a strong hand, and not to be left at the mercy of the Treasury. I expect the President of the Board of Trade to get up and try and throw my arguments over; but we must be in a position to look after ourselves in this matter, and I hope the Committee will stand by the Amendment for what it is worth.
      Mr. BUXTON: I do not think my hon. Friend can expect me to accept this Amendment. Here is a matter which is specifically one for the Treasury, and one with regard to which I have already undertaken to consider how far a check can be put on the absolute discretion of the Treasury, and my hon. Friend proposes to
      1844
      put in the Board of Trade and the Treasury in reference to this matter. Let me put him this question: Supposing the Board of Trade and the Treasury disagree, who is to settle the difference?
      Sir E. CORNWALL: The Cabinet, of course.
      Mr. BUXTON: That is not a matter you can bring before the Cabinet, and as a matter of practical working it really is unworkable. I hope, therefore, after the promise I have given to look into the whole question, and see how far I can meet the views of the Committee, my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: I will withdraw it.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to move the Amendment that is in my name in rather different words from those on the Paper. What I propose to move is that after the word "week" ["per workman per week"] to insert the words "or increase those rates equally as between employers and workmen."
      The reason for this Amendment is that, in our opinion, the wording of the Clause is rather indefinite, and we want to make it quite clear that if there be any increased contribution at all, the increase shall be divided equally between the employer and the employed. I understand that the President of the Board of Trade is quite willing to accept the wording as suggested in the Amendment. It is simply to make the Clause clear, and does not alter the meaning in any shape or form.
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes, I accept it.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Baird) has handed me an Amendment which is out of order, as it comes in after the word "week." He must devise a form of Amendment, so as to bring it in in the proper place. May I suggest from the Chair to the hon. Member that he should, perhaps, put his Amendment at the end of the Sub-section in this form, to insert the words "or increase the rates specified in the eighth Schedule."
      Mr. BAIRD: I should be much obliged if I may be allowed to do that, and I beg to move to insert, after the words last inserted, the words "or increase the rates above the rates specified in the eighth Schedule to this Act."

      1845
      It is a similar Amendment to an Amendment in the name of the President of the Board of Trade to Clause 76, with regard to the five-yearly revision, that any increase take place, as the Bill stands, it shall not exceed one penny per workman per week. The right hon. Gentleman has an Amendment down to secure that that increase shall not be more than one penny above the 2½d. included in the eighth Schedule, and the Amendment I move is to produce the same result here—that the increase shall not be more than 1d. per week, and that the basis on which the 1d. is reckoned shall be equally laid down, namely, not more than 1d. above the rates laid down in the eighth Schedule.
      Mr. BUXTON: What I understand the hon. Member to say is, that under this Clause the contribution shall not be increased by more than 1d. above that specified in the eighth Schedule. Perhaps the hon. Member will remember that, under the quinquennial valuation of Clause 76, if the Board of Trade find, after inquiry, that the rates of contribution should be varied up or down, they have power to vary them accordingly. Suppose we had a rise in these contributions of a 1d., because the solvency of the Fund required it, and after that the emergency arose, the Amendment would prevent any part of the Clause coming in, because there had already been a rise of a 1d., under Clause 76, above the 2½d. Therefore, that would prevent any further increase. Similarly, if it had been reduced, it would not be possible to be raised to the effective point. We must have the power of having, if necessary, 1d. to whatever may be the revised rates at the end of the five years. Under the Amendment of the hon. Member, suppose the rates had been increased above the 1d. they could not be increased any further; and if they had been reduced, as much as 2d. might be put on at the moment. This would make the Clause quite ineffective.
      Mr. BAIRD: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has answered my point, but there is this situation to be considered. If you add 1d. it would bring the contributions up to 3½d. for both employers and workmen, which means 7d. in addition to what they have got to pay under the health insurance. That is putting a very heavy burden upon both employers and workmen. My intention was to limit it to 3½d. As the Clause now stands, there is no reason why the contribution should not go up to 6d. or 1s. I do not think that that is desirable. If the words I put in do not meet
      1846
      the case, I am quite ready to accept other words which will do; but there should be some limit to the amount of contribution which either employer or employed may have to pay.
      Mr. BUXTON: So there is.
      Mr. BAIRD: As the Clause stands, there is no reason why they should not put it by pennies every time up to 1s.
      Mr. BUXTON: If the hon. Member will read the Clause, he will see that the penny can only be imposed during the period of the Order. It certainly was not intended to have successive pence put on top of one another.
      Mr. BAIRD: If the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter that is all we want.
      Mr. BUXTON: Certainly, that was my intention. The contribution of 1d. will only last during the period of the Order, and if it is for three months they cannot then add another penny.
      Mr. BAIRD: Three months after the Fund is solvent.
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes.
      Mr. BAIRD: They cannot go on indefinitely adding pennies.
      Mr. BUXTON: That is so.
      Mr. BAIRD: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would look into the matter, so as to make it quite certain that this is expressed, and I will willingly withdraw my Amendment.
      Mr. BUXTON: Our attention was drawn to this particular point, probably by the Association to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and we pointed out that it could not happen under this proposal and we understood that they were satisfied. We have looked into the words and there is no difference of opinion between us, but we will make our minds perfectly clear that these words do carry out the intention and if they do not we will add some; but we have no doubt about it.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I also desire to know whether there is any possibility of overlapping with this Clause and Clause 76 where another 1d. may be raised, or is it possible to raise 1d. under this Clause and another under Clause 76.
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes, they are quite different.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to propose, after the word "shall" ["and no such Order shall"] to insert the words "simultaneously reduce the rate of unemployment benefit and increase of contributions from employers or workmen or shall."
      The object of this Amendment is to provide that there shall be no increase of contributions and reduction of benefits simultaneously. Under the wording of the Clause it seems to me that this might be done, and I would like to have some assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that it is not contemplated. I do think that it is capable of a different interpretation, and I think it might be made clear if this Amendment were accepted.
      Mr. DENMAN: I think the Committee on a previous Amendment under this Clause felt rather strongly that there should be no resort to that method of reducing the unemployed benefit except in the very rarest and most unusual circumstances. I think that the hon. Member who moved this Amendment would perhaps agree with that point of view. Does it not, therefore, follow that if you are only going to use this method very rarely it might be an additional justification for using it if simultaneously you reduce the contributions? I think the use of the weapon of reducing benefits, apart from the reduction of contributions, would be a very severe method of restoring the solvency of the Fund, and if used at all I think it should certainly be used in conjunction with the method of increasing the contributions. In any case, I think the matter is one which should be left to the authority, that is the Treasury, that will have to decide this matter when it arises.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I would like to hear the views of the President of the Board of Trade
      Mr. BUXTON: I think that my hon. Friend (Mr. Denman) has explained very clearly what I feel. We want to retain the fullest elasticity. The hon. Member's Amendment would very much curtail the liberty of the Treasury in this matter in this matter in deciding what would be the best method of putting the Fund again in a solvent condition. In those circumstances I cannot agree with him.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: What is suggested in this Amendment is that yon shall not simultaneously say to the working man "you shall pay 1d. more, and instead of receiving 6s. benefit you will receive 5s. benefit."
      The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that he must not repeat his arguments.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 70.—(Power of Employers to Compound at Reduced Rates.)
      Any employer may in lieu of paying as they become due the contributions to which he is liable under this Part of this Act in respect of any workman, on his own account and on behalf of the workman, pay in advance a contribution in respect of that workman at such reduced rates as is specified in Part II. of the Eighth Schedule to this Act or at such other rate as the Board of Trade, with the approval of the Treasury, may prescribe; and where such a contribution has been paid by an employer, he shall be entitled to recover from the workman in respect of whom the contribution has been paid, and to deduct from his wages, the same sums as he would have been entitled to recover and deduct if he had made the ordinary weekly or other periodical contributions on behalf of the workman, and the sums which he is so entitled to deduct shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act be treated as contributions made by the workman:
      Provided that if in the course of the period in respect of which the contribution in advance was paid, the workman becomes entitled, or would, had he taken the necessary steps, have become entitled, to unemployment benefit, and is subsequently reemployed by the same employer, the contribution so paid in advance shall not cover any part of the period of such re-employment.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to propose to leave out the Clause.
      I am bringing up a fresh Clause practically turning this in the opposite direction, and it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss the general principle involved in it when the new Clause comes on.
      Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, "That the Committee do now adjourn until Tuesday next, November 14th, at 11.30 o'Clock.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes before Five o'Clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  Part II.—UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
    STANDING COMMITTEE B.
    [Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES in the Chair.]
    STANDING COMMITTEE B.

      CLAUSE 71.—(Return of Part of Contributions by Workmen in Certain Cases.)
      (1) Any workman who satisfies the Board of Trade that he has paid contributions in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act in respect of five hundred weeks or upwards shall be entitled at any time after reaching the age of sixty to be repaid the amount, if any, by which the total amount of such contributions have exceeded the total amount received by him out of the unemployment fund under this Act, together with compound interest at the rate of two-and-a-half per cent. per annum calculated in the prescribed manner, and such repayment may, in accordance with the regulations made by the Board of Trade, be made by way of a lump sum payment or by way of annuity, or in such other manner as may be prescribed.
      (2) The Board of Trade may, if they think fit, by regulations reduce the age of sixty mentioned in the foregoing sub-section to an age not less than fifty-five in the case of workmen who prove that they have finally ceased to follow any insured trade.
      The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment proposing to leave out Sub-section (1) is out of Order, because if the Sub-section were omitted, the Clause would become unintelligible The Amendment amounts in substance to a proposal to leave out the Clause.
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "any workman who satisfies the Board of Trade that he" and to insert instead thereof the words "if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade by any workman or his personal representatives that the workman."
      In moving this Amendment I want to give credit to the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Goldman) for having originally put the proposal on the Paper. He put it down in a form which would not
      1850
      really have fallen into line with the Clause, and I suggested other words. For some reason he did not put the fresh Amendment on the Paper, therefore I had to put it down in order that it might come in at the right place. It deals with a matter to which the hon. Member and the Government have given consideration, and I am glad to say we are able to accept it in principle. Under Clause 71, a workman who has been in regular employment and therefore has not come upon the Fund, and has not exhausted his benefits, after ten years of contributions, if he is over sixty, is entitled to a refund of his contributions with compound interest less any deduction for benefits that he may have received. It was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman and others that it might be a considerable hardship if a man on arriving at the age of sixty had not drawn his benefit or obtained his refund, and subsequently died before he had done so; because he would lose all the advantage of his regularity of employment. The suggestion of the hon. Member was that in such a case as that, the heirs at law of the man should be entitled to the refund. I think that not only is that a matter of justice, but it has the additional advantage that without it the inducement would be very great to the man of sixty necessarily to draw his refund, although it might be no particular advantage either to him or to the Fund that he should do so at that particular moment. This Amendment will get rid of any particular reason for the man to withdraw at a particular moment, and it will save his rights in the Fund. There will be consequential Amendments to follow.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I should like to make my acknowledgments to the President of the Board of Trade for having considered my Amendment and accepted it in principle, and perhaps given it a wording better than that of my original proposal. The right hon. Gentleman has fully expressed the intention of the Amendment. It would have been a great hardship on the dependents of a man if they had been deprived of the contributions which might have come to him at the age of sixty, or, as contemplated in the Bill, even at the age of fifty-five. That being so, I wish most heartily to support the Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, as a consequential Amendment, to leave out the words, "shall be entitled at any time after reaching the age of sixty," and to insert

      1851
      instead thereof the words, "that the workman has reached the age of sixty, or before his death had reached the age of sixty, the workman or his representatives shall be entitled."
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to insert after the word "sixty" the words "and that he has finally ceased to follow any insured trade."
      This proposal has been on the Paper in the name of one or two other Members, but their Amendment now no longer fits the Clause. The principle, however, is the same—namely, that there should not be this return of money in a lump sum or in any other way, so long as the man is still working at an insured trade, and is therefore a contributor. If we adopt the Government plan and say that while a man is still in a trade he shall have this return of all the excess contributions, we shall land ourselves in very great difficulties. This is clear from the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman has been obliged to put on the paper, by which he proposes to make most elaborate provision for what is to happen in the case of a man who has received this money, is ipso facto put into arrears, so to speak, and continues in the trade, but who subsequently becomes unemployed, and to whom therefore unemployment benefit has to be paid. I question the whole principle of allowing this return to a man while he is still in the trade. The Clause as it stands is wholly illogical. By Sub-section (2) the age may be reduced to fifty-five.
      Mr. BUXTON: We propose to omit that.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Then my charge of illogicality falls. There are other points to be considered. I candidly confess that I do not know how you are going to prove that a man has finally left a trade. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman will explain that, because it was part of his original Clause. There are certain cases where it would be quite clear. If a man had gone abroad or was
      1852
      totally disabled, it would be obvious that he had left the trade, and no further proof would be necessary. But in the case of a man still in the country and in full possession of his faculties it may be very difficult to prove. At all events, I want to know on what system the Government propose to go, and in order to ascertain their view I beg to move.
      Mr. HOARE: What is to happen to a man who receives this lump sum of money and immediately goes back to his trade? Has a case of that kind been contemplated? If it has not been contemplated it seems to me to point overwhelmingly to the necessity of some such Amendment as that now proposed.
      Mr. BUXTON: I admit the difficulty of following Amendments on the Paper in reference to this matter, but the Amendments that I have put down to this Clause have, I think, met both the objections taken by previous speakers. The point raised by the last speaker is met by an Amendment which practically puts the man back into the position that it would have held before minus the amount which has been repaid to him. What it will come to is this—that he will have the benefit of the employment contributions and such contributions as have accumulated during the period when he has been at this insured trade; but he will not have the benefit of his own contribution which he has had repaid. That is the point of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and I think it is met.
      My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment for the purposes of discussion, asked me a question which is the real reason why I am afraid I am not able to accept the Amendment. He asked me to explain how under Sub-section (5) we were going to decide whether a man of fifty-five had, or had not, finally ceased to follow his insured trade We had that in the Clause, but looking into it and working it out from the administrative point of view, we came to the conclusion that it was really impossible, or practically impossible, to decide whether a man had finally ceased to work at an insured trade. The man might leave it for a time and take his money, and come back. The difficulties of deciding this very question have resulted in another Amendment, which, I admit, on the face of it, is not very clear, and which I am proposing. It is an Amendment to leave out certain words, which practically mean leaving out that particular sub-

      1853
      section. I propose to leave it out on the very ground to which the hon. Gentleman referred; and that is the difficulty of deciding whether a man has, or has not ceased to follow his trade. Apart from that, I do not see that there is any great evil in this proposal. The man has been a regular payer of contributions for many years, and he should be entitled to a refund of the contributions which he has paid. We took the age of sixty as a rather round figure, and it did seem to us that at that time he should be entitled, if he choose, whether he has left the trade or not, to a refund of his contribution. As far as his fellow workmen are concerned, they will not, in any sense, suffer from the man drawing his refund, because, as I have explained, his contributions for the future will be to that extent reduced. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment, because I can assure him that difficulties of deciding the very point he raised, in our opinion, are really insuperable, and that, is the reason why we drop that particular proposal.
      Mr. BARNES: I must say I do not like this provision at all, and I really do not see any need for it. If a man has been in constant employment, during which he has paid for some five hundred weeks, then it seems to me he has been very lucky, and that therefore he might be well content to leave his contribution, and what he has not drawn, in the pool. That is the trade union practice, and I do not see why that practice was departed from in this Bill. Moreover, it seems to me to have an effect on trade union money. This man has been paying 2½d. per week all this time through his employers; money which would otherwise have gone into the trade union exchequer. Therefore, confining one's attention to that aspect, and eliminating the other question of the contribution from the employer and the State, the union is worse off by losing the money which it otherwise would have obtained. There are practical difficulties that have been pointed out as to a man leaving a trade. Very likely the man may have intended to have left it for good, and may have come back. There are many such cases. For instance, trade is good at present, and, as a matter of fact, in most of the trades connected with engineering and shipbuilding, the very trades covered by this Bill, there are hundreds of men who had no intention of going back, but who, in consequence of the pressure to get men, as there is just now
      1854
      difficulty in getting men in shipbuilding, they have gone back. I think that would introduce a practical difficulty into the working of the Clause. I must say I do not like the Clause at all; but I am inclined to vote for the Amendment from the opposite side, as it does, to some extent, minimise the evils; and as a hon. Friend reminds me, we had also put an Amendment of the kind on the Paper, and I hope that the Amendment moved will be pressed.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the Committee will find that it is in a difficulty in dealing with this Clause. There are obviously some grave practical difficulties in ascertaining whether a man has ceased to follow his insured trade or not; and there ought to be, perhaps, some penalty put upon him if he takes his lump sum and then breaks what is, apparently, a restrictive covenant, intended to be put on him by the Government when they put in that he shall only get back his money if he ceases to be in an insured trade. The whole question is a wider one than that. Ought the money to be repaid at all?—that is a question which, I think, the Committee ought to consider. This Bill is an Insurance Bill based upon those who are employed paying contributions as small as is possible, with the object of giving those who are out of work insurance against loss of wages. To the extent that you refund to any man any portion of that which he has paid, you are depleting the Fund, and, consequently, you are making the contribution of all who are in the insured trade higher. I do not know what the financial effect of this refund is—there is nothing in the Actuary's Report to tell how much this refund will amount to—but it is quite clear that if this refund was to take place in many cases then the necessity for a contribution of 2½d. would arise partly because of the refund. If it were not for the refund, the contribution might have been 2d. instead of 2½d.
      We have had no explanation from the actuary, and the President of the Board of Trade has given us no information on the subject; but let it be supposed that if this Clause were not in the Bill, the contributions all round could be reduced by a ½d. Then they could be reduced to 2d. instead of 2½d. What this Committee ought to consider is, are we using the money in the best way; is the refund the best bonus to the workman, or is it better that all the contributions should be reduced from 2½d to 2d.? I think the Committee ought to

      1855
      hear from the President of the Board of Trade what the financial effect of this Clause is. We know there are administrative difficulties in putting in this limitation, but the limitation is only intended to remove, to some extent, the effect of the Clause. We may go much further; we may come to the conclusion that it is better in the interests of the workmen and of the employers, that the Clause should be struck out, so that the contributions can be reduced. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will give the Committee some information on that point. I must say I think it is a great pity where we are entering into insurance against loss of wages, or unemployment, that we did not follow the existing practice. There is a trade union practice in this matter, which has held good for many years, and which has worked, I believe, on the whole, satisfactorily and without complaint by the individual members. Why should we, when we first enter this field of insurance, deviate from the existing practice, unless there is some good reason for it.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: On a point of Order, may I submit that the hon. Member is now raising the whole question of the Clause, and as some of us would like to take part in a discussion on the Clause, it is rather undesirable to have part of the discussion of a general character, and have it broken through and started again. If convenient, I would suggest that it might be kept over until the Question is put that the Clause stand part.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I entirely agree, and I am glad that the hon. Member recalled me to the particular Amendment. These considerations will arise, and perhaps it is better that they should be delayed until the Clause itself is in question.
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): Bearing in mind the suggestion which has just been made, and your ruling on it, I will not attempt at the moment to deal with some of the wider considerations which the hon. Gentleman has been putting before the Committee. As to this Amendment, I would very confidently ask the Committee to come to the conclusion that it is not desirable to introduce this Imitation. When we come to deal with the Clause as a whole, we may have to decide whether we want it as a whole or
      1856
      whether we reject it as a whole; but assuming that you are going to accept the principle of the return of contributions at the age of sixty, should that principle be limited by requiring the condition that the man has finally ceased to follow an insured trade. May I point out that to ask a man at the age of sixty to satisfy you that he has finally ceased to follow an insured trade is to ask a thing almost as impossible as to ask a candidate for Parliament who is defeated to satisfy you that he is never going to stand again. It is not a thing which you can, in the practical working administration of the scheme, fairly impose on anybody. The difficulty was felt by my hon. Friend opposite, because he said, perhaps it might be found necessary to arrange some penalty, or some disabling burden, to fall upon the unfortunate man's back if he broke his word. Surely we cannot legislate that people over the age of sixty are not to follow a trade, even though they have promised.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That is what you put in the Bill.
      Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to say that it is in the Bill as it stands. That is quite true, and it seems a very good reason for omitting it, which the Government propose to do, but I do not see that that is a good reason for repeating and making it twice as bad as it was. I would ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment.
      Mr. HAMILTON BENN: I have not heard the Government state, in any way, why this is the age chosen for the repayment of the money.
      Sir J. SIMON: Let us have either one thing or the other. Either we are going to discuss the Clause now, or we are not. I said when I began, that I was limiting myself strictly to this Amendment.
      Mr. H. BENN: It is a very pertinent question.
      The CHAIRMAN: That question hardly arises on this Amendment to the Amendment.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I really raised the point in order to get a discussion on the principle. As there are objections to the Clause as a whole, and as we were going to have a debate on it, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      The CHAIRMAN: The words of the Amendment hardly read grammatically. There is some conjunction required. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put it in. I think that before the word "that" "and" or "or" should be placed. I will read the Clause as it stands amended. After the word "upwards" ["five hundred weeks or upwards"], insert the words, "'and' that the workman have reached the age of sixty, or before his death had reached the age of sixty, the workman or his representatives shall be entitled."
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      The CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments have been dealt with.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "and such repayment may, in accordance with the regulations made by the Board of Trade, be made by way of a lump sum payment or by way of annuity or in such other manner as may be prescribed." I do so on two grounds. The first part of it applies to the question of what the methods should be supposing there is a refund.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg pardon. I think I should move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Gentleman for East Wilts (Mr. Peto). It will go in, I think, before the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a proviso to come in at the end of the Subsection.
      The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member will see in a moment.
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg now to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words, "five hundred weeks or upwards shall be entitled at any time after reaching the age of sixty to be repaid the amount, if any, by which the total amount of such contributions have exceeded the total amount received by him out of the Unemployment Fund under this Act, together with compound interest at the rate of 2⅜ per cent. per annum calculated in the prescribed manner, and such repayment may, in accordance with regulations made by the Board of Trade, be made by way of a lump sum payment or by way of annuity, or in such
      1858
      other manner as may be prescribed, and to insert instead thereof the words, provided that in lieu of the foregoing provision, if he so elects by notice in writing to the insurance officer, and to his employer, any workmen who has paid contributions in accordance with the provisions of this Part of the Act in respect of one hundred and fifty six weeks without drawing any unemployment benefit shall not be required to make any further contribution, nor shall his employer be required to make any further contribution on his behalf until he claims unemployment benefit.
      (a) After the first and every subsequent period of unemployment in respect of which unemployment benefit shall have been paid he shall be required to resume the contributions specified in this Part of this Act, and his employer shall be required to resume the contributions on his behalf, until the total of such weekly contributions, together with the one penny and two-thirds per week contributed from money provided by Parliament, shall equal the amount he shall have received in unemployment benefit, when he shall be free from liability to contribute."
      This Amendment stands on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Wilts (Mr. Peto). It explains what will happen in the case of any subsequent period of unemployment when the man is employed again. I am afraid it is rather complicated, but it has had to be altered in view of the fact that the Clause was really recast by the Government. What it comes to is that the workmen may have the alternative of either getting a lump sum down or taking the benefit in the form of not paying contributions in the future. It has this further effect: the Clause as it stands only benefits the workmen. If his contributions have exceeded the amount that he has received in benefit he gets a lump sum. The employer gets no advantage at all under the Clause—absolutely none. He may have been paying the contributions on behalf of this man, for this full period, and this man has never once been unemployed. The workman gets a lump sum back, representing his share; the employer gets nothing. Under this Amendment the employer is to be advantaged also, because not only would the man cease to pay contributions in lieu of getting a lump sum, but the employer would also cease to pay contributions on his behalf until such time as the man came back into work and became unemployed. This, I venture to

      1859
      say, is a very reasonable alternative to the plan propounded in the Bill, and which I now put before the Government.
      The man can elect—the employer would merely follow. He would have to abide by the choice of the man. If the man elected and said, "I am going on in the trade, I do not want a lump sum down, I would sooner take my benefit or bonus"—it really comes to a bonus—"in not having to make contributions in the future"; if I say, a man elected to put that forward as an alternative to taking the lump sum down, we ought to permit it. I think it would be very much better in the long run. It is also an advantage and a benefit to the employer. Why should not he be benefited? He has paid contributions for this man, and the man has never been once unemployed. He has kept him in full employment for all these number of years regularly, and I think he is entitled to something. It is perfectly true under the Amendment he would not get it, of a right; only if the workmen so elected. You could not give an option to both sides, and we think that the man is entitled to a prior option to the employer. If the man does exercise that option then the master will be benefited and the man also will get his bonus. For that reason I move, and apologise to the Government and the Committee for the fact that the Amendment has been altered, but it could not be helped under the circumstances.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The hardship that the hon. Member has pointed out in the case of the employer who has kept a man in employment during that long period will be met under Clause 70. His objection, therefore, disappears from the argument. It is to be provided for by a refund to the employer.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Can the hon. Gentleman mention what the new words are?
      Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Yes. It is in this morning's paper. The Amendment of my right hon. Friend reads: After Clause 69 to insert,
      The Board of Trade shall, on the application of any employer made within one month after the termination of any calendar year, or other prescribed period of twelve months, refund to such em-
      1860
      ployer out of the Unemployment Fund a sum equal to one-third of the contributions (exclusive of any contributions refunded to him under any other provisions of this part of this Act) paid by him on his own behalf during that period in respect of any workman who has been continuously employed by him through the period, and in respect of whom not less than forty-five contributions have been paid during the period.
      That is a fairly complicated Clause, but I think it will be found to meet the particular objection of the Amendment actually moved. It is somewhat difficult to see how the line of argument of the hon. Gentleman can be pushed along with the objection that the Government Clause is inconsistent with the principle of insurance. The hon. Gentleman opposite has just been arguing that the Clause which he objects to is as a whole really an interference with the principle of insurance; that it is giving a man back that which he contributed. The Amendment proposes that the man's contribution should be limited to the amount of benefits he has received, which is an absolute cancelling of the principle of insurance. It would be properly completed by the further argument to the effect that his benefit should be limited to the amount of his contribution. This would complete the cancellation of the insurance principle. In any case the Amendment is perfectly unacceptable. It goes much further in absolute deviation from the principle of insurance than the Clause in any point seems to go. It would, in fact, wreck the whole Bill.
      Mr. BAIRD: I do not know whether the hon. Member is quite fair to the proposal of my hon. Friend. Surely the two things are in accord? The Government proposes to give a certain amount of relief to the man who has paid a certain amount of contribution, but has not drawn any benefit, and the proposal of my hon. Friend is that the workman should have the option as to the form he should take that relief in. Financially the cost is apparently intended to be the same, whether a man receives a lump sum, or whether he has a reduction in contributions. Surely any or each man is entitled to decide for himself, provided the cost of the two schemes is the same. So far as the Bill is concerned, the Amendment does not seem to be any infraction of the principles laid down by the Government, who admit that some sort of relief is

      1861
      justifiable. It does not seem any infraction of that principle to give a man the option of what particular form of relief he will choose. That is all that the Amendment of my hon. Friend endeavours to effect. I will not go into the further question as to whether the whole Clause is, or is not, desirable, but taking into consideration the fact that we here on this side are in a minority, and that however we may vote against the Clause it will probably be carried, the intention of my hon. Friend is to make it as reasonable and just as possible.
      Mr. BUXTON: I do not know that the Movers of this Amendment have really seen the practical difficulties which appear to us to be fatal to it. I admit it is a little difficult to follow exactly what is proposed. As I understand it, an option is to be given to the workman so that instead of taking his refund in the form of a lump sum, he will be entitled to take the same amount by a cessation of his contributions, and during that period the employer likewise is to cease to pay his; and I presume also the State. Well, the hon. Member opposite, in discussing the proposal to omit this Clause, laid great stress on the financial difficulty, namely, that if you give this refund, it will put a severe strain on the finances of the Fund. I think in a few moments we shall be able to show that that will not be so. This Amendment will put a much greater strain upon the finances of the Fund, because the hon. Gentleman must see that what he is proposing is that not only shall the man himself be relieved to the extent of his contribution, but during the same period and to the same extent both the State and the employer will also be relieved. It is therefore really throwing a double burden on the Fund, instead of the single burden which we propose. Sa far as I can understand the Amendment, it is not limited to the age of sixty. It is not limited, as we have suggested, to the ten years.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think it is limited to the age of sixty. The words are "provided that in lieu of the foregoing provision, if he so elects. …"
      Mr. BUXTON: I do not dwell so much upon that. What I would point out is that this would put a very serious financial strain upon the Fund, and it would really upset the principle upon which these contributions are paid. Under these circumstances I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.
      Mr. BARNES: The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment can scarecly have appreciated the effect of it For my part I have been looking forward to the operation of this Bill as affording relief more or less to the casual worker by having his contribution and the employer's contribution pooled with those of the regular worker. For instance, take the railway shops. They will come under this Bill. When a man goes into a railway shop, in nine cases out of ten he remains there all through his life, at any rate for thirty or forty years. As far as I can see, a man at sixty years of age is knocked out by this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Yes, that is the effect of it. You start from the line of the Clause before sixty, so that that provision about sixty years of age is no longer there.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No, it comes in at the end of Sub-section (1) in lieu of the foregoing provision. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the Amendment as it stands upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Wilts (Mr. Peto), but it could not be moved there owing to the fact that the Clause has been recast. It now comes in as a provision at the end of Line 20, after the words "prescribed manner."
      The CHAIRMAN: The words are "Provided that in lieu of the foregoing provision, if he so elects, by notice in writing to the Insurance Officer, the employer of any workman who paid contribution in accordance with the provisions of this Act in respect of," and then follow the words on the Paper.
      Mr. BARNES: Then I suppose "sixty" remains, and to that extent my argument is weakened. But it still holds good in respect of the man after sixty years of age. Why make this elaborate provision for the relief of a man after sixty if he is working? In the railway shops men continue to work after sixty. Men after sixty are in constant employment, and they are just the sort of men whose contributions should go to swell the fund under this Bill for those less fortunate than themselves, and for my part, I am inclined to make no special provision for such men.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will not follow the hon. Member for Blackfriars, because his argument is one against the Clause which we can refer to when we come to discuss the Clause. All the Amendment proposes is that a man at

      1863
      sixty instead of being bound to take his bonus in a lump sum, should be given the option to take it in another form, namely, the reduction of further contribution. It is said by the President of the Board of Trade that this would be a great strain upon the Fund. That is not the intention of the Amendment, and I do not think it is the meaning of the wording of the Amendment. It is intended to be the exact equivalent. Whether it is contrary to the whole principle of insurance to make any refund at all is a matter that we must discuss upon the Clause. If there is to be a refund it should be in the form the workman himself selects. That is what is intended by this Amendment, and the actual wording of the Amendment carries that out. If my hon. Friend presses this Amendment I should certainly support him because I think if the Clause is to stand at all, it ought to be in as elastic a form as possible.
      Mr. T. E. HARVEY: It is urged by the mover of the Amendment that it is only fair that an employer who has a workman a long time in his employment should get the advantage as well as the workman, but

      Division No. 5.]

      AYES.

      Baird, Mr.

      Goldman, Mr.

      Lowe, Sir Francis

      Benn, Mr. Hamilton

      Hills, Mr.

      Stewart, Mr. Gershom

      Bird, Mr.

      Hoare, Mr.

      Worthington-Evans, Mr.

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

      Horner, Mr.

      NOES.

      Barnes, Mr.

      Jones, Mr. Haydn

      Palmer, Mr.

      Brady, Mr.

      Jones, Mr. William

      Price, Mr.

      Burke, Mr. E. Haviland-

      Joyce, Mr.

      Primrose, Mr.

      Buxton, Mr. Sydney

      Kelly, Mr.

      Robertson, Mr. John

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin

      Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

      Roch, Mr. Walter

      Denman, Mr.

      M'Callum, Mr.

      Scanlan, Mr.

      Ferens, Mr.

      Mond, Sir Alfred

      Solicitor-General, Mr.

      Goldstone, Mr.

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Webb, Mr.

      Hackett, Mr.

      Nugent, Sir Walter

      Williams, Mr. Penry

      Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund

      Nuttall, Mr.

      Wilson, Mr. Tyson

      Hayden, Mr.

      Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move to add a new second Sub-section to the Clause:—
      (2) A repayment to a workman under this Section shall not affect his liability to pay contributions under this part of this Act, and, if after any such repayment he becomes entitled to unemployment benefit, he shall be treated as having paid in respect of the period for which the repayment has been made the number of full contributions which is most nearly equal to five-eighths of the number of contributions actually paid during that period."
      under this Amendment this benefit could be claimed by an entirely different employer. Supposing a man of fifty-nine left work and went under a new employer, that new employer would be entitled to claim the benefit of the reduction.
      Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: I think we shall be able to make out a good case for the Clause when we come to it, but the spirit of the Amendment, it seems to me, would give the workman an opportunity of taking his money back at different intervals during his working period which would be contrary to the whole structure of this Bill. I do not think the workman would desire any such thing. I hope the Committee will not support the Amendment which would enable the workman to have the opportunity every two or three years of overhauling the account and withdrawing his money. I think that would be fatal. With regard to the employer, we need not be anxious about him, because he will be very glad to make his contributions to this Fund without looking forward to having it refunded to him.
      Question put, "That those words be there added."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 11; Noes, 31.
      If the Committee will look at the Amendment, they will see that it wants following closely, and if followed closely it will be found quite simple to understand.
      The object and effect of it is as follows: Presumably, in most cases where the workman reaches the age of sixty and exercises his right under the first part of the Clause to claim the repayment, he does not intend, or in many cases does not intend, to follow his trade; in other cases perhaps he does. If he does not follow an insured trade any longer, there

      1865
      will be no question of any payment having to be made by his employer, and no question of further payment through his employer on his behalf. If he goes on, or returns to his work, there will be a further payment made week by week. Now what is his position as regards unemployment benefit if he falls out of work, although willing to continue in work? In so far as he has already received his interest in the Fund, he cannot have that over again in the form of unemployment benefit; but in so far as he has not withdrawn his full credit from the Fund, he is to be treated in the same way as if he had not reached the age of sixty at all. That, I think, is a right principle. There is a reference in the Amendment to five-eighths of the number of contributions actually paid, which is due to a very simple calculation. The first part of the Clause does not give back to the workman who has reached the age of sixty anything that represents his employer's contribution, or anything that represents the State's contribution. It only gives back his own contributions in so far as that which he has drawn out of the Fund does not exceed the total of his own contributions. His own contributions are three-eights of the total.
      Therefore, in any case, the operation of the Clause will not be very widespread, since any man unemployed to the extent of three-eights of the average of his class would never be able to satisfy the conditions of this Clause. There is the 2½d. standing to the credit of the man, 2½d. contributed by the employer, and 1⅔d. contributed by the State. It is only the man's 2½d. that he has any claim to get back. Of course, there will remain the employer's 2½d. and the State's 1⅔d. If you take the total of those three, the man's 2½d. represents three-eighths of the whole, and there is five-eighths remaining, and if he has withdrawn at the age of sixty three-eighths of his credit he should be treated as if he still had the other five-eighths standing to his name. The result will be that a workman who has exercised his right, on reaching the age of sixty to withdraw whatever credit there may be in respect of his own contribution, will remain a member of the Fund entitled to be treated as having the five-eighths, that is, the employer's and the State's contribution, still standing to his credit in the Fund, and it will be by reference to that sum, and not the total, that you will have to judge how far he is entitled to call for unemployment benefit, having regard to the One in Five Rule with which the Com-
      1866
      mittee is familiar. Some such proposal as this is required, and is only right and proper in order to make the Clause work out intelligibly.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. HOARE: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (2) to add:—
      (3) If a workman feels aggrieved by the decision of the Board of Trade on any question arising under this Section, he may appeal therefrom to an umpire appointed under this Part of this Act, whose decision shall be final.
      I do not think I need labour the point at all, but it seems to me that if this Section of the Act is to work easily and satisfactorily, a workman should have the right of appeal to an independent umpire. Here, we have the immense advantage of having the Solicitor-General to lucidly explain the different parts of this Section, but the workman will not be so fortunate. He will have to fulfil a variety of conditions, and I am confident, unless there is some right of appeal, there will be a good deal of friction.
      Mr. BUXTON: There might have been something to say for this proposal if the Amendment which the Committee has already agreed to had not been passed. I think, in this matter, the Board of Trade may be left to be the decider. The decision is not a question of opinion, but it is a question of fact as to whether the man has contributed for five hundred weeks or over, and whether he is sixty years of age, and so on. I can hardly see how any dispute can arise, and if a dispute does arise, really, I think we may trust the Board of Trade to arrive at a fair and just decision without resorting to what I consider to be a somewhat cumbersome method of referring it to an umpire.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think this is merely a matter of fact. The workman has got to prove to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that he comes within the provisions of the Clause. There may be a question as to whether the evidence shall be accepted. If the workman is dissatisfied by the decision of the Board of Trade, surely it is wise that there should be some sort of appeal. The decision will probably be made on the spot, and very likely by an under-official of the Board of Trade, who has not, as the hon. Member who moved this Amendment said, the assistance of the learned Solicitor-

      1867
      General, and who has to make up his mind whether the workman has produced sufficient evidence or not. If that official has the feeling that his decision is subject to an appeal, at least, he will be likely to take more care in giving his decision. I think that when you deprive a man of a privilege you intend to give him by an Act of Parliament, you ought not to leave it to an under official of the Board of Trade to decide.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: With regard to this proposal, I conceive that the Board of Trade themselves might be very glad to have an umpire in some cases. So many difficulties may arise; difficulties may arise all over the country in regard to all manner of questions, and there may be a good deal of dissatisfaction if these matters are left entirely to the Board of Trade. I think the Board of Trade itself might be very glad to fall back in some cases on an umpire, whose decision would be final. I suggest to the Government, that any rate, it would be better for them to consider this proposal before deciding to throw it over altogether.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I would like to know if the Government are going to give way on this point?
      Mr. BUXTON: I am not going to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Chelsea, but we see the point which has been raised, and we would like to consider whether it would be an advantage from the point of view of the Board of Trade, and from the point of view of the workman, that there should be some appeal. I should like time to consider the point between now and the Report stage, but I cannot accept the Amendment, nor can I say that my final decision will be in this direction. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to look into the point. I have not had an opportonity of considering it, and I think the course I am suggesting is only fair.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that on Report he will put down something. I do not doubt his bona fides, but it does not go very far. When we get to the Report stage there is very little time for discussion. Practically only Government Amendments will be taken. That in practice is what will happen.
      Mr. BUXTON: There will be two and a half days for discussion.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Unless the Government put something down, we cannot raise the point. We do attach some importance to it, but if the right hon. Gentleman will undertake now that he will put something down we will withdraw the Amendment.
      Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Member asks me to put something down. I have said we will consider it, and if we think there is a good case, and we are able to accept something in that direction, I will probably put an Amendment down. I cannot, however, at this stage, give an undertaking, because that is prejudging the question. I think the hon. Member has misapprehended the amount of time to be given to discussion. There will be two and a half days, and that will give plenty of opportunity.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid if the Board of Trade take the attitude that they cannot say anything more now because it will prejudge the question, then it will be for this Committee to judge whether the Bill ought to be given assent. I am very reluctant to divide on a question of this sort, but if the President of the Board of Trade says it will prejudge the question for him to say what he will do on Report, then it is quite time this Committee judged the question, and I hope my Friend will press his Amendment.
      Mr. BUXTON: Then my offer, of course, fails.
      Mr. DENMAN: I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment. My hon. Friend and others who support the Amendment, have not made out any sort of case that can arise in which there will be a dispute between the workmen and the Board of Trade. In point of fact there is one quite simple source of evidence as to the money contributions the workman pays, and that is his insurance books and the records in the accounts kept by the Board of Trade. That evidence will be absolutely conclusive, and I cannot conceive any dispute arising whatever. Until those who support the Amendment show some kind of possible dispute it will be a great pity to bring in an umpire.
      Mr. BAIRD: I think the difficulties of the working of this Clause are underrated. I cannot see what possible harm could be done by the introduction of the umpire. We have anxiety on this subject. We think that difficulties may

      1869
      arise, and we object to putting ourselves more than, ever under the heels of a body of officials. The whole tendency of legislation seems to be in the direction of making us a more official-ridden country. I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a division, and that the President of the Board of Trade will acquit me of any intention of being discourteous. Surely, however, this Committee, representing the House, is entitled to consider this question, and not be bound simply by the fact of whatever decision an official at the head of a department takes to be officially binding. This is a broad measure of principle, and there should be an appeal to an independent man from a body of officials in a Government office. There ought to be that right of appeal.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: I should like to make another appeal to my right hon. Friend in this matter. This is the first time any Government has proposed to give to a Government Department power to refund money to working people in this country, and I can see no end of difficulties that are going to crop up in regard to this in future. If there is no appeal from the Board of Trade, the number of questions that will be asked in Parliament through communications Members will receive from large numbers of their constituents as to why certain money has not been returned under this Section of the Act, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, will simply by overwhelming. If the President of the Board of Trade can only say that it has been dealt with in a departmental manner, I am sure that will not satisfy the House of Commons, and questions will pour in and pour in; but if the President of the Board of Trade can say that the matter has been considered by his Department, and that in certain cases there has been an appeal, and that that appeal has Been sent to the umpire, whose decision under the Act was final, it would make for a much more smooth working of the Act. I appeal, therefore, for a more favourable answer as to what he will do on the Report stage.
      Mr. BUXTON: I think it is rather unreasonable to press me at this point. I have had no opportunity to consider this Amendment with my advisers, with whom, of course, it is necessary that I should confer. I have offered to consider it between now and the Report, and I understood the hon. Member who moved the Amendment nodded assent. Now hon. Members get up, and because I will not
      1870
      pledge myself to this Amendment, they seem inclined to think that I am not going to give any consideration to the matter. I really cannot go beyond what I have said, and I think they are rather inconsiderate in asking me at the present time to do more than that in regard to an Amendment sprung upon us, and which I have had no opportunity of considering with my advisers.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I hope the President of the Board of Trade will very seriously consider the matter, but not for the purpose of accepting the Amendment. I am certain that if some of the hon. Members opposite, who agree with the spirit of this Section, and have been helping it through, will carefully consider it, I do not think they will stand by this Amendment, because Clause 71 is precisely the sort of Clause that ought not to be subject to an arbitrator. If they will consider the matter carefully in all its details, they will find, as a matter of fact, that an umpire will not help here, but will only give rise to expectations on the part of men who imagine they have got grievances, and who have not got grievances. It would only hamper the administration of the law, and cause a great deal of unnecessary work and unnecessary worry. There are certain clauses in regard to which an umpire is necessary, but Clause 71 is not one of those clauses.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I cannot understand why the Government should refuse this Amendment. In any case, it can do no harm. On the other hand, it might possibly enable us to remove injustice in certain cases. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend opposite who spoke just now, that if the refunding of the money to workmen is simply decided in the department, there is certain to be a great deal of dissatisfaction. If dissatisfaction arises, the umpire could be called in as arbitrator, and if he decided the matter on evidence, that would settle it once for all. I object entirely to all these important duties being put upon a body called the Board of Trade. What is the Board of Trade? I really have not the slightest idea what constitutes the Board of Trade. [A VOICE: "The Archbishop of Canterbury."] At any rate, in this Committee we see the Board of Trade in its majesty represented by the right hon. Gentleman, but generally speaking, I do not suppose these questions

      1871
      will come to the right hon. Gentleman. They will be settled by some official, probably drawing a small salary himself—some practically unimportant subordinate. There ought to be some appeal from a person of that sort. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment, and that hon. Members will support it, because in any case it can do no harm, and it might remove real cases of injustice.
      Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: I would point out to the hon. Member that in other matters it is not commonly admitted that there is anything very conclusive in the finding of an umpire or even of a judge. We every now and then see, in the House of Commons, an appeal to the head of a Department, even against the decision of magistrates and judges. Hon. Members argue that where you once get an umpire's decision, you have something which will satisfy the public mind, but that is not so. The Home Secretary is again and again called upon, as head of the Home Office, to revise a sentence passed by judges; so that really public opinion recognises the head of a Department as someone to be appealed to over even a judge, to say nothing of an umpire. In this case, my hon. Friend behind me assumes a case in which letters of complaint pour in with regard to some decision against a workman. The President of the Board of Trade will be there to revise the act of his subordinate, and, if the Home Secretary's decision in regard to a matter of life and death can be invoked, even over the decision of a judge, surely the President of the Board of Trade may be regarded as giving sufficient and conclusive judgment in a

      Division No. 6.]

      AYES.

      Baird, Mr.

      Goldman, Mr.

      Ingleby, Mr.

      Benn, Mr. Hamilton

      Harris, Mr.

      Lowe, Sir Francis

      Bird, Mr.

      Hills, Mr.

      Palmer, Mr.

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

      Hoare, Mr.

      Stewart, Mr. Gershom

      Cassel, Mr.

      Horner, Mr.

      Worthington-Evans, Mr.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin

      NOES.

      Barnes, Mr.

      Jones, Mr. Haydn

      Nuttall, Mr.

      Brady, Mr.

      Jones, Mr. William

      Price, Mr.

      Burke, Mr. E. Haviland-

      Joyce, Mr.

      Primrose, Mr.

      Buxton, Mr. Sydney

      Kelly, Mr.

      Robertson, Mr. John

      Denman, Mr.

      Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

      Roch, Mr. Walter

      Ferens, Mr.

      M'Callum, Mr.

      Solicitor-General, Mr.

      Goldstone, Mr.

      Mond, Sir Alfred

      Webb, Mr.

      Hackett, Mr.

      Murray, Captain

      Williams, Mr. Penry

      Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Wilson, Mr. Tyson

      Hayden, Mr.

      Nugent, Sir Walter

      Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      case where a decision has been given by one of the officials of his own Department.
      Mr. HOARE: I had hoped the answer would have been so favourable that I could have withdrawn the Amendment, but, in view of the course the discussion has since taken, I do not see my way to do so. Take the speech of the hon. Gentleman to which we have just listened. Can there be any analogy between an appeal from the Central Criminal Court or from the Assizes to the Home Secretary on a question of life and death, and an appeal from a workman, not to the President of the Board of Trade, but, as it will certainly prove in practical effect, to some inferior official in the Provinces? I have only to state the matter to prove how utterly apart are the two cases. I desire by my Amendment simply to provide a kind of appeal from the Board of Trade. I daresay my Amendment is not worded in the most perfect manner, but that is for subsequent arrangement. Much as I regret this Amendment has not been on the Paper for a longer time, blame surely should not attach solely to me. I am not the only member of this Committee who has been guilty of such a dereliction of duty. If members of the Committee will look at the paper to-day, they will see a number of Amendments have been put down by the President of the Board of Trade himself. In view of the Debate, I must press my Amendment to a Division.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 29.
      Mr. BARNES: I want to say a word or two against the Clause. I am going to

      1873
      throw my captain over, because he will probably put up a case for the Clause. I see no reason for the Clause. It is against the principle of insurance, and against the existing practice of trade unions. It is going to give an advantage to the man who has had fairly constant employment. While the Debate has been proceeding, I have been picturing to myself two types of men. There is, in the first instance, the man who has been in and out of work to some extent, say a man in the shipbuilding industry, which is a part of the engineering industry, and which is subject to great fluctuation. When that man is sixty years of age, he will get no bonus, because his periods of unemployment will probably have absorbed his two and a half per cent. There is nothing for him, although he has been subject to the vicissitudes of unemployment, and probably the hardships connected with it as well. Then, on the other hand, I picture to myself the man in a railway shop. He has probably been working there for many years, say thirty years. Because he has never been out of work, and because he has paid say 10s. a year under this Bill, he gets all his contributions back, so far as I understand. It means that in thirty years time the man who has been working in the railway shop will draw a bonus of £15, plus 2½ per cent., which will give him a sum between £15 and £20. That cannot be done, it seems to me, without upsetting any actuarial scheme based upon insurance, because it is in accordance with the principle of this Bill, that the man who has had steady employment, and is, therefore, in a position to do so, should be called upon to help his neighbour. For my part, I think this Clause eats into that principle, and I am going to vote against it.
      Sir J. SIMON: I want the Committee to see what the argument is, in brief, on the other side, and then it will be able to judge. My hon. Friend, in the first speech he made referring to the Clause, said he objected to it because it was a departure from trade union practice. He pointed to the fact that it is not customary among trade unions, which pay unemployment benefit, to hand back that benefit or the residue of it, when the member reaches a certain age. There is this fundamental distinction between the two cases. Trade union insurance is voluntary, and this a compulsory system. We are saying to a man, even although he has got a job which, in all human probability, is going to keep him employed, "You must pay
      1874
      2½d. week after week." That is the great distinction, and an argument is applied to this Clause which is derived from the practice of trade unions, which only insure those persons who find it to their own personal advantage to come in.
      Mr. BARNES: No.
      Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend says "No," but at any rate it is primarily directed to those persons who find it to their advantage to come in. Surely that is not a conclusive argument when we are judging this Clause. May I ask secondly—and I speak with great diffidence about a matter of trade union experience on which my hon. Friend, of course, speaks with infinitely greater knowledge—am I not right in thinking—and is it not notorious—that a member of a trade union who finds that he is in absolutely permanent employment has some time been known to leave the trade union on that account? Is not that because he realises that some at any rate of the benefits the trade union gives are no longer so important for him as when he first joined?
      May I say a word next as to the financial aspect of the question, to which attention has been called. Financially speaking, this Clause does not drive a coach and four through the actuarial basis of this scheme. I think some who have criticised this Clause have not quite appreciated its comparatively limited, scope of operation. In the first place, it cannot have any operation for ten years, because a man coming under it must have 500 weeks to his credit. That will not be possible in any case until ten years have passed. Then the Clause only applies to people who have reached the age of sixty, and, in the third case, it only operates where the man who has reached the age of sixty can show that all the unemployment benefit he has drawn is so far short of the average unemployment benefit that it does not even exhaust his own contributions to the Fund. Suppose the Fund consists of a series of sevenpences, the question is not whether the man has drawn out as many sevenpences as have gone to his credit, but whether he has drawn out as many 2½ds. as there are sevenpences to his credit; therefore the only case in which this can operate is where a man reaches the age of sixty years—ten years or more hence—and has been much more fortunate than the average insured person in that he has not

      1875
      drawn out the full contribution which he has given from his own wage.
      It may be said that the Clause is not likely to have a very wide operation. That may be a just observation in itself, but it is not so in the mouth of one who declares that it destroys the actuarial basis of the scheme. It does nothing of the sort; this Clause, with others, has been very carefully considered by those who have advised the Government. The figures put forward by the hon. Gentleman which are supposed to make a difference in the rate of contribution as between 2d. and 2½d. were purely hypothetical, and I hope it will be clearly understood that the Clause will not be properly explained to the country if we state that that is the effect of it. It is not really the effect at all. It would not affect by a fraction of any one coin of the realm, either the contributions or the benefit, but it does remove any gross case of hardship as it would appear to an exceptionally fortunate man. The insured person brings along his own contribution, together with the contribution of the employer and the State. Surely, we are entitled to say to him, if, when he comes to the end of his life, he has not drawn so much as amounts to his own contribution, that, under proper conditions he may be entitled, if he pleases, to say that henceforward he will be treated as somebody who has drawn it. If you are going hereafter to give a special privilege to the employer who keeps his men in constant employment, how do you think we shall stand in regard to the individual workman who comes forward and says, "You give this concession to my employer, where is the concession which I ought to have?" I do not think members of this Committee would very much like the situation if no better argument than that were put forward against this Clause.
      Sir HENRY NORMAN: I find myself in some difficulty in regard to supporting this Clause, notwithstanding the lucid statement we have had from my hon. and learned Friend. Surely it is against the principle of insurance for a man, who has not required the benefits, to be able to withdraw his contribution. In the case of fire insurance, those whose houses are not burnt down, pay for those whose houses are. [An HON. MEMBER: "In this case, the contribution is compulsory."] The principle is the same, whether it is compulsory or not; I fail to see how compulsion affects
      1876
      the principle. Then, in the case of life insurance, those who do not die at the natural expiration of life, pay the dependents of those who come to an untimely end. In the same way, those who are so fortunate as to be in employment all their lives, should bear the burden of those who are not so fortunate, and if that principle is acted upon, then the contributions of the fortunate ones should not be allowed to be withdrawn. Reference has been made to a case of gross hardship. I do not feel that I have any right to speak with positiveness on this point, but is it the case that a man who has been fully employed, practically the whole of his working life, and has subscribed a small sum out of his wages to help those who have been unemployed, would consider that he had been treated with gross hardship? Would he not consider that he had been an exceptionally fortunate man, and would he not be very glad that it had been possible for him, out of his own good fortune, to extend every week a helping hand to those who had been lees fortunate? This Clause puts the unemployed insurer in very much the same position as the deposit insurer in Part I. of the Bill. He is to get out what he has put in. In the second place, it should be borne in mind that the operation of this part of the Bill is limited to very few trades. We all want, of course, to extend it as soon as possible to other trades where unemployment is greater and more severe. Surely the extension of it to those trades will depend on its financial success, and anything which would weaken its financial position must postpone its extension to hundreds and thousands of men and women who need it still more badly than those who will, as the Bill is at present drafted, come under its operation. It seems to me that to give back the contribution of the lucky man who is steadily employed is not only unnecessary, but it is unfriendly to the less fortunate workman. For my part, I cannot see why, in principle, if you are to return his contribution to the workman who has been employed all the time, you should not in fair logic return the contribution to the employer, who has subscribed on behalf of that man all the time also.
      Sir J. SIMON: Supposing you are prepared to say that no employer should have any rebate except the employer who employs people over sixty years of age, then you would be able to put the two things on a parallel.
      Sir H. NORMAN: We shall came to that point by and by. I have an open mind on this Clause, but I certainly should like to hear the case for it put forward a little more conclusively than I have heard it put up to the present time.
      Mr. HILLS: I do not think the Clause is perfect, yet I shall vote for it. I should like to say a few words about its finance. I am not at all satisfied with the somewhat off-hand statement of the Solicitor-General, that even if the whole of the rebate was taken off the contribution, it would not affect the payment by a fraction of the smallest coin of the realm. I believe we shall find, when we come, to work out this Bill, that in certain trades there is hardly any unemployment at all. In a certain group of trades, men work thirty or forty years without losing a week's work. The hon. Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow has quoted one instance of that. He has pointed out that in the railway shops men work year after year and never lose a week's work. The Committee ought to be informed whether the Advisers of the Board of Trade can say what the effect would be if the whole of the advantage was taken off the contribution instead of being given as a bonus. I can see very great advantages that might result. I was a little bit impressed by the argument of the hon. Member who spoke last. If we could, in the case of the fully employed men, meet the point by reducing the contribution, I think we should find that we had gone a long way to relieve his mind. The argument on the other side does not seem to me very convincing. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) has quoted the practice of trade unions, and the Solicitor-General has given one answer to that. May I give another? The member of a trade union does not pay a special premium for insurance against unemployment; he pays a general subscription to his union.
      Mr. SCANLAN: In many societies they pay a special contribution for unemployment.
      Mr. HILLS: I think I am right in this that in a great many cases a lump sum is paid down, which covers the whole subscription, and in those cases you cannot allocate a special Fund to return to a man in respect of insurance against unemployment. The hon. Member who spoke last said that if we passed this Clause, we should cut at the root of insurance, and he quoted the case of Fire Insurance. But
      1878
      surely the Committee realise that the whole point is that this is a compulsory Bill Just suppose that a man's house was built of asbestos, and you compelled him to insure against fire. In that case, you would obviously be creating a great injustice.
      Sir J. SIMON: At the same rate.
      Mr. HILLS: Yes, at the same rate as payable by people who live in burnable houses. Then, again, even if we passed this Clause, the fully employed workman will still be supporting the burden of the badly employed workman, and I hope that the Committee will pass it. I do not think the Clause is perfect, but still it seems to me to meet a very obvious injustice.
      Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I think this Clause may be justified as one of the very best in the Bill, and it can also be justified from the point of view of insurance. It will have the effect of making a large number of men additionally desirous of keeping their work. They will see that they will not lose the fruits of their labour, and that, if they stick to their work, they will ultimately get back every penny of the contribution with compound interest. It is a tremendous incentive to a man to know that he will not lose a penny of the contributions he had paid in—that they will come back to him at a time of his life when he most needs it—and it will, I think, have a very great moral effect in promoting the success of the whole Bill. I think the point raised with regard to fire insurance can, to some extent, be met by pointing out that it is customary in the case of fire insurance to give a reduced premium after a certain period, if no claim has meantime been made; and this Clause may be dealt with as somewhat comparable to that. But the more important reason for our supporting the Clause is the great moral effect it will have on the success of the scheme as a whole. It is not a negative scheme dealing with unemployment as such, but a positive scheme to promote continuous employment.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am going to vote in favour of this Clause, but with a good deal of reluctance. I think in principle the Clause is sound, but I do not quite see why the principle and soundness of it should only be carried into effect when a man reaches the age of sixty. I do not see why a man who has reached the age of fifty-five, for example, should not, assuming the principle is sound, be a beneficiary under the Clause. I am

      1879
      afraid I cannot associate myself with the view the prevous speaker has just enunciated regarding the moral effect of the Clause. These things are really so remote that they do not enter into the workman's consideration at all. I daresay the members of the Committee take rather long views in order to average advantages, but I am perfectly certain that if we were engaged in a workshop at £1 a week, the worry of our weekly finances would be so great that the advantages we should receive under a scheme of this character at the age of sixty would be obliterated from our minds. But I support the Clause principally on the ground that it is sound from an insurance point of view. The insurance is not a simple insurance like fire, or life, or even sickness; it is a complicated insurance. It is a triple insurance, an insurance of trade risk, an insurance of workshop risk, and an insurance of individual risk, and the problem that the draughtsmen of this part of the Clause and those who thought out all its operations had to meet, was the problem how are you going to meet, first of all, the trade risks of a man in the engineering trade which is common to the whole of the trade, and which was attempted to be met by a differentiation between the benefits.
      Then in Clause 70 you have a workshop risk in which the employer joins, and from which he gets a benefit. Clause 70 deals with certain methods of employing groups of men, which will be attended with certain benefits to the employer himself. Clause 71 deals with the individual risk; because after all whilst it is a good sound trade union principle that everybody should stand in and share in the common risk, I am not at all sure that that is a good principle when you are dealing, as you are now dealing, with whole trades, and compelling the individuals in those trades to take up responsibilities. If a man comes in as a member of a trade union, takes the sort of fraternal responsibility of a trade union, and gets his trade benefit as a consequence and as the real reason why he is a member of a trade union, you can perfectly well say he is not entitled to any rebates or to any reserves. But the moment you come as a Legislature and say to every man in the trade, "You have got to do certain things," then you have to be much more careful in your adjustments and readjustments of justice; and in your readjustment of justice you have
      1880
      to construct your Part II. so that the three classes of insurance, the trade, the workshop, and the individual, may somehow be taken into account.
      That is why I am in favour of the principle, of the Clause—the principle that the individual workman shall be insured as well as his factory and as well as his trade; and you cannot insure the individual workman unless in some way or other you give him special benefits within the insurance of his trade. Clause 71 attempts to do this, although I think that it does not do it very successfully. I see very great difficulties in the way of doing it successfully, and what I should have liked would be a much more careful and actual statement of the actuarial meaning of Part I. with Clause 71 in, and Part I. with Clause 71 out. I think that is really what we want, because if Clause 71 means little in money, then I am not sure that it need stay in; if it means a good deal of money, then I think it ought to remain. Not being an actuary, and unable to work it out myself, and not being at all sure how the matter stands, I am prepared to vote for it with a great deal of reluctance and a good deal of doubt.
      Mr. BIRD: I do not propose to detain a hungry Committee more than a very few moments. The principle which Clause 71 seeks to establish is contrary to what has been laid down in the earlier portion of this Bill—that relating to invalidity. I distinctly remember hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that it was impossible he could entertain any such proposal, and I think that should make us hesitate a little before we make so important a departure. The next point that I desire to submit to the Committee is that either these benefits in the shape of the return of contributions that have been paid are going to be worth having, or else they are not. If they are going to be substantial and worth our consideration, then that shows that it would be quite possible to reduce the contributions of the working man to the Unemployment Fund rather than returning it to the fortunate ones who have not been out of employment for any length of time. It is perhaps the most unfortunate class of workmen who will benefit least under the operation of this Clause, and not those who have been fully in employment, and who are not so much in need of consideration as those who, from causes over which they have no control, have lost their employment and have, therefore, not derived the same

      1881
      amount of benefit from their contributions as others have done. I do hope the Committee will hesitate before they accept this Clause for the reasons I have ventured to lay before you.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would really press upon the President of the Board of Trade to give us between now and Report, the figures with regard to this Clause and what it means to the Insurance Fund, because to me the whole question is a financial one. I do not object to the Clause, but I think the system proposed is a clumsy method of getting over the difficulty caused by equal rates of insurance premium. I think there may be a better way of applying the money, and I think the Committee ought to know what the difference will be. The learned Solicitor-General said that it would not be represented by any current coin of the realm.
      Sir J. SIMON: I meant in contribution.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Yes, in terms of contribution, and I should like that point dealt with before we finally commit ourselves to this.
      Mr. HAMILTON BENN: I would like to ask why sixty years has been fixed upon as the date for the repayment. I shall have no difficulty about voting for this Clause if the repayment is made at the period when the man leaves off his employment in the insured trade. But having fixed an arbitrary time of sixty, I should like to know the reason why that time was chosen. The Solicitor-General did say just now that it was the end of the man's life. I would only say that if it is the end of his life, he has certainly ceased to follow the insured trade.
      Mr. BUXTON: I think the answer to the conundrum propounded by the hon. Member is that sixty is the sort of age at Which a man might be expected to leave off his trade, and it has given him forty years' contributions to accumulate. Of course, it is an arbitrary figure, but after full consideration we thought that the fair age at which to fix it, and, further, it is an age at which this refund might be of great practical value to the man. As regards the other point of the hon. Member, I should be very glad to give him the information he asks for so far as it is in our power, and I should prefer to do it in the way he suggests—either in the form of a memorandum, or, at all events, in debate—rather than state it now. I think that is what he asks.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: I would like to say in connection with this Clause that the Ministers speak with two voices with regard to it. In the House of Commons the present First Lord of the Admiralty told us distinctly—particularly in connection with this part of the Bill—that we were "pooling our luck"—that the best workman was going to help his less expert brother when out of employment. That has been stated on a thousand platforms in the country, and that being so, I hope the Committee will reject this preposterous Clause. It is a ridiculous Clause also, when all is said and done. It is defended on grounds of justice and equity, but I cannot see any justice or equity in it. Supposing a man, fifty years of age, meets with an accident which makes it impossible for him to follow his employment. Where does he come in? He may have paid considerably longer to this Fund than the man of sixty, and yet he gets no return of the contributions he has paid, and it seems to me that the best thing you can do, if the Clause is to be adopted, is to let them divide the contributions every year in the same way as is done in a slate club, so that everybody gets a fair share. Then with regard to the Clause encouraging men to keep their employment, it may encourage them to do that, and it may encourage them in two ways. It may make a man accept a lower wage than he otherwise would have done, and ought to have done, in order to keep his job. I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish any such result as that. That would be simply lowering the man in the social scale, and I hope that argument will not be used again in favour of this particular Clause at any rate. I do, therefore, hope that the Committee will consider what it is doing. We may possibly have a deficit in this Part of the Bill, and what about the men who are called upon to pay the levy? They are to be called upon to pay it, with the object of returning to men who are sixty years of age the whole of the contributions they have paid in. I say that is absolutely unfair and contrary to the system adopted by those societies who, at the present time, are paying unemployed benefit. The hon. Member for Durham is wrong when he runs away with the idea that there are no societies which pay separate contributions for unemployment benefit. There are a good many who do, and if there is a deficit, they levy just for that particular fund.
      Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

      Division No. 7.]

      AYES.

      Benn, Mr. Hamilton

      Hills, Mr.

      Nugent, Sir Walter

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

      Hoare, Mr.

      Nuttall, Mr.

      Brady, Mr.

      Horner, Mr.

      Palmer, Mr.

      Burke, Mr. E. Haviland-

      Jones, Mr. Haydn

      Price, Mr.

      Buxton, Mr. Sydney

      Jones, Mr. William

      Primrose, Mr.

      Denman, Mr.

      Joyce, Mr.

      Robertson, Mr. John

      Ferens, Mr.

      Kelly, Mr.

      Roch, Mr. Walter

      Goldman, Mr.

      Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

      Scanlan, Mr.

      Goldstone, Mr.

      M'Callum, Mr.

      Solicitor-General, Mr.

      Hackett, Mr.

      Mond, Sir Alfred

      Webb, Mr.

      Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund

      Murray, Captain

      Williams, Mr. Penry

      Hayden, Mr.

      NOES.

      Barnes, Mr.

      Harris, Mr.

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Bird, Mr.

      Ingleby, Mr.

      Stewart, Mr. Gershom

      Cassel, Mr.

      Lowe, Sir Francis

      Wilson, Mr. Tyson

      CLAUSE 72.—(Refund of Contributions Paid in Respect of Workmen Working Short Time.)
      If any employer satisfies the Board of Trade that during any period of depression in his trade workmen employed by him have been systematically working short time, and that during such period he has paid contributions under this part of this Act on behalf of such workmen, as well as on his own behalf, without recovering such contributions from such workmen either by way of deductions from wages or otherwise, there may be refunded to him out of the Unemployment Fund in accordance with regulations made by the Board of Trade the contributions so paid by him in respect of those workmen for the period or such part thereof as in the circumstances may seem just.
      Provided that no such refund shall be made in respect of any workman for any week in which the hours of work have exceeded five-sixths of the number usually recognised as constituting a full week's work at that time in the trade and district.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move to leave out the words "of depression in his trade" ["during any period of depression in his trade workmen."]
      The Committee will observe that the Clause contemplates to afford an employer the means of claiming a refund of contributions on behalf of himself, or of any employed person, during a period of short time, but the short time is qualified and conditioned by the fact that he shall only be entitled to claim such a refund in case "of depression in his trade." I should like to point out to the Committee that many circumstances might arise causing short time. I need only remind the Com-
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 9.
      mittee of the circumstances in the North of England a short time ago, when a large number of cotton mills were obliged to work short time, on the ground that raw material was not forthcoming. There was a great shortage of raw material, and the result was that the mills were working short time.
      Mr. BUXTON: It would come under this Clause.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I am glad to hear from the President of the Board of Trade that in that case the short time will come under the Provisions of this Clause, but I would like to point out also, that the interpretation that is to be placed on the question, "depression in his trade," is to be given by the Board of Trade. I wish to ask, does "depression in his trade," as applicable to this Clause, merely mean the cyclical depressions that you have after periods of prosperity? In a period of depression in that case, I take it that the employer will be able to reclaim in respect of short time. But, again, in the case of seasonal depression—that is to say, in the normal condition of trade during certain periods you have good trade, and then trade falls off, how is that to be interpreted by the Board of Trade? Is that to come under the interpretation of depression for the purposes of this Clause? It seems to me that the words are redundant and unnecessary. If they were omitted, the Clause would read, "If any employer satisfies the Board of Trade that during any period workmen employed by him have been systematically …," and then certain eventualities are to arise. That must involve a very important question, namely, the question of short time and depression of trade in such a case as I

      1885
      have cited. It seems to me that it would simplify the Act, and this Clause in particular, if these words were omitted, so that the employer would be entitled to claim a refund in all cases where the workmen employed are systematically working short time.
      Sir J. SIMON: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment, because it is not one which the Government can possibly accept. As he will have seen from the Amendment Paper, we do propose to vary the language of the words he proposes to leave out in order that it may be quite plain that what is referred to is not some cyclical depression of the industry as a whole, but some exceptional depression in the individual business of the employer concerned. That is what was in our mind. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, see on reflection that if we were to accept this proposal and allow the privileges of Clause 72 to attach to any employer in any circumstances, so long as his workmen were working short time, we should in effect be encouraging the employer not to pay full wages, not to work full time, but to employ it may be a few more hands and work the whole lot on short time, simply to avoid the contributions under this Part of the Bill. That is not, with great respect, a practical proposal. Assuming, as I think I am entitled to do, for this present purpose, that we are proceeding on the basis that the employer is going to pay the contributions normally, and that we are here providing only for the exceptional case, it will be plain that we cannot use language which will enable an employer to turn the exceptional case into the normal case. The Amendment which the President of the Board of Trade will move will make it plain that what we have regard to is not whether there is depression in an industry as a whole, but whether, a particular employer's business is, for whatever reason, working in a time of depression.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I appreciate the point raised by the Solicitor-General, but I should like to be perfectly clear on this matter. Is such a case as I have cited in the cotton trade included?
      Mr. BUXTON: Certainly it would be.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: That being so, I do not press my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: Leave out the word "trade" ["during any period of depres-
      1886
      sion in his trade"], and insert instead thereof, the word "business."—[Mr. Buxton.]
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move to leave out the word "systematically" ["have been systematically working short time"]. I really do not see the meaning of the word "systematically." I do not see what it is wanted for. Either the workmen are working short time or they are not. The thing must be perfectly clear, and I think that the fewer qualifying ones we have, the better. This has got to be interpreted by the officials of the Board of Trade, and I think the matter had better be made perfectly simple.
      Mr. BUXTON: These are the recognised words in regard to short time, and they really mean that the short time worked should be practically applied to the various classes of labour throughout the particular industry for a particular period. You cannot take some men in some particular part of a factory and work them short time, and another lot of exactly the same class and work them full time, and then claim a refund on those working short time. It must be really bonâ fide short time, and the word "systematically" seems to us to cover that point.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Arising out of what the President of the Board of Trade has said, I would point out that this happens in the ordinary course of business. I take the case of an engineering works. The foundry may be working systematically short time, because there may have passed through the foundry articles on which work is being done in the workshops. The erecting shop may be on full time. Does this word "systematically" mean short time throughout the business, or can we divide the business into units of shops?
      Mr. BUXTON: I said so.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did not understand that. If that is what is meant and the Board of Trade have considered these words, I should not expect my hon. Friend to press the Amendment, because that is exactly what is wanted. What we want to deal with is the shop as the unit rather than the business as the unit. I was afraid that the Government words mean that the business is to be treated as a unit rather than the shop.
      Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps I used a wrong word. I said "grades;" I meant workmen working at a particular form of work.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If that is so the word "systematically" meets the point I have in mind, but I do not think it is at all clear. I do not want to argue a verbal point and divide the Committee, but cannot the Government suggest other words to make it perfectly clear that if the men in one particular shop are working short time the employer may have the advantage of the Clause in that case? I think now you have put in the word "business" instead of "trade," you have made the business the unit rather than the trade, and you have made it less obvious that it may refer only to a particular department of the business.
      Mr. HILLS: I believe we all have the same object at heart, but I think we want some words like "in his business" or "any process of his business," because the word "business" is surely a very wide word, and for an individual employer would include of necessity all processes inside that business, and I think if the Government will consider if some words of that sort, "process" or "department," can be added it would meet the point.
      Sir J. SIMON: Really these words have not been put in casually or by chance. They really represent as it appears to me, what is the desire of the hon. Gentleman. If you attempted to carry out the suggestion now made, so far from increasing the concession it is quite possible you would limit it. We do not say in the Clause, "all the workmen employed by him are systematically working short time," we say "workmen employed by him."
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will you say "any workman"?
      Sir J. SIMON: I would say so if the draughtsman thought the change made it any better, but if he does not I must ask not to be requested to take every suggestion that is made at a moment's notice. These words have been considered with a good deal of care, and, as they stand, they do not require that the whole of the employer's staff should be working short time. They require that he should show that workmen employed by him have been working short time, and I suggest if we put in these limitations it is very likely to operate not in favour of the view he wants, but even to cut down the advantage of the Clause. As for "systematic," it really deals with a different point. It deals with
      1888
      this: A man says "In a period of a year workmen employed by me have been working short time." He ought not to satisfy the conditions of this Clause by showing that for only a portion of the year, one week out of four throughout the period, they have been working short time. They ought to have been working short time systematically during the period. Let him come and show a shorter period during which they have been systematically so working. The draughting is quite right.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think we are all agreed as to the object. Perhaps the Government will consider if it can be made clearer.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. HAMILTON BENN: I beg to move, after the word "of," ["on behalf of such workmen"] to insert the word "any."
      The object of the Amendment is to provide a right to a refund by the employer for such workmen as he has paid a contribution for. According to the way it stands now, it might be held to read that he should only recover if he paid on all his workmen, and I apprehend that is not the intention of the Clause.
      Sir J. SIMON: I really think, if I understand my hon. Friend, that what the Bill says is that, because there is no difference between saying "on behalf of such workmen" and "on behalf of any such workmen." If the hon. Member means to say, "on behalf of any of such workmen," that is an Amendment which we really could not accept. We cannot pick out an individual who has worked short time and give him that concession. But if he shows that a fair group of workmen employed by him have been systematically working short time he is to have the concession in respect of such workmen. There is really no difference between saying "such workmen" and "any such workmen," except that in one respect you use two words and in the other you use three.
      Mr. HAMILTON BENN: Excepting this—that the employer may not have paid contributions for all the men who are working short time. He may have paid for only a certain portion of his men, and he ought to be able to recover for those men for whom he has paid, even if he has not paid for all the men in his employment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: Leave out the word "may" ["there may be refunded to him"] and insert instead thereof the word "shall."—[Mr. Buxton.]
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, after the word "workmen" ["in respect of those workmen"], to insert the words "(including those paid on behalf of the workmen as well as those paid on his own behalf)."
      It has been represented to us by more than one association both of employers and men, and by members of the Committee as well, as to whether it is clear on the face of it that in the event of recognised systematic short time taking place, and the Board of Trade being willing to refund, that covers not only the payment of the employer's contribution, but the payment of the workmen's contribution as well. We fully intended that it should cover both, and these words are inserted in order on the face of it to make it quite clear. We believe our words were correct before, but this is to make it perfectly clear.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move after the word "that," ["provided that no such refund"], to insert the words, except in a case where the working of short time has been effected by stopping the work for some day in the week which has been usually recognised as a working day of at least four hours in the trade and district.
      Sir J. SIMON: Perhaps I might just explain the object. The proviso at the end of the Clause is designed to lay down the conditions under which the short time privilege can be claimed, and what is necessary according to the proviso is that there should have been so great a reduction from the normal length of work in the week as to amount to a sixth of the week's work. That is to say, until you have stopped a sixth of your normal number of hours a week, you do not come under this Clause. It has been pointed out to us that there being six working days in the week, and Saturday feeing one, and a short day, a not uncommon form of short time, at any rate in certain industries, is to drop all work on Saturday. This, I fancy, in many trades is not uncommon. Certainly it is not in the textile trades though, at the moment, they are not inside the Bill. It seems to us it would be probably undesirable and unfair that, assuming that short time was adopted, we should none the less refuse the benefits of the Clause
      1890
      to the employer, and these words are designed to give him the privilege of this Clause supposing that he effects the short time by stopping work on one day of the week, which day in prosperous times is worked to at least the extent of four hours. Since it is a short day it would not be quite a sixth of the whole.
      Mr. HILLS: The Amendment says the short day must be a working day of at least four hours. Do you not want the words "not more than four hours"? A full working day is a working day of at least four hours, and, supposing you pass the Amendment in this form, you could drop a full day's work and still you would only be dropping a day of at least four hours' work.
      Sir J. SIMON: I do not think so. We are only trying to express the same thing. The proviso says, in effect, "Provided that a certain refund shall not take place unless there is a reduction of at least a sixth." We are proposing to make an exception upon that, and the case which the hon. Member suggests, when it is a full day which is dropped, would be a case where the time is more than a sixth, so that it would be covered by the proviso.
      Mr. BARNES: Supposing the week consists of sixty hours and the employer stops on Saturday, which is only a four hours' day, I understand he will be entitled to the exemption. It seems to me that four hours is a very small number off sixty to constitute short time, and it may be that employers will take advantage of this and squeeze the men for the remainder of the week. Let me give a case in point. I heard only the other week of one of the Government factories having started short time some time ago by this very method of stopping on Saturday. I do not know whether four hours is the time or not. The time-workers have a grievance because they are stopped for four hours, and they say the piece-workers' earnings are exactly the same as they were when working a full week. If the production of the factory can be squeezed up by increased supervision and greater pressure so that there is maintained in fifty-six hours what has been the production in sixty hours, I see no reason why either employer or workman should be entitled to any exemption. I think the four hours is a small margin to constitute a short time.
      Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that the hon. Member in what he has been saying

      1891
      has allowed for the fact that the whole Clause is inoperative unless the employer satisfies the Board of Trade that in his individual business there is a period of exceptional depression. It is only in those circumstances that it can apply at all.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. BAIRD: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to insert the following new Sub-section:
      If any employer feels aggrieved by the decision of the Board of Trade on any question arising under this Sub-section he may appeal therefrom to an umpire appointed under this Part of this Act, whose decision shall be final.
      This question was discussed on the previous Clause, but it was there intended to apply to workmen. Here it is intended to apply to employers. We are endeavouring to secure equal rights for both sides. The Government refused to concede our demands as regards workmen. That makes it all the more difficult to concede our demand as regards employers, I admit. But that does not destroy the justice of the case with regard to either side. I trust that the Government will at any rate tell us why they will not accept the Amendment in this case, because it has a far more wide-reaching application. This deals with funds which it is the interest of the Board of Trade to keep as much as possible in their own hands, in order to provide for contingencies which may arise in the working of the Bill. Therefore, as you are likely to have a conflict of interest in this case it is specially desirable that the decision should not rest with one of the parties, who would be a judge in his own case under the terms of the Bill as it stands at present. The case here is even stronger than it is under Clause 71. Therefor I would urge the Government to give this point their favourable consideration.
      Mr. BUXTON: The answer in regard to this Clause is really quite clear. Certainly what we shall intend and desire is that the employer intending to work short time should in most circumstances communicate with the Board of Trade beforehand to see how far he would be likely to come under the operation of this Clause. Otherwise naturally he is taking considerable risk. It is clear that if this is to be a matter of friendly negotiation, as I think it must be, it is not a case in which there should be an appeal. The Clause is one in which we
      1892
      must have considerable elasticity. In the last Clause there was something to be said for an appeal. In this case an appeal would alter the whole idea of the Clause, and the whole relations which I hope will subsist in this matter between the employer and the Board of Trade.
      Mr. BAIRD: Surely this Clause applies to the period subsequent to the time when the short time has arisen, and if I understood the President rightly he gave us to understand that an employer would foresee a period of short time and would go to the Board of Trade and say, "I propose to put my men on short time, but only provided I can be certain of getting this money back." What man on earth can foresee a period of short time that is likely to be a prolonged period? If that is so, there is all the more necessity for setting up an umpire to decide these questions. I hope I misunderstood the President of the Board of Trade. I should much prefer to be accused of stupidity in this connection than that he should have conveyed this impression, because really I do not think it is possibly workable. Perhaps the right hon. Gentle man would give a further explanation and put me out of doubt.
      Mr. BUXTON: I am very sorry that I was so elusive or stupid. The position is: at a particular moment, in consequence of depression in trade or business, the employer desires to put his men on short time. He is anxious to know before doing so how far he may be able to obtain benefit under this Clause, and probably hi most cases if he himself communicated with the Board of Trade a few hours notice would be enough—there is no necessity for any long period of waiting—to find out how far his particular position would be likely to be recognised by the Board of Trade as coming within the provisions of this particular Clause. That is what I intended to convey.
      Mr. BAIRD: If that is the case surely that ought to be conveyed in the Clause. The Clause simply says that if the short time has been worked then the employer can get this relief. I understand from the President that the employer will be able confidently to expect this relief before the short time has arisen. These words of mine, I agree, do not meet that point at all, but if the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade appeared in the Bill it would be less necessary, although I do not think it would be unnecessary,

      1893
      to move this Amendment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the possibility of putting in words which will make it clear that it is the business of the employer—it is not clear from the Bill as it stands—to inquire before the short time comes in whether he is justified in working his men on short time, with the reasonable prospect of being accepted as coming under this Clause.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think the procedure which has been suggested by the Government is very unsatisfactory. I think an employer ought to be perfectly confident that when a period of depression has arisen, if he puts his men on short time and pays the contributions they will be refunded.
      Mr. BUXTON: So they will be.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: According to the procedure suggested by the right hon. Gentleman you have to go to the Board of Trade and ask.
      Mr. BUXTON: No, that is only in cases of doubt.
      The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I should have intervened before. That question does not arise upon the present Amendment. The simple question is whether there shall or shall not be an appeal to an umpire from the decision of the Board of Trade.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I was only following what previous speakers had said, but my point was that a man ought to be able to feel confident that he will be repaid, and in this case as the matter is a very important one there ought to be some tribunal to appeal to beyond the Board of Trade. Whatever may have been the argument against having an umpire in the case of the last Clause, this is a very important matter. Many points arise on the question whether there is trade suppression. Surely an umpire is the proper person to decide that. The Board of Trade might take—I do not say they would—a very unreasonable view. At all events if they did the employer who believes himself that there is trade depression, and probably knows it, and is deliberately paying the contributions of the men, ought to have some tribunal besides the Board of Trade to settle the point. Then there is the question raised whether he is doing it systematically or whether he is doing it only in one particular shop instead of in his own works. It might be
      1894
      held that there is no particular depression in his trade generally, but there is in one department of his trade. Must he accept the absolute ipse dixit of a Government Department? I do not think the Government are treating the employer quite fairly in this matter, although I do not suggest that they intend to be unfair. There should be some further tribunal, and I think the argument for an appeal to an umpire on this Clause is a very strong one, and I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment.
      Sir A. MOND: I hope that for the sake of employers the Board of Trade will not listen to these continual appeals for umpires and other persons. Employers want to get matters settled. We are all confident that the Board of Trade are more competent people to go to than any other umpire.
      Mr. PRIMROSE: I wish to join with the hon. Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) in the hope that the Government will not give way. One of the great objections to all these forms of social legislation raised by the Opposition is that we are setting up new officials. Now they are actually proposing to set up officials themselves. You cannot have a better umpire than the Board of Trade. Their decisions have to be defended in the House of Commons, and that is infinitely more satisfactory than the appointment of additional umpires.
      Mr. HAMILTON BENN: The great objection to the insertion of this Amendment on the previous Clause was that the matters which had to be determined were questions of fact which it was unnecessary to go to an umpire about. Under this Clause it is quite different. There may be a number of questions about which there may be considerable doubt. They are questions of fact, not of opinion, and these are particularly matters in which an umpire should be employed.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
      Question proposed, "That the Clause, as Amended, stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope the President of the Board of Trade will consider the point which has been discussed to some extent on the last Amendment, which I wish to refer to now because it is of great importance. As the Clause stands, it says that if any employer

      1895
      satisfies the Board of Trade that he has paid contributions, then something may happen. But the employer is not to go to the Board of Trade until after he has paid the contributions. He has to satisfy the Board of Trade after the event. It is quite clear that if the employer is to go on paying contributions for the men, he ought to be able to satisfy the Board of Trade, by some arrangement in advance, that he wishes to get the benefit of this Clause, otherwise what will happen will be that the men, instead of having contributions paid for them by the employer, will lose that benefit, and the employer will be in a state of uncertainty as to whether he can come under this Clause or not. I am not going to vote against the Clause, but I want the President of the Board of Trade to consider this with a view to redrafting it. It is not enough to say, "Oh well, we shall make a provisional arrangement, or the employer can make a provisional arrangement with the Board of Trade in advance, or that the employer will submit to the Board of Trade that he proposes to go on short time," because the Board of Trade official, to whom he makes the proposal, cannot make any decision in advance or make any promise in advance. If he did make a promise in advance, that promise would not be in any degree binding, because, at the end of the time, the employer says to him that he has been paying, in the words of the Section. The Board of Trade can ignore any conversations that have gone on before, and, besides, the Board of Trade official in that particular district or place might have been changed and have no record of the arrangement. The words of this Section preclude by their very terms any such arrangement in advance. There ought to be power to make an arrangement in advance, and I ask the President of the Board of Trade between now and the Report stage to see whether he cannot introduce some words which will carry into practical effect the intention of the Government.
      Mr. BUXTON: I have explained to the Committee already what is the intention of this Section. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Hamilton Benn) apparently seems to be under a misapprehension in the matter. It is not the intention to put anything compulsorily on the employer, but to see how, in cases of doubt, the matter may be settled. We will see, from
      1896
      the point of view of drafting, how far words can be put in to enable the employer to consult the Board of Trade. Looking at it from the drafting point of view, I really do not think that we shall find words which could be inserted giving a voluntary guarantee which is required. The Board of Trade official could not give an absolute guarantee, because the circumstances might alter. All he can do is to give a moral guarantee, which is rather difficult to put into an Act of Parliament, but, as I have stated, the intention is there.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: Before passing the Clause, I should like to ask the Government, for I think it is really desirable the Committee should have some information from the Government, as to whether they have made any financial provisions to meet the claims likely to be heavy claims, that are going to come into operation in connection with this Clause. Let me point out the fact that this Clause is not only to meet the needs of a very large fund, but is to refund the employers in respect of the workmen's contributions. During the period of short time no contributions are to come into that Fund. The Fund is to be used for the purpose of giving unemployment benefit to a man who has become unemployed immediately after a period of short time; that being so, I think the Committee at this stage ought to have some information from the Government as to what financial provisions are to be made to meet the claims which will arise under the operation of that Clause.
      Mr. PENRY WILLIAMS: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to fix any limit of time to this short time work? If short time is worked for a limited period, it is an advantage; at the same time, if it is worked for a long period, then sufficient should be given to the workpeople to live upon, otherwise, this short time would be deleterious to the workmen themselves. I know a case in my own constituency where the workmen only work one or two days per week. The people hang about month after month, and six months after six months, in the hope that the works will go on full time, and they remain in a state of semi-starvation. I hope the Board of Trade will fix a limit in which the rebate may be paid.
      Sir A. MOND: I think the suggestion of the hon. Member for Colchester is a very valuable one, and I hope the Government

      1897
      will consider whether they cannot alter the wording of this Clause. It does not seem to me, if their principle is to be adopted, that the Board of Trade would do more than merely give an opinion; it would also be in a position to lay down something as to overtime, or what is systematic overtime. If an employer made an arrangement with the Board of Trade, he would go to the Board of Trade beforehand, saying, what it was they were to sanction. I think this Clause would be infinitely better from every point of view if it relieved the employer of uncertainty, and did away with such questions as have been raised by the hon. Member behind me. This Clause is very mandatory, because the word "shall" has been put in, and the word "may" is gone out.
      Sir J. SIMON: The suggestions which have been made deserve full consideration, and I will see that such consideration is given.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 73.—(Provisions with Respect to Workmen Engaged through Labour Exchanges.)
      (1) The Board of Trade may in such cases and on such conditions as the Board may prescribe, make an arrangement with any employer liable to pay contributions under this Act whereby in respect of workmen engaged by him through a Labour Exchange, the performance of all or any of the duties required under this Act to be performed by the employer in respect of those workmen, whether on his own behalf or on behalf of the workmen, shall be undertaken on behalf of the employer by the Labour Exchange, and whereby successive periods of employment, whether of the same workmen or different workmen, may for the purposes of the employer's contributions be treated as a continuous employment of a single workman.
      (2) Where any such arrangement has been made, all the periods of employment during which a workman engaged through a Labour Exchange is employed by one or more employers with whom such an arrangement has been made may, on the application of the workman, be treated for the purposes of his contributions as a continuous period of employment under one employer.
      Mr. BAIRD: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "through a Labour Exchange, the performance of all or any of the duties required under this Act to be performed by the employer in respect of those workmen, whether on his own behalf or on behalf of the workmen, shall be undertaken on behalf of the Employer by the Labour Exchange, and whereby."
      The object of leaving out these words is to raise the question of the participation of the Labour Exchanges in the work of this Bill. I should like to make it perfectly clear before saying anything else, that I am in no way opposed to Labour Exchanges, nor is it my intention to speak in opposition to the employment of Labour Exchanges for the purpose of assisting this Bill. But in this particular connection, I take it that this Clause as it stands, will deal with casual labour, or what is more properly called, occasional labour. That case is not satisfactorily met by the Clause as it stands. Obviously, it is the most difficult case you can possibly get, and it is the case that most stands in need of being dealt with Consequently, I do hope that consideration will be given to this particular portion of the Clause, which assists the casual man by bringing to him the assistance of the Labour Exchange. There is one particular class I have in mind; it is that of the man employed in the ship repairing industry, and who gets occasional labour. If I may give an instance that I have in my mind, it is this. A ship requires repairing and it is sent up to London or Glasgow, and her passage is cabled all the way along the coast. She is being waited for; the heads of the Departments concerned in the repairs, or the firm to whom she is going to be handed over, have to make their preparations to receive the vessel. It is a case where the work has to be done at once, because there is heavy demurrage, perhaps it may be as much as £200 a day. Consequently, the work has to be pressed forward. That is one of the difficulties in the employment of Labour Exchanges. The firm has its own staff of employés, its permanent staff, but it needs in addition a large number of casual labourers whose trade it is to do this particular class of work when they are required. As the Bill now stands, these men would be engaged through the Labour Exchanges. It will be necessary to state the number who will be required outside the regular staff. Then the difficulty arises that, as the Bill

      1899
      now stands, the employer has to report to the Labour Exchange each time he takes on one of these men. The Labour Exchange may be a couple of miles away, and a man has to go and report that he has been taken on for the job. There is no possibility of allowing the delay necessary to enable the man to make a journey of two miles each way.
      The next difficulty is with regard to the payment of contributions. I cannot properly raise the question here, as it will come on the Schedule, but unfortunately the matters are so closely bound together that it is difficult to discuss one without the other. Amendments are on the Paper for dealing with these points on the Schedule. It is perfectly obvious that the Board of Trade have realised what a difficult subject it is and how necessary it is to find some way out other than that provided by the Bill. Therefore in anything I say I hope the President of the Board of Trade will recognise that it is not said in any captious spirit, but that it is because the proposals have failed to meet the views advanced by the people immediately concerned, although they go a long way to improve the position. There are other kinds of casual labour, but in this particular case, if you take the Clause in connection with Part III. of Schedule 8, where the rate of contribution is laid down, you will still find that these men have to report each time they are taken on. That is as I read the Bill. But that is a physical impossibility. The first thing the employers require is that there should be some system of compounding with the Labour Exchange, by which an employer will say, "I cannot tell you exactly how many men I want, but it will be something between ten and fifty. After I have taken on these men I will report definitely every day how many men I have taken on, who they are, and how long they are taken on for." In this particular kind of work men are taken on sometimes three, four, or even five times in one week; a man may be taken on in the morning, and employed for half a day; he may be taken on the next day in the afternoon, and employed for half a day; he may be taken on twice in one day. If he is required to report himself at the Labour Exchange every time he is taken on, it will make the Clause unworkable. The suggestion advanced is that the employers should be empowered to make some provisional arrangement with the
      1900
      Labour Exchange, giving a rough idea—and they can give only a rough idea—of the number of men they will employ. They will then send in a report at the end of the day of the men actually employed, and those men will rank, for the purposes of insurance, according to the lower scale. Unless something of that sort is done, I am afraid the scheme will be quite unworkable for this particular class of men. There are, doubtless, other categories of casual labour, whose case will have to be dealt with. It is to elicit from the President of the Board of Trade his view upon the difficulties which I know he has been studying, that I move the deletion of these words. I want to make it perfectly clear that my idea is not to take the Labour Exchanges out of the Bill, but to arrive at some solution whereby they may be employed more usefully than by the method embodied in the Clause.
      Mr. BUXTON: I fully recognise the friendly spirit in which the hon. Member has so lucidly moved his Amendment. His object, so far from being hostile, is that the Labour Exchanges should, if possible, be still more used than they would be under the Clause as it stands. I might point out one flaw in the Amendment, although it is hardly worth while, seeing that it is not moved in any hostile spirit; if these words were deleted the whole power would really be left to the Board of Trade to prescribe what regulations they like; and obviously they would prescribe them very much in the terms embodied in the Clause. But that is a detail. As the Bill stands, the employers are able to secure their men through the Labour Exchanges under this Clause, in which case they would obtain the benefit of reduced contributions—that is to say, they would be able to pay 2½d. per week for each of a certain number of varying men; they would keep their books at the Exchange, and be able to count various periods of employment as continuous employment. That is the object of the Clause, and under it they would be relieved from the necessity of making a separate contribution for each separate period of employment; but there is no obligation whatever on an employer to utilise the Labour Exchange unless he desires. The hon. Member made the point, which, I admit, was a strong one, that a charge of 2½d. for every period of employment, however short, was too heavy a tax. We have Amendments on the Paper, under which the charge is practically reduced to a penny a day. It

      1901
      is always within the option of the employer, if he thinks it more effective from his point of view, to engage his labour in that way, and as far as I am aware the Clause is very fully supported, in principle at all events, by the various associations of employers who have made representations to me on the matter. They desire as far as possible to utilise the Labour Exchanges.
      The object of the Clause is, if an employer utilises the Labour Exchanges, to take over all this work from him and charge him for a continuous period of time—say, three months, or whatever it may be—on the whole of his labour, as if it had been continuous employment. We do not think we can do that outside the Labour Exchanges, for this reason. The employer has the option, at a reduced rate, although it will be something in excess of that charged to employers who use the Labour Exchanges. Our reason, however, for making this proposal is not only that we think it will be a proper relief to employers who use the Labour Exchanges, to make a somewhat substantial reduction in the contributions, but we desire as far as possible that this labour should come through the Labour Exchanges, in order that we ourselves may be able to organise it. We believe that this Clause will do something in conjunction with other provisions in the Bill, to diminish casual labour. We have one or two other Clauses which we believe will have the effect of assisting continuity of employment as against casual labour. This Clause, we believe, will be an advantage to the employer. But if an employer does not care to use the Labour Exchanges to carry out the operations referred to by the hon. Member, he will be at liberty to abstain from doing so, but he will have no real inducement, under those circumstances, to reduce casual labour. If employers come to Labour Exchanges, we offer them our services in order that we ourselves may be able to organise the labour at our disposal at the Exchanges. The policy of the Board of Trade in this matter is, as far as possible, to give a sufficiency of work to various individuals instead of treating it all as purely casual labour. That is the advantage which, we believe, will accrue from the provision of labour through the Exchanges over that which will be under the control of ordinary individuals. The inducement, as far as the employer is concerned, will be that the
      1902
      more casual labour he obtains the higher will be the contribution he will have to pay. As far as the particular point raised by the hon. Member is concerned, we believe that we can provide the necessary labour required, especially in the particular case mentioned by the hon. Member. I think it is quite clear that the labour can be provided beforehand. As far as our experience goes, our Labour Exchanges are getting more and more efficient every day, and I am glad to say are able to meet very heavy and sudden demands which are made on them. Under those circumstances, I think we must retain this Clause, because we believe that it will have the effect which I have indicated, and that it will assist in the extension of our Labour Exchanges. Without this Clause, we would have serious difficulty in dealing with casual labour.
      Mr. HILLS: I feel rather in a difficulty in regard to this Amendment. I am rather impressed by what the President of the Board of Trade said. As I understand the Clause puts a premium on the employer, or body of employers, who agree that they will engage their casual labour through the Labour Exchange. So far, I support the Clause, and I think everybody will, for it is in line with certain other operations that have taken place in regard to Labour Exchanges, and it is really an attempt to decasualise labour. I need not quote the other cases, because all students of Labour Exchanges know them. Here you have a very casual sort of labour which the Mover has used as an illustration, and the Government say if the employer will undertake to engage all the hands he wants through the Labour Exchange, that he will get certain advantages. The answer to that is that it is difficult, if not impossible, for him to do so. He cannot go to the Labour Exchange and get men, and the men will not put themselves on the books. I am in favour of the Government's proposal if the scheme can be made to work, but I am not quite sure that it can. That, I think, with all respect, is the answer to my hon. Friend, and the real solution is the screwing out of the organisation of the Labour Exchange, and not in the deletion of these words; for, if you give the same advantage to the man who does not use the Exchange as you do to the man who does use the Exchange, then I think you do serious injury to the cause of the decasualisation of labour. As far as we have gone at present, I am inclined to think the Govern-

      1903
      ment are right. But I think the Committee must understand that the Labour Exchanges should undertake the duty of finding and supplying this labour in such form as the employer wants He must be able to go to them and get the men at the time and the place he wants them. I should like to see some sort of mutual obligation contained in this Clause. It would strengthen the Clause in every way, and if the Government will consider whether they could strengthen the Clause in that way, I believe they will meet the objection of my hon. Friend, and I am certain that they will have made a great step in the direction in which we all desire to go.
      Mr. ALDEN: I do not think this Clause is likely to be a great success, but at the same time I do think that the experiment ought to be tried. I think we are all in favour of decasualising labour. I do not at all agree with some of the remarks made as to the difficulty of carrying this out. The main thing is that the employer should be under regulations in the matter and that we should get the right side of the men in this question. If the employer wants to decasualise labour he can do it. I have seen it done on a great number of occasions, and I know it can be done. Let us take a practical instance as to the Labour Exchanges. There is an employer at the docks who wants some men, and there are casual labourers hanging about ready to be engaged, and who obviously do not want to go to the Labour Exchange and be engaged. The moment this Bill becomes law with this Clause in it the employer intimates to all those men who are in the habit of waiting for work that if they want work they must apply to the Labour Exchange and be registered. He tells them, "You need not think that that means that you will have fewer chances of getting work. You will get more chances, because the men who register will have the first opportunity." Then the employer who is in touch with the Exchange by means of the telephone, tells the Labour Exchange, "I want so many men." The Labour Exchange sends so many men—the men who have been in the habit of getting work at that place. All that is required, it seems to me, is that the employer, or one of his clerks, should telephone that he wants so many men for the day, or two days, or half a day, as the case may be. When those men have worked so many
      1904
      hours, he can telephone and say, "I cannot employ them any more now, but I would like you to know that I may be asking for those men again very shortly." Those men have not got to be registered again. The clerk informs the Labour Exchange, and they are immediately reentered at the Labour Exchange.
      Mr. BAIRD: If the Board of Trade will allow the employer to use the telephone that will go a long way to meet my request.
      Mr. ALDEN: If the Board of Trade will not do a thing like that, the Board of Trade is not worth much. You have got to meet the difficulties of the employers and of the men in this matter, and as one who has had experience of casual labourers at the docks, I know it is absolutely impossible to work unless through a telephone. I understood that the whole principle underlying this was to work the telephone and telegraph. Unless you are willing to work the practical mechanical means at your disposal you will not get the work done. I think the hon. Member for Rugby may rest satisfied that the telephone will do away with a great many of the worst difficulties.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If it had been the President of the Board of Trade instead of the hon. Member for Tottenham who had made the last speech I do not think the hon. Member for Rugby would have even moved his Amendment, because practically what the hon. Member for Tottenham said could be done is what is wanted. The hon. Member for Rugby made a suggestion which I am not quite sure reached the President of the Board of Trade. The suggestion was that in the particular trade to which he was referring, the ship repairing trade, a ship comes in and a large amount of labour is wanted suddenly. The repairers cannot say until the ship is in what class of labour is wanted, or how many men are required. Would it not be possible to allow a firm of employers who regularly carry on business in that way to say to the Labour Exchange: "We will take all the casual labour we want through the Labour Exchange and through the registered men; but at the moment we want them, we do not want to have to send those men to the Labour Exchange." They hang about near the dock near to their work. There is no apparent machinery to enable the workmen to telephone to the Labour Exchange.

      1905
      What is wanted is that the employer should be able to say to the Labour Exchange, "I will take all the casual labour I want through the Exchange," and then to be allowed to do so from the men who are say at the docks, and at the end of the day, to tell the Labour Exchange, "I have had twenty men, or whatever the number may be, and in that way send on the names to the Labour Exchange." If that could be done, it would remove a real practical difficulty in getting men through the Labour Exchange, and it would be doing something which is fair to the men because you would be preventing an unnecessary deduction from their wages and a large amount of additional contribution, which they would otherwise have to pay under the Amendment as proposed by the President of the Board of Trade. Those men might be paid 1d. per day or 6d. per week, while 2½d. would be all more fortunate workmen would have to pay. I believe if the President of the Board of Trade could see that this machinery would be used in a sort of wholesale way that the difficulty would be removed. There is a very good precedent for it which all shipping men know well. They ensure against the loss of the ships of their fleet generally by a covering policy, and they declare as to the particular thing or cargo they want covered. In the sane way, could there not be a covering policy with the Labour Exchange with regard to all the casual labour required.
      Mr. BUXTON: As far as the telephone is concerned, it is used to the fullest possible extent, and much depends on how the telephone is used. We are anxious in these matters to meet the convenience of the employer who requires labour, and, as far as we know, the Labour Exchanges to that extent have given satisfaction. If an employer telephones to the Exchange, and informs us beforehand, he is always provided for, but I do not think it would be fair to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. These casual men are not men taken in the ordinary sense through the Exchange, and, as I understand, the suggestion is that the employer telephones up to say that he has taken on a certain number of men and that he wants to come under the provisions as to the Labour Exchange in this Clause.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The men will have previously registered.
      Mr. BUXTON: If it is merely taking men on at the casual place, I do not really
      1906
      think he is entitled to get this particular advantage of keeping the books and doing all the work for him which we are proposing in the Labour Exchange. It is where we are doing the work for him and assisting and organising that it comes under this provision, and to that extent this will assist in diminishing casual labour.
      Mr. BARNES: With the general objects of the Clause I am in agreement, since, as far as I understand it, it seeks to organise and systematise the labour about the docks and elsewhere. I have in my mind a number of trade union men who may be at a disadvantage by this. Those men belonging to a trade union may be in the position to get two or three jobs, and why should they be put in a different position to men getting two or three jobs through the Labour Exchange. I do not see any reason why they should. Why should men be forced to go to a Labour Exchange if they can get jobs as readily or perhaps more readily through the headquarters of their trade union? I have a case in mind where the headquarters in Glasgow of a trade union are on the south side of the river, and the Labour Exchange is on the north side, at least a mile away. Why should the men be compelled to go that distance in order to get the benefits of this particular Sub-section. I should like to know from the President of the Board of Trade if he would give me some information on this point. It seems to me to be one well worth his attention, and one to which trade unionists will attach considerable importance. You are going to force this man, belonging to a union, to go to a Labour Exchange in order to get this exemption, and I do not see why you should do so.
      Mr. BUXTON: This is not a question of unemployment benefit or a question of the trade union deduction, which is the point the hon. Member raised the other day. This is a question of whether the workman would be engaged by the Labour Exchange. If he thinks he is able to get his employment more suitably or more readily elsewhere, there is no obligation upon him to use the Labour Exchange.
      Mr. BARNES: Then he will get no exemption.
      Mr. BUXTON: In this case the Labour Exchange is doing something for him. It is registering and endeavouring, as far as possible, to find him work. They are

      1907
      doing something for his advantage, and, therefore, they are entitled to say that he shall register at the Labour Exchange. Indeed, I do not see how it is practical to carry out this Clause unless it is stipulated that he shall register at the Labour Exchange. The Labour Exchanges are spread now very much all over the country. We are gradually extending them, and I do not think that the difficulty of distance to which the hon. Member has referred is likely often to occur. I really do not think it is too much to ask that if a man is going to have the advantage of this Clause that he should be registered at the Labour Exchange, so that he would be in a position to take the job which the Labour Exchange is able to offer him, but it in no sense prevents him from going elsewhere.
      Mr. BAIRD: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman quite realises that our desire is to get into the Labour Exchanges those particular men who are now employed outside the Labour Exchanges. That is the precise point. It is no answer to say if they will not come to the Labour Exchange they cannot get the benefit. We want to induce these men to go to the Labour Exchanges, and thus decasualise. I notice the right hon. Gentleman walked very warily regarding telephones. Though he did say a proper use would be made of the telephone, the word "proper" is capable of wide extension.
      The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member can pursue this point.
      Mr. BAIRD: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "exchange" ["engaged by him through a labour exchange"] insert the words "or in his employ at the date of such arrangement."—[Mr. Buxton.]
      Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) after the word "under" ["required under this Act"] to insert the words "any part of."
      This Amendment is simply intended to make what is already in the Act a little more clear. If an employer pays contributions under this Act and makes an arrangement with the Labour Exchange, the keeping of the books and that sort of thing can be done on his behalf by the Exchange. I suggest the insertion of the
      1908
      words I have proposed in order to make it perfectly clear what is the object.
      Mr. BUXTON: I accept these words, but I have not had an opportunity of properly discussing the matter with the Treasury. I have had some communication with them and possibly on report the word may be altered.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I wish formally to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood)—in Sub-Section (1) to leave out the words "and whereby successive periods of employment, whether of the same workmen or different workmen, may for the purposes of the employer's contributions be treated as a continuous employment of a single workman."
      I wish to get a statement from the Government exactly what the words in this Sub-section mean. As I read the Clause, although I may be entirely wrong, these words apply to men whether engaged through the Labour Exchanges or not. Is that really the intention of the Government? The Clause says "the Board of Trade may in such cases and on such conditions as the Board may prescribe make an arrangement with any employer liable to pay contributions under this Act, whereby in respect of workmen engaged by him to a Labour Exchange." Later it goes on to say "and whereby successive periods of employment, whether of the same workmen or different workmen, may for the purposes of the employer's contributions be treated as a continuous employment of a single workman." This, I submit, does not refer to men engaged through the Labour Exchange. I suggest to the Government that my interpretation is right, and I would ask why limit this particular provision to people employed through the Labour Exchange? Personally, I think it ought not to be so limited. I think that in any case whether the men are engaged through the Labour Exchange or not it should be for the employers to make such an arrangement as may be prescribed by the Labour Exchange whereby successive periods of employment of these casual labourers should be treated as one continuous employment. I think it should be made clear that this can be done in any case, whether casual labour is employed through the Labour Exchange or not. Will the Government

      1909
      say whether they intend to include people engaged through the Labour Exchange or not? I am anxious to decasualise labour as much as possible.
      Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman has raised two points. The first is a grammatical point, but none the less important on that account, and the other is a question of policy. As regards the grammatical point, it looks as if the hon. Gentleman's criticism was well-founded. It does happen when we look at line 4 that the word "whereby" occurs in the Clause just in front of the qualifying expression "in respect of workmen engaged by him through a Labour Exchange. Later, in line 9 the word "whereby" is repeated. Therefore, grammatically it would appear that the qualification does not apply when the word is used a second time. That is not the intention of the Government or the intention of the Clause, and I shall ask leave later on to use the word "and" and leave out the word "whereby," so that it may be quite clear that both parts of the Clause are governed by the qualification. With respect to the hon. Gentleman's other point, he asked why limit this privilege to cases where workmen are engaged through the Labour Exchange. The argument which he uses to support his proposal is that decasualisation is a good object whether you do it through the Labour Exchange or otherwise. I would point out in answer to that, that you do not decasualise labour if you give a large premium to an employer to take anybody or everybody that comes along, without any regard to the organisation of the work of these people. That is not decasualising. It would encourage the employer to take the first man that came along without the slightest regard to the condition of the industry.
      The thing that is cheapest for an employer—and it is secured as the Bill is drawn—is to have a regular man and keep him in regular work. The workman who is regularly employed is the man in respect of whom the employer pays 2—d. in the first instance, and in respect of whom he afterwards gets a rebate of one-third. That is the cheapest kind of man really he can get. The next cheapest kind of man is the man who is not engaged for a period and kept regularly employed, but is engaged only casually, but through a Labour Exchange. In that instance, we are able to control and influence the taking-on of the casual labour of a district,
      1910
      and I hope to that extent to decasualise the labour in that particular industry. As regards the man taken on through the Labour Exchange, he gets this benefit under this Clause—that he pays only 2½d. a week, but he does not get any rebate under our new Clause 70. If you take the case of the employer who will not have a regular workman and keep him regularly at work, but insists upon taking his casual labour at the dock gates without any regard to the organisation of the industry, then he will have to pay a penny a day if the engagement is for two days or less, or 2½d. if the engagement is for more than two days, and he will get no rebate. As the Bill is now drawn, it has this merit, that it does in fact encourage desirable forms of employment as against undesirable forms of employment. We cannot accept the suggestion that in all cases the employer is to be entitled to be treated as if he was always employing the same workmen, if he is continually taking on men without any regard for the organisation of labour under the Labour Exchange.
      Mr. HILLS: As I understand the last words of this Clause do not operate as an extension of the new Clause 70. The new Clause gives the employer a rebate where he continuously engages a man for forty-five weeks in the year. I read these words, as giving the same exemption where a body of employers give a single man continuous employment for forty-five weeks.
      Sir J. SIMON: Which of the employers do you think would get the rebate?
      Mr. HILLS: That is a matter for arrangement.
      Sir J. SIMON: I should think it was.
      Mr. HILLS: Supposing my interpretation is right, you have made a much bigger stride towards the decasualisation of labour than by Clause 70, for you have allowed employers to band together and do a thing which no individual employer can do, and you have given them a premium for saying that they will ensure that certain men do get 45 weeks in the year. I think that is worth doing. The exemption of the employer is a very small price to pay for a very important advance in continuity of employment. The individual man cannot say that the casual labourer gets forty-five weeks employment in the year, because in some cases the employer has not got forty-five

      1911
      weeks to give him, but a body of employers can say that, and whether they engage the man through the Labour Exchange or not, is immaterial. But if they do agree that they will employ the man for forty-five weeks, I think the Government ought to extend the exemption with the object of ensuring continuity of employment. I do so read the Clause, and I hope it will be reconsidered in the light of what I have said.
      Mr. HOLT: I only wish to say that this body of employers who banded themselves together to employ workmen continuously would be certain to get the rebate without asking the Government for it at all, and without carrying it so far as to insure that one employer would always be the nominal employer of the workmen.
      Mr. HILLS: He cannot do that.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman I would point out that he seemed to think that the Amendment I suggest would enable any employer to obtain casual labour in any way he liked. That is not so, because this final Section of the Clause is governed by the words "In such cases and on such conditions as the Board of Trade may prescribe." It leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the Board of Trade, but only says that the employer need not necessarily do it through the Labour Exchange. So far from decasualising labour, that would be putting a premium on the employment of casual labour, because the matter is really left in the hands of the Board of Trade.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: It seems to me that we are missing the point—that the idea of the Labour Exchange is to act as a clearing-house. You must not have a lot of clearing-houses, but you must have one authority in this matter. Wherever you have to deal with casual labour, you must have one authority, and the only idea of the Government in establishing the Labour Exchange as the clearing-house was surely to enable us to get all the facts and figures in order to deal with these casual men. I do not think there will be any difficulty in the employers engaging their men by making arrangements with one another; but it does seem to me that you cannot substitute any other authority for this authority which shall act as a clearing-house, and I sincerely hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I will withdraw it.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "whereby" ["and whereby successive periods of employment"].
      Question, "That the word 'whereby' stand part of the Clause"; put and negatived.
      Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "successive" ["and whereby successive periods of employment"].
      My Amendment is with the object of making the Clause smoother in its working. I think it is not at all clear what the exact meaning of the word "successive" being inserted is, and it might give rise to difficulties. It is also not quite clear that difficulties would not arise if there happened to be an interval between the different periods of employment, and possibly, also, in the case of a man being employed for a single day elsewhere. I am not sure that that would not interrupt successive employment.
      Sir J. SIMON: We accept the Amendment. It really improves the Clause.
      Question, "That the word 'successive' stand part of the Clause"; put and negatived.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "contributions" ["the employers' contributions be treated as"], to insert the words "but not for the purposes of a refund of any part of the employers' contributions."
      Mr. HOLT: I want to ask you, Sir, for a ruling on a point of Order. These words obviously refer to the provisions in Clause 70; but Clause 70 has been struck out and a new Clause 70 is to be inserted. I want to ask whether if these words are now inserted they will in any way prejudice the discussion on Clause 70 as to the circumstances under which an employer may be entitled to substitute one workman for another.
      The CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, the hon. Member's point is founded upon the idea that the new Clause 70 must still be Clause 70. I would point out to him that it may be Clause 72, so that I do not think there is anything in the point.
      Mr. HOLT: If I may say so, that is not my point, Sir. My point is this—
      Mr. BUXTON: I will meet the hon. Member. As the Committee knows, Clause 70 was withdrawn in order to insert a new Clause, and the original Clause therefore, comes at the end. I assure my hon. Friend that supposing any alterations are made by the Committee in substance to the new Clause 70, inconsistent with this, this will have to be altered to make it consistent with the new Clause 70.
      Mr. HOLT: Yes, but supposing we wish to make alterations in the new Clause 70, which are inconsistent with this, shall we be told when we get to that Clause, that by inserting this Amendment we shall already have prejudged the issue?
      The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how it will prejudge it.
      Sir J. SIMON: We do not take any exception.
      Mr. HOLT: Then I am quite satisfied.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "may," ["may for the purposes of the employers' contributions"] insert the words "subject to regulations made by the Board of Trade";
      At the end of Sub-section (1), add the words "and those regulations may provide for the refund of part of his contributions accordingly."
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 74.—(Subsidiary Provisions.)
      (1) If the repeated failure of any insured workman to obtain or retain employment appears to the insurance officer to be wholly or partly due to defects in skill or knowledge, the insurance officer may, if he thinks fit, offer to arrange for the attendance of the workman at a suitable course of technical instruction, and may out of the Unemployment Fund pay all or any of the expenses incidental to such attendance. If the workman fails or refuses either to avail himself of the offer, or to produce satisfactory evidence of his competence, or if the person in charge of the course attended by the workman reports that there is no reasonable prospect of such defects being remedied, such facts shall be taken into consideration in determining what is suitable employment for the workman.
      (2) The regulations of the Board of Trade made under this Part of this Act may provide for the return to a workman who is not a workman in an insured trade and to his employer of any contributions paid by them respectively under the belief that the workman was a workman in an insured trade.
      (3) Where under regulations made by the Board of Trade any sum has been paid out of the Unemployment Fund by way of reward for the return of a book or card which has been lost, the person responsible for the custody of the book or card at the time of its loss shall be liable to repay the sum so paid, not exceeding one shilling in respect of any one occasion.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I wish to move the Amendment which appears in the names of Mr. Joynson-Hicks and myself, namely, after the word "workman" ["failure of any insured workman to obtain or retain employment"] to insert the words, "under the age of twenty-one." This is a most extraordinary provision. It is this, that where a workman has been constantly unemployed, and it is thought the reason is a want of skill, that he may be sent to school, so to speak, and taught a trade, and this is to take place at the cost of the Unemployment Fund. I fully recognise that the intention of this is good. There may be cases, especially with young men, who keep on losing their jobs and fail to obtain employment on account of want of skill, and if that can be remedied in the way suggested, I certainly should not oppose it for a moment; but as the thing is now drafted, I think it is absolutely illusory. You can send a man to school, apparently, at any age, and really it is absurd to suggest that a workman of 30 we will say, or 40 or 50, who has been repeatedly out of work is likely to remedy his defect in middle-age by being sent to some kind of technical school. I venture to think if that is done you will simply be depleting the Unemployment Fund, which we all want to maintain as far as possible, without any results whatsoever. I want, therefore, to have some limitation as regards age after which this Clause will not operate, and the limitation which has been suggested to me is the age of 21. After 21, I really do not think it is probable that you will get any good results at all. I think it is very likely that you would under 21, and at all events the experiment might be tried, but I certainly do not want to see the Unemployment Fund used in cases where there is likely to be no good result.

      1915
      This matter has been pressed upon me very strongly by various associations and others who are interested in this particular Clause, and for the reasons I have given, I desire to move the insertion of these words on the Paper, limiting it to those under the age of twenty-one.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment. It seems to suggest that at the age of 21 a man has come to the limit of his development.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not insist on 21.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: It also seems to me to suggest that the hon. Member has not read further into the Clause, because it says that the insurance officer may, if he thinks fit, offer to arrange for it, and it would appear to me that any insurance officer who exercised common-sense in carrying out his duties would take into account the age of the man he was dealing with, and, therefore, it is hardly fair to suggest that a man of 60 would be asked to attend, say, a continuation school. It seems to me that the principle of causing a man to be trained if he is not suitable for a certain class of work is entirely good, and I accept the Clause as it stands.
      Mr. HOARE: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend, the Member for Dudley, for two reasons. In the first place, I am told by people very well qualified to speak on the subject, that there are many cases where an adult has been instructed simply in one particular branch of a given trade, and that one or two lessons at a course of instruction may make him competent to take other work in one of the groups of the insured trades, and secondly, I cannot see why a man over the age of 21 should not attend these courses. It seemed to me that my hon. Friend appeared to think that only children of an elementary school age attend technical courses.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No, that ends long before 21.
      Mr. HOARE: If my hon. Friend would visit some of the County Council technical institutions in London, he would find that many adults follow these courses of instructions, and I see no reason why a man, subject to the approval of the insurance officer, should not be required to attend a course of such instruction, provided the insurance officer is satisfied that by doing
      1916
      so he is likely to better his chances of getting employment in one of those branches of the insured trades. I, therefore, hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, "That the Committee do sit after 4 o'clock to-day." I would suggest that we finish at Clause 75. There are practically no Amendments to that Clause, except one to which I think the Government will be able to agree, and the Committee also.
      Question, "That this Committee do sit after 4 o'clock to-day," put and agreed to.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I ask the Government if they will be so good as to give me some answer to my point in general. I do not insist upon the age of 21, but I do say there ought to be some limitation of this Clause, and I say it in the interests of the Unemployment Fund, because this matter can be decided now by any insurance officer. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) is an educational enthusiast, and you might get an insurance officer who is an educational enthusiast. I hope he will be as good as the hon. Member for Chelsea, but these educational enthusiasts very often go in for various fads. I do not say this is a fad, but if a single insurance officer is an educational enthusiast, he might admit all kinds of unsuitable people of considerable age to obtain this technical instruction. It depends entirely on one single insurance officer. Though I do not insist on the actual terms of my Amendment, I move in order that we may protect the Fund, and limit it in some way, either as regards the officer or as regards the age at which men can be sent.
      Sir J. SIMON: I thought the thing had been discussed with candour and fairness by several hon. Gentlemen from the various points of view. I do not make any complaint that hon. Members take different points of view. After all, if we turn back to Clause 62, we shall remind ourselves of one of the statutory conditions under which a man, who is not employed is entitled to benefit. He has to show that he is capable of work, and incapable of obtaining suitable employment. Supposing a man comes and states that he is a carpenter, and that he is, in fact, quite ignorant of the necessary processes of carpentry, what do you suggest should be done? He comes and says so, and what is to be done? It is surely necessary we should have some machinery in the Bill somewhere by which we are going to do

      1917
      what we can for cases such as that. The first object of Clause 74 is to provide for a test of that sort. I quite agree it has an educational value, but I think we may trust the Board of Trade to see that their insurance officers do not go spending money on fads. It is not in the interest of the Board of Trade to spend money in fads.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think the Amendment is absolutely necessary. The Solicitor-General tells us if a man comes and says he is a carpenter, and that if he is not a carpenter that then you must send him to be taught carpentry.
      Sir J. SIMON: I did not say so. I said the first object of the Clause was to test.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: How are you going to test?
      Sir J. SIMON: I do not think the hon. Member has read the Clause.
      Mr. T. E. HARVEY: In the sub-division of industry it sometimes happens that a man is doing highly-specialised work. He has got real skill, but he has been at a particular work so long that he is not adapted to other forms, although he is qualified technically, and a very short time of training would enable such a man to take up some other branch of his trade by which possibly he would find work. I knew of a particular case of a man who was a metal worker. For a long time he did nothing but make kettle spouts. He was thrown out of work, and if he had had the opportunity of a few weeks or possibly less at his proper trade, or with proper training, he might have revived his skill and been able to get work.
      Mr. BARNES: I am going to vote for this Clause, but the more I hear its practical aspects discussed, the less I like it. I think on the whole it is a good principle that a man who has repeatedly failed to get himself into work shall be dealt with somehow or another by the person responsible for giving him money out of the Fund. I think that is a right principle, and that yon cannot get away from it. When I hear arguments, such as I have heard just now, I feel alarmed. I know the class of man my hon. Friend who spoke last has in mind. He is the man who, during his teens, has been an apprentice, and has been served badly by the employer, who has exploited him at low wages and not taught him his trade. If I thought this Clause was going to increase that sort of thing, I should have more misgivings than I have now. There is one thing, however, that I
      1918
      cannot get out of my mind, and do not want to get out of my mind, and that is that the Trade Unions have got to be on the ground in the working of this Act. I would hope that instead of that sort of thing being increased, that it will probably be diminished because the Trade Unions will have some influence in bringing cases to the Board of Trade, and that they will see that young fellows are not exploited and badly used in the way I suggest.
      Mr. TYSON-WILSON: Is the insurance officer to decide whether a man is a competent workman or not?
      Sir J. SIMON: It does not say so.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: It will have to be interpreted very broadly or otherwise it is going to cause great hardship. In the building trade, for instance, you may have men who are quite good as inside carpenters, and those who are quite good as out side carpenters. If the man accustomed to inside work is sent to outside work, and vice versa—
      The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that quite arises.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: Yes, it does, because under the Section those workmen will be sent to a technical school, nd they may be forty-five or fifty years of age. The outside carpenter is not able or accustomed to do the work inside, and the inside carpenter is not able to do the work outside. That is the point.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am not in the least convinced, but as I do not get much support I would ask leave to withdraw.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "course of" ["suitable course of technical instruction"], and to insert instead thereof the words "institution for." These are consequential words, to make if clear that the first part of the Clause is for the purpose of testing, and not education.
      Mr. BARNES: I should like to be clear as to the power of the insurance officer in this matter. I suppose that there will be no question of benefit coming in here. I should like an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade with regard to that matter, that while a man is under supervision or under test he is still going to get his benefit. I have no objection to the proposal, but I think that ought to be made clear.
      Mr. BUXTON: That is the intention.
      Mr. HOARE: I view these words with considerable apprehension, and for this reason. As far as I understand the Clause, the duty will almost invariably be given to the local education authority of testing workmen and of saying either directly or indirectly that the workman is unqualified for a particular form of employment. That seems to me to raise several extremely dangerous points. Take one of them. Anyone who has to do with Local Education Committees, will know how extremely difficult it is to make a course of technical instruction popular, and I am very much afraid that if it comes to be known that these courses are to be used to disqualify particular workmen, you will bring it about that working men will be disinclined to go to them as voluntary attendants at the class. That, to my mind, is a very dangerous thing. I cannot see why you should have these tests at all. The Clause as it was originally drafted, was, so far as I could understand it, designed to give a badly educated workman better education. To that extent I agree with it, but the Solicitor-General has just declared that the primary object of this Clause is not education but a test disqualification. That puts an entirely new phase upon the Clause altogether. I hope that these words will not be inserted, and that we shall go back to the Clause as originally drafted, under which it was intended that these courses of instruction should be educative and should not be designed to disqualify a workman and prevent him coming upon the Unemployment Fund. I therefore hope the Committee will not agree to the insertion of these words.
      Sir J. SIMON: I hope the hon. Gentleman and those who are supporting him will reconsider their view about this matter. May I ask the Committee first just to see what would be the general scope of the Clause supposing the Government's Amendments in it were adopted. This is the first of two or three Amendments and they want to be looked at together. Supposing the Government's proposals are adopted the general effect will be this. Clause 74 is intended to apply to the purely obvious principle that if a man is going to claim benefit amongst other grounds because he cannot get employment for which he is suitable, we must have some machinery for finding out whether he is really right in saying that the employment he names is suitable for him. Therefore the first object of Clause 74 as amended
      1920
      by the Government would be to see in a real case of doubt whether or not a man who is put to a fair test shows that his credentials are satisfactory. It is only when you have found out whether he is right or wrong that you can very well go the further step of providing for his training. It may be that he is perfectly right. In that case it will be the height of folly to teach him things which he already knows. On the other hand it may be that he was wrong and so hopelessly wrong that it is not practicable or reasonable to spend the Insurance Fund on teaching him the trade which he has named. You would not wish to go to that expense.
      If you have a case where a man is tested and there are such defects in his technical skill as call for training, and those defects can be reasonably met, then and then alone the object which my hon. Friend opposite has in view comes into range. That is the general effect of the provisions in the Clause. May I say one word to relieve the mind of the hon. Gentleman and those educationists who have looked at the Clause with the same suspicious glance as he has done. There is nothing in the Clause at all to make it the duty of any education authority to give this instruction or to impose these tests. There is nothing in this to say that the London County Council or the Education Committee must do it. We are not passing an education Bill, we are merely passing an insurance Bill, and that is why we use the expression "an institution for technical instruction." It would be very undesirable that we should set up machinery which would be likely to cause existing institutions to be unpopular The very fact that we cannot ask them to do it but can only ask them for their assistance is surely a very practicable safeguard against their suffering anything of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.
      Mr. HILLS: I hope the words that we are now inserting do not govern the last Amendment which is on the Paper for the first time this morning—the last Amendment before 74.
      Sir J. SIMON: No, they do not.
      Mr. HILLS: The Committee must admit that private Members are in a difficulty. We have suddenly put before us what looks like a wrecking Amendment of the whole Clause.
      Sir J. SIMON: That is why I asked the Committee to look at the others.
      Mr. HILLS: So long as that point is safeguarded I do not think I can follow my hon. Friend into the educational bypaths where he has trod, therefore I accept the Government Amendment.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Solicitor-General will now see why I was very doubtful about withdrawing my previous Amendment. It is true he has proposed this system of testing. I think a system of testing is very important. If it were not agreed to, certainly I think we ought to have some limitation as suggested. I know my hon. Friend and the other educationists are opposed to this testing question, but I am very sorry I cannot support them. I shall support the Government.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: May I point out that you are going to exploit the Unemployment Fund to meet education expenses. While the principle of private instruction is good, it seems to me that to exploit the Unemployment Fund to pay the fees of certain workmen and leave others in the Fund to bear the cost of this technical training is a weak point in the scheme.
      Sir J. SIMON: That is not the effect.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. HOARE: I hope the Government will agree to the Amendment that I am about to put forward. I imagine that it is their intention that the Board of Trade should pay for this course of instruction. If that is the case, I hope they will accept my Amendment, that in Clause 74, page 61, line 24, the word "shall" take the place of "may." That is a point that needs no argument at all.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: It seems to me there may be circumstances which will arise where it may not be essential that the Fund should pay. I agree that the Fund should bear the cost if there is no reserve. I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment, because it is possible that circumstances may arise where societies will be very glad to give these facilities. Do not make it statutory on the Fund that they must pay the money. There may be circumstances in which the employer might pay.
      Mr. HOARE: I am not at all satisfied. I cannot see that there will be any circumstances. The education authority, or the county council, or whoever it may be, obviously cannot give these classes for nothing, and who is to pay for them?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Where is the money to come from?
      Mr. HOLT: Any number of employers pay in a case of this kind.
      Sir J. SIMON: There is no danger of the education rates going up.
      Mr. HOARE: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. BARNES: Should I be in order in moving, for the purpose of getting a statement from the President of the Board of Trade, the Amendment standing in the name of Mr. Lansbury?
      The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
      Mr. BARNES: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) after the word "Fund" ["out of the Unemployment Fund, pay all or any of the expenses"], to insert the words "in addition to whatever unemployment benefit the workman may be under this Act entitled."
      I think the Clause is fairly plain, that the insurance officer shall arrange for the instruction of the workman and pay for it out of the Unemployment Fund, but I should like to know from the President of the Board of Trade if that is also his view, because, if so, I should, of course, withdraw the Amendment.
      Mr. BUXTON: I understand my hon. Friend has moved the Amendment merely for the sake of getting information. I had already assured him, by a nod, that his point was met by the Clause.
      Mr. BARNES: The nod does not get on the note, but after the President's intimation I withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. HOARE: I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "person in charge of the course," and to insert instead thereof the words "insurance officer."
      This Amendment places the insurance officer in the position of the person in charge of the course attended by the workman. I do this because I am most anxious to keep the teacher at this course of instruction out of any possible controversy, either with the unions or with the man himself, with reference to the particular individual's qualifications to come on the Fund or not. It seems to me tbe Board of Trade is responsible, and should take the responsibility.
      Mr. BUXTON: I understand my hon. Friend's idea is, that if there is to be adverse report from the officer of the institution, and that is given as the reason for the refusal of benefit, that that might be injurious in some ways, or put too much responsibility on the institution. I have no objection to the Amendment. I think the words as they are may have to be altered on Report, but I accept them for the time being.
      Mr. HOARE: Certainly.
      Mr. DENMAN: Would the hon. Member move to also leave out words, "attended by the workman?"
      Mr. HOARE: Yes, I accept that suggestion.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "that" ["the workman reports that" insert the words "the skill or knowledge of the workman is defective, and that."
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move to insert at the end of Sub-section (1) the words,
      If in any case the person in charge of the institution reports that the skill or knowledge of the workman is defective, but that there is a reasonable prospect of the defects being remedied by technical instruction, the insurance officer may subject to any directions given by the Board of Trade pay out of the Unemployment Fund all or any of the expenses incidental to the provision of the instruction, if he is of opinion that the charge on the Unemployment Fund in respect of the workman is likely to be decreased by the provision of the instruction.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Ought not we here to again use the same words "insurance officer"?
      Mr. BUXTON: We think the same words would not do, but perhaps it may stand, and on Report I will make the two things run together. Altering it now may really not improve it.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: Will the President of the Board of Trade seriously consider some modification of this Clause, which would throw the cost on the Treasury and not on the Unemployment Fund. This is primarily a Board of Education matter, and the Unemployment Fund should be re-
      1924
      lieved of the cost of technical instruction, which is really a Board of Education and Treasury matter.
      Mr. BUXTON: Under the wording of this Clause, the only individuals who would come under it and benefit from it, are those who, in the opinion of the Board of Trade and the insurance officer, are likely, in respect of the technical education, to lessen the charge on the Unemployment Fund rather than to add one. It will diminish the charge, if anything.
      Mr. HOARE: I will not move the Amendment in my name, as it is exactly the same as the Amendment the Committee has been discussing.
      Mr. HILLS: I should just like to ask a question with regard to the proviso at the end of the new paragraph. It seems to me it may limit the usefulness of the Fund, and it is impossible for any insurance officer to say that the education of a single workman will decrease the charge on the Fund. It depends on all sorts of conditions. Supposing a man is coming up for instruction during a period of trade depression. The education of that man may have a very small effect on the charge that man makes on the Fund. Surely we are want is the education of the man who has been taught an obsolete process; we want to teach him a new process, and is not that a matter that is best left to the discretion of the insurance officer under the supervision of the Board of Trade? It is an impossible proviso to work, it is very far reaching, and in practice, I believe, would militate against the usefulness of the Clause. I do not see that the Government want it because all the instruction that is given is made subject to the directions of the Board of Trade. They have the final word, and I suggest that the way in which they exercise their discretion should not be limited, as it is, in this way.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: It seems to me that this is narrowing down what I thought was such an admirable principle enunciated by the President of the Board of Trade. There is very little of educational suggestion in what is proposed. I think it is going to be governed by other things than educational efficency, and that if this cannot be widened in some way, that it is going to do little in the direction in which the Government have set out to go.
      Mr. BALDWIN: I hope the Government will sit tight on this point. I think this is one of the most extraordinary Clauses I

      1925
      have seen. I can only imagine that the Clause has originated in the brain of an educationist, and I thank the hon. Member for Chelsea for the word, who has escaped from Ruskin College into the Board of Trade. I do think that before this Clause passes it would be very interesting if some educationist present would tell us, having reference to the schools of technical instruction in London which have been alluded to, to what extent they would be able to help men in the insured trades, say, in construction or demolition of houses or in the contruction of railroads. Does this mean that a man who is an indifferent navvy and housebreaker is to be taught to be a plasterer? Supposing a man who has been brought up to the making of kettle spouts like my hon. Friend's friend, how can he be taught anything else, even supposing he came into the Bill, and I imagine he does not. I quite see there is something to be said from the educationist's point of view, but surely it is a false principle to mix up the education of working men with a Bill for National Insurance. I think the whole Clause is perfectly ridiculous. I sent down this Bill to a large employer of labour, and asked him for comments. I had some very valuable comments on all these Clauses, and against No. 74 he wrote the word "Rot" in big letters. I very much hope the Government will remain firm on this point, so that the Clause as amended by them may do as little harm as possibe.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move in Subsection (2) to leave out the word "may" ["Act may provide"] and to insert instead thereof the word "shall," and after the word "return" ["for the return"] to insert the words "subject to such conditions as may be prescribed."
      The object of this Amendment is to make the Clause mendatory instead of commissive.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) after the word "any" ["of any contributions"] to insert the words "unexpended balance of."
      It seems to me if a man has been employer, and if the employer has taken the risk, and if the man turns out to be incompetent or unskilled, I do not see why the employer should be entitled to re-
      1926
      ceive the full return of the contribution he has made, because you have to remember that such a person on losing his employment goes on to the Unemployment Fund. I think the employer or the workman should only be entitled to the unexpended balance of the amount standing to credit.
      Mr. BUXTON: This point is raised somewhat suddenly, and I have not had the opportunity of looking into it. I note the Amendment, and what the hon. Member has said, and perhaps he will allow me to look into it. I think his point is a good one, but I should like to have the opportunity of considering it.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 75.—(Offences.)
      (1) If for the purpose of obtaining any benefits or payment under this Part of this Act either for himself or for any other person, any person knowingly makes any false statement or false representation, he shall be liable on summary conviction to impisonment for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour.
      (2) If any employer or workman has failed to pay any contributions which he is liable under this Part of this Act to pay, or if any employer or workman or any other person refuses or neglects to comply with any of the requirements of this Part of this Act, or the regulations made there-under, he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, and also, where the offence is failure or neglect to make any contribution under this Part of this Act, to pay to the Unemployment Fund a sum equal to three times the amount which he has refused or neglected to pay, which sum, when paid, shall be treated as a payment in satisfaction of the contributions which he has so refused or neglected to pay.
      (3) Procedings under the foregoing provisions of this Section shall not be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Board of Trade, and may be commenced at any time within three months of the date at which the offence comes to the knowledge of the Board of Trade.
      (4) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as preventing the Board of Trade from recovering any sums due to the

      1927
      Unemployment Fund by means of civil proceedings, and all such sums shall be recoverable in such proceedings as debts due to the Crown.
      (5) If it is found at any time that a person has been in receipt of unemployment benefit under this Part of this Act whilst the statutory conditions were not fulfilled in his case or whilst he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit, he, or in case of his death his personal representatives, shall be liable to repay to the Unemployment Fund any sums paid to him in respect of unemployment benefit whilst the statutory conditions were not fulfilled or whilst he was disqualified for receiving the benefit, and the amount of such sums may be recovered as a debt due to the Crown.
      Mr. BARNES: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) after the word "payment" ["payment under this Part"] to insert the words "or avoiding any payment."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. BAIRD: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) after the word "has" ["has failed to pay"] to insert the words "knowingly or wilfully."
      Under this Clause men are liable to heavy penalties, and it seems fair that if a man has committed an offence unintentionally that he should be safeguarded by the insertion of these words, and that he is only amenable to this punishment if be has knowingly or wilfully committed the crime.
      Sir J. SIMON: What is the difference between the two words?
      Mr. BAIRD: I would not like to bandy words with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but there might be a difference between knowingly and wilfully.
      Sir J. SIMON: Certainly, we do not desire to use the criminal law for the purpose for which it is not intended, but if this Act of Parliament is going to be made to work smoothly and fairly, mere neglect to pay assumes rather serious consequences. It is an extremely difficult thing to correct, however genuine the neglect may be. The Committee must bear in mind these two qualifications in the Clause. No proceedings of any sort can be taken without the approval of the Board of Trade. There is not the slightest possibility of proceedings being taken unless the authority of the Board of Trade is secured for the prosecution. When such
      1928
      authority is given and proceedings are taken and the case is proved, there is to be a penalty, but what this Clause provides is simply the maximum penalty. It would be competent for the magistrate to dismiss the case, and although it was proved, to say that he did not think it was a case for imposing any punishment at all. I suggest, therefore, that this is not a Clause in which it is desirable to insert "knowingly." I am not at all clear whether "knowingly" or "wilfully" would be two offences or one. I think we may well rely upon the fact that no proceedings can be taken without the Board of Trade's authority, and that to the magistrate is left full discretion.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment. The Clause says: "If the man has failed to pay." The Solicitor-General says the man ought to know what he has to pay. That is not so easy as he thinks. Trades are scheduled, but there are subsidiary trades, and great doubt may arise as to whether particular subsidiary trades are included or not. It would be very hard indeed if, under these circumstances, a man who failed to pay subscriptions to a subsidiary trade which was afterwards found to be included in the Act was charged with having acted improperly. Very wide powers are given to the Board of Trade to extend the operations of the Act to other trades. There again there may be very grave doubt how far the extension may go. An employer may be under the impression that he is not liable to pay contributions in the case of certain workmen, but in consequence of an extension made by the Board of Trade, and not by Parliament, he finds he is liable. I think, therefore, to meet what might be a hard case the word "knowingly" should be inserted. I cannot see that the Bill will be in any way damnified by putting this word in. It will provide a certain amount of protection, which is not in the Bill as it stands now.
      Sir J. SIMON: Will the hon. Member tell me in what sort of way he proposes to prove to the court that a particular person had knowingly failed to pay. How would he prove it?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Simply this way. A case is brought into court, an employer says I was under the impression the Bill did not extend to my trade. The offence would not have been, committed knowingly by him.
      Sir J. SIMON: The employer will say nothing if he is a wise man until the case is proved. He sits still as his solicitor advises him. How are you going to prove the case?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: How do you prove "knowingly" in other cases? The word "knowingly" is in many Acts of Parliament. I know it is difficult to prove it, but it is no more difficult in this case than in other cases.
      Mr. HOLT: I think there is danger of grievance. On reference to the new Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade at the top of page 75, it will be seen that in certain circumstances it may be so doubtful as to what the employers' obligations are, that there is to be a reference to the umpire. I suggest that he should provide that in that case where it is necessary to refer the matter to the umpire for his decision, as to whether or not there is a legal liability to pay, there may be no danger of the penalty being inflicted.
      Mr. HILLS: May I call attention to a much wider point. If we pass this, are we preventing the employer from raising a perfectly fair case on the construction of the Act?
      Mr. HOLT: It goes to the umpire.
      Mr. HILLS: If these words are not included in the Act you make the Board of Trade the judge in their own cause. If the employer breaks any rule or regulation of the Ac the Board of Trade can prosecute him and he can be fined. I can conceive a case in which there is a perfectly genuine difference of opinion between an employer and the Board of Trade. Surely in this case you ought not to give the right to the Board of Trade in the first place to lay down regulations as to what the Act does or does not mean, and then go to a criminal court to enforce those regulations. I am sure the Solicitor-General cannot mean that. Yet the effect of this is that the Board of Trade can call the Criminal Law into operation to enforce their own construction of the Act. I think that has only got to be stated to be condemned. If there is a difference of opinion as to the meaning of the Act it ought to be decided in the ordinary way.
      Sir J. SIMON: I am very reluctant to occupy further time, but I realise that the hon. Gentlemen who are raising this point feel it to be an important one. I should
      1930
      be very sorry indeed, if the Committee thought that I, or any one who takes an interest in the proper application of the law, think that it is a small matter to create a new offence which can be prosecuted summarily, and in which the question arises whether the offence partakes of the nature of knowing guilt. What is the alternative before us? If you accept the proposal of hon. Gentlemen opposite, you are going to land yourselves in this difficulty—the man who will escape is not the man who deserves to escape, but the man who does not deserve to escape. The man who escapes will be the man who is careful to keep himself as far as possible aloof from the practical operation of this Act. He declares that he is away from his business, and that it is his foreman or his subordinates who employ the men. It does not matter to me, he would say, my solicitor tells me I cannot be held responsible unless it is proved I knew. That state of affairs would be impracticable for the administering of the Act. The other alternative is this. We have provided in the Bill that any man who chooses may get a decision from the umpire in anticipation. He does not need to be prosecuted. He can raise his point under the regulations by getting an authoritative decision from the umpire. If he does not do that, and he thinks that his case is a fair and reasonable one for not paying, he would be given a fair opportunity of establishing his case. In the first place he would not be prosecuted. The Board of Trade would certainly communicate with him first, and it is only after communicating with him that he is liable to be prosecuted. It is important to remember that the Government are making provision so that he can get a decision of the umpire in advance, and it is left to the Board of Trade to say whether there will be a prosecution or not. Leave the magistrate full discretion to deal with every case as it comes before him, and for the rest of it, do not give the dishonest and careless employer a defence which an honest and careful employer would never use; and do not say to the man, "If you shut your eyes to it yon will get off, but if you take an interest in your country's legislation, you will be punished."
      Mr. GOLDMAN: Might I suggest to the learned Solicitor-General that he should insert the words, "after being given notice by the Board of Trade of his inclusion under this Act." The penalties to

      1931
      which the insured person is to be subject are exceedingly heavy, and if you look at the Bill, as a whole, the provisions are so uncertain that you are subjecting a man to an undue penalty if you say because he does not within a given time insure himself and his workmen, he is to be subject to these penalties. I think the words I suggest would meet the case, because it would give the employer an opportunity of being told by the Board of Trade that he is under an obligation to come under the insurance, and if he fails to do so, the penalty shall have effect, but not before.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I would appeal to the Government to try and meet us in some way.
      Sir J. SIMON: I think the suggestion made is one that requires consideration. The hon. Gentleman suggests that before a prosecution takes place, the man prosecuted should have notice from the Board of Trade that they consider he is within the Act.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: Yes.
      Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Board of Trade cannot possibly issue notices to every employer to tell them whether they are within the Act or not.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: No.
      Sir J. SIMON: What the hon. Gentleman suggests is a preliminary to prosecution.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: Yes.
      Sir J. SIMON: I shall have to consider it.
      Mr. BAIRD: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the employer or the workman, as the case may be, will not only get a warning that a prosecution is contemplated, but that if they come into line a prosecution will not take place?
      Mr. GOLDMAN: Yes.
      Sir J. SIMON: I will bear the point in mind, but I think the hon. Gentleman will see that it would not be prudent, as a matter of business, to give any undertaking now as to the form in which it shall be done.
      Mr. BAIRD: I withdraw my similar Amendment.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "or in the case of his death, his personal representatives."
      Add at the end of the Clause,
      (6) In any proceedings under this Section, or in any proceedings involving any question as to the payment of contributions under this Part of this Act, or for the recovery of any sums due to the Unemployment Fund, the decision of the umpire appointed under this Part of this Act on any question arising whether the trade in which the workman is or has been employed is an insured trade or not shall be conclusive for the purpose of these proceedings, and if no such decision has been obtained and the decision of the question is necessary for the determination of the proceedings the question shall be referred, in accordance with the regulations made under this Part of this Act, to the umpire for the purpose of obtaining such a decision.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, "That the Committee do now adjourn until tomorrow, at 11.30 o'clock.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  Part II.—UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
    STANDING COMMITTEE B.
    [Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES in the Chair.]
    STANDING COMMITTEE B.

      CLAUSE 76.—(Periodical Revision of Rates of Contribution.)
      If at any time after the expiration of five years from the commencement of this Act it appears to the Board of Trade that the Unemployment Fund is insufficient or more than sufficient to discharge the liabilities imposed upon the Fund under this Part of this Act, or that the rates contribution are excessive or deficient as respects any particular insured trade, or any particular branch of any such trade, the Board may, with the sanction of the Treasury, by special order made in manner hereinafter provided revise the rates of contribution of employers and workmen under this Part of this Act, and any such order may, if the Board think fit, prescribe different rates of contribution for different insured trades or branches thereof, and where any such order is made the rates prescribed by the order shall as from such date as may be specified in the order be substituted as respects trades or branches thereof to which it relates for the rates prescribed by this Act:
      Provided that where such a revision has been made no further revision under this Section shall be made before the expiration of five years from the last revision, and that no order under this Section shall increase the rates of contribution from employers or workmen by more than one penny per workman per week.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "as respects any particular insured trade, or any particular branch of any such trade."
      We do not think it fair that any one particular trade should be called upon to bear the deficiency in that trade, and with the object of making the burden of levy as light as possible; we think if there is a deficiency it should be met generally.
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The object of this Clause 76 as the Bill as amended will stand is that both the contribution and benefit shall be the same for all trades included
      1934
      under the Bill until they are altered, and that the same should apply to any trade brought under the provisions of the Act, unless further evidence and experience showed that to keep exactly the same contribution and the same benefits for all the trades might act unfairly and unequally between them. As the Committee are aware, the proposals in this Insurance Bill are quite unprecedented. There is no such thing as compulsory insurance elsewhere and scarcely any compulsory insurance at all on a large scale such as this, and therefore evidence about percentages of unemployment or the measure of it in various trades was to a certain extent limited, and it is only subsequent experience that will show that in any one particular trade or industry unemployment is very slight, and that it might not be unfair in such circumstances to vary either the contributions or benefits, or both. What the hon. Member proposes, as I understand it, is in effect the question of variation of benefits which comes in under another part of the Clause, and that the contribution shall not be altered, although the benefits may be. May I point out that as a matter of fact that from the point of view of change or variation as between trades, it is very much better to have a variation on contribution rather than on benefits, because as far as the particular unemployed man is concerned, his needs are equally great, whether he belongs to a trade in which the unemployment is large or small, and also of course it is to be remembered that in regard to these particular trades, a considerable number of men are at one time working one section and at another time another section, and if the benefits are to vary as between those two sections it will be very difficult to know which would be the better benefit that a man shall receive at the particular moment When he becomes unemployed, so if there is to be any differentiation it had better be done by contribution than by benefits, but as a general principle, I think the hon. Member himself must see that before we decide that for the future and for ever there shall be one contribution and benefit, we ought to have obtained a greater amount of experience in regard to it. I point out to him that I am proposing later on in the Schedule to make benefits the same for two great branches of trade.
      As the Bill stands benefits are unequal in these trades. In one case they are 6s. and in the other 7s. We are prepared to

      1935
      make them equal because it has been represented to us, and I think with justice, that if we take a longer period than the period our actuaries were able to work on, we should find that on the whole the unemployment in the building group of trades was substantially the same as the unemployment in the engineering and shipbuilding group. The figures we have of the percentages of unemployment in the former group are larger than in the latter. We are prepared to take that as a proposition and see whether it is likely to prove correct. But it will be rather difficult to start with these equal benefits if we were unable at any time when experience had shown that they should be altered, we were unable to vary them. This elasticy must be left to the Board of Trade, subject to special inquiry and subject to laying the rules upon the Table of the House of Commons. It is subject to these very proper checks that such changes should be made, and subject to them there should be a discretion on the part of the Board of Trade, if experience shows there should be variations, to allow it on contribution. I think there is some misapprehension in the mind of Members on both sides of the Committee as to the amount by which the contribution could be increased. The limit under the Clause is 1d.; it cannot go beyond that. It does not mean successive periods of five years in which there would be successive pennies. The outside maximum covered by the Act would be 1d. and the discretion remains with the Board of Trade to decide whether or not it should be advantageous. Under these circumstances I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
      Mr. BARNES: I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade has not lent a more willing ear to the representations made by my hon. Friend. The Clause seems to make provision not only for a revision of the rates of contribution in any particular trade, but for the rates of contribution in particular branches of a particular trade. I should like to know what is contemplated there. Trade unions make no distinction between branches of trades, and I should like to be sure that there is nothing contemplated in the nature of splitting up the benefits covered in any particular trade union. But over and above that I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade has not met us, because I think this is a good claim, and that the men or group of men in any particular trade having a greater
      1936
      degree of unemployment should not be penalised because of that unemployment. That is really the kernel of the whole thing. The President of the Board of Trade is going to meet us to some extent in the revision of the benefits between the engineering and the building trades. I should say he has recognised himself that although the unemployment in the building trade is larger than in the engineering trade, that is no reason why the men in the building trade should only get 6s. and in the engineering trade 7s. In putting this claim forward we simply ask that the same principle which the President has signified his intention of carrying out with regard to benefits should also apply with regard to contributions. If a particular trade has not unemployment, then it seems to us that instead of relieving the men of that trade from contributions, their contributions ought to be kept up. These men are all the better able to pay because they have constant employment, and their contributions ought to go to the relief of those men who have not constant employment, and who to that extent are more unfortunate. I regret therefore, the President of the Board of Trade has not met us as we would wish upon this matter.
      The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): May I point out to my hon. Friend that the answer to his question why this Section refers to branches of trade is this: The expression "insured trade" is used in the Bill to cover as a whole each one of the list of five insured trades in the sixth Schedule. It is not at all the intention of the Bill narrowly to distinguish between subdivisions of general trades, but a case might arise in which it was not improper to regard two separate branches as existing within one of the insured trades in the Schedule, and in fact trades union practice itself recognises these special circumstances. Take, for instance, such a head as the fourth insured trade in the Schedule—the insured trade of mechanical engineering—it is, of course, known to everybody several trade unions exist that cover that general industry, and it is only to provide against such a possible case as that, that the expression "branch of trade" is introduced, and for the rest, the general policy of those who frame this Bill, is shown by the fact that at present we propose a flat rate and level benefits. We only demand this power after the elaborate machinery of special order is satisfied.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: Take the case of the building industry. If the President of the Board of Trade retains these words in the Clause, he will have the various sections of industry squabbling. We have heard a great deal about this being the first time that compulsion is applied to Insurance. Rates are compulsory, and

      Division No 8.]

      AYES.

      Baldwin, Mr.

      Harmsworth, Mr. Cecil

      M'Callum, Mr.

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

      Hayden, Mr.

      Price, Mr.

      Brady, Mr.

      Holt, Mr.

      Robertson, Mr. John

      Buxton, Mr. Sydney

      Ingleby, Mr.

      Solicitor-General, Mr.

      Denman, Mr.

      Jones, Mr. William

      Stewart, Mr. Gershom

      Goldman, Mr.

      Joyce, Mr.

      Williams, Mr. Penry

      Hackett, Mr.

      NOES.

      Barnes, Mr.

      Palmer, Mr.

      Smith, Mr. Albert

      Benn, Mr. Hamilton

      Roch, Mr. Walter

      Wilson, Mr. Tyson

      Mr. BUXTON: I wish to make it quite clear that this contribution cannot be raised, whatever the contribution may be in the Schedule, more than 1d. at this quinquennial valuation. There seems a fear in the mind of some hon. Members of the Committee, and others, that at each quinquennial valuation an additional 1d. might be added, but the total amount would not exceed 1d. The second point is consequential upon an Amendment I accepted from one of the Labour Members, making the rates equal as between employers and workmen.
      Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add the words "above the rates specified in the Eighth Schedule to this Act, or shall vary such rates unequally as between employers and workmen."—[Mr. Buxton.]
      Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: This is a very important proposal, because it practically gives to the Government, by means of the process of Special Order, the right to levy additional taxation. That is what it comes to. They can increase the rates of contribution both for employers and for workmen, and I wish to point out that such a power as that ought really to be granted by Parliament. After all, in the case of a Bill like this, Parliament is only making a big experiment, and if it turns out that the experiment is unsound financially, the proper way is to allow Parliament an opportunity of revising the scheme upon which the Bill is based. Instead of that, you give the Government Department power to revise
      people in a district have to pay rates irrespective of whether they are responsible for the deficiency which these rates have to make up. That being so, I hope we will hear no more about this compulsion.
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 19; Noes, 6.
      taxation, a thing which ought not to be done without reference to Parliament. It may be you will find yourselves in great difficulties. You may find at a given moment—say after a period of trade depression, that the Fund is depleted, and something must be done. May I point out that the Government have already got full power to deal with any temporary emergency under Clause 69 Sub-section (2), in which we have given power to vary the rates of contribution, or the rates or periods of unemployment benefit, by means of temporary modifications. I would submit to the Committee that having in Clause 69 Sub-section (2) met all that is necessary, the power to deal with an emergency, or a temporary variation of the rates, you ought not to have a permanent variation without an appeal to the House of Commons. I think if this scheme is to be revised permanently, it ought to be done by Act of Parliament, and for these reasons I oppose this Clause.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I feel that this is a very serious Clause, because it vitiates the whole principle of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced this measure, said he was going to construct this portion of the Bill on a flat rate system, and this Clause contemplates the change of the flat rate system to a differential system, and doing it permanently. That is the point I wish to emphasise. This Clause upsets the whole character of the Bill as introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The employer and the workman are in the first instance to contribute 2½d. each. By Clause 69 the contingency might arise of

      1939
      increasing the contribution by 1d., making it 3½d. Under this Clause you contemplate a further increase of 1d., making the employers' contribution 4½d., and the workman's contribution 4½d. or 9d. between them. Clause 69 contemplates a great deficiency, towards which you propose to devote this 1d. If at the end of five years you find that this Fund shows such a considerable depletion that you want to re-cast the whole scheme, and start afresh by imposing 1d. in respect of the workmen and the employer, the Government should give us some indication how they are going to meet this deficiency. I understand that under this scheme both the employer and the workman have to pay more, and I suppose the Treasury will have to pay more as well. Under these circumstances, this proposal is not sufficiently clear, and I want some assurance from the Government that in certain emergencies the Treasury will come forward and increase their contribution, even to a greater amount than merely one-third of the total contribution of the workman and the employer. I think we ought to have some assurance from the Government that if there is a heavy deficiency at the end of five years, and the scheme has to be recast to make it solvent in the future, the Treasury should give us some assurance that they are going to contribute a larger amount than is provided under this Bill. For these reasons, I associate myself with my hon. Friend's Motion.
      Mr. BUXTON: Hon. Gentlemen have been objecting to this quinquennial revision, giving power to the Board of Trade to deal with this matter, but what is the alternative? Simply to put the Schedule rates in the Bill, and allow them to continue until some subsequent Parliament may think fit to deal with the matter, which must lead to very great difficulties and hardships. Some hon. Members seem to assume that the only object of this Clause is to raise the contribution. On the contrary, the evidence we have before us at the present moment, makes us believe that the finance provided for the Unemployment Fund will leave a substantial margin, and it is, therefore, at present, on the side of safety. With further experience, better years of employment, and with unemployment reduced, it is more likely that the contribution and the burden thrown on the employer and the workmen will be reduced than that they will be increased. The hon. Member wishes to
      1940
      know what will be the financial position of the Fund if the contributions increase. In order to make it solvent there will be an additional contribution by the workman and the employer of 1d. and there will also be the State contribution of one-third of the total. Nothing could be worse than if the Government were to announce that whatever the deficiency the State would make it good.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: As far as the past is concerned. If at the end of five years there is a great deficiency, and you are starting to make your fund solvent, so far as the solvency of the past is concerned I should like to see that wiped out by the Treasury.
      Mr. BUXTON: I see no difference between the two, for it comes to the same thing. If the State is called upon to make up the deficiency, it deprives the Fund of any incentive whatever for economical and proper working. I want to press the point that in regard to this revision we are in the experimental stage, and it is quite possible that within a limited time it may be found that the Fund, as a whole, has such a considerable surplus, that either the contributions can be reduced or the benefits increased; and that is just as likely to happen. In fact, I think it is even more likely to happen, than that the contributions will be increased or the benefits reduced. I really do not know who the hon. Member was quoting in this respect. He said that this Bill was announced as a measure based on a flat rate. May I point out that it was not introduced on the flat rate, and it is not a flat rate. As introduced, the Bill had two rates. It divided its insured trades into two groups, with different rates of benefit, and therefore there was no flat rate. We have found after further going into the matter, and subject to one or two Amendments which have already been introduced, and some Amendments which have still to be introduced, that we consider ourselves—and our Actuary was able to certify to this effect—in a sufficiently sound financial position to be able to give a flat rate at the beginning. It did seem to us before that we should have some power of elasticity in the matter, and I put it to the Committee, that it is really better, in a matter of this sort, that some elastic power should be given to the Board of Trade to deal with this matter, when it is shown that there is

      1941
      either a deficiency or a surplus involving some alteration of their scheme. Let me point out that, as far as the House of Commons and the interests of the public are concerned, they are protected by a special order, which will mean inquiry and publicity, and full information on both sides. This is not a matter which the Board of Trade by a stroke of the pen can carry out at their own desire, but it is a case in which there will be the fullest inquiry under the special order of procedure. I wish the Committee to realise that it is necessary we should have this power of elasticity, and I think I have shown that all interests are fully protected by the method we are adopting.
      Mr. HAMILTON BENN: I wish to associate myself in this matter with the course taken by the hon. Member for Dudley. The arguments which have been used by the President of the Board of Trade is partly my reason for so doing. The right hon. Gentleman said this Bill was of an experimental character. If the contributions show a surplus at the end of five years, then we may take it that the experiment has been a successful one; but if at the end of five years there is a heavy deficiency, so as to make it necessary to call upon the employers and employed for a larger contribution, then we may take it that the Bill is not entirely a success, and ought in that case to come before Parliament again for revision, and receive that care from Parliament which it deserves in such a case. I have no objection to the Board of Trade revising the rates, but when it comes to a question of increasing the rate I think Parliament ought to have a chance of considering the matter anew.
      Mr. HOLT: As I understand it, no alteration can be made in these rates without Parliament having an opportunity of expressing that view.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: That is not so.
      Mr. HOLT: Perhaps one of the representatives of the Government will put me right on this point, because it is very important we should understand exactly where we are. As I understand it, no alteration whatever can be made in these rates under this Clause without Parliament having an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon such alterations.
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes, under the special order.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: But that is not Parliament.
      Mr. HOLT: Parliament must have an opportunity, and the increase cannot be made if Parliament disapproves of it. Under these circumstances it is in the hands of either House of Parliament to render the Bill absolutely unworkable if they do not approve of what has happened, and they would be able to force the Fund into hopeless bankruptcy and compel the Board of Trade to bring in an amending Bill. It appears to me that, under these circumstances, the interests of the public are amply safeguarded.
      Sir J. SIMON: In confirmation of what has been suggested by my hon. Friend, and for the comfort of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, I wish to point out that Sub-section (2) of Clause 78 provides for a special order of procedure, which gives a double check. It provides that if either House of Parliament before the expiration of thirty days, during which the Order is to lie on their respective tables, presents an Address to His Majesty against the Order or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon. I submit to the members of this Committee, who would be disposed to place rather more confidence in the Upper House, that the object they have in view would be adequately protected by the House of Lords. On the other hand, I would submit to those members of the Committee who prefer the judgment of the House of Commons that that Chamber will also have an opportunity of veto.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There is an Amendment on the Paper to make the period for the operation of this Clause ten years instead of five years, so that we should get rather more experience before this Clause actually came into operation. If the President of the Board of Trade could see his way to met us in that direction—remembering that he has power to make any temporary adjustments required to continue the solvency of the scheme—by providing that this Clause should not come into operation until a longer period has elapsed, I think that would meet our case. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept ten years, perhaps he might suggest some shorter intervening period. In that case I think my hon. Friends would feel that their objections had been met. This is really a serious power to be given to the Board of Trade, and we ought to have all the information in our possession

      1943
      before the Board of Trade is allowed to exercise the powers conferred upon it by this Clause.
      Mr. BUXTON: If the hon. Member for Dudley had moved his Amendment I was going to suggest that ten years was too long, and I should have been prepared to accept a shorter period. The first five years is too short, and I would suggest seven years as a good period for the purpose. Taking trade generally, seven years is the sort of period which covers a cycle of trade, and I think there would be an advantage in accepting the period over five years. I cannot put this Amendment in now, but I will only take to substitute seven years for five years on Report, if that will meet the view of hon. Members opposite.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: In view of what the President of the Board of Trade has promised I will not press my opposition to this Clause. I had intended to move my Amendment, fixing the period at ten years, but I was unavoidably delayed. If the right hon. Gentleman will agree to seven years on that understanding I withdraw my opposition to this Clause.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 77.—(Power to Extend to other Trades.)
      If it appears to the Board that it is desirable to extend the provisions of this Part of this Act to workmen in any trade other than an insured trade the Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, make, in manner hereinafter provided, a special order extending this Part of this Act to such workmen either without modification or subject to such modifications as may be contained in the order, and on any such order being made this Part of this Act shall, subject to the modifications (if any) contained in the order, apply as if the trade mentioned in the order were an insured trade and as if the rates and periods of benefit mentioned in the Order were the rates and periods of benefits provided by this Part of this Act in respect of such trade:
      Provided that no such order shall be made which would, in the opinion of the Treasury, increase the contribution to the Unemployment Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament to a sum exceeding one million pounds a year before the
      1944
      expiration of three years from the making of the order.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move to leave out the words, "with the consent of the Treasury, make, in manner hereinafter provided, a special order extending," and to insert instead thereof the words, "by Provisional Order extend."
      This Clause gives power to the Board of Trade to extend the provisions of the Act to other trades either without modification or subject to such modifications as may be contained in the Order. This is the very widest power I imagine which has ever been suggested should be given to a Government Department. It is not only to extend the Clauses of this Bill to other trades, but it is to modify in the Order the provisions of the Bill. A very similar provision to this was inserted originally in the Trade Boards Bill. It provided that
      "The Board of Trade might make a Provisional Order applying this Act to any specified trade to which it does not apply at the time if they are satisfied," etc.
      Then the Board of Trade were to submit for confirmation to Parliament any Provisional Order made by them, and so on. That was amended in Committee, and the Act as it actually passed was that
      "The Board of Trade may make a Provisional Order applying this Act to any specified trade," etc.,
      and there were provisions put in applying the ordinary provisions regarding Provisional Orders. That would have the effect of not allowing the Board of Trade by its own Order, even by an Order made under Schedule 9 of this Bill, to extend the Act to other trades, but it would bring the extension before Parliament in exactly the same way as they are now called upon to confirm or otherwise a Provisional Order. I hope the Government will accept this. I cannot imagine the Government could have supposed when they put in this Clause that any Committee of the House would be willing to give such wide powers to a Government department, not even to the Board of Trade. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to accept this Amendment.
      Sir J. SIMON: The Amendment that has just been moved raises the question: what is the proper sanction for us to require before the extension to other trades takes place under Clause 77 of the Bill? I submit to the Committee before they can judge that question fairly they must have some regard to what is the power

      1945
      which Clause 77 seeks to exercise. At first sight it might look as though Clause 77 had a very wide operation, such as naturally called for the criticism of the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment; but I think it will be found on examination that the scope of Clause 77 at its maximum is comparatively limited. In the first place, will the Committee be good enough to observe there is at the end of the Clause a proviso that the extension which the Clause contemplates can never take place unless the Treasury are satisfied that even with the extension the total contributions out of monies provided by Parliament will not exceed £1,000,000? That does not mean the extra contributions should be £1,000,000, but that any extra contributions added to the contributions already authorised by the Bill should not exceed £1,000,000.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: What do you estimate that at?
      Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member very naturally asks at what I estimate the contributions from public funds under the Bill as it stands. Until one knows the answer one cannot judge the possible operation of this Bill. The contribution from the Treasury is estimated at something between £700,000 and £800,000. It is in round figures £750,000, so that the maximum operation of Clause 77 would be such as would involve the addition to the contribution of something about a quarter of a million of money. That is the first limitation. May I point out the second? The second limitation which Clause 77 prescribes is the very stringent limitation involved in our Special Order procedure. Hon. Members who merely turn to the schedule to see what the Special Order procedure is have not before them to the full extent the checks which that Special Order procedure prescribe. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) pointed out just now that, apart from all the conditions of the Schedule, you have also to satisfy the condition in Clause 78 itself. Each House of Parliament has to have an independent opportunity for thirty days during which it is in Session of objecting to the proposed Order, and, if they object to that proposed Order, it cannot be made. It really is not accurate to say it is an extension which could take place without Parliamentary sanction. It is, indeed, Parliamentary sanction of a rather stringent order, because either one of the Houses
      1946
      of Parliament can put its unrestricted and absolute veto upon the whole thing without the consent of the other.
      May I point out the distinction which in our view exists between this proposal and the Trade Boards Act which my hon. Friend used as his precedent in making his Amendment? The Trade Boards Act is designed to deal with a limited and exceptional area, and what I may call diseased trades. It is not designed to deal with a problem which affects industry as a whole. It picks out certain special diseased trades and deals with them, and to go and provide by some form of special order that you may extend the Trade Boards Act, which is to deal with this special and limited area to any and every trade in the country, would, indeed, be making an addition very much bigger than that to which you would be adding it. Our case is really very different. I would ask the Committee to observe this: The question will arise as to what trade is within and what trade is without our Bill. It may be—no human ingenuity can prevent it—that the true view on some border-line case will be that a branch of industry from the practical and industrial point of view is really closely knitted up with one of the industries in the Bill, but it may be decided by the umpire, and quite rightly owing to the technicality of the matter, to lie just on the wrong side of the line. Everybody knows Acts of Parliament do not work out to cover the precise area which common-sense afterwards sees to be reasonable. If it hereafter turns out there is some area of that sort limited, as it necessarily must be by the conditions of the Clause, then this procedure which the Clause prescribes is adequate for the purpose.
      Let the Committee realise what, extremely elaborate precautions are to be taken. The Board of Trade are first of all to give public notice they contemplate holding a public inquiry to raise the question whether this additional area should be covered. They are to receive representations from anybody who cares to make them, whether employers, workmen, or the general public. They are to modify their proposal in accordance with those representations, and they are then to hold a public inquiry. At that public inquiry the different interests concerned are to have the fullest opportunity of being heard. It is to take place in the light of day, with every opportunity for public discussion, and, when it is over, what is to happen?

      1947
      The Board of Trade has not to say: "Now we make the order, and there is an end of it." On the contrary, we propose, to introduce by an Amendment a provision that, if the person holding the public inquiry reports the extension 'is undesirable, it shall be beyond the power of the Board of Trade to go any further. Not only so, but we even say the order which the Board of Trade make and which the public enquiry authorises and approves after full discussion is to be laid upon the Table of each House of Parliament in Session for thirty days, and that either House of Parliament is to have the opportunity by Resolution of negativing the Order. Is that in the circumstances an inadequate proceeding? Is it not on the whole a fair thing we should do rather than take the only real alternative, which is that we should in effect go in for new legislation, because provisional orders in some form or other are new legislation. In that case you would not only have the people who criticse your proposal as going too far, but you would also have the people who criticise it and say it ought to go further, with the result we should have every kind of person coming forward and trying to get into the vehicle which we designed only to carry a particular and it may be a pressing need. I submit to the Committee that in the circumstances our proposal is not an unfair one. It does give a reasonable opportunity to the House to keep control of this measure, and in any case it is strictly limited by the condition of finance imposed in the proviso. I ask the Committee to say our provision is adequate.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I should like to say one or two words in reply to the Solicitor-General because we are dealing here with one of the most important things in the Bill. It cannot be denied this is really new legislation. It does not matter how you do it; it is legislation. You pick out certain trades in the Bill where you think unemployment frequently occurs, and you make an experiment with them. You then take powers under this Clause to extend it. It is quite true, as the Solicitor-General says, they are limited powers. You are limited by finance. You have 25 per cent. margin even on the figures given us. £750,000 will be required under the Bill, compared with the one million which is the limit under this
      1948
      Clause. That is a 25 per cent. margin, and it means that under this Clause you can include other trades.
      Sir J. SIMON: Not unless the Treasury consents.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I agree that that is another Government Department. In addition to that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, you can do it with modifications; in other words, the conditions under which you apply this Bill to these other trades may be entirely different from the conditions contained in this Clause. It cannot be denied that this is a form of legislation which is being undertaken by a Government Department. The Solicitor-General says, "Look at the Procedure by Special Order! Don't you see that Parliament has a voice, because under the Special Order it has to lie on the Table for a certain time, and then an Address may be presented by either House, and if the Address is presented and carried then the Government cannot proceed with the extension." But let me point this out to the Committee, and it is a very important fact, that by an Address moved against a Special Order all you can get is a Second Reading Debate, and you merely approve the proposal or reject it. You cannot consider it in detail. It does not go into Committee; there is no Committee stage at all.
      But under a Provisional Order the whole matter may be gone into thoroughly. I suggest that the modifications which are specially put in this Clause ought to be worked out in Committee. I could conceive that the Government might extend the Bill by Special Order to some trade with modifications. There might be no objection to extending the Bill to the trade, but there might be very big objections to the modifications. These objections ought to be argued out in the House of Commons, or in a Standing Committee. I have had a good deal of experience on this matter. For five years I was a Charity Commissioner. I had to bring forward a great many schemes, many of which had to lie on the Table of the House. Very often an Address was moved for their rejection, and I know of one occasion when an Address was carried against me, where, if I had had it in my power to modify the scheme, that Address would not have been carried, and the modification might have been accepted.
      Mr. DENMAN: May I point out to the hon. Member there is already a provision that either House can object to any part of the Order.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I agree that that is so. But to take out any part in a single Address moved in the House of Commons is very different from going thoroughly into the matter in detail. What is the objection to the Amendment? My hon. Friend does not wish to take away from the Government or from Parliament, or from the House, the power to extend the Bill in any way. All he suggests is a Provisional Order Bill. What is the objection to that? A Provisional Order Bill is a very old form of procedure; it is one that works exceedingly well, and, as my hon. Friend has already pointed out, it has been adopted with regard to the Trade Boards Act. The Solicitor-General tried to draw some distinction between the trades selected and the manner of selection in regard to the Trade Boards Act, and the method of selection in this case. He said that the Trade Boards Act simply applied to certain classes of diseased trades. It kept out certain diseased trades, and would not allow any addition being made to them without the explicit sanction of Parliament in a Provisional Order Bill. But that is precisely what you are doing in this Bill. You are picking out certain diseased trades that suffer not from sweating, as the trades under the Trade Boards Bill, but which suffer from constant and periodic unemployment. After you have had a little experience in the working of the Bill, you will find other trades that are diseased in a somewhat similar manner, and, therefore, to say that we should do to them just as we do in the case of sweated trades, when you think others should be added to them, it is only right and proper to go through the full machinery of a Provisional Order Bill, so as to apply exactly the same process in adding the trade that suffers from the disease of unemployment to which this Bill is intended to apply.
      I cannot say that the Solicitor-General has been successful in showing why there should be no difference in the procedure under this Bill under the Trade Boards Act. I am bound to say from experience of the Trade Boards Act, I think it is right it should not be added to, without that thorough examination which you get by means of a Provisional Order Bill. For these reasons, I hope the Government will
      1950
      see their way to meet my hon. Friend. There is no question of principle involved. We are all anxious to make this Bill workable. Remember you are imposing a very heavy burden upon both employers and workmen, and if you consider the matter from their point of view, I am certain that both employers and workmen in a trade that is going to be added will want the matter thoroughly thrashed out in Parliament before they are included. I trust the Government will meet us in this, and, if they do, I can assure them that any further objections we have to this Clause will entirely disappear.
      Mr. BAIRD: I cannot understand the reason for hurrying this matter forward. Why should we proceed with haste in regard to the application of this Bill to trades which are not going to be originally included? Surely every word my hon. Friend has said with regard to the desire of both employers and workmen to have the matter thoroughly thrashed out before they are brought within the scope of this Bill is reasonable. I do not associate myself with what has been said on a previous occasion with regard to this question of insurance being entrusted to an "inferior" official. There are senior officials, and there are subordinate officials. I think the term "inferior official" should not have been used, and I feel sure it was not intended to be used in a depreciatory sense. By not accepting this Amendment, however, it seems to me that you are throwing upon an official duties which should be performed by Parliament, and which Parliament would discharge not in that cursory manner which may be the case if the Order has simply to lie on the Table. We want this to be performed thoroughly in the manner provided for by the Amendment to the schedule put down in the name of my hon. Friend.
      There is another point; not only did the Solicitor-General seem to indicate haste, but his remarks seemed also typical of the reckless attitude of die Government in matters of finance. He said that, after all, they had a quarter of a million sterling in hand. They may have a quarter of a million in hand, and that is one-third of what they are now going to expend. Apply that to the position of employers and workmen. The Bill, taking it in round numbers, will affect 2,400,000 men, and that will be £1 per head of contributions from employers and workmen. One third of that is £800,000.

      1951
      You have it in your power, according to your own showing, to impose a burden on the industry of £800,000, without taking the necessary safeguards which will be supplied if Parliament is more thoroughly consulted. But that does not seem to me to be a way of helping a diseased trade, and there may be a condition of things where the remedy proposed by the Government would be no remedy at all, but would turn the diseased trade into a deceased trade. It is necessary, therefore, that fuller opportunity should be given to those engaged in the trade than is given by this Clause, as it now stands, for making their position thoroughly well known. I will refer, if I may, to the proposal which will be included in the Bill if the Amendment of my hon. Friend were accepted. It is, that if while the Bill confirming any such order is pending in either House of Parliament a petition is presented against any order contained in it, the Bill so far as it relates to such order shall be referred to a Select Committee of either House or to a joint Committee of the two Houses, and power shall be given to the Commissioner to appear and oppose as in the case of a private Bill. That seems to me to be a necessary and reasonable provision, and not one that will be vexatiously used by people who have no reasonable objection. But if there are any who feel anxiety on the question of the inclusion of the trade, they ought to have a right to come up to London and make their views known to the House. I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision, and endeavour to meet the views in this respect.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I would point out to the hon. Member who spoke last that there is a very vital difference between the description of trades coming under the category of sweated trades and trades suffering from unemployment. Hon. Members have lumped the two classes together, using the expression employed by the Solicitor-General of "diseased trades." The use of that expression on both sides has tended to obscure the vital difference between the two classes of trades. Many people think that unemployment insurance should be in time extended to all trades, and no one would contemplate that as an evil thing, but to treat all trades as sweated trades is clearly the antithesis of that. The disease in the case of a
      1952
      sweated trade is one which, in an industrial way, discredits that trade. It is not a discredit to any trade to suffer from unemployment, and therefore, while one would naturally deprecate any facility for extending a measure which stigmatises a trade as a sweated trade, that is no argument for in the same way deprecating facility for extension of a measure to trades which suffer from unemployment, as the fact that the trade suffers from unemployment involves no stigma whatever. Naturally we contemplate in time extending this unemployment insurance to all trades, so that the extension provided for in this Clause is not undesirable. In the case of the other Act it may be.
      With regard to what was said by the hon. Member who spoke last about it being desirable we should not be in a hurry, I think he will agree with me that in Parliament, whatever one may want to do, one has always to be in a hurry if anything is to be done at all. Of course, the hon. Member may desire a lowering of the whole pace of legislation, and wish to promote the leisurely deliberation of such measures as these, but I am afraid his colleague will hardly agree with him, nor is his hope likely to be realised even if the administration is changed. I do not think any very strong argument has been put forward against the method proposed in the Bill. One Amendment the Government has put down has met the difficulty which was felt by the hon. Member for Hexham, and I think it has practically removed the main grounds of apprehension.
      Mr. HAMILTON BENN: I should like to tell the Government there is a very strong feeling in the country, and amongst many classes of people, with reference to this matter, because they fear they may be included in this portion of the Bill without having a chance of bringing their case before Parliament. I think a great deal of the opposition which is felt to this part of the Bill would be removed if the Government would meet us in regard to the Amendment.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: To me, it is clearly desirable that these provisions should be extended in the future to other trades, and that the amount of benefit should also be added to. On the point before the Committee, I have little doubt. I am always jealous of the tremendous power Parliament is continually giving to Government Departments.

      1953
      I am not a lover of handing over to Government Departments powers upon powers as we are doing now. Take the Board of Trade in regard to this matter. What an enormous responsibility it is to them to have to decide what trades this Bill should be extended to. As to the provision in the Bill that it should lie upon the table of the House for thirty days, really, Mr Chairman, is there anything in that? That to my mind has no real value. It might just as well be out of the Bill. In my opinion it gives absolute power to the Board of Trade because to lie upon the table for thirty days during the Session of Parliament practically makes it impossible for the House of Commons to have any control whatever. We had an instance the other day. It does not follow that because we are in favour of the principle of this Bill and the principle of this Clause we are to go blind in a matter of this kind. We had an instance the other day of a Scotch matter. That was some question that had to lie upon the Table for thirty days of the Session. Well, it was found that it was put down on a certain day when Parliament had gone into recess and not prorogued, and when it came on it was out of date.
      Of course, it was impossible for the House of Commons to take any effective step in regard to this important matter. If the Government Department cares to make it impossible for the House of Commons to deal with it, it can. Of course, when we are legislating we always see the heads of a Government Department here. We see the President of the Board of Trade or the Home Secretary, as the case may be, here in Committee, but the legislation that we pass giving powers to Government Departments is going on every day. I maintain that it is not inadvisable for the Board of Trade to proceed by Provisional Order. The Local Government Board proceed by Provisional Order, and many of their administrative Acts are done by Provisional Order; many go through without Parliament intervening, for Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board go to Committees upstairs because there is opposition to them. Therefore Parliament has an opportunity by evidence, and by hearing all parties, of going fully into the consideration of the various questions that arise. I can see that in the future, in the extension of powers under this Clause, it may be to the great advantage of all concerned, to the great advantage of Parliament, to the great advantage of the work-
      1954
      men and to the great advantage of the employers, that a Committee upstairs at the end of seven years might consider the best means of extending to trades and the methods of extending to trades. A Committee upstairs under a provisional order might report in favour of a useful Amendment of the Act itself. What we are doing here now is handing the whole powers of extending to trades to a Department in the Board of Trade.
      I am growing tired of this everlasting adding of powers on powers to a Government Department. It really is becoming very serious, and some day it will come home to us in a very powerful manner. While I want the extension to trades and the extension of amounts, I do want to keep more control in the hands of Parliament, and to have an opportunity of dealing with these matters, not necessarily in the leisurely way that has been suggested. I realise, as the Under-Secretary for the Board of Trade says, that you cannot take up all these questions in Parliament and go through them when Sessions are full of Bills and treat them in a leisurely fashion. But there are means of dealing with matters of this kind, as I have already said, in the way the Local Government Board does, through Provisional Orders, without taking up the main time of Parliament. They could go to Committees upstairs—
      Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: That is dangerous.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: My hon. Friend says it is dangerous. Why is it dangerous? It seems to me that Parliament thus keeps its control. I hope the Board of Trade will not be too anxious. They will be pressed by their Department, and their officials will say: "If we have to do this work, the less we are trammelled by Parliament the better." Well, I think the President of the Board of Trade should let Parliament keep a little more control under these provisions than is provided for in the Bill.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: I think this Grand Committee on behalf of Parliament is scrutinising this measure in the hope of settling the principle of insuring against unemployment. If we are going to settle it in this Grand Committee, why should we postpone the settlement of it to a Private Bill Committee? which will be microscopic compared to this Committee. I see in the Amendment suggestions for delay in applying the principle to other

      1955
      trades. May I correct an expression which has come from the other side with respect to how this part of the Bill is regarded in the country. I find, as far as the workmen I meet are concerned, less enthusiasm for Part I. than for Part II. It is Part II. that they are concerned about. It is Part II. they desire to see passed. It is not that they desire to come here to make any appeal for its application to their trade, rather is it in respect of the miners with whom I have spoken on the matter, an urgent question, "Why are you not at this stage applying this Bill to our trade." Therefore, as this Amendment is in my opinion a suggestion of delay, I am going to vote against it. If delay is desired I commend the Opposition to read the third line of this part of the Clause, "May, with the consent of the Treasury." You may take it. there will be sufficient delay there, because there is going to be a charge upon the Treasury whenever it is extended to other trades. You will have to secure Treasury approval, and you will have to secure the approval of the House of Commons itself before the expenditure can be sanctioned for applying this to other trades. I strongly support the procedure as at present outlined.
      Sir J. SIMON: This is an important matter, and I can assure hon. Members who have taken part in criticising the Clause, that it is not with any desire to burk proper inquiry or proper Parliamentary control that we have put this proposal down. We have put it down because we believe that on the whole it is the right way of dealing with this important matter. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green made a very incisive speech, as he always does, but he really in that speech hardly did justice to the arguments in favour of the present proposal. The present proposal is not that the Board of Trade or some subordinate official of the Board of Trade should some fine morning write out an order, and thereupon the thing could be done. That has not the slightest resemblance to what we propose. If I may make a personal reference, I would state at this point that I have had in the course of my profession to attend inquiries started by the Home Office such as this Special Order procedure involves. I have attended before Private Bill Committees, and I say that it is an impossible proposition to lay down that an inquiry such as this Special Order Procedure involves, does not give at least as
      1956
      full an opportunity for ventilating different points of view as a Private Bill Committee.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: Not so public.
      Sir J. SIMON: Not so public the hon. Gentleman says. I do not know where he gets his ideas from. If he will look at the record of an inquiry held at the Home Office as to whether or not the bringing of trucks on lines outside factories should be included amongst the regulations for dangerous trades, and if he will look at the record of the inquiry at Caxton Hall as to proper regulations for the safety of men engaged in docks; if he will consider those records and consider the proceedings at other inquiries dealing with trades, he will see that these inquiries are as public as the proceedings of a Select Committee consisting of perhaps four persons in one of the Committee Rooms of the House of Commons. May I point out further that really the private Bill procedure is not appropriate to this class of case. You are proposing to include, it may be, a branch of industry. What is to happen if the workmen desire to make their representations in the matter? They have got their representatives in Parliament, it is true. They have got the right of coming through their trade union representatives to one of these inquiries, but I have never heard of a Select Committee in which, instead of counsel appearing, there was to be a trade union secretary appearing and conducting the case. What you are really doing by this proposed change is to substitute procedure by Private Bill Committee, which is really not appropriate, for an inquiry which is at least to be deliberate, and which moreover is subject to a Parliamentary check which is far from being the farce the hon. Member described it to be. I do not know whether he stayed up late the other night. If he did, he will know that so far from this procedure being a farce, the House of Commons did actually stop an Order made by the Home Office under this very procedure. It was going to extend a Factory Act rule in a direction which was thought improper. It was done by the representatives of those who spoke on behalf of the workpeople. It is impossible to say that this procedure is a farce. As to the limitation of the Clause, when the Clause says "that the Special Order may extend the Act with modifications," what is intended there is not some reconstitution of

      1957
      the structure of the Act. I appreciate hon. Members may be anxious about that. All that is intended is that there might be cases in which the modifications would involve modifications of the rates or contributions, or modifications in the rates and periods of benefit. That is all that is intended.
      Mr. HAMILTON BENN: The words give a wider power.
      Sir J. SIMON: I think the words are larger. I think the hon. Gentleman is right, and, when we come to it, I propose that we should put in words to show that the words are strictly limited to these very matters.
      Mr. HOLT: I will explain to the Committee why I was induced to change my attitude on this subject. A certain amount of negotiations in connection with this Bill had taken place with the various Government departments, and the Board of Trade went a considerable way to remove objections which my friends and I entertained, by agreeing that the public inquiry should be final. That makes a very great difference. The Board of Trade are not in a position to treat it as of no importance. This is a considerable concession. I still think on the whole it is better to bargain with a master of legions when you get the chance. The concession takes the sting out of the original proposal. Although on the balance I incline to procedure by Provisional Order, yet there are arguments in favour of Special Orders. One horrible suggestion was thrown out, that the period of thirty days might include a time during which Parliament was in Session, but might adjourn. Surely that is not intended.
      Sir J. SIMON: It is not possible. It says thirty days during the Session of Parliament.
      Mr. HOLT: Will it be possible that the thirty days should be during the adjournment?
      Sir J. SIMON: I certainly do not so understand it, but I will inquire at the Table, and if I find that it is so I am quite ready to say that these thirty days are to be days during which the House is effectively sitting.
      Mr. HOLT: It is a very good thing to have this point cleared up. I understand that there is a definite pledge that it shall be thirty days during which the House is effectively sitting. That shows that the
      1958
      Board of Trade are willing to meet us. I hope that the Board of Trade will give a further undertaking that the person who holds the inquiry shall be an impartial person, that he shall not be a person who is a servant of a public department, or a person drawing an annual salary from a Government Department. I understand the Government are not unwilling to state that he should be a person independent of the department in a sense of not being a regular salaried official of the department.
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes.
      Mr. HOLT: In these circumstances I think the Board of Trade have gone a very long way to meet our objections, and I think we might fairly let them have the Clause with the Amendments as proposed.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must confess that I am not satisfied with what the Government has done. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) has had these private conversations with the Government, and appears to have settled that the public inquiry is to be final. That amounts only to this: that the Board of Trade are not to proceed notwithstanding that the officer they have appointed has reported against them. That is thank you for nothing. I do not see how the Board of Trade could have proceeded if the result of their own official's inquiry had been to report against the scheme.
      Mr. HOLT: What about the Swansea case?
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Perhaps I ought not to have said that they could not possibly do it, but I ought to have said that they could not with decency do it. What this amounts to is that the hon. Member is satisfied because one person has had the evidence before him and has reported in favour of the extension. But he is not satisfied, and other Members who have spoken say they are not satisfied, with Private Bill procedure, which would at least bring the matter before three or four members of the House of Commons in Committee, and subsequently before the House itself. It was suggested by one hon. Member that it was obvious that we were not desirous of extending insurance against unemployment to other trades. So far as I am concerned that is not at all a true statement of my wishes. I want to extend unemployment insurance to other trades, and I do not want any unnecessary delay, but I want

      1959
      first to ascertain whether it can be successfully done, whether those engaged in the trade want it done, whether the workmen on the one hand and the employers on the other, who have to pay the contributions under it, want it, and whether it will not cause unemployment by extending it. I think myself that Private Bill procedure is infinitely better than the course proposed by the Government and I am sorry that I shall have to ask the Committee to divide.
      Mr. BIGLAND: One hon. Member opposite intimated that from what he had heard that there were a certain class of workman who were anxious to be included, I suppose, at the end of the seven years. The question before the Committee is with whom shall the decision rest if the colliers and the agricultural labourers want to participate in the £250,000. The question is, shall the decision be left to the Board, as would be the case if the Bill is left as it stands. If the Amendment is passed we in Parliament shall have some

      Division No. 9.]

      AYES.

      Barnes, Mr.

      Holt, Mr.

      Palmer, Mr.

      Brady, Mr.

      Jones, Mr. Haydn

      Price, Mr.

      Burke, Mr. E. Haviland-

      Jones, Mr. William

      Primrose, Mr.

      Buxton, Mr. Sydney

      Joyce, Mr.

      Robertson, Mr. John

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin

      Kelly, Mr.

      Roch, Mr. Walter

      Davies, Mr. Ellis

      Leach, Mr.

      Scanlan, Mr.

      Denman, Mr.

      M'Callum, Mr.

      Smith, Mr. Albert

      Goldstone, Mr.

      Mond, Sir Alfred

      Solicitor-General, Mr.

      Hackett, Mr.

      Murray, Captain

      Ward, Mr. John

      Harmsworth, Mr. Cecil

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Webb, Mr.

      Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund

      Nugent, Sir Walter

      Williams, Mr. Penry

      Hayden, Mr.

      Nuttall, Mr.

      Wilson, Mr. Tyson

      NOES.

      Baird, Mr.

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

      Ingleby, Mr.

      Baldwin, Mr.

      Goldman, Mr.

      Stewart, Mr. Gershom

      Benn, Mr. Hamilton

      Grant, Mr.

      Worthington-Evans, Mr.

      Bigland, Mr.

      Horner, Mr.

      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move to leave out the words, "either without modification or subject to such modifications as may be contained in the Order."
      Sir J. SIMON: May I just indicate what the changes would be if the Government proposals in the Clause are accepted, and I think my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment. Each proposal that we make is in the direction of limiting the wide powers which the Clause gives; we are not expanding it in any way. There will be three changes which we shall seek to propose. The first is after the word "modifications," where I shall move to insert words which will limit the modifications, to "modifications of rates of con-
      voice in the decision whether the colliery business or the agricultural labourer or any other industry applies to participate under this Bill. I should like to hear from the Government as to whether that would be so, whether the final decision would rest entirely with the Board of Trade under the Bill as it now stands or whether in Parliament we should have the final decision as to which of the contending parties should participate in the £250,000 which would be available for the Treasury.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: After the promise of the Government to alter the words in regard to the Session I am not able to vote against the Clause. Of course I am not against the Clause. I only wanted to carry the Government with me. I am in favour of the Clause and shall vote for it.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 11.
      tributions," so that you cannot alter the structure of the Bill. In lines twenty-nine and thirty, we shall put in similar words, consequential, to limit the extent to which the order can vary the scheme of the Bill, and finally, in line thirty-two, we should ask to leave out the word "which" in order to insert an expression which would carry out what my hon. Friend (Mr. Holt) referred to, viz., that if the enquiry ends in a report unfavourable to the proposal, the Board of Trade are to have no power of going on.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid I cannot withdraw unless the Solicitor-General can meet us a little further. I understand the scope of his Amendment is that the modifications may be made only

      1961
      with regard to contributions and benefits; but the modifications with regard to contributions may go to the whole root of the Bill. The present construction of the Bill is this: that the contributions shall be made, one-third by the workman, and one-third by the employer, and that the State should contribute one-third of the total. If you give power to modify contributions generally, you may give power to make it a non-contributory scheme. I want to keep the same proportion of contribution, because, to my mind, that is the only protection there is.
      Sir J. SIMON: There is on the Paper, in the name of the President of the Board of Trade, an Amendment to insert at the end of the Clause, "the rates of contribution mentioned in the Order shall not exceed the rates specified in the Eighth Schedule to this Act, and shall be imposed equally as between employers and workmen."
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: After the word "modifications" ["or subject to such modifications "] insert the words, "of rates of contribution or rates or period of benefit."
      After the word "rates" ["and as if the rates and period"] insert the words, "of contribution and the rates."
      After the word "rates" ["where the rates and period of benefit"] insert the words, "of contribution and the rates."
      Leave out the word "which" ["provided that no such Order shall be made, which would"], and insert instead thereof the words, "if a person holding the inquiry reports that the Order should not be made, or if the Order."
      At the end of the Clause add the words, "and that the rates of contribution mentioned in the Order shall not exceed the rates specified in the Eighth Schedule to this Act, and shall be imposed equally as between employers and workmen."—[Mr. Buxton.]
      Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not propose to divide the Committee, but in view of the fact that the Government have not accepted the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Worthington-Evans) I protest against this method of giving to
      1962
      a Government Department wide powers of legislation—that is what it comes to—by the process of Special Order. It is a precedent which should not be followed, and the matter might have been very well met if the Government had seen fit to accept the plan of provision order.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 78.—(Procedure for Making Special Orders.)
      (1) Sections eighty and eighty-one of the Factory and Workshop Act 1901, relating to the making of regulations under that Act, as set out and adapted in the Ninth Schedule to this Act, shall apply to special orders made under this Part of this Act.
      (2) Before a special order comes into force it shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the Session of Parliament, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those thirty days presents an address to His Majesty against the order or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new order.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "both Houses" ["before both Houses of Parliament"], and to insert instead thereof the words "each House."
      The object of this and the next consequential Amendment is to meet the point raised in the course of the last discussion under which it might be felt that while the House was in recess, the thirty or forty days might be running out, and we entirely agree with the views expressed by the Committee with regard to it."
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to meet me in this. I have not any Amendment down. The President of the Board of Trade moved an Amendment to the previous Clause saying that no Order should be made if the person holding the inquiry reports that the Order should not be made. That has been applied to Clause 77, and I think it ought to apply also to the Special Order referred to in the first part of Clause 78.
      Mr. PRICE: Supposing it is reported that it is undesirable that the Order should be made, may I ask how long that prohibition would last? It does not mean for ever. Surely it should be within the power of the Board of Trade to revise it.
      Mr. BUXTON: It applies to the particular inquiry and the particular Order made. It would not apply in the event of a new Order or a new inquiry taking place.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: Leave out the words "the session of Parliament" ["thirty days during the session of Parliament"], and insert instead thereof the words "which the House is sitting."—[Mr. Buxton.]
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would like to have a reply from the Government as to why they do not apply the same Amendment which they have moved to Clause 77 to this Clause, 78. Under Clause 78, they are to have a special inquiry to consider whether that which is permitted by Clause 79 should be carried out. Do they suggest that that is to be carried out notwithstanding that the special inquiry reports against it?
      Sir J. SIMON: In answer to the hon. Gentleman he will see, of course, that the very fact that we have introduced this special limitation in Clause 77 is in itself a reason why it is not part of the general scheme of Clause 78. If it was part of the general scheme of Clause 78, we should not need to introduce it in Clause 77. The other purposes for which a Special Order of procedure will be required as we propose, are not purposes which would necessarily involve the consequence that the Board of Trade could not put the matter before Parliament, because the report was unfavourable. I should think, as a matter of practice, that it is highly improbable they would do so, but that was the scheme put before the Committee, and it was on that basis that we put the words in Clause 77.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 79.—(Arrangements with Associations of Workmen in an Insured Trade making Payments to Members whilst Unemployed.)
      (1) The Board of Trade may, on the application of any association of workmen the rules of which provide for payments to its members, being workmen in an insured trade, or any class thereof, whilst unemployed, make an arrangement with such association that, in lieu of paying unemployment benefit under this Part of this Act to workmen who prove that they
      1964
      are members of the association, there shall be repaid periodically to the association out of the Unemployment Fund such sum as appears to be, as nearly as may be, equivalent to the aggregate amount which such workmen would have received during that period by way of unemployment benefit under this Part of this Act if no such arrangement had been made, but in no case exceeding two-thirds of the amount of the payments made during that period by the association to such workmen as aforesaid whilst unemployed.
      (2) The council or other governing body of any association of workmen which has made such an arrangement as aforesaid shall be entitled to treat the contributions due from any of its members to the Unemployment Fund under this Part of this Act, or any part thereof, as if such contributions formed part of the subscriptions payable by those members to the association, and, notwithstanding anything in the rules of the association to the contrary, may reduce the rates of subscription of those members accordingly.
      (3) For the purpose of determining whether a workman has exhausted his right to unemployment benefit under this Part of this Act, the amount of any sum which, but for this section, would have been paid to him by way of unemployment benefit shall be deemed to have been paid.
      (4) The Board of Trade may make regulations for giving effect to this section, and for determining the mode in which questions arising under this section shall be settled.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) after the word "workmen" ["association of workmen"] to insert the words "or approved society."
      This Amendment is one which I hope the Government will accept. I cannot conceive any objection to it. Under Clause 79 the general idea is that the trade unions should be encouraged to administer the Act, and take the payment of unemployed benefit into their hands, and that the Government should repay a proportion to the trade union. I suggest that the approved societies, as defined in the first part of the Bill, should also be entrusted with the same duties, if they choose to accept them. In the first Part of the Bill friendly societies are the natural agents for carrying out the benefits under that Part. The

      1965
      trade unions are also allowed under that Part of the Bill to rank on all fours with the friendly societies, and it seems to me a fair reciprocal provision that under this Part of the Bill a friendly society should be allowed, if it chooses, to administer unemployed benefit. I would point out that no one knows yet exactly what the development of the approved societies will be. At present friendly societies have done little or nothing in the way of paying out-of-work pay. They have given travelling expenses to workmen in search of work; they have paid railway fares, and given some compassionate grants. One cannot see, however, what the future will be. Undoubtedly their sphere of influence will be considerably extended, and it seems to me from the point of view of the Bill that it is a highly desirable thing that every properly constituted workmen's society, no matter whether it calls itself a trade union or a friendly society, should come to the assistance of Parliament in the administration of this Bill. The Amendment I propose is that after the words "association of workmen" there should be inserted the words "or approved society." It may be that the Amendment ought to read "or approved society under Part I." I do not know whether the definition in the Amendment will require to be extended in that way, but the object of the Amendment is plain.
      Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman's proposal, as I follow it, is that in addition to trade unions and other associations of workmen "the rules of which provide for payments to its members, being workmen in an insured trade," whilst unemployed, the Clause should be extended and applied to an approved society. The hon. Gentleman points out quite justly that an approved society exists at present only under Part I. of the Bill, and no doubt he is right in saying that it would be necessary to revise the words of his Amendment in order to suit it to Part II. That, however, is not a matter of substance.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is in the Bill.
      Sir J. SIMON: Although it is not a matter of substance, it is of importance. It shows, I think, that really when a society becomes an approved society it is approved because it satisfies conditions which are laid down in regard
      1966
      to Part I., and because it is calculated to render services which Part I. of the Act requires, and it does not at all follow that an approved society so approved, and with such objects, is a suitable body for dealing with the work which is dealt with by Part II. of the Bill. The reason why we turn to trade unions and similar associations under Clause 79, under proper regulations, in order that they might assist in the work of unemployment insurance is, of course, because they are associations of persons who themselves are endeavouring by the joint action of their own members, to reduce unemployment to a minimum. It is a very different matter indeed to go and give this privilege of Clause 79 to a society, however admirable in other respects, which has secured approval, not because it is so framed or constituted as to be a good instrument for carrying out Part II. of the Bill, but because it satisfies conditions under Part I. of quite a different character. For that reason, I hope the Committee will see that it is not desirable, and indeed not right, to extend the provisions of Clause 79 so as to cover societies which the hon. Gentleman has in mind when he moves this Amendment.
      The Committee ought to appreciate perhaps the way Clause 79 works. Supposing it applies to trade unions and similar organisations, these trade unions and organisations are associations of persons, all of whom are concerned in promoting the interests of employment in their own branch of trade. That is their object. They are not associated because they are persons wanting to provide against sickness, or against any of the other evils Part I. has to do with, but they have this common bond that they are all interested in employment in their own trade. It is the fact that they are associated for that purpose which makes them useful and efficient instruments for administering Part II. of the Bill. But I am slow to believe that merely because a society is approved under Part I. it possesses those qualities. It might possess them or it might not. That is the reason why under Clause 79 we gladly avail ourselves of the help of the trade unions. It is because they are acquainted with and deal with the problem of reducing unemployment to a minimum, whereas I fail to see how a friendly society, which exists for quite a different purpose, and which may include within its membership people engaged in a variety of different trades, and some in no trade at all, would be a

      1967
      proper instrument for the purpose of carrying out the objects of Clause 79. When workmen under Part II. fall out of work a trade union should be able to go on as in the past paying unemployment benefit according to its conditions to its members. Of course, there must be a proper check before State money is handed over in indemnity to a trade union. We have no desire to interfere unnecessarily, but of course it will be necessary to have some check before indemnifying a trade union. The money we should be asked to pay over to it is the money we should have had to pay to a workman if he had made a direct claim on the fund. We are exceedingly grateful to the trade unions for their help in this matter, but I gravely question whether this is a proper case for extending the Clause to societies and associations formed for quite different purposes. In point of fact there would be, I think, statutory difficulties in the way of friendly societies undertaking the work and paying out-of-work benefit, because, of course, the objects for which friendly societies may be registered are prescribed by the Friendly Societies Act, and the hon. Gentleman proposes something which would bring within the scope of the friendly societies work which they cannot undertake. The workmen must give the industrial society a chance of continuing its work on the ground it already occupies. The industrial society has, substantially speaking, never occupied the field or undertaken this particular duty of unemployment insurance. The trade unions have been doing this work. There may be others which have been doing it. These associations are fit to work under Section 79 on the conditions I have indicated, but there seem to be objections against offering this new work to bodies which have not hitherto attempted to deal with this particular form of insurance.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: I wish to endorse every word that the Solicitor-General has said. We on this side expect some fruitful suggestion from the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Worthington-Evans) when he takes part in our Debates. This time, I think, the proposal he makes is most impracticable. He has not had a single communication from the friendly societies asking this Amendment. I have been connected with trade unions for thirty-nine years and with friendly societies for thirty-five years. I can state that the friendly societies do not wish to
      1968
      enter into competition with trade unions in connection with unemployment benefit. Other difficulties have been pointed out by the Solicitor-General. I hope that the hon. Member will not press this Amendment, because it would make this part of the Bill a great deal worse than it is at the present time. I am quite certain that the friendly societies will not approve of it, and I hope, therefore, that it will be withdrawn.
      Mr. JOHN WARD: I feel certain that the statement of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) is absolutely correct, and that no friendly society ever asked for or ever was a party to putting forward this proposition, and we may take it for granted that within the few lines of this Amendment there is the suggestion of a policy by the party opposite to try to undermine and divide as far as possible the trade union movement. I am bound to say I can see no other explanation for such a suggestion. As has been stated already the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) usually puts forward propositions which are worth considering, but the suggestion that the bodies which will be known presently as approved societies under Part I., and that have never undertaken work of this description, have no machinery to undertake it and know nothing about it, should have this forced upon them is a proposition for which there is not the slightest authority. If they have not requested a single Member in the House to do this, what else is it but foisting it upon them? At any rate I look upon it as a most dangerous suggestion so far as the trade unions of the country are concerned. After all, the only people who have dealt in what you might call an organised fashion with the question of unemployment are the trade unions. A great many politicians have made speeches about unemployment and have used it for party purposes, but there is no organisation in the country that has attempted really to alleviate the difficulties, misery, and poverty caused by want of work in this country, except the trade unions themselves. This is an attempt practically, not merely to encroach on trade unions, but really to divide the responsibility relating to unemployment in the different trades. How is it possible for a mixed society to know so well whether a man is bona fide out of work as it is for his mates who are working with him, who know whether he was dismissed because of misconduct and

      1969
      whether the employer was entitled for disciplinary reasons to dismiss him? The trade unions of the country have evolved a system of management relating to the distribution of unemployed benefit that it will take the State years to come up anywhere near to, and it is an attempt to divide the responsibility and influence the working of trade organisations that I am afraid underlies the proposition of the hon. Member.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I should not have said anything about this, but for the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward). He charges us on this side of the House with a deliberate attempt to undermine trade unions. He has entirely imagined that himself. There is no such intention on the part of my hon. Friend nor on the part of any of us, neither in the case of this Amendment nor of anything else that we have done in connection with this Bill. The Amendment really says, that if an approved society in addition to a trade union likes to undertake this it may do so. The words are "on the application." The hon. Member talks about foisting this upon friendly societies. I would ask the hon. Member how on earth a thing done on their own application can be said to be foisted upon them? All my hon. Friend suggests is that as, under this Bill, what are called approved societies, become the agencies for the Government in respect of Part I. With regard to sickness benefits, why should not they if they like, and if they apply, also carry out the unemployment portion of the Bill.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: Would you propose to make it compulsory?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No, my hon. Friend would certainly do nothing of the kind. If the hon. Member would only read the Amendment he would see that is is only on the application of the friendly society that this is done.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: The question I ask is: Would he make it compulsory?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Surely the Amendment makes it clear to anyone that it is not compulsory. My hon. Friend never suggested that. What he asks is that if an approved society likes to do this it ought to have the opportunity to do it; and to say that that is undermining trade unionism is really to introduce into the Amendment an intention which
      1970
      is certainly not present, and which, in effect, would not follow. I do not think it would happen in many cases that they would ask for this, but it might happen, and they ought to have the opportunity. The hon. Member made another point. He asked, did a single friendly society ask my hon. Friend to do this? Will he really tell me that any friendly society has pressed for the other part of the Bill? They are willing to undertake it, but I never heard that they pressed for it. I think a great many of them would like to be let alone; that is my experience with regard to friendly societies in discussing Part I. of the Bill; so that the argument of the hon. Member would equally apply there.
      Mr. J. WARD: At the conferences of the friendly societies the question of getting the assistance of the State to maintain the institutions for benefit has been under consideration for at least twenty years.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I cannot go into that, but this particular Bill certainly was never before them, and I do not think they would ever have asked for it. All that my hon. Friend says is, if they like to undertake this part of the Bill they should have the chance. It seems to me a perfectly innocuous Amendment. It seems to meet the wishes of a certain number of friendly societies, and if my hon. Friend divides the Committee I shall certainly support him.
      Mr. ALBERT SMITH: I have listened throughout the whole of the discussion both on Part I. and Part II. of the Bill and I have more or less admired the ability and pertinacity with which the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has pressed his Amendments. But with regard to this Amendment I feel sure that it is properly described as an attempt to undermine trade unions. Trade unions are practically the only people who are administering unemployed benefit to-day. The friendly societies, the collecting societies, the great insurance companies do nothing of the kind. What it is proposed to do in this Amendment is to give the approved societies power to administer unemployed benefit. This would lead to an endless amount of intricate negotiations with workmen attempting to get unemployed benefit unfairly. The approved societies will be such a mixture that the authority governing the

      1971
      societies would have the utmost difficulty in distinguishing which is a bonâ fide unemployed man. Further than that, some trade unions, the bulk of whose members are already members of friendly societies, will not become an approved society themselves, but the members will be distributed perhaps throughout three or four of the other approved societies which are the original friendly societies, and in that case it is deputing a function that the trade unions could very well do under this Bill, namely, the unemployed portion of the benefit, without interfering in the slightest degree with the sickness benefit, and the other portion in regard to which the members are distributed throughout many societies. That is not the main reason, but what effect this Bill will have on trade unions in another direction. You are, by the effect of this Amendment, giving to the insurance companies, with a great mass of collectors and of collecting agencies, and to all those other foreign bodies who have never had anything to do with these matters, the power to canvass all members of trade unions, or would-be members of trade unions, and powers in certain circumstances—by giving better benefits with the machinery at their command, and with this aid of the State subsidy—to undermine the organisations existing for securing improved conditions and better wages for the workers, who would be prevented from receiving those benefits. I would not like the hon. Member for Colchester to press his Amendment at all so far as I am personally concerned, and I think there are a few Members of this Committee, and not a few Members of the House itself, who will look upon this as one of the worst Amendments he has introduced either in Part I. or in Part II. of this Bill. What we want is to give everybody fair facilities to make full use of this Bill, either on Part I. or Part II. I said in the House the other day on Part I. of the Bill that I was an advocate of trade unions having their full share of responsibility in putting the machinery of the Bill in motion in order to get the fullest benefit possible out of the measure. I believe the Amendment is calculated to do more injury in another direction than it can possibly do good in the direction the hon. Member intends.
      Mr. BIGLAND: It is just as well we have had this Debate, because the Government may decide what the word "any" means. An outsider reading this Bill
      1972
      would take it that "any association of workmen" would include a friendly society if (they took the trouble within their powers to have an unemployment scheme, and said: "If you pay 1½d. per week for unemployment in addition to what you pay to the sickness fund, then if you fall out of work, while the Government give you 7s. 6d. per week we will, under this Bill, give you 2s. 6d. As I read this Clause, "any association of workmen" who are in the habit of forming themselves into the position of paying unemployment benefit, if they have a benefit to the extent of one-third of the total amount paid to the workmen, they could, under this Clause, distribute unemployment benefit under this Bill. I may be wrong, but perhaps the Government will point out what is meant by "any association of workmen." If I understand it aright, the Amendment does include "any association of workmen"; and thus, if an approved society is an asociation of workmen, it can come in.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am not at all desirous of discussing the object of the Amendment, and I am more concerned with what I consider to be its possible defects. There is one that I perceive which would be quite inimical to the safe organisation and administration of Part II. of this Bill. I foresee, under the Amendment, the possibility of the great insurance companies attempting to secure the position of approved societies. Their object would surely be to utilise the machine to secure access to lists of names for what might be called their normal business. They would be, as a matter of fact, on the horns of a dilemma. Their object would not be so much, as I foresee it, to administer the fund with the minimum of expense; they would constantly have before them the prospect of men withdrawing from the association, or from the insurance companies, and therefore their whole object would be to make such terms with the men who joined them as an approved society as would give the very best possible unemployed benefits, and therefore at increased cost to the Unemployment Fund. I think we ought to restrict this work to the people who will do it thoroughly. The people who, up till now, have done this work and given most satisfaction, particularly to the workers, have been the trade unions. This is a thing which will specially appeal to them, and I hope that those who really do believe in

      1973
      trade unions will resist this Amendment, and support the Bill.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the Committee will permit me, I should like to make a few more observations upon this Amendment. I do not in the least complain of the criticism, the adverse criticism, that members of the Committee have been kind enough to pass upon the Amendment. Perhaps it has been my fault, but I think the Committee have hardly realised what was in my mind at the time I put this Amendment down. There is a large number of trade unions now which, in the organised trades, have no unemployment benefit. There is a large number of persons, however, who are in scattered trades, in which there is no giving of unemployed benefit to all. These people have various sorts of work, but they are grouped geographically; they live in a district together. Amongst these people there are, of course, workers in a few organised trades who have their trade unions, but there is a large number of other workers who have no trade unions at all, or which do not give the unemployed benefit. When this is extended to all the Clauses that we have been considering this morning, it seems to me that there will be scope for some other administration of the unemployed benefit to these people than that provided by this Bill The only means of the administration of those benefits seems to me to be through the societies in which these men already are for sick benefit; therefore I wish not to compel, not to foist upon anybody something he does not want, but to give the opportunity to the friendly societies in this sort of circumstances, if they choose to apply for it, to become also the agents for administering this scheme. The hon. Member who last spoke in the trade union interest put his case frankly, that the trade unionists want to restrict the administration of benefit to those who have had experience of it in the past, and, as it were, made good their claim to administer the Act.
      I do not think I am putting the hon. Member's argument too high when I say that is what he advanced. We have all been familiar with that argument on Part I. of the Bill. It was the argument which the friendly societies originally put forward that they, being friendly societies, should have the administration of the sickness benefit, but Parliament has not allowed that. Parliament has given equal opportunities to every form of society,
      1974
      including trade unions, collecting societies, dividing societies, and industrial insurance companies, if they choose to come in and qualify as approved societies Parliament gives the opportunity to all these societies to administer Part I. of the Act. When we come to Part II. of the Act the hon. Member says "Oh, no, here we must assert that claim of the trade union to have the sole right to act as administrator of this benefit." I would point out that in claiming that he is asking for something which he has not permitted the friendly societies to claim under Part I. of the Bill. Hon. Members have talked about competition, and weakening the trade unions, and so on, as if my Amendment was either designed to do that or in the least likely to have that effect. It will not have that effect because the men in the organised trades are in them for many other purposes than merely unemployed pay. The societies are not going to give strike pay. That is not the suggestion. The suggestion here is that they should be allowed, more especially in the unorganised trades, and more especially as far as I am concerned, where they are grouped, and their only common bond is a district group and not a big trade group. I have put the point I wish to make before the Committee, and I do not propose to carry this Amendment to a division. I recognise that those who are better able than I am to speak for the trade unions see a danger in it which I confess I never saw when I put it down. Their opinion carries weight with me as it must, and if they really do think that there is danger of that sort I should be the last to press this Amendment.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: May I say one word with regard to a matter which arises out of the remarks that have fallen from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland). The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) tried to convey, or to interpret this Clause as if a monopoly should be given to the trade unions to operate it. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out, that does not necessarily follow from the working of the Clause for the reason that it presupposes that no other association might be created. There might be a number of workmen who are not now in trade unions, and who might combine themselves into a society of their own to work this particular Clause. That being so I think we are entitled to ask how is this Clause going to operate, and what is the machinery by which it is going to be operated. If an

      1975
      association of workmen so created made out a list of a certain number of men and gave them unemployed pay, what check have we upon the proper administration of the Fund in that respect?
      Sir J. SIMON: I already said, did I not?
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I did not quite understand the Solicitor-General to explain that particular point, and I want to be clear on it. Before a man can be put upon unemployment benefit, is it to go to an umpire and to be registered that he is entitled before the Association can pay it to him? If it does not, you may have a very large drain on the Unemployment Fund, because you will not have sufficient check upon it. For this reason I think the point requires explanation.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is in the name of hon. Members who are not members of the Committee.
      Mr. ALBERT SMITH: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "the rules of which provide for payments to its members, being workmen in an insured trade, or in a class thereof, whilst unemployed."
      This Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Clynes). With this Amendment adopted, the Subsection would then read, "the Board of Trade may on the application of any association of workmen make an arrangement with such association…" I move this to give the trade unions and the societies which have been administering unemployment benefit, the same facilities to work Part II. of this Bill as we are giving them to become approved societies under Part I. There are many societies now, and some of them which belong to scheduled trades, who do not at the present time pay unemployed benefit. By reason perhaps of low wages they cannot get the men to continue to pay weekly subscriptions that will warrant the payment of any substantial unemployed benefit. There are also in those trades several classes of men who through rapid periodical courses of unemployment cannot possibly exist. Under this Bill they could do all the good in the world and all that the Bill intends should be done for those unemployed people by seizing hold of
      1976
      the advantages of the Bill, and by administering unemployed benefits to their members. It will give an inducement to those societies which do not pay unemployed benefit, to gather a large number of men who will be left out of the scope of the Bill if such an Amendment as this is not accepted. It will also, to a certain degree, meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Colchester, with regard to this matter in scattered areas. It will certainly be a great advantage in catching hold of every man who may ultimately come on to this Bill. I hope the Government, if they cannot see their way to accept the Amendment in the form in which it is moved, will find some method, or, at any rate, give trade unions and other societies which are paying unemployed benefit power to do so under this Clause.
      Mr. BUXTON: I think that perhaps my hon. Friend does not quite see the bearing of his Amendment. The result of it would be to cut down from the particular associations the only method under which they could regulate and pay unemployed benefit. They must have rules if they are going to pay those benefits, and if the words proposed are inserted, it will really be impossible for trade unions, as I understand it, to pay unemployed benefit. I think the Amendment must have been put down under some misapprehension.
      Mr. J. WARD: There is one point I would like the President of the Board of Trade or the Solicitor-General to deal with and give some explanation about. Every man takes his own personal experience in these matters. I remember well a union with which I was connected, a labour union, attempted in 1893 or 1894 to establish an unemployed fund for its labourers. We found that to pay anything like 6s. or 7s. a week, the contributions under a scheme of that description amongst exclusively unskilled workers in the building trade was impossible to carry on. We could have probably carried it on if we had reduced the benefit to 2s. or 3s. a week. Eventually, owing to stress of circumstences, we had to strike unemployed benefit out of our rules altogether. Would this Clause preclude, say, a trade union like mine deciding to pay a certain portion of benefit now that there is a subsidy to assist in the payment of those benefits. Would it enable us from now to begin the process and properly organise to assist in carrying out this part of the scheme, or does it mean that

      1977
      anterior to the passing of the Bill we must have provided for it some time ago. If they can, then a great deal of assistance and good might be done even by the unskilled labourers connected with the trades which are to be insured adopting this policy and contributing some portion of their fund to make up the payments, or do the words mean that we ought to have done it before, and that we are now to be excluded from doing anything of the kind.
      Sir J. SIMON: I am very glad to be able to give the hon. Member the assurance he wishes as to the meaning of the words in Clause 79. It certainly is not to confine the benefit of the Clause to those trade unions, which, before the Act comes into force, have rules to provide for unemployed benefit. Supposing, hereafter, a trade union which does not now pay unemployed benefit arranges its constitution so that it does pay it, it would then become entitled to make an arrangement under the Clause.
      Mr. ALBERT SMITH: That is the explanation I wanted, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "but in no case exceeding two-thirds of the amount of the payments made during that period by the association to such workmen as aforesaid whilst unemployed." I move the Amendment in the hope that the Government will accept it. The reason I do is is that we may have societies which are now paying 5s. per week unemployment benefit, and two-thirds is a very small sum indeed for the members who have to pay a contribution of 2½d. per week. I hope the Government will make it clear, if there is a society that pays a lower unemployed benefit, the members of that society will be entitled to the 7s. per week in the Bill, and not only to the two-thirds of the benefit.
      Sir J. SIMON: I hope my hon. Friend will see on reflection why it is necessary for us to preserve these words which he seeks to leave out of the Clause. These words provide that the contributions made from the State Insurance Fund to the trade union is not to exceed two-thirds of the amount which they have expended in unemployed benefit to their members who are within the arrangement. Some such
      1978
      arrangement, I am sure the Committee will see, is necessary, because, while I desire to pay in the most sincere and candid spirit my own tribute to the value of the work trade unions do, trade unions, after all, like other organisations are mortal, and subject to the temptation of other mortals of getting something for nothing. It is quite plain, therefore, if the trade union is to be at liberty to pay whatever sums of money it pleases to its members and then send in its bill to the Insurance Fund and get the whole amount out of it, that which we all desire to secure, namely, the co-operation of the trade unions in economic administration will disappear. The reason why the trade union is a useful organisation for our purpose is that it has in the past, for its own reasons, done its best to reduce unemployment to a minimum, and to make certain that the cases where relief is given are cases that ought to be relieved. The way we want to preserve that state of affairs is by saying to the trade union, "If you give a benefit of 7s., you shall to the extent of two-thirds be able to get it from the Fund."
      There is one concession I am very glad to be able to give to the hon. Gentleman. It has been represented to us that two-thirds is an unnecessarily large contribution, and we propose therefore to reduce the difference from two-thirds to three-quarters, and we are very glad to do it. We require the trade union to pay one-third extra, and we shall be content if they will pay a quarter of the extra. To that extent we are very glad to meet the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. J. WARD: I must thank the Solicitor-General for that offer and the suggestion, because that makes it quite easy for some of us. My Friends nearly all represent the skilled trades. I represent the unskilled trades, the labourers, and the men who have not had the opportunity of making provision of this description. We were decidedly fearful that the two-thirds would really make it nearly impossible for us to get a sufficient contribution from our members, to enable the most deserving section of these trades to derive the full benefit from the Act. I am very thankful indeed for what the Solicitor-General has said.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: After that statement, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "two-thirds," and to insert instead thereof the words "three-fourths."—[Mr Buxton.]
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the Government say what difference this will make to the finances of the scheme?
      Mr. BUXTON: It makes no difference to the finances of the scheme, because no payment is made to the trade union except in respect of money already spent. At present they will receive 7s., and under the Bill they pay one-third of the unemployed benefit. In the future they will pay a quarter. It makes no difference to the finances of the fund.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: If I understand this matter aright, and I wish to do so, it is that any group of associations of workmen take the Bill as it is drawn, if they are prepared to give additional unemployed benefit of 3s. 6d., they can administer the unemployed fund. The concession given by the Government—I am talking roughly in round figures—is, that they are prepared to give an additional 2s 10d., not less, if that union will administer the fund. It is only on the condition that it is not less than that amount. If they like to give 5s. 10d. or 6s. 10d., there is no interference. It does not touch the fund at all. It is only when they mean to administer it through a group of workmen that they can get the 2s. 10d.
      Mr. BUXTON: That is the exact point. It was felt by some of the poorer unions to be a hardship in relation to the particular Clause, because under the Bill where the 7s. was paid they necessarily would have to provide 3s. 6d. in additional unemployment benefit. If they accept this proposal which the Government now make they will only have to provide, I think, 2s. 9d.—as a matter of fact, 2s. 4d., instead of the 3s. 6d. To that extent the poorer unions will be able to come under the provisions of the Act, whereas otherwise they might have been excluded from it.
      Question, "That the words 'two-thirds' stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
      Question, "That the words 'three-fourths' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the words, "deter-
      1980
      mining the mode in which questions arising under this Section shall be settled," and to insert instead thereof the words, "referring to the umpire any question which may arise under this Section."
      Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause, put, and negatived.
      Words "referring to the umpire any question which may arise under this Section," inserted.
      Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I rise to ask the Government to explain how this Clause is going to work in practice. I want the Government to assume that the member of a trade union falls out of work, and I want the Government to tell us what is going to happen to that trade unionist. Has he to go to the secretary of his trade union and tell him that he is out of work, and are the Government, if that trade union secretary is satisfied and begins to pay out of work benefit, going to pay three-fourths to that trade union? Or is the man out of work to go before an insurance officer or to a Labour Exchange, or in what way is it to be proved that he is, in fact, out of work? In other words, I want to know to what extent the Government is going to follow the trade union and pay the proportion of benefit which is provided by the Clause?
      Mr. BUXTON: The proposal is really this: If a workman falls out of work, and goes on the Fund, he will go in either case, whether he is a unionist or non-unionist, to the Labour Exchange. In the case of the man to whom the hon. Member refers, he will lodge his book at the Labour Exchange, and he will receive a voucher to the effect that his book has been lodged and that he is out of employment. That voucher the trade unionist will take to his trade union. They will then deal with him as they deal with their ordinary unemployed cases, and in the method provided by the trade union, and he will receive his benefit through the trade union, who will then make a claim upon the Insurance Fund for the amount of the unemployed benefit, under 7s., that they have paid. The Labour Exchange through the whole process retains his book, and therefore he cannot again take employment, as the hon. Member knows, without having to go to the Exchange and get his book back, because under the Act in

      1981
      the insured trades he cannot go into employment without having possession of his book, which is to be stamped from time to time. That is the process which we propose as regards the trade unionist, and to that extent I think is an answer to what the hon. Gentleman wants.
      Mr. BIGLAND: I would like to put it to the President of the Board of Trade whether, before we come to the Report stage, it would not be well to eliminate this word "association," and to insert "trade union." I think after this discussion we have listened to, it being the Government's intention that only trade unions should be the distributors of this benefit, it will make it much clearer if the word "trade union" and not "association" is used. If the word "association" is left in, there will be a great feeling of competition at the moment this Bill comes into force. That is a suspicion shared by the Government—that any association giving unemployed benefit will be able to rank under this Clause.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: It might be put in set terms "association of workmen," or the usual technical term which is "trade union." If the technical words are used, which are well understood, I think it will meet the case.
      Sir J. SIMON: Although I would gladly consider the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead, and that also of the hon. Gentleman behind me, I rather question whether the change is proper. I can quite imagine a case of an association of workmen, which, for some reason, quite alien to Section 79, may not in the set terms satisfy the definition of trade union. It seems undesirable that we should use such an expression as "trade union," which otherwise, is not a definition in this Act at all. To this extent the hon. Member will appreciate that when we say "an association of workmen" we mean that class or body which includes the trade union, though I conceive it might also include associations which are not technically so at all.
      Mr. BUXTON: I ought to have stated just now that in each case under the Bill the notice will be given to the employer in the event of any workman, whether a trade unionist or not, coming on the funds, so that the reason for leaving his employment may be on record. That is with a view to other Clauses which might disqualify him from benefit.
      Mr. BAIRD: Notice to be given by the Labour Exchange?
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes.
      Mr. BALDWIN: What is the exact meaning of the words "any class thereof"? Do they refer to workmen or to trades?
      Mr. BUXTON: It does not follow that a trade union will come under the provisions of this Act. A trade union covering several classes of workmen would not necessarily give unemployment benefit to all the classes, and it will come in respect of the particular class to which it gives unemployment benefit.
      Mr. BALDWIN: It refers to workmen?
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes.
      Question, "That the Clause, as Amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 80.—(Repayments to Associations making Payments to Persons, whether Workmen in Insured Trade or not, whilst Unemployed.)
      (1) The Board of Trade may, with the consent of the Treasury, and on such conditions and either annually or at such other intervals as the Board may prescribe, repay out of moneys provided by Parliament to any association of persons not trading for profit the rules of which provide for payments to persons whilst unemployed, whether workmen in an insured trade or not, such part (in no case exceeding one-sixth) as they think fit, of the aggregate amount which the association has expended on such payments during the preceding year or other prescribed period, exclusive of the sum (if any) repaid to the association in respect of such period in pursuance of an arrangement under the last foregoing section, and exclusive in the case of payments which exceed twelve shillings a week of so much of those payments as exceeds that sum.
      (2) No repayment shall be made under this Section in respect of any period before the commencement of this Act.
      (3) The Board of Trade may make regulations for giving effect to this Section and for determining the mode in which questions arising under this Section shall be settled.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words, "At any time after the expiration of five years."
      I move this Amendment in order to place some check upon the extraordinary and great powers which you propose to vest in the hands of the Board of Trade. It may no doubt be very desirable—in fact, I believe it is—that every encouragement should be given to associations who are providing for men other than those in insured trades. But however desirable that may be, surely it is a subject for special legislation, and should not come within the scope of a Bill dealing entirely with insured trades. The reading of this particular Clause does not appear to be perfectly clear. The contributions that are to be made are not only in respect of men in uninsured trades, but also in respect of men in insured trades. Do you propose to duplicate the system? Do you propose to give the Board of Trade authority to make contributions to associations of men who are in insured trades in addition to those who are in uninsured trades? I could understand the Clause if it was to apply solely to cases where the associations are making contributions to men in uninsured trades; but if it is also to cover men in insured trades you are duplicating it. In other words, an association may be giving contributions to men in insured trades, and they are to receive a further contribution in respect of those very men from the Board of Trade under this Clause. There is another point. Is the Board of Trade to be empowered to make these contributions, and are the contributions to be paid out of the unexpended treasury balances? Is it only after this expenditure has been made that Parliament is to be asked to vote the amount already expended? These are questions vitally affecting the whole Clause, and in order to obtain further information I beg to move.
      Mr. BUXTON: I do not know whether it is worth while giving an explanation as the hon. Member has left the room; but it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain how this Clause will work. The Amendment proposes to postpone it for five years. Either the Clause is good or it is bad. If it is bad it should not be in at all; if it is good it should be acted upon at once. The object is this—and I think it will be in conformity with an Amendment moved earlier in our
      1984
      proceedings in reference to voluntary insurance for unemployment. We have under the Bill as a whole met insurance for unemployment in the insured trades. We have given our benefits through the trade unions in the way of a refund, and we have encouraged them to give more than the statutory amount of 7s. by a provision of Clause 79. Considering that the country as a whole pays towards the unemployed benefits in the insured trades, I think everybody will agree that it will be an advantage if we can also encourage to a certain extent voluntary funds for unemployment benefits. This is what I may call the Ghent system on top of our compulsory system. The idea is that in the event of an association giving unemployment benefit the State should add to that. There is no question of contribution on the part either of the workman or of the employer in this case. It is purely a State contribution. We propose, under this Clause, to give one-sixth of any unemployment benefit given by any voluntary association. It will really work out in this way: Supposing a voluntary association is giving unemployment benefit to the extent of 12s. a week; it would then receive 2s. in addition from the State, which would go towards the increased payment for benefit during the period of unemployment. That is so far as regards a voluntary association outside the insured trades. In the insured trades the process would be this, again assuming that the unemployment benefit was 12s. As regards 7s., the association would receive it by way of refund. Out of the remaining 5s. they would receive one-sixth, which would make 2s. 7d. from the State. In the uninsured trades they would receive one-sixth of the whole 12s., which would amount to 2s. In the case of the insured trades they would receive the statutory benefit of 7s. in addition to the proportion of the 5s.
      Mr. HOLT: Do I correctly understand that in the case of the insured trades the maximum contribution would be one-sixth of 5s., that is, something less than 1s., and that in the case of the uninsured trades there will be a maximum possible of 2s.? Do I rightly understand that not one penny of this can be contributed without a special vote of Parliament on the Estimates? This is to be "out of moneys provided by Parliament." Do I correctly understand that an Estimate will have to be presented to Parliament before any of these payments can be made? Further,

      1985
      am I right in understanding that the Estimate of £750,000, as the contribution from the public funds towards the expenditure of this Bill is entirely exclusive of any contribution that may be made under this Clause?
      Mr. BUXTON: The principle is this. Under this Clause the money comes direct from the State. Therefore, it clearly would come in the ordinary way before Parliament on the Estimates. The £750,000 to which the Solicitor-General referred in connection wtih the Insurance Fund has nothing to do with this point. I am informed that I did not make the point quite clear just now in respect to the insured trades. What I meant to say was that, assuming they are giving unemployment benefit at 12s., they get 7s. from the Fund, and in addition one-sixth of the 5s. Therefore, taking what they get from the Fund as well, the State contribution to them in that case will be 2s. 7d.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is the right hon. Gentleman's arithmetic correct?
      Mr. BUXTON: I think so.
      Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The grant of one-sixth is exclusive of the sum repaid to the association under Clause 80, and also exclusive of any benefit which exceeds 12s. a week. So that in the one case it seems to me the maximum is 2s. But if the right hon. Gentleman says that it is 2s. 7d. I will accept his figures.
      Mr. BUXTON: I think I am right. There is in the insured trades 12s. a week, of which 7s. comes from the Fund. There is in addition 5s., one-sixth of which is 10d. From the Fund they will receive the 7s., so that altogether they will receive 7s. 10d. Out of that the State contribution, taking the State contribution to the Fund and the State contribution of one-sixth, comes to 2s. 7d.
      Mr. ALBERT SMITH: Do I understand that in an insured trade one-sixth of the payments above 7s. will be paid?
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted, put, and negatived.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), after the word "shillings" ["exceed twelve shillings"] to insert the words "and any insured case, six shillings."
      1986
      The reason I move that is that a number of societies will be paying 6s. per week over and above the amount provided in the Bill. I think it is only fair to them that they should have the sixth of the 6s. which is paid over and above the benefit provided in the Bill. It would prevent confusion in bookkeeping, and would simplify the keeping of the books very considerably. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
      The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is not on the Paper, and I have not been able to follow it with great care, but I am inclined to think it is out of order.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will say whether the Government are prepared to do anything on the Report stage?
      The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is out of order. The next Amendment is by Mr. Buxton in Sub-section (2), after the word "before" to insert the words "the expiration of six months from."
      Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) after the word "before" insert the words "the expiration of six months from."—[Mr. Buxton.]
      Question put, "That the Clause as Amended stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. BAIRD: Before this Clause is passed I must frankly confess that I do not understand it, and my feeling is shared by a good many of the Members on this side. As I understood the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, he said this is the Ghent system on the top of our compulsory system. That is a scheme for subsidising trade unionism. In an explanation which accompanied the Bill at the outset there was a paper which stated that it was estimated there were 2,400,000 people who would come under this Part of the Bill, about 400,000 being included in existing institutions. The total number of trade unionists is something like two and a half millions, and as I read this Clause, all but those trade unionists who do not happen to come within a trade to which this part of the Bill applies, would be in the position to apply for the repayment of one-sixth of whatever benefit was given. Is that so? If it is the case, have the Government any idea whatever of the cost that would be entailed on the State? Is there any means of estimating what the cost is likely to be of fulfilling the conditions laid down in this Clause, because it seems to me it is a perfectly

      1987
      vague liability which the State is assuming? Although it is a right thing to assist those who help themselves, we may be taking under this Clause liabilities of which we have no conception. That is how it strikes me.
      Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Member has quoted figures in regard to trade unionists, but he must remember that this Clause only applies to trade unions or associations which give unemployed benefit, and the estimate that we have made, as far as we could estimate, shows that it will cost about £60,000 in the first year, rising to about £80,000 subsequently.
      Mr. BAIRD: An association may not now provide for giving unemployment benefit, but if they get this additional bonus, they will promptly make arrangement to provide benefit. The hon. Member for Stoke raised that point with great justice. Therefore, it does seem to me that it will be a very difficult thing to estimate. You cannot tell how many associations will at once make a scheme of benefits.
      Mr. BUXTON: We estimate that in the first year, £60,000 will be sufficient, and our estimate for the subsequent years, as I have said, will be £80,000. Of course, we think it will tend, as we desire it should, to encourage voluntary insurance against unemployment. The hon. Member must not forget that, after all, it is the association, or the trade union, that has got to provide the bulk of the money. There will be an addition by the State of one-sixth, but the great burden falls upon the trade union, and it is not likely that in any sense there will be bogus provision for unemployment, but whether it is bogus or not, so long as it is provision for unemployment, that is what we desire in this Clause to encourage.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: There is a phrase in the first line on page 65 which is exceedingly vague. It says the Government are prepared to pay "to any association of persons." If that association is not to be confined to those who are going to manage the association of which the insured persons are a part, difficulties will arise. If it could be "workmen" you would get very near to the type of management in Part II. that we have in Part I. But if "workmen" was included it would keep out an association of clerks, as workman is defined in the preceding Clause. I suggest that "any association of persons" needs to be a little
      1988
      more restricting than it is at present, otherwise you may have all types of groups, employers possibly, exercising the function of a body which it is intended should consist of persons who are combined for unemployment insurance.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 81.—(Interpretation and Application.)
      (1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act—
      The expression "workman" means any person of the age of eighteen or upwards employed wholly or mainly by way of manual labour, who has entered into or works under a contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer, whether the contract is expressed or implied, is oral or in writing, and in relation to a person whilst unemployed means a person who, when employed, fulfilled the conditions aforesaid;
      Contributions made by an employer on behalf of a workman shall be deemed to be contributions by the workman;
      Two periods of unemployment of not less than two days each, separated by a period of not more than two days, or two periods of unemployment of not less than one week each, separated by an interval of not more than six weeks, shall be treated as a continuous period, and the expression "continuously unemployed" shall have a corresponding meaning;
      Temporary work provided by a central body or distress committee under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, or towards the provision of which any such central body or distress committee has contributed under that Act, shall not be deemed to be employment in an insured trade.
      (2) This Part of this Act shall apply to workmen employed by or under the Crown to whom this Act would apply if the employer were a private person, except to such of those workmen as are serving in an established capacity in the permanent service of the Crown, subject, however, to such modifications as may be made therein by Order in Council for the purpose of adapting the provisions of this Part of this Act to the case of such workmen.
      Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I beg to move the first part of the Amendment standing in my name—to leave out the words "of the age of eighteen or upwards."
      That raises the question of boy labour. It may be said that we are dealing

      1989
      with trades in which the problem of boy labour is not very acute, inasmuch as they are not blind-alley trades, but I maintain that, as this is the beginning of a scheme which will no doubt be extended to other trades, we hope at an early date, it is exceedingly important we should begin in the right way and not neglect the question of juvenile labour. If we are to exempt altogether from payment all persons under the age of eighteen, we may certainly be offering an inducement to blind-alley labour of youths and boys. We shall be doing that by the financial inducement which would not be a large one in the case of big firms, but which might make a considerable difference in less desirable firms. Apart from the economic question, there is the interest of the boys to be considered, and I submit that under this schedule of trades there is a real problem of youthful employment. Anyone who thinks that the engineering trade is free from what may be described as blind-alley occupations would be convinced otherwise by reading the memorandum of Mr. Tawney in a volume of the consultative committee of the Board of Education dealing with Continuation schools. An enquiry into the conditions in Glasgow shows that there is a considerable amount of unemployment there because of the blind-alley work for boys in the engineering trade. The District Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers is quoted in support of that view.
      I think anyone who understands the question of boy labour must know of many individual cases of great hardship where youths who have been engaged in these particular trades have been thrown out of work through one cause or another, sometimes through the moving or failure of their employer's firms, and have been left stranded between the ages of eighteen and nineteen. That is just the time when discouragement has a very great effect on a boy's future, and when a boy might get into slack ways and take up some casual work, whereas if he could hold on a little longer, he might have kept in the skilled trades. It is important that a boy, if he falls out of work between the age of eighteen and nineteen, should have some reserve to his credit in the Fund. I am not in favour of paying out a large sum, if any, before the age of eighteen. I should prefer to see no payment before that age, and allow the reserve to accumulate for the benefit of the boy after the age of eighteen. I would strongly emphasise the point that boys under eighteen should not
      1990
      be left outside the Fund, and that they should be given an opportunity of accumulating this reserve which will be very valuable to them at the critical time of their lives, if they get thrown out of work.
      The CHAIRMAN: In order to save the manuscript Amendment handed n by the President of the Board of Trade, the question I have to put is "That the words 'of the age of' stand part of the Clause."
      Mr. HOARE: I hope the Committee will give this amendment its close attention. It is a very important amendment, but at the same time I cannot deny that it raises a considerable number of difficulties. In the first place, if you bring young persons into the scope of the Bill, you will be asking their parents to pay a very high contribution, 2½d. per week for a kind of labour that is only slightly remunerative. Added to that, you will be asking young persons or their representatives to pay contributions when, as we all know, the conditions of boy labour, up to the age of nineteen or twenty, are such that a boy is very seldom unemployed. He would therefore be paying a high contribution, and, at any rate, for the immediate present, he would be receiving no benefit, and, as the hon. Gentleman said just now, these particular groups of trades are trades which, on the whole, it is not a bad thing that a boy should enter at a comparatively early age. I am told, for instance, that in the building trade, at any rate in London, there are too few boys at the present moment engaged, and it would be a very good thing if there were more boys in it. I cannot speak from experience of the other branches of the insured trades, but I am told that in many of them the same thing applies. But, at the same time, if we allowed the Bill to become law in its present form, we should be putting a direct premium on boy labour in other trades when the scope of the insured trades comes to be extended, and in trades in streets I should think we all desire that there should be as little boy labour as possible. For it stands to reason that if boys, or their representatives, are not asked to make any contributions at all, it will be to the advantage of the employer to get as much boy labour as ever he can.
      We must therefore keep in mind that the Board of Trade will, in all probability, extend the scope of the Bill and bring in other trades in which we do not want to encourage boy labour in any shape or

      1991
      form. Then there comes the question: Supposing we cut out the words as proposed, at what age should we allow boys to come within the scope of the Bill? Should it be sixteen or should it be fourteen? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has an Amendment dealing with that point, and I therefore will not argue it in the few regarks that I am making now. But it is an important point, and further, there are the additional points, whether if boys do come in, shall we require them to pay the contributions, or shall we remit the whole or some of the contributions, and if we do not remit the contributions, shall we allow them to be aggregated, and say, at the age of eighteen or twenty, or whatever age you may like, allow the boy to obtain larger and more extended benefits under the Bill when he reaches the time at which, as we all know, he is very liable to become a casual labourer, or to become unemployed during the years between twenty and thirty? I own that my mind is not made up upon those points, but I do think on the whole that the weight of argument is in favour of bringing young persons into the scope of the Bill. I own, as I have said, that a case can be made out against it, particularly with the present three groups of trades, but at the same time, in view of the fact that the Bill will undoubtedly be extended in the future, I do think that it would be wise to pass the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member opposite, and also one of the subsequent Amendments dealing with the earlier age.
      Mr. ALBERT SMITH: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to this, I should like to put the case of the textile workers in Yorkshire and Lancashire, as to what their position is under this Clause, and as to how it will be affected by the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has just moved. Under Clauses 79 and 80 of this Bill, a tremendous number of trade unions will commence to pay unemployed benefit who have not hitherto done so, and who take into their societies boys and girls as soon as they enter the mills, and these boys and girls from the age of, say, fifteen years get on to mind machinery at the same rate of wages as adults receive. It is all on the same basis of payment. That applies to Lancashire as well as Yorkshire, and there are a tremendous number of them. Under the
      1992
      first part of this Clause, I should like to know what their position is, and I think at any rate the least that can be done with regard to this would be for the Government to make it explicit that they will get the one-sixth of any unemployed benefit that may have been paid on their behalf under Clause 80. If not, an injustice will be done to these young persons when they are thrown out of work, and they are earning as much as their fathers and mothers. At eighteen, in the textile trade, there are hundreds and thousands of them earning over a sovereign a week, and, indeed, hundreds of them at seventeen, and it would be a pity if these young persons who show dexterity and ability of working to that extent, should be deprived of any proportion of the unemployed benefit.
      Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps I might deal with that point first, because it is rather apart from the general question of the juveniles. As the Bill now stands with the figure of eighteen in it, any one of the age of eighteen or above will come under the provisions of the two last Clauses that we have passed, and similarly if we reduce the age from eighteen to sixteen, they will come under the definition of workman; therefore if the age is reduced to that extent the particular young person that the hon. Gentleman has in mind will be able to come under the previous Clauses. Whatever age appears in the Act, these persons above that age will be workmen, and will therefore come under the previous provisions. As regards the general question which has been raised by my hon. Friend below, the Government have very carefully considered this matter. It has been one, as my hon. Friend opposite said, of considerable difficulty and complexity as to whether in Part II. of the Act we should take the age of eighteen or reduce it below that figure. In Part I., as I understand it, practically now the line will be drawn at sixteen, and that is a great argument, I think, for bringing the two into line in respect of this matter.
      I admit the position is somewhat different as to giving the contributions and sick benefits under Part I. from that under Part II., but I think there is a good deal to be said for having the two parts on the same basis, and I may say, at once, therefore, that as regards this question, I propose to move an Amendment changing the age from eighteen to sixteen. As was stated by my hon. Friend, between those

      1993
      ages we do not want to give the employer any inducement to employ a young person at a more juvenile age than he otherwise would, and as the Bill stands at present between sixteen and eighteen he would have had the inducement of a 2½d. a week contribution, as well as, of course, the trouble of having his cards, and so on, which might in some trades induce the employer to employ a person at a lower age instead of eighteen and above. I do not think that would apply to the trades in question here, but I agree with my hon. Friend opposite, that as regards the particular trades in question, the ones that will be in the first instance under the Bill, are not very seriously affected in respect of this matter, but as we are proposing to bring in other trades, and undoubtedly if this Act is a success a very large number of trades from time to time will come under its provisions, either under Clause 77 or by an extension of the Act of Parliament, I think we ought to provide for it in the first instance, and not consider the matter merely as affecting the insured trades proposed at present.
      In addition to that, I think I had better mention at once—because I think there will be general assent to it—my hon. Friend has put a further Amendment down, that in cases where the employer guarantees continuity of employment, these boys should be excluded from contribution either on their own part or on the part of the employer, because in those cases the employer is practically guaranteeing for a certain number of years continuity of employment. As regards the boy, I think we all agree that it is an advantage that he should at an early age be drawn into the paths of thrift and insurance, even if it is put compulsorily upon him, and I think there is a great deal of force in what fell from my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, that in the case of the boys who go into what are commonly called "blind alley" industries, it is just about the age between eighteen and twenty when they are very often cast adrift, and are moving from one trade to another, or whatever it may be, and they are just at an age when it might have been a great advantage that there should have been some accumulation for that boy which would have enabled him to tide over by giving him unemployed benefit during certain times. Assuming the principle is accepted, there comes the problem, and it is the most difficult question that we have to decide, how we should carry that out. Should this boy between sixteen
      1994
      and eighteen come under the main provisions of the Bill, and should he, or his employer, be called upon to contribute the full 2½d. in each case, and should the boy come under full benefits, or, as is proposed by the hon. Member for Carlisle and others, should there in this case be no contribution and no benefit received during those two years? We came to the conclusion on the whole that it would be more equitable and better that there should be contributions and benefits.
      Then arose the further question, Should those contributions and benefits be those which are provided in the Bill for adults and persons of riper years, and looking into it from that point of view we came to the conclusion, in the first place, that it would throw a very heavy burden on the employer if, in the case of these juveniles, the full 2½d. contribution was exacted; it would amount to something like £50,000 a year after deducting the apprentices, and there is also the point made by the hon. Member for Chelsea with regard to the low wage a boy necessarily earns at that age, that it would be a serious burden on him, especially if he was living alone, or as is the fact in so many cases, being an integral part of the support of the family, and also as far as the boy is concerned, if you give full contributions, you obviously must give full benefits, and in the case of a boy between sixteen and eighteen the benefits proposed under the Bill would really very much conduce to malingering, because a boy would be able to subsist very comfortably on his 7s. a week, or at all events it would enable him to buy his cigarettes if he is above the legal age. It would be too largo an amount for the boy to receive to induce him to look about for employment.
      Taking all that into account—of course these Amendments will go on the Schedule—the Amendment I am proposing is to reduce the age to eighteen. I had better inform the Committee first what we propose with regard to it. In the case of the employer and in the case of the juvenile, instead of asking for a contribution of 2½d. we propose to ask for a contribution of 1d. per week from them, and in regard to the boy himself that in his first year he should not receive any benefit. That is not the time he is likely to want it, and in his second year we propose he should receive a ½d. at any rate, and any balance which he might, during that period have accumulated. One hopes that in most cases he would have accumulated it all. That would go to his credit and be available for him either during the time

      1995
      I have mentioned, or at a later time, and supposing that a boy in that case, with 1d. contribution from the employer and the workman, and of course the equivalent State contribution had been employed for forty-five weeks in the first two years, when he came to eighteen years of age he would have a claim equivalent to thirty-six weeks' full contribution. Therefore either he would be in the position of drawing on that fund if he required it, or it would continue to go to his credit for the future. We believe that that will meet the real difficulty and reduce the inducement to the employer to employ a boy at a lower age. There will still be the 1d. contribution and the trouble of the cards, so that the inducement will be reduced to a minimum and really disappear. We think that the burden on the employer and on the juvenile himself would not be unduly heavy, and it would have the great advantage of giving the latter the accumulation of his benefit when the time of pressure came. It is a transition state which we desire to bridge over. If the Committee will accept the Amendment which I propose to move, reducing the age to sixteen, other Amendments will be required in the schedule, and we can then consider whether the proposal of the Government in regard to benefits and contributions is one to which the Committee can assent. I think the Committee generally are in favour of the reduction of the age. We have endeavoured to deal with the matter so as to be fair both to the employer and to the juvenile, and also to put the juvenile in a better position under the Bill than he would have been in if it had remained in its original form.
      Mr. M'CALLUM: I think we must all be satisfied with the statement now made by the President of the Board of Trade. If we look upon this question from the standpoint introduced by the Member for Leeds, one knows by experience that it is easy to get boy labour from fourteen onwards; but if a boy can earn 10s. at fourteen years of age and eventually get £1 at eighteen, there is a very great difficulty in getting that boy to leave at a sufficiently early age to learn a proper trade. I think the suggestion now made will help to rectify that difficulty. The boy will have something to encourage him to go away at sixteen to get into a proper trade instead of being a labourer at eighteen and finding that he cannot get more than a labourer's wage because he is too old to go to a proper trade. That is one of the difficulties which
      1996
      will be an advantage if we can remedy it. The contribution of 1d. will be quite within their power and many of them could pay more.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move "That the Committee continue to sit after four o'clock." I hope the Committee will allow us to get the new Clauses, so that we can begin the schedules to-morrow.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I at this stage raise a point in connection with the sittings of the Committee? The right hon. Gentlemen knows that it will be very inconvenient for Members on this side to be present to-morrow. We all expect to be somewhere else. I do not want in any way to interfere with the arrangements of the Government as regards the Bill, but if the Committee could sit on another day instead of to-morrow, it would be a great convenience, not to me personally, but to a large number of Members who really cannot attend to-morrow or Friday.
      Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid it is very difficult. I had suggested that the Committee should sit four days this week, but I think they would be prepared to finish in another day. Friday will probably be even more inconvenient than to-morrow. Would it meet the hon. Member's difficulty if we met at 11 o'clock to-morrow instead of 11.30? That would give us substantial time, I think, to finish the Amendments, and we should then have the Schedules to deal with, which we could probably do before we lost the pleasure of the hon. Member's company.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am not speaking for myself. I could be here until 2 o'clock, so that 11 o'clock would be convenient to me. But many of my hon. Friends cannot be here at all to-morrow.
      Mr. BUXTON: I am very sorry.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: They are leaving London to-night or by an early train to-morrow and could not possibly be here. I would not interpose any difficulty in the way of the Government's getting the remaining Clauses to-day. Is it not possible to take the Schedules and the new Clauses on Monday or Tuesday? I do not anticipate that they will take more than a day. As far as I am concerned I think we could undertake that they would not take more than a day.
      Mr. BUXTON: I am extremely anxious not to press the hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will appreciate that we have done our best to meet the convenience of the Committee throughout. I think we really must finish the Bill this week, because of the Report stage. As the hon. "Member knows, we have several questions of some importance to consider, dealing with matters raised on both sides, and, as he can understand, we have had and shall have no opportunity of considering them until we are through Committee. I have looked very carefully through the Amendments that remain on the Schedule, and I do not think they raise any matters of great principle; therefore I hope he will allow us to sit to-morrow.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I cannot stop you.
      Mr. BUXTON: I hope he will acquiesce in the suggestion that the Committee should sit to-morrow. I understand from the papers that there has been some political crisis which may interfere with the attendance of hon. Members here, and I very much regret that there should be any inconvenience; but if the Committee agree we will meet at eleven o'clock.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman really wants to take the new Clauses to-day. Many of us have been sitting here pretty regularly, and it will be extremely inconvenient to me personally, at any rate, if the new Clauses are taken to-day. I have an engagement from which I cannot escape at 4.30, but perhaps he could take only Government clauses.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has done his very best to meet us, and I quite appreciate his difficulty. I suggest that we should finish the Clauses to-day and the new Clauses, and meet at 11 o'clock to morrow.
      Sir E. CORNWALL: The Government's new Clauses?
      Mr. BUXTON: We will take the Government's new Clauses.
      Mr. DENMAN: I do not think we want unnecessarily to prolong the discussion on this Amendment. We are grateful for the concession made to us, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are a number of us who feel very strongly on this matter, and although the condition of boy labour in these particular
      1998
      trades is relatively satisfactory, we view with some alarm the possibility of extending the Act to other trades. If the President will undertake to insert some provision allowing the Board of Trade to reduce the age under Clause 77, if it is recommended in a special order, I think we should be prepared without further discussion to accept his suggested Amendment with some gratitude. Otherwise I am afraid we must resist the insertion of sixteen and adhere to our Amendment.
      Mr. BUXTON: I can only say that if my hon. Friend puts down an Amendment to that effect I will carefully consider it. I do not propose to put it down myself, but it is a matter for consideration, and if he puts the Amendment on the paper I will consider it. I cannot give any promise about it.
      Question proposed, "That the words 'of the age of' stand part of the Clause."
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, proposed by Mr. Buxton, is to leave out the word "eighteen" and to insert instead thereof the word "sixteen." I think the Committee have already discussed the question of "eighteen" and "sixteen." I permitted a very general discussion on the understanding that the whole question was being gone into.
      Mr. HARVEY: The President of the Board of Trade was the first in the discussion to mention the age of sixteen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, is the only person who has spoken since, so that there can scarcely have been a general discussion on that point. I would ask that we should hear a little more of the opinions of the Committee as to the possibility of carrying out the suggestion of my hon. Friend, and whether when the Act is extended to other trades it may be possible for the Board of Trade in a Special Order to make arrangements for reducing the age.
      Mr. HOARE: I am most grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for the alteration that he has made in the Bill. I feel certain that he is fully conscious of this, that when the Act comes to be extended to other trades, it may be necessary to reduce the age of sixteen to the age of fourteen, or the age of exemption from attendance at a voluntary school. I am quite contented with the assurance he has given that he will favourably consider any Amendment that might tend to

      1999
      carry out that idea. I do not propose my Amendment to reduce the age to fourteen, although I still think fourteen would be better, but in the meantime I am prepared to rest satisfied with the concession the President of the Board of Trade has made.
      Mr. DENMAN: I think it is a little hard on the Committee that, although these Amendments have been down for some time on the Paper, we are now, at the last moment, confronted with an Amendment to substitute the age of sixteen without any possibility of considering it adequately. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright, we have no definite assurance that he will take power to reduce the age when the scheme is extended to other trades.
      Mr. BUXTON: What I said was, that if my hon. Friend, or any of those interested, desire to raise that point, and put it down in the form of an Amendment, I will give it very careful consideration, but I cannot pledge myself at the present time to undertake to accept it. It is quite clear that the stage at which it must necessarily come forward is on Report, because we have passed Clause 77, under which it would come.
      Mr. HOARE: As I understand the Bill the Board of Trade will be enabled to make certain modifications. Would the reduction of the age from sixteen to fourteen in certain branches of trade be one of those modifications that the Board of Trade could make without any special Amendment of the Bill?
      Mr. BUXTON: No. In Clause 77, we put in modifications of rates, contributions and benefit. I think it must be raised as a clear issue. I am quite prepared to consider it as a clear issue on the Report stage.
      Mr. LEACH: I want to express my sincere gratitude to the President of the Board of Trade for changing the age from eighteen to sixteen, and to express my concurrence with all that has been said about discouraging boy labour. We should serve the interests of the boys and of the Nation by keeping them at school as long as possible. At the same time, I have in mind those parents, and I say this without meaning offence, who are victims of economic circumstances, and are obliged to look upon their children to contribute towards the family income. At
      2000
      the same time, we should consider the welfare of the children, and I am grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for reducing the age to sixteen.
      Amendment made: Leave cut the words "of the age of eighteen or upwards," and insert instead thereof the word "sixteen."—[Mr. Buxton.]
      The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle seems to be covered. He proposes to leave out "of the age of eighteen or upwards." "Eighteen" has been left out, and "sixteen" inserted.
      Mr. DENMAN: The rest of my Amendment, which is to insert "other than an indentured apprentice," is still outside the Clause.
      The CHAIRMAN: It is in order if the hon. Member for Carlisle desires to move it, but the right hon. Gentleman says he has Amendments carrying out the objects of this Amendment which he proposes to move immediately.
      Mr. DENMAN: I did not understand there was a subsequent Amendment to meet this.
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes.
      Mr. DENMAN: "Other than apprentice" are the words I propose to insert.
      Mr. J. WARD: Make it "indentured apprentice," as you have it in your Amendment on the paper.
      Mr. BUXTON: I think it is better to leave out the words "or apprenticeship," and afterwards to insert "but does not include indentured apprentice."
      Mr. DENMAN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move to leave out the words "or apprenticeship."
      Mr. HOARE: That is the Amendment standing in my name. I am glad to find that the President of the Board of Trade will accept it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. HOARE: The next Amendment that stands in my name raises the point of the indentured apprentices, and I am glad to think the President of the Board of Trade is going to meet the Committee on that point. It also raises a further point. I am

      2001
      anxious that even where there is not a legal apprenticeship indenture, favourable treatment should be given where the Board of Trade is satisfied that the boy is being educated and instructed in the principles of his trade, and that that trade is a permanent and regular trade and not a "blind alley" one. I quite acknowledge that the extension would be difficult to define, but, at the same time, I do want the Board of Trade to be empowered to give favourable treatment to such cases where the boy really is being properly instructed in his trade, although there may not be a legal indenture. I therefore beg to move after the word "employer" ["apprenticeship with an employer"] to insert the words "except a duly indentured apprentice or a workman under the age of eighteen employed in such a manner as to satisfy the Board of Trade that he is being instructed in the principles and practices of a regular trade."
      Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member for Chelsea has taken so close and sincere an interest in this part of the Bill, that I am sure the Committee is very much obliged to him, but I suggest to him that what he is now proposing goes too far in one direction, and not far enough in another. To take the employer's point of view first, it really does not give to the employer from one point of view all that it seems fair to give him. The Government proposal would be not merely that you exclude from the obligation to contribute in respect of young persons under eighteen, who are apprentices, but of a higher age. I cannot see any reason why the employer should not have the benefit of the exemption for the period of the apprenticeship deed. Then the hon. Member proposes that we should extend the privilege in the case of young persons not under any apprenticeship deed at all, but who satisfy some vague conditions. Here the lawyer comes in, and you have to make up your mind when you are dealing with a person under twenty-one, if you want to bind that young person so that there is a binding contract, which he can insist on, and his employer, you must have an apprenticeship deed, and there is no means known to the law by which you can make a bargain which binds a person under the age of twenty-one to a contract of service, unless it be under deed any more than you can bind an undergraduate to pay for his fancy waistcoats except under deed. Therefore I am afraid we cannot extend it to anything except to apprenticeship deeds, and in extending it
      2002
      to apprenticehip deeds, I propose that the employer should be given the benefit of it whether the workman is under eighteen or not.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: I think I realise that the object of the hon. Member for Chelsea is to give the power to an employer to allow his youths to attend technical classes if they like. I think that is at the back of the Amendment.
      Mr. HOARE: I should certainly include that in it.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: That is my chief argument in supporting the contention advanced by the hon. Member. By a benevolent compulsion you wish to give general encouragement to the employer to let his apprentices get that training by its being to his advantage to do so. A direct encouragement given to young persons to qualify themselves fully in their occupation, and to employers to encourage and allow them to attend these classes, is the kind of thing I would gladly see carried out, and, if possible, made statutory by this Bill.
      Mr. J. WARD: I must certainly support the view of the Solicitor-General in reference to this proposition. We have got enough half-baked workmen about at the present time as it is, without trying to increase the number by Act of Parliament, because that seems to be what the result of this Amendment would be if it was carried. Without these words, there is nothing to prevent an employer giving an opportunity to a lad to attend technical schools—in fact, plenty of enterprising lads, whether the employer likes it or not, do attend technical schools, and sometimes become thoroughly accomplished in trades in which they are not actually employed, and I think you only ought to recognise exemptions in the case of apprentices properly indentured. You could not have an age limit for that, because up to sixteen or seventeen, the boy may be apprenticed for four, five or six years, as the case may be, and, therefore, you would go long beyond the age of eighteen, and where the employer is prepared to give an indenture of apprenticeship to a lad, and promises to teach him thoroughly his trade, I think he ought to be exempted, as far as possible, from the duties and responsibilities under the Act. I think it is a very good proposal of the President of the Board of Trade to insist upon indentured apprenticeships, and to facilitate and even help the employer who is prepared to execute indentures.
      Mr. HOARE: I fully recognise the difficulties in the way of the extension of this Amendment, and beg to withdraw it. Should I be in order in moving the first sentence of it?
      Sir. J. SIMON: It will not be necessary, because we are going to deal with that later.
      Mr. HOARE: Very well, then I withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. BUXTON: I move, at the end of the Clause to insert the words "but does not include an indentured apprentice."
      I think that meets the general views of the Committee, although it does not quite meet my hon. Friend. May I just thank the Committee for the very kind reception they have given to the proposals of the Government in this matter.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted, put, and agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: After the word "period" ["treated as a continuous period"] insert the words "of unemployment."—[Mr. Buxton.]
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move at end of Sub-section (1) to insert,
      A workman shall not be deemed to be unemployed whilst he is following any remunerative occupation on his own account.
      A workman shall not for the purposes of contributions be deemed to be employed in any period in respect of which he receives no remuneration from his employer notwithstanding that he continues during such period in his employment.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: In considering this Amendment, might I ask the President of the Board of Trade to give some explanation of the Sub-section itself, which is not perfectly clear to me? Am I to understand that a man who has been in an insured trade loses his employment and does not come on the unemployed fund, but receives and accepts temporary work under the central body, and when that work is completed he again is out of employment, I should like to know whether during the period be is so out of employment he is to receive any contribution?
      Sir J. SIMON: Perhaps I may just give the hon. Gentleman the explanation he
      2004
      asks. The Committee will see that we are really dealing with two matters. The question which has just been put deals with the first of them. The second part of the proposed Amendment deals with a separate point that I will refer to in a moment. Take the first of the two parts of the Amendment. It provides that a workman shall not be deemed to be unemployed whilst he is following any remunerative occupation on his own account. It is necessary to have some such provision, or else, every workman, who has hitherto been working for an employer, and who gives his work up and sets up on his own account, would be within the definition of the Bill unemployed, because we describe him as employed or unemployed according as he is, or is not working under contract with somebody else, and, therefore, we must stop that hole in the Act. But while we want to do that, there are probably cases where a merely trifling occupation for quite unimportant periods ought not to be regarded as disqualifying a man from coming on the Fund. Our general view is this, and if the Committee agree we will endeavour to carry it out on the Report. We think that if a man is claiming money from the Fund, and is at the same time following a remunerative occupation in an insured trade, be really is not entitled to come on the Fund at all.
      On the other hand cases may be expected to arise where a man is out of his work in his own trade, who claims to go on the Fund, and is entitled to do so. We think it would be very hard that he should lose his right to the Fund merely because he gets some casual and slight employment quite outside his ordinary work. Supposing it is election time, he may get half a day's work carrying round sandwich boards. It would be very hard to deprive a man of unemployment benefit simply because he was engaged in that extremely remunerative occupation. Therefore, when we come to the report stage, what we suggest would be to qualify the provision to this extent. We would go on to provide in effect that a workman who was engaged in an occupation outside his insured trade and was not earning in the week from that occupation more than the amount of the unemployment benefit should not on that account be treated as disentitled to unemployment benefit. The maximum case would be that of a man getting 7s. from unemployment benefit and it might be 7s. from casual work. I think the Committee will see that that is fair. To save time I

      2005
      will explain the second proposal. The second part is designed to provide for a case where a workman remains in the employment of his employer for, let us say, a week when he takes a holiday, and when he does no remunerative work. For instance, in Lancashire there is a customary holiday of a week at Whitsuntide. During that week it would certainly not be reasonable to ask that the employer or that the workmen should pay contributions, for the latter does not get any wages. But though he does not get any wages, he none the less might be regarded as being in the employment of his employer. It is for that reason we put in the second provision. Both provisions are designed to carry out the general intentions of the Committee.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think we are all agreed that these provisions are a great improvement on the Bill, and personally I shall support them.
      Question, "That those words be there inserted" put, and agreed to.
      Further Amendment made,
      At the end of Sub-section (1), insert at the end of the Amendment last inserted the words:—
      (2) In determining any question as to whether any trade in which a workman is or has been employed is an insured trade, regard shall be had to the nature of the work in which the workman is engaged rather than to the business of the employer by whom he is employed.—(Mr. Buxton.)
      Mr. HOARE: I beg to move, after Sub-section (2), to insert,
      (3) This Part of this Act shall only apply to workmen employed by or under the London County Council in the same manner and to the same extent as it applies to workmen employed by or under the Crown, and accordingly it shall be subject to such modifications as may be made therein by Order in Council for the purpose of adapting the provisions thereof to the case of such workmen.
      I cannot help thinking that in justice workmen in the insured trades who are on the permanent establishment of the London County Council should be treated in exactly the same manner as workmen on the permanent establishment of Government Department. The Amendment does not refer to a large number of workmen. There are not a very great number, at any
      2006
      rate in the insured trades, on the permanent establishment of the County Council. But I think it would be altogether illogical that in regard to those who are on the permanent establishment you should ask for contributions under this Bill. They are in every way in the same position as the workmen on the establishment of Government Departments. Their employment is regular, they cannot be unemployed, and they get pensions. Therefore I hope these words will be inserted.
      Mr. BUXTON: In principle and substance we are in accord with the hon. Member. That is to say, that where under a local authority there is an employé under contract of service which renders him eligible for a pension and, therefore, practically guarantees him perpetuity of employment, he should come under the same provisions as men in the service of the Crown. The words proposed are somewhat cumbersome, and I think the matter ought to be dealt with when defining "workmen." If the hon. Member will rest content with that assurance, we will on Report put in words at the proper place to meet his objection.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Being a member of the London County Council, I was interested in this Amendment. We have a certain number of men who would come under the Clauses of this Bill, but who are on the establishment, in absolutely regular employment, get pensions, and so on. They ought certainly to be dealt with in the manner suggested. The only point is whether we ought to limit the proposal to the London County Council. There may be other large authorities who have men in a similar position. As far as I am concerned, I accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. BUXTON: It will extend to all such cases.
      Mr. PRICE: Will that apply to all corporations? We have men in similar employment in Edinburgh. It would not do to limit the proposal to the London County Council.
      Mr. BUXTON: I can quite understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite should think that the London County Council was the only important body, but there are a few other small towns like Glasgow and Edinburgh where similar conditions obtain. We shall certainly propose for the goose what we apply to the gander.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Which is which?
      Mr. BUXTON: The proposal would be that where employees are under contract of service which entitles them to pension and give them a guarantee of perpetuity of employment they should be excluded. The only reason I cannot accept the Amendment is in connection with the drafting, but on Report I will bring up any necessary words.
      Mr. HOLT: The right hon. Gentleman will realise the great competition there will be amongst towns to be reckoned as geese in consequence of what has been promised. He ought really to include all public authorities.
      The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on the present Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. JOHN WARD: I want to say a word in reference to the subject we have just been debating. I hope the Solicitor-General and the President of the Board of Trade, when they are carrying out of the promise which they have just given, will be very careful, for these bodies carry out large public works where men are engaged only temporarily. They may be engaged a few years—four or five years, as the case may be. I want to see these men safeguarded, otherwise they are going to be excluded from the Act, if they happen to work under public authorities.
      Mr. BUXTON: The men I had in mind are those who are pensionable, and are, therefore, in receipt of a perpetual salary. I am not putting the Amendments down now because we are anxiovs to have them carefully drafted on Report.
      Mr. PETO: Before we leave this Clause, I should like to appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to introduce some words in his Amendment which will define what remunerative employment is. That seems exceedingly wide and vague.
      Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Member was not present when we discussed this point. The Solicitor-General on behalf of the Government explained what we proposed to do if the hon. Member would kindly read the report, and if on reading it he is not satisfied, I should be very glad to have his views.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      NEW CLAUSES.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move that the following new Clause be read a second time:—
      (Refunding of part of contributions paid by employer in the case of workmen continuously employed.)
      The Board of Trade shall, on the application of any employer made within one month after the termination of any calendar year, or other prescribed period of twelve months, refund to such employer out of the Unemployment Fund a sum equal to one-third of the contributions (exclusive of any contributions refunded to him under any other provisions of this part of this Act) paid by him on his own behalf during that period in respect of any workman who has been continuously in his service through the period, and in respect of whom not less than forty-five contributions have been paid during the period.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: There is a very important point in this Clause to which I must call attention. I am not quite sure whether it is met by the words just put in. The right hon. Gentleman moved it in rather a different form from that in which it appears on the paper. The point arises on the word "continuously." It is very hard that if an employer has employed a man for a year and there has been a small break through the man being ill, or as the result of an accident, and the employer has paid forty-five contributions, the employer is not allowed to get the refund. I do not know whether the new words in the form in which they have been put in meet the point. Instead of using the words "continuously employed by him" the right hon. Gentleman proposes that the clause should read "continuously in his service." I repeat my doubt as to whether this meets my point. Let me put a case. I am an employer, and I am employing a man. In the current year I have paid forty-five contributions, and for three weeks in the middle of the period the man leaves my service and then comes back again. Why should I not have the refund? I should like to leave out the word "continuously" in the last line of the new Clause, and after the word "paid," insert "by such employer."
      The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member wish to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Durham?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No. What I propose is to move to leave out the

      2009
      word "continuously," and after the word "paid" in the last line to insert the words "by such employer."
      Later on I shall move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Durham. I want to get in the employer who has paid forty-five contributions, because I think he is entitled to the refund even though the man may have left his service and may not have been in his employ for the whole of the fifty-two weeks of the year. If, however, it will be more convenient for the Committee, I will move the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Durham: "In lines seven and eight leave out 'who has been continuously employed by him through the period and," and in line nine, insert "by such employer."
      The CHAIRMAN: I think the words must be varied to meet the alteration of the new Clause from "continuously employed by him" to "continuously in his service."
      Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "who has been continuously in his service through the period, and"
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The point I wish to emphasise is this, that if on a man's behalf forty-five contributions have been paid in the current year, then the man who has employed him and paid the contributions ought to be entitled to the refund even if there may not have been continuity of service.
      Sir J. SIMON: I must ask the hon. Gentleman who has moved the omission of these words to reconsider his proposal, because if we accept the suggestion he now makes, the justification for this Clause, as we understand it, would very largely go. The reason why in this Clause we offer this bonus to the employer, is to meet the case of a workman in respect of whom the employer has made contributions and who has not come upon our Fund. If you accept the Amendment now suggested, this case will arise:—A workman may have been upon our Fund for no less than seven weeks in the year, and he may therefore have drawn out of the Fund no less than 49s., and although he has drawn that amount we should be giving to the employer the bonus which this Clause confers upon him. That is not carrying out the spirit of the proposal. The spirit of the proposal is that we should make it to the interest of the employer to see that his workmen do not come upon our Fund for the whole of the year. There is a small alteration which we have made in
      2010
      the language of the Clause which is designed to meet another point. It was pointed out to us that a case might arise in which the balance of weeks in a year during which no payment had been made by the employer were not represented by the man being out of work in the sense that he has come upon the Unemployment Fund, but was due to the fact that the man had met with an accident under the Workman's Compensation Act.
      It is for that very reason that we have modified the words of the Clause and put in a reference to his service as distinguished from his employment, the idea being that, by that means, we save the employer from losing benefit if the man has been away owing to an accident under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but we certainly could not give this bonus to the employer if the workman is a workman who has fallen on our Fund for a number of weeks. For that reason I must oppose the proposal.
      Mr. PETO: May I ask the learned Solicitor-General whether the words as they stand would really cover the question of the summer holidays, because I think it is open to question whether anybody could claim that he was a continuously-employed person? I only want to be assured that these words are sufficiently wide, because it certainly seems to me that if a man was away on his holidays, he would not be following his employment.
      Sir J. SIMON: I do not think the hon. Gentleman observed that the Chairman put the words not in the language just quoted, but in this form "any workman who has been continuously in his service." That is done for the purpose of securing, as long as the workman is on the books of the firm, whether he is earning wages every week or is away for a holiday, he will still get the benefit of the Clause.
      Mr. HOLT: I do not think there is any real difference between the learned Solicitor-General and myself as to what we want to say. I quite agree with what he wants to say, but has he really succeeded in saying it? That is the proposition we want to discuss. This, after all, might apply to a man who is a weekly wage earner; this contract of service is as a weekly wage earner, and mean's a consecutive number of weeks' employment, and if you go away for a three weeks'

      2011
      holiday it is not consecutive employment. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can explain the difference between "in his service" and "employed by him," but if it means when the man is off duty because he has gone for a holiday or through some injury is away from work, and then the employer gets the rebate, I am quite satisfied.
      Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend's speech proves what I have so long suspected, that there is no fallacy so profound as the fallacy entertained by those persons who think that it is only lawyers who can criticise an Act of Parliament. I appreciate fully the point he has made, and I think it is a matter which will have to be carefully considered from that point of view. The same difficulty had occurred to my own mind, but I was not able to find for the moment any better words, and if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to consider it between now and Report, and take an opportunity of discussing it with him and any other hon. Gentleman who cares to, we will try and get better words.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Of course; these new words "in his service" I have never seen, and I really wanted to carry out exactly what the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Holt, put.
      Sir J. SIMON: We are all at one, then?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes, I quite agree with the Solicitor-General. I do not want a man to come on the Fund for seven weeks, but if he stands off for a week or a fortnight for any reason the employer should not be damaged, and as the Solicitor-General has said that he will reconsider the words, I withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. J. WARD: Is not seven weeks an exceptional condition of affairs? I think, myself, that it looks rather awkward from the workman's point of view. It means that, for some reason or other, the workman might be stood off for seven weeks. Supposing he is told "you had better have a rest for three weeks and your job will be open for you at the end of the three weeks," he is not dismissed from his employment, and that could go on for a second period and be done again, but he could not claim unemployed benefit.
      Sir J. SIMON: I think he could.
      Mr. J. WARD: I am not so sure about it. Seven weeks seems to me to be rather a long period. I can quite understand it if a man had been continuously employed for the whole year, and had one or two or three weeks off, although it is a little peculiar for a workman to get three weeks' holiday in a year. We know that lawyers get long holidays—in fact, they call their holiday the "Long Vacation"—and I think this point should be re-considered.
      Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move the second reading of the following new Clause:—
      (Payment of contributions in case of Reservists or Territorials during training.)
      Where a man of the Naval Reserves, the Army Reserve, or the Territorial Force is being trained and is in receipt of pay out of the moneys provided by Parliament for Navy or Army services, and immediately before the training was employed in an insured trade, he shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be deemed, whilst so training, to be in the employment of the Crown in an insured trade.
      All I need say is that it shows on the face of it what is intended. On Report it may be necessary to alter the wording, but the principle of it is the thing.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I as a member of a very aggrieved force, the Special Reserve, lately the Militia, ask why we are omitted? I am certain the words "Army Reserve" do not include the Special Reserve, and the words "Territorial Force" do not include the Special Reserve. Here we have men who go out for four weeks, and receive payment as soldiers. I would point out also that here we have a case that might come under the last Clause. A man goes out with the Territorials for a fortnight or four weeks, and he is not continuously employed by the employer during that time. Would he be in his service? I think that is a very material consideration, and I should like the answer of the Solicitor-General on the point.
      Mr. J. WARD: I would have liked some brief statement from the Solicitor-General as to what this really means. I have read it two or three times, and, like the hon. Gentleman opposite, I do not quite understand what the terms "Naval Reserves" and "Army Reserve" include—whether

      2013
      they include the forces to which the hon. Member referred, or whether they include some portion of them. I should like, in addition, to hear the last few words of the suggested new Clause explained.
      Mr. PETO: My difficulty in regard to this new Clause is slightly different from that of my noble Friend in front of me, and the hon. Member for Stoke. The Clause says, where the man was immediately before the training employed in an insured trade, he shall be deemed whilst training to be in the employment of the Crown in an insured trade. I should like to know what that means. Does it mean that the contribution of 2½d. per week will have to be paid out of public moneys during the time he is training? I should also like to know what possible risk of unemployment that small amount of public money is being paid for, because it seems to me merely assuming him to be in an insured trade during the period of training, when obviously he could not be out of employment in that year or any other year is a very curious reason for making any contribution towards this particular part of the Act out of public moneys, even if it is only a small one.
      Mr. BUXTON: The object of this is, that although for the moment he is not working at his insured trade, he shall be deemed to be continuing in his insured trade, and himself paying his contribution in order to get his benefit in the ordinary way. Therefore there is some employer who has to pay his contribution as against the man's contribution. In this case; as he is serving under the Crown, it would be the Crown's contribution. The whole thing is a comparatively small one from the money point of view, but I think that is the answer. In regard to the Special Reserve, the question does not come under the Board of Trade, and my information is not sufficient to enable me to give a definite answer. I am advised by the draftsman that they will be covered. The drafting may have to be altered, but I will take that point into account. As to how far the Clause which we passed just now will be affected, I should like to look into that. As regards the point put by my hon Friend, I did not understand what he wanted to ask me. The point of this Clause is to allow an employee to continue as in the service of the insured trade, although, since he is going out as a Territorial or in some other way, he is not actually working at an insured trade. It is in order to prevent any breach with his ordinary employment.
      Mr. J. WARD: I wish to know whether it is intended that you should deduct from, a man's wages his contribution while on training or whether the Government themselves will consider it their duty to pay both his share and the employer's share. The expression "Naval Reserves" is used. That includes all reserves attached to the Navy. If you had used a similar expression in regard to the Army, I should have thought you would have included all the reserves attached to the Army.
      Mr. BUXTON: I will look at the wording. It will be within the power of the Crown either to deduct the contribution from the employee or to pay the contribution on the part of the employer—that is to say, the Crown for the time being. What decision they will come to will really depend on the War Office rather than upon ourselves. But they will have power to deduct it if they wish, or they will have power to pay it themselves.
      Mr. J. WARD: I hope that is definitely understood, because the sum you pay the Territorials and men of that description is so mean—
      Mr. BUXTON: Do not say "you."
      Mr. J. WARD: You represent the Government. The sum paid is so mean that to make any deduction for the few weeks of training, even for this purpose, would be meaner still.
      Mr. BUXTON: That is for the War Office to decide.
      Question, "That the Clause be read a second time" put, and agreed to.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move after the words "Army Reserve" ["the Army Reserve"] to insert the words "the Special Reserve."
      The term "Army Reserve" is a technical term which everybody understands. The Army Reserve consists of men who have served with the colours on the regular establishment, and after their colour service passed into the reserve. The Special Reserve is a totally different thing. It is the old Militia, and the majority of the men have never been in the regulars. They are not in any sense an army reserve have. I served in the Special Reserve most of my life, and I know something about these things. To suggest that a man in the Special Reserve can be held to be a man in the Army Reserve is to suggest what really cannot be held for a single moment. I cannot conceive any harm arising from the

      2015
      acceptance of these words. If they are unnecessary, they can be struck out afterwards, but I feel convinced that they are necessary.
      Mr. BUXTON: I am in some difficulty about accepting any alteration in the wording. It is a very technical question. We are advised that the Special Reserve is included. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be content with the undertaking, which I think I have already given, to look into the matter with the War Office, and if words are required we will insert them. I
      2016
      hope for the present he will allow the Clause to stand as it is.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I will not press the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause added to the Bill.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move "That the Committee do now adjourn until to-morrow at eleven o'clock."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes before Five o'clock until to-morrow (Thursday).

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
  Part II.—UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

    STANDING COMMITTEE B.
    [Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES in the Chair.]
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I beg to move that the following new Clause be read a second time:—
    Saving for Occasional Employment in Rural Neighbourhoods.
    Where a workman is employed in a district, the principal industry of which is agriculture, and the workman usually follows in that district some occupation other than an insured trade, and is employed in an insured trade occasionally only, contributions under this Part of this Act shall not be payable in respect of the workman, except in cases where the employer and the workman agree that contributions shall be payable notwithstanding this provision.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): The object of this Clause is to relieve from the obligation to be members of the Fund, those workmen who in rural districts are not as a rule employed in one of the insured trades at all. Probably in parts of Scotland the Clause would be of practical utility, and the same condition of things no doubt exists in Ireland. We have had representations from Ireland about it. The general effect would be that in a district where the principal industry is agriculture, which seems in the circumstances the best way of describing a rural district, the fact that a workman who is normally employed in occupations quite outside the scope of Part II., occasionally does a little building work, say, will not involve him and his employers in the necessity of subscribing to the scheme. It seems to us that unless some such provision is made we may have this hard case which would be administratively very difficult to deal with, namely, the case of a man in a rural district who, as his ordinary occupation, is engaged in it may be agriculture, or it may be fishing, or it may be in connection with sport, but who possibly for one or two weeks in the year happens to be engaged either on an estate or in connection with an ordinary builders' contract in building a cottage. We think
    2018
    that great administrative difficulties would follow if such a person was necessarily brought within the scheme; therefore we propose to add this Clause which will not require such a man or his employer to pay contributions, if he satisfies the conditions laid down. But at the same time, if the employer and the workman prefer that in such a case he should be within the scheme, we would still leave it open to him to get the advantage of his subscriptions as far as they go. It seems to us that the Clause would be a practical convenience and an administrative improvement.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I beg to leave out the words "is employed in a district, the principal industry of which is agriculture, and the workmen." If this Amendment is carried, I should move as a consequential Amendment, to leave out the words "in that district." It is rather a difficult Clause. The whole Committee would doubtless wish to attain the object the Government have in view, but it does not seem quite clear that the language employed will give effect to their desire. I speak with some diffidence, for I am not a lawyer, and I seldom understand these Clauses until they have been explained. But so far as I understand the Bill, hitherto the occupation of the individual man, and not his environment, is what decides whether or not he shall come within the scheme; whereas here we have the opposite principle, which may lead to confusion, namely, that the man's environment and not his occupation shall decide the point. In considering whether the Clause as it stands really gives the concession, for such it is, which the Government intend to agricultural interests, this is the point which strikes me. In a really agricultural district the question will seldom arise of the man who usually follows some occupation in an uninsured trade, and occasionally follows an occupation which is an insured trade. Such men are to be excluded from the Bill. But when you come to districts which are very common in England—a typical one is that represented by the hon. Member for Dudley—which by no stretch of language can be called "districts, the principal industry of which is agriculture," you do undoubtedly frequently get men who are employed principally in agriculture or in trades outside the in-

    2019
    sured trades, but who very often lend a hand in an insured trade. They, if they desire the concession, are apparently barred from it by this Clause. It seems to me that if any district requires such protection as this Clause gives, it is such districts as I have indicated; because, whether from the point of view of agriculture or from the point of view of the man who works in an industrial district, the Black Country, or part of the mining districts, it is desirable to do all you can to keep in the country the man who is working in the country, both for the sake of agriculture and to prevent the competition in the labour market of the big towns. I think if the Clause read as it would were my Amendment adopted, it would give the interpretation that we should all desire.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I should like to enforce what my hon. Friend has said. The Clause as it stands is a very curious one. It is confined to districts where the principal industry is agriculture, and it is certainly intended to apply almost entirely to agriculturists who occasionally do a turn at an insured trade. It is intended to say that if they do they shall not during the occasional period when they are so employed have to pay these contributions. It seems to me that, though the principle is excellent, it does not go far enough. In the first place, why should the saving be applied only to agriculturists? Why should it not apply also to people in other industrial uninsured trades, who occasionally do a job in an insured trade? Another point, which to my mind is more important, is the geographical limitation. My hon. Friend has instanced the Black Country, part of which I represent. The Black Country is preponderatingly a mining and industrial district, but there are farms scattered here and there, where a few cows are kept, and a little agriculture is done, and there are men whose general work, therefore, is agriculture. These men now and again do a turn in some engineering or constructional work. It is a common thing for them, when there is a great demand for labour in the works, perhaps at a time when agriculture is slack and there is nothing doing on the farm, to take a turn in what will be under the Bill an insured trade. Why should these people be excluded from the benefits of this Clause? After all, it is in these districts that the case is most likely to arise. In a purely agricultural district, such as
    2020
    Wiltshire, there are probably very few insured trades, and it is highly improbable that the average Wiltshire agriculturist will ever do a turn in an insured trade. On the other hand, in a district like the Black Country, or Lancashire, or the West Riding of Yorkshire, or Durham, it is highly probable that this state of affairs will arise, so that the Clause will really be far more useful if it is not limited in the manner proposed. I do not think there is any difference of principle between us, but in order to make the Clause really operative I hope the Government will see their way to meet us.
    Sir WALTER NUGENT: This is a Clause in which we who represent agricultural districts in Ireland take a great deal of interest, and we would not like to have the words omitted as proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Baldwin). The Clause as proposed seems to us to meet the case of agricultural Ireland. In that country we have only two centres where there are any builders as the term is understood in England. In the agricultural districts of Ireland, men who do that type of work are very much the same as those who do similar work in the agricultural districts of England. They are the ordinary mason or carpenter, who perhaps once in a year, or once in two years, gets a job of building labourers' cottages or some small work of that sort, but for the remainder of the year they return to their usual avocation, and they never employ men except at those particular times.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We are not cutting you out.
    Sir W. NUGENT: Supposing there are some building operations in the rural parts of Ireland, the builders from Belfast get the contract and bring down their own staff, but they may also employ local labour. We desire to prevent them having to pay for the local labour they employ, or the men themselves being compelled to pay. It would be quite useless for the employer, seeing that for the rest of the year they would return to their ordinary avocation. You say this case seldom arises in England, but it is the usual thing in Ireland. You have in England no districts remote from a large town, but in Ireland we have only two large towns. It is an entirely agricultural country, and there is absolutely no building work done except by builders from

    2021
    those large towns. If you omit the words as proposed, then, when they come down to a rural district and employ the ordinary common labourer, they would have to insure him. I hope the Committee will let the Clause remain as it stands, and will not omit the words as proposed.
    Sir J. SIMON: The proposal which is made by the hon. Gentleman for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) is one which certainly would cut a very considerable part off this Bill, and it is one which the Government cannot accept for a reason which I think will be plain to the Committee when I ask them to consider what the real effect would be of that which the hon. Gentleman is urging. He desires to introduce into the Bill a provision to the effect that as long as the workman does not usually follow an insured trade he should never come within the insurance scheme of this Part of the Act. May I point out to him in the first place, that, if any such provision were made, the result, say in the important town of Dudley, which the hon. Gentleman apposite (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) represents, would be that the engineering shop which is calling for labourers would say, "Wanted, agricultural labourers for our engineering shop." Agricultural labourers are the people we want, because, if we can only get a man who will say he is not usually employed in this labour, then we shall avoid paying this 2½d., whereas, if we take people more regularly employed in the trade, we shall find it necessary to pay this contribution. It is no part of the Government scheme that we should so dislocate the ordinary process of industry as to make it actually to a man's advantage to employ in the unskilled branches of his trade somebody who says he is really employed in something else. The object of this Clause is very much more limited. It is to provide for the class of case explained by the hon. Gentleman from Ireland to the Committee just now.
    In a district which is truly rural you do not in the ordinary course of events have engineering works and the like, such as are common in the Black Country, but you none the less may from time to time find a little piece of building going on, that a cottage is being built, and it may be a man who at one season of the year is a beater or a fisherman, is for a week or a fortnight employed in wheeling a wheelbarrow with bricks in it or doing some other unskilled work connected with the building of the cottage. That is the
    2022
    man this Clause is designed to exclude from the Bill, but that is a very different proposition from the most serious proposal made by the hon. Gentleman opposite in moving his Amendment. The result of his Amendment if we adopted it would be to exclude from this Part of the Bill every single person who finds himself in a position to say that after all an insured trade was not his usual occupation. May I point out one thing more? Such a provision for the purpose of administering this Act is not desirable from the point of view of the employer. An employer who has got a staff of men and who, in the ordinary course of events, will stamp the books of all of them and will regard it as the ordinary course that each of his men should have a book, would, if this were adopted, have to inquire as to what part of the year a man was employed in the industry in which he himself is concerned, and he would have to pick and choose between one man and another and say, "I must have books for those persons who are regularly employed in my industry and stamp them, whereas those persons who are not regularly employed in any industry will be exempt, and I shall be exempt in respect of them, That is not practicable from the administrative point of view. It would be creating an exception from the ambit of the Bill, and I regret I must resist the proposal.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Surely the Solicitor-General has put the case too broadly. The Amendment would not confer any such privilege upon agriculture, and would not in the least induce an employer to say "Wanted, an agricultural labourer." He might advertise, "Wanted a labourer who does not usually follow the trade of building or mechanical engineering or the construction of vehicles." It would mean, if a person usually followed some trade other than one of the five selected trades, he should not because he took occasional employment in an insured trade necessarily require to be insured. I confess I do not quite follow why the mere fact that a man, who usually follows some occupation other than an insured trade, is employed in a district which is agricultural, should put him in a more advantageous position than a man in another district who is usually employed in a non-insured trade. With regard to keeping books, the same thing would apply under this Clause. The question here would be what is your usual occupation? Probably, no

    2023
    doubt, the usual occupation would be agricultural in an agricultural district, but it might be any one of the other insured trades. It seems to me the Solicitor-General has put the argument against the proposed Amendment much too wide, and the restrictions which he suggests the Amendment will introduce are just restrictions which would be as operative in the Clause as the Government have framed it. I confess I cannot see why the fact that a man who is in an agricultural district, and who usually follows a non-insured trade, but occasionally gets an odd job in an insured trade, should compel him to be insured. It seems to me the Amendment would go a long way to improve the Bill.
    Mr. LEACH: I feel disposed, as advised at this moment, to support the Amendment. I represent the Colne Valley. It is not chiefly agricultural, but there is a little agriculture in it. Our chief industry is woollen manufactures, and I want to know if any man in the district I represent should, for a month or so, work on a building, whether he would have the advantage here offered to agriculturists. This Clause, as I read it, is drafted to deal with agricultural districts only, and unless I can be assured that a man in my division who leaves a factory because of shortness of trade or for some other reason and is employed temporarily on some building will have the advantage which this Clause gives, I shall be obliged to vote for the Amendment.
    Mr. STEWART: Would the Solicitor-General define an agricultural district? Is it decided by area or by population? In my Constituency I am dubbed an agricultural Member, and no doubt in area the division is still agricultural, but in population it is not. The words "the principal industry of which is agricultural" introduces a great difficulty, and I find myself in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, because, although there are many industries in my district, still the principal industry is agriculture, and I shall be inclined on the same grounds as the hon. Member to vote for the Amendment.
    Mr. BARNES: I hope this Amendment will not be carried. I think the hon. Member for the Colne Valley (Mr. Leach) argued against the interests of his own constituents. I do not want to widen this new Clause, because if we do
    2024
    we shall be bringing a great many more into it. When I read it first, I could not very well understand it, but when I did, it seemed to me I should give a consent to it, although reluctantly, because it does exclude some men from the Bill. I am inclined to assent to it as it is drafted and confined to an agricultural district, but supposing it were widened in the sense of the further Amendment, and the constituents of the hon. Member for the Colne Valley were brought into it, what is to prevent the jobbing builder or the engineer in a fairly good business evading the Act by carrying on his business more or less with casual labour. That surely would not be to the advantage of the constituents of the hon. Member, and I think the inevitable result of widening the Clause as he suggests would be to enable that to be done. I do not want it to be done. I assent to the Clause because it seems to me, judging from what has been said by the hon. Member from Ireland, it may be necessary in agricultural districts, but I do not want to widen it.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I agree with the intentions of this Clause, but I am not quite sure about its wording. For instance, what is a district? "Where a workman is employed in a district—"Is the Colne Valley going to be a district, or is a parish in the Colne Valley going to be a district? Then, what is "a principal industry"? Is a principal industry an industry that has a majority of the population in it? We might at any rate just see the difficulties of interpretation so as to get words to carry out our intention. Is a principal industry that which has an absolute majority of the population, or is it the chief of several industries, not necessarily having itself an absolute majority, but compared with other industries having more workmen employed in it? I think it will be necessary to reconsider the Clause in respect of those two points. I am not opposing it. I rather agree with it; but I am afraid if you try to apply it to a good many districts you will find it is quite impossible to apply it.
    Sir J. SIMON: There are just two or three points which have been made about which I may perhaps be allowed to say a word in reply. Perhaps I may take the points made in their reverse order and deal first with what has just been said by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). I appreciate, and I

    2025
    think the Committee generally appreciate there is a good deal of force in the reflection that the words used in the Clause raise possible difficulties of definition and boundary which one would gladly see minimised. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked the same question about the word "district," and certainly, if the Committee sees fit to add the Clause to the Bill, I will undertake that the fullest care shall be taken to see whether we can get tighter words, in order that we may minimise the risk of misunderstanding. With regard to the use of the word "district," those who have not tried their hands at drafting can never appreciate how extraordinarily difficult it is, and certainly no one has so much reason to be grateful to the draughtsmen as the lawyer who has to take some part in the Bill. Certainly the draughtsman has taken a good deal of trouble to find the best words. The real difficulty is this: it would be quite easy to use an expression which gives a perfectly defined area; we could use the term, "Local Government area," or "Rural District area," meaning thereby the Rural District Council area; but the real truth is that these divisions do not always represent the true distinction between what is rural and what is urban; and it appeared to us that it was probably better to use an expression such as we have here, so that in a case of difficulty it would be possible to determine it rather than to use the formal language of local government, and as a consequence probably have cases which ought not to be on the side of the line on which we should, technically, find them. My hon. Friend the Member for the Colne Valley made an observation which, I think, is capable of being misunderstood. He said he wanted to know whether the workmen in his constituency were to have the advantages which this Clause gives. With great respect to him, if he takes the view that Part II. of the National Insurance Bill is a good thing, I should have thought that he would desire that workmen in his constituency should come within the Bill, and he would not regard it as an advantage that they should be excluded from it.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: They may be occasionally employed.
    Sir J. SIMON: I think we all in this Committee know what the "one-in-five" rule means. What would happen in the
    2026
    case of a man who does not work all his time at an insured trade is that he would only be paying his contribution so long as he is working at such insured trade, and he would get benefits proportionate to his contribution. Therefore I suggest there is nothing in the point that it is to the disadvantage of a man to be outside this Clause. The Clause is not proposed because, as would be imagined, we are conferring a favour on any constituency; it is proposed in order to ease the administration and working of the Bill. It is proposed because in certain districts, in Ireland and Scotland—and it may be in England also—it would be practically absurd in those districts where these insured occupations are not as a rule carried on at all, to say that because a man generally employed in nothing of the sort, is given a few days work, it is therefore necessary to set up the card and stamps, the insurance officers, and the whole machinery of the Bill. Our object was to make a provision of this sort in areas where that sort of work was quite exceptional and abnormal, and not to extend it to such a district as the Black Country—
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I gave that as an example only.
    Sir J. SIMON: And I am treating it as an example. It is, I think, a very good example of a district where insured occupations are common. I hope the Committee will be prepared to add this Clause to the Bill. I am by no means blind to the difficulties which have been pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend, and I propose to do my best, with such assistance as I am glad to have, to see if we can make this Clause a tighter Clause. Certainly the Government do not propose to extend its operation.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The hon. Member for Leicester has raised an important question as to the meaning of the word "district" and of the term "principal industry," and I must confess that, after listening to the explanation of the Solicitor-General, I am not very much the wiser. I do not know whether the Government imagine that the persons who will be responsible for the application and working out of this Bill will be in a better position to define these terms than Members of this Committee. As I presume the object really is to deal with the case of a man who may be employed for one part of the year in agriculture, and for

    2027
    another part in an insured trade, I would suggest that the end must be secured by leaving out the words "principal industry," and merely stating that a person who is employed one part of the year in agriculture and for another part in some other industry will be without this Clause. It is a very common practice in agricultural districts for a man to be employed in the building trade during one half of the year and for him, during the summer, to go back to his agricultural labours.
    Mr. BAIRD: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow that this Clause may be necessary. But at the same time, I do not think it is fair. It is necessary, no doubt, from the Government point of view, but it is not necessary from the point of view of improving the Bill. Having a recollection of the extraordinary lucidity with which the Solicitor-General has explained various Clauses of the Bill, a lucidity which enabled an ordinary human being like myself to understand them, I must admit that the statement he gave us this morning really was a masterpiece. Whether it was because he was confronted with a gentleman of his own cloth, who shook his nerve, or whether it was because of the early start of the proceedings—I cannot say; but I certainly fail to understand why in dealing with a Clause in the Bill which is designed according to this Sub-section to meet the case of agriculture, he should have suggested it was to deal with the case of beaters and fishermen. Beating is no part of the business of agriculture.
    Sir J. SIMON: The statement of the hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, the best possible proof of the suggestion that I gave a somewhat confused explanation, but if he will read the Clause, he will see that it does not pretend to deal with the case of an individual workman employed in agriculture, but with the case of a man employed in a rural district, and such a man, I conceive, may be employed in a rural district and may be a beater, or a fisherman.
    Mr. BAIRD: Perhaps I, too, may be suffering from the early commencement of the proceedings. But the point remains that the effect of this Clause is to exclude people who emerge from an agricultural district and suddenly take part in one of the trades covered by this Bill.
    Sir J. SIMON: He must still be in an agricultural district.
    Mr. BAIRD: Take the case of Rugby. There we have some important engineering industries. It is not an agricultural district, but a man may turn up there who is usually employed, not in agriculture, but in walking about the roads looking for a job; he wants to be taken on as a labourer in this trade. A good many come to me and ask me if I cannot help them, and I have done my best to enable them to make a good start in the Colonies; but under this Clause, as it stands, it seems to me that that man will come out of an agricultural area, though he may not have been engaged in agriculture, and apply for work at one of the great factories, and the employer will be able to claim exemption as regards insuring him because he comes out of an agricultural district. The same man may apply for work at a similar kind of works in London, and may have been similarly employed beforehand in walking about the street looking for a job; yet he would be entitled to the benefits which this Bill confers. That is why I say I do not think the Clause is fair. An injustice ought not to be inflicted on England simply to meet an Irish difficulty.
    Mr. SCANLAN: This Clause is designed to deal with the case of a man living in an agricultural district and going to work in a factory. The provision is that where a workman is employed in a district, the principal industry of which is agriculture, and usually follows in that district some occupation other than an insured trade, he shall be excluded from the operation of the Clause. I think from these words that the Clause contemplates the case of a man who is ordinarily engaged in agriculture in his own district, and goes casually to an insured trade in that district. It seeks to draw a distinction between two cases; one a general case of people in large centres of population, large urban centres, where you have a number of insured trades, and a special case which is by no means confined to Ireland, but which obtains in England and Scotland as well, where you have an agriculturist occasionally turning for temporary purposes from the ordinary work of agriculture, and engaging in building operations. Even those of us who are anxious that this Clause should be passed in the interests of Ireland do not contemplate that in the large centres of population in that country, in

    2029
    places like Dublin and Belfast, an agriculturist, coming into one of the shipbuilding yards, should be treated differently from the other employés in that yard. If that were so, I think it would destroy a large portion of the Bill. I think that a large majority of the members of this Committee will be in favour of this Clause, which provides that where an employer and workman are agreed, the contributions shall be made payable. In all the circumstances I submit to the Committee that as this Clause is applicable to similar conditions in England and Scotland as in Ireland, it is in the interests of all it should be passed.
    Mr. HOARE: Who is going to decide the meaning of the word "district," or of the term "principal industries." Is it going to be done by Board of Trade regulations or by Special Order, or by what means? It is obviously a matter of very great complication, and I think we should have the point cleared up, who is to decide, and how the decision is going to be made.
    Mr. HAMILTON BENN: The point, to my mind, about this Clause is that it is going to act unfairly, not in one part of Ireland or another, but that it will constitute a tax upon industry. We may here in this Committee, or in the House, agree that that tax upon industry is beneficial to the country as a whole. It is a tax upon industry in itself, in that it levies so much on the trade, or rather on the cost of manufacture. We are going to set up by this Clause a method by which there may be established industries in rural districts because of the possibility that in winter time and at certain other periods of the year, they will be able to get cheap labour, and thus compete to the disadvantage of like industries in towns, which are entirely industrial. I do not think that that is the intention of the Government, but, at any rate, it is the effect of the Clause. I quite understand the point made by the Solicitor-General, that it is desired to save the expense of putting into operation the whole machinery of the Bill in order to collect a few contributions at different times during the year. Undoubtedly it is very desirable that some means should be devised of preventing it having that effect. But the Clause as it stands is going to hamper the town and encourage the setting up of industrial works in rural districts, in the hope of getting labour at
    2030
    certain times of the year at a cheaper rate than it can be obtained in towns.
    Mr. INGLEBY: I should like to emphasise what has fallen from the hon. Member for Chelsea. I represent a town situated in an agricultural district, and I naturally want to know how this is going to affect my Constituency and the people in the district surrounding it.
    Sir J. SIMON: The Committee, I think, will forgive me if I add another word. I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentlemen for raising these points. They appreciate that this has been a difficult Clause to frame, and the discussion has been useful. May I first answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for Chelsea? If he will look back he will see that Clause 67 of the Bill as now amended provides, amongst other things, for regulations to be made for giving the employers and workmen an opportunity of obtaining a decision by the umpire on any question as to whether contribution under any Part of this Act should take place. Hon. Gentlemen will therefore see that the umpire will be the authority in any case of doubt to decide this question, because this Clause is framed to say that under certain circumstances contributions are not payable. That is the answer to that question, I think. Then the hon. Member for Greenwich and the other gentleman who spoke last have raised another point. I feel the importance of the point which they have raised, but I do suggest to them and to the Committee that really the danger which they very properly emphasised is a danger which is substantially avoided by the Clause as we proposed it, and I must say I think it is not a danger to be avoided in the way suggested on the other side, because if you limit this exemption to the cases covered by our Clause, you do not really confer a privilege upon one employer who is competing with another employer who does not enjoy the privilege.
    That is one of the reasons why we confine it to the agricultural district. If you take a place where in the ordinary course of events, the occupations are not insured, occupations where, for instance, the building is a mere casual piece of work on which a casual amount of employment is given to persons who do different things, then you are not really effectively conferring a preference, because there is no real competition, but the moment you come to a part of the country where the trades

    2031
    are the important and organised industries, it would be a very serious thing, I suggest, to say that as long as the employer employed a workman who came from some other branch of industry, he is to be exempt from what I agree is a burden, whereas, if he employed the regular soldiers of that industry he is not to be exempt from the burden.
    Mr. HAMILTON BENN: What about Basingstoke?
    Sir J. SIMON: The difficulty of applying it is not small. It is a perfectly fair criticism to say that it is not a Clause easy to be applied with certainty. I do not at all resent it. I think it is a perfectly just observation to be made about it, but after all, we must do the best we can for the case. I am extremely obliged for the suggestions the Committee has made—and they are useful—but I do suggest we ought to add a Clause with this general object to the Bill.
    Let me say to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Hamilton Benn) that I entirely recognise, and I hope he and his Friends also recognise, that if you find anything to increase the cost of production beyond all doubt you depress the industries of this country, but, on the other hand the real justification for the limitations in our Clause is this, and the reason why we confine it to agricultural districts, is because if you do not you actually put a premium upon the drawing of work-people from agriculture into towns. If you say to an employer in a town, "If you can, get people who do not usually work in your trade," you will be drawing from the rural districts into the towns people who desire to work in the rural districts. We have had a useful discussion and I do not wish to be dogmatic about it, but I suggest we might now add this Clause to the Bill, and I will take every opportunity I have of digesting and I hope applying the valuable comments which have been made.
    Mr. LEACH: Sir, before the vote is taken, may I be allowed to say that the explanations given by the Solicitor-General and the promise made to tighten the Clause a little quite satisfy me, and I shall vote with him.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I must say that I am not in the least satisfied with what the Government has said, and
    2032
    I think that is a very unfair Clause. I will say that the Government up to date have dealt very fairly, but I do not think they are dealing fairly here, because up to date the distinctions drawn have been between one trade and another, but now it is unfair to discriminate with regard to districts. That is not the proper way to proceed. You should not give a special advantage to one district which you deny to others where the conditions are practically the same. The Solicitor-General admits the administrative difficulties. Then why create them? If you make this Clause universal you get rid of all these difficulties as to interpretation and as to what an agricultural district is. Take the example my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby gave of Rugby, an industrial town in an agricultural district. Then let me take one other point. The Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for Black-friars both said you are putting a premium on a man employing casual labour, and that he would try to draw agricultural labourers in from the agricultural districts to undertake work in electrical shops and engineering shops. Now, does any hon. Member really think that a man engaged in a big engineering business is going to save a few shillings by employing agricultural labourers, and at the same time lose thousands, which he would do because his work will not be so efficiently done?
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member will remember I said unskilled labour.
    Mr. BARNES: I did not say bring them in.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If he did not say so I will withdraw that, of course. But I do say a man knows his own business, and he is not going to save a few shillings by avoiding paying a contribution and possibly losing as many thousands afterwards. Then, I cannot understand why the Government refuses it on account of districts, and I do hope therefore that the Government will give a pledge that if they cannot accept this particular Amendment they will reconsider it before reporting, otherwise I shall feel inclined to vote against the Clause as a whole.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 16.

    Division No. 10.]

    AYES.

    Barnes, Mr.

    Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund

    Nugent, Sir Walter

    Brady, Mr.

    Jones, Mr. William

    Nuttall, Mr.

    Buxton, Mr. Sydney

    Joyce, Mr.

    Price, Mr.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin

    Leach, Mr.

    Robertson, Mr. John

    Denman, Mr.

    Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay

    Scanlan, Mr.

    Goldstone, Mr.

    M'Callum, Mr.

    Solicitor-General, Mr.

    Hackett, Mr.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Webb, Mr.

    Harmsworth, Mr. Cecil

    Murray, Captain

    Williams, Mr. Penry

    NOES.

    Baird, Mr.

    Goldman, Mr.

    Peto, Mr.

    Baldwin, Mr.

    Harris, Mr.

    Primrose, Mr.

    Benn, Mr. Hamilton

    Hoare, Mr.

    Roch, Mr. Walter

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Ingleby, Mr.

    Stewart, Mr. Gershom

    Davies, Mr. Ellis

    Jones, Mr. Haydn

    Wilson, Mr. Tyson

    Dickson, Mr. Scott

    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is really a consequential one.
    Mr. PETO: I have handed in an Amendment which I do not think is consequential—in the proposed new Clause, to leave out the words "and the workman," and to insert instead thereof the word "agrees."
    I want to amend the Clause by leaving out the words so that it will read "where the workman agrees the contributions are payable notwithstanding this provision." My object is not to do any injustice to the workmen, or to prevent their having an opportunity of speaking on the matter, but I want to put it to the Committee that if these words are left in I think it will produce almost hopeless confusion in the working of this Clause. There is a good deal of doubt as to what will be agricultural districts, and as to the other definitions of the Clause. Each individual workman cannot possibly be acquainted with what the decisions of the umpire will be on those points. Much more than that, I would point out that two hon. Members, each speaking from a different point of view and for different constituencies, point out that it is not the intention of this Clause that a person, as the hon. Member for Sligo says, who comes in for employment for a short time in a shipbuilding yard, for instance, should necessarily be allowed to leave himself outside what are the advantages of this part of the Act. The hon. Member for Rugby pointed out that in his town there are very large building works and workshops where there is an enormous amount of joiners work of all kinds, and that kind of work done, and that it is not the intention of the Clause that each person going in there as a workman should be able to leave himself out of the provisions of the Act. I am now putting the opposite case, the case to which the Clause is to apply.
    2034
    We have already had an hon. Member from Ireland who pointed out that it is only the building of a few small cottages which it affected, and that the people employed on these works are not people employed ordinarily in building, but in these cases I think it is exceedingly dangerous for the employer to decide that he is employing purely people who are ordinarily following agriculture and other pursuits, not insured trades, and therefore it is not worth while to set up all this complicated mechanism, as the Solicitor-General called it, of cards and all the rest of it, for these few men. I will give the Committee one other case to make my meaning quite clear in moving the omission of those words. Take a sewage works, or a light railway, or some engineering work of that kind. It goes down into a purely agricultural district, and is carried out in a purely agricultural district, and again very likely the bulk of the men employed on those works, though these works may be of some magnitude, will be people to whom it is not intended that this Clause should apply. In that case the employer has to provide the workmen, and it is not reasonable that in engaging every single hand he or his manager should have to go into all the questions with every individual workman as to whether he wishes to take out a card or not. He will say the works are going to employ people who mainly follow agricultural pursuits, and we are not going to have any cards on these works. I do not think any injustice would be done to anybody, but in the case of some regularly established business in a town—for instance, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Hamilton Benn) instanced Basingstoke, where electrical firms have started business, and other businesses are being started—I do not think it is in the interest of the workmen themselves that any individual workman who comes on to do some of the lower classes of labour in these

    2035
    industries should say, "I want to leave myself out." It is not in the interests of the employer. The employer would not want to be bothered with negotiations with all his employees. He will say, "Mine is a shipbuilding yard, an engineering shop, or a factory. Let them take up their cards in the ordinary way, for I do not want to be bothered by saving 2½d. at all." It is in the interests of the workman and of the administration of the Clause that it should be left in the hands of the employer to say—and I think the Committee can leave it safely to him to say, "Mine is a casual piece of work employing merely people it is not the intention of the Bill to insure at all," or else that "Mines is an insured trade, and I do not want to be bothered by three or five per cent. of the workmen as to whether they want to take that course or not."
    Sir J. SIMON: I am not quite certain that I have correctly followed the whole of the argument of the hon. Gentleman, but I would ask him to reconsider his view, because it does not seem to me that the proposal he makes would really have the effect which his speech indicates that he desires. The Clause as it stands, and if it is not altered, would provide for the exception where the employer and the workman agree. I understand the hon. Gentleman to suggest that it ought to be except in cases where the employer agrees. It takes two people to make an agreement. You cannot have an employer agreeing unless he has someone to agree with. The particular case which influenced the hon. Gentleman to make his speech is a case which in any event would be provided by the Clause as it stands. An employer is entitled to take advantage of the Clause. He is perfectly at liberty to say if he likes that he will put up a public notice that he is not going to agree with any workman to get out of the benefit of this Clause just in the same way that any man may announce to the public that he never intends to agree to marry, or he may announce that he is not going to agree not to get married. He cannot agree to marry unless there is someone who agrees with him to marry.
    Mr. PETO: May I suggest to the Solicitor-General that he should put in some words to show that the employer is the person to decide whether his workmen shall come under the Act?
    Sir J. SIMON: If two people do not agree, either has a veto.
    Mr. ALBERT SMITH: I sincerely trust the Government will not take the course suggested. What does this Amendment propose to do? You may disagree whether an employment scheme shall be contributory or non-contributary, but so long as we have a contributory scheme the men have a right to their side of the bargain, the same as the employer. If the Amendment is carried in its present form it gives an employer the privilege of saying to a man that he will employ him on the understanding that his insurance premium is paid for unemployment benefit. In the course of time if anything turns up distasteful to the employer and causes any number of the men to become unemployed, the employer will be in a position to say that these men have no reason for being out of work at all. If the employer advances the argument notice will be taken of it far more than if the men had contributed their share of the premium, and in a large number of cases it would be certainly a very difficult matter to adjust the relations between them. I think rather than disturb them in any way, it would be better for the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. It seems to me that the point made by the Solicitor-General that the exception cannot come into operation unless the employer agrees renders the Amendment unnecessary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I hope the Solicitor-General will consider before the Report stage whether the retention of the word "the" in the phrase "the principal industry of which," could not be modified. I can conceive many cases where you would have the surplus entirely agricultural and yet have a large mining works carried on. It would be very difficult to say it would be purely a rural district, because agriculture would not be in the true sense the principal industry.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I shall be glad to consider that. I see it raises an important point.
    Mr. HAMILTON BENN: I do not feel at all satisfied with the Clause, although I quite understand the difficulty the Government are in about it. If it had been left to the decision of the Board of Trade to exclude certain areas from the operation of this Bill, and if it had been left to their sole decision, I should be satisfied, but by a hard and fast rule to say that certain industrial towns which are in a rural district shall be excluded from this Bill, and that others which are in an industrial district are included, does not seem to me to be right. If the Clause had been so drawn that in rural districts the Board of Trade had the right of excluding certain trades or certain portions of an industry from the operation of the Bill I should be quite satisfied. I do not think that the Clause as drawn meets the case.
    Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move the Second Reading of the following new Clause:—
    (Exclusion of Subsidiary Occupations by Special Order.)
    The Board of Trade may, if in any case they consider that it is desirable, by special order exclude from the occupations which are to be deemed employment in an insured trade for the purpose of this Part of the Act—

    (a) Any occupation which appears to them to be common to insured and uninsured trades alike, and ancillary only to the purposes of an insured trade; or

    (b) Any occupation which appears to them to be an occupation in a business which, though concerned with the making of parts or the preparation of materials for use in connection with an insured trade, is mainly carried on as separate businesses or in connection with trades other than insured trades;

    and on any such order being made the occupation to which the order relates shall not be treated as employment in an insured trade for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
    Any special order made under this Section may be made so as to cover one or more occupations.
    The Committee will recollect that when we were discussing Clause 67 the merits
    2038
    of this new Clause were discussed, hon. Members in various parts of the Committee desiring that this portion of it should come under Special Order. I undertook after the discussion, if the Committee agreed, that that should be so, that the only way of doing it was by way of a new Clause. There is one point upon which I must throw myself on the mercy of the Committee. As Clause 78 stands it is necessary that a Special Order shall lay on the Table of the House for thirty days. The Clause which I am now moving relates to matters which are urgent, and which should be brought into force soon after the Act comes into operation. In consequence of the delay in discussing the Bill the Act cannot come into operation until the 1st July instead of the 1st May. It is obvious that between that date and the hoped-for rising of the House next Session there would not be an opportunity for the Special Order to lay on the Table of the House for thirty days. It would be necessary for the Board of Trade to come to a decision then to have the inquiry, and it is quite clear that would take it more or less into the summer or autumn. In these circumstances I shall have to ask the Committee on Report to exclude from these particular provisions, which are really in some ways of less importance than others coming under the special rules the proposal that the Order should lay on the Table for thirty days. I think the Committee will see that that part of the provision of the Special Orders would be almost fatal to bringing them into operation.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We recognise that this new Clause is intended to take the place of Clause 67, Sub-section (1), which has been left out.
    Mr. BUXTON: Not quite. It was intended to take the place of what would have been 67a if my Amendments had been accepted, to which the Committee agreed. Perhaps hon. Members will recollect that we very much curtailed the powers of the Board of Trade in regard to matters generally, and it was agreed that with my Amendments on the Paper, would have been acceptable to the Committee.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: When we were dealing with Clause 67, we felt that the matters dealt with in that Clause ought not to be done by regulation, but by the much longer and more public process of Special Order. What I want to remark is that this new Clause does not

    2039
    take the place of 67a. My hon. Friend (Mr. Goldman) is going to raise this point by way of an Amendment. The new Clause provides for certain exclusions, and Clause 67a dealt with inclusions.
    Mr. BUXTON: Yes, that is my point. In the first instance, we were very much curtailing the power of the Board of Trade, and we were not taking power in regard to inclusions, but only exclusions. In consequence of the discussion in the Committee we are prepared to allow the Special Order procedure.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It seems to me that there is a hiatus because there is nobody to decide what trades really come in. In 67a, you do appear to prescribe what occupations are to be deemed employment in an insured trade, or in other words, for interpreting the Schedules. My hon. Friend near me will move an Amendment dealing with that point, because I think there must be some means of interpretation.
    Mr. BARNES: I should like to have some information before we pass this Clause. I have looked over the Sixth Schedule, and I cannot see much that will satisfy what I have in my mind. Take an engineer's workshop, that is to say a workshop engaged in the construction of things useful and used in mining, which is outside of the Act, and in building. I do not know whether that would be covered by the words "mechanical engineering" in the Sixth Schedule. I should like to know that if that place would be really covered, although carried on as a separate business. Would it be covered by the Sixth Schedule of the Act?
    Sir J. SIMON: Our view is quite clearly that the case the hon. Gentleman has raised would be within the Schedule, and we believe that is a fact.
    Question put and agreed to
    Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move, in the first paragraph, after the word "Order" ["by Special Order exclude "], to insert the words "(1) decide whether an occupation is to be deemed employment in an insured trade for the purpose of this part of this Act, and (2)"
    The President of the Board of Trade has pointed out that the object of this particular Clause is to give authority to the Board of Trade by Special Order to exclude certain trades from
    2040
    coming within the purview of this Act. As the hon. Member for Dudley has pointed out, there is a great link in the authority which should be established to give a decision whether a certain occupation comes within this Schedule or not. You have got the Sixth Schedule and there is no authority for prescribing what occupations are deemed employment within the operation of this Act. It was contemplated that the authority should be invested in the Board of Trade under Clause 67, but hon. Members objected to these wide powers being given to the Board of Trade, and the Government yielded to those desires, and proposed to amend the Clause. They have so amended Clause 67, which I have before me, but if hon. Members will look at the amended Clause, they will find that it only provides for individual persons, and for individual workshops, but it provides in no way in respect of trades the link which is missing for an authority which has to establish which trade is to come within the purview of this Act. That would be established by the Amendment which I intend to move, which will give to the Board of Trade subject to a Special Order, the authority to decide which occupations are to be included as insured trades. I think this is the link that is missing. It is not contained in Clause 67, and I wish to give the Board of Trade power to decide this important matter.
    Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to recall to the Committee how the matter stands. The original Clause 67 gave the Board of Trade power to include and exclude. Before that we had come to the conclusion that it was asking rather too much that the Board of Trade by regulations should be able to exclude trades, and when we came to discuss the matter the Committee thought, and we did not dissent from that view, that as regards the power of exclusion, that should not be done by regulation, but by Special Order. In no sense is there a hiatus in the Bill, because that point will come under Clauses 64, 67 and 75, and any question of the inclusion of a trade as to whether it comes under the Schedule or not, will, on appeal, go to the umpire. The umpire will be the official who will decide that question rather than the Board of Trade, and we thought that was the view taken by hon. Members. There is really no hiatus, and the power of the Board of Trade is diminished in this matter, which we understood

    2041
    was the view of the Committee. I think the hon. Member will find that his difficulty—which I agree may easily have occurred because this Clause has been cut about a good deal—is met by the fact that the umpire will decide instead of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman draw attention to any part of the Bill where this is included in Clause 67?
    Mr. BUXTON: If the hon. Member will look at Clause 67, as amended, he will see the following words in Paragraph (b):—
    "For giving employers and workmen an opportunity of obtaining a decision by the umpire appointed under this part of this Act on any question whether contributions under this part of this Act are payable in respect of any workman or class of workmen."
    That is the power which he will have of deciding this question.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: That is not the point I am really discussing. The point I want to discuss is whether a particular trade comes within the provisions of the Act; whether, for instance, construction work, drainage works, sewage works, tramways, come within the Act. I want to give the Board of Trade power to say whether they shall or shall not. There are many cases. Do roads come within the Act? Do private roads come within it? They are all questions of principle as far as the trades and individual persons are concerned.
    Sir J. SIMON: It is not merely the individual person; the question may either be whether any workman has got to contribute or whether a class of workmen are within the Act. The words "class of workmen" are there put in in order that we may have the sort of test which he proposes. It would not be proper to do this by special order procedure, because it would give the House of Commons or the House of Lords, as the case may be, the opportunity, not of interpreting the Schedule, but of cutting down the Schedule, which is a different matter altogether.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: I am not quite satisfied, but I will not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I beg to move that the following new Clause (to be inserted after Clause 80) be read a Second Time:—
    (Voluntary Contributions and Additional Unemployment Benefit.)
    (1) With a view to securing additional unemployment benefit for any workman insured under this Part of this Act it shall be lawful for an employer to pay on his own account in respect of any such workman and also with the consent of the workman on behalf of the workman additional contributions (hereinafter referred to as "voluntary contributions") beyond the rates specified in Part I. of the Eighth Schedule to this Act, but before commencing the payment of any voluntary contributions the employer shall give not less than one month's notice to the Board of Trade.
    (2) Voluntary contributions paid by an employer on his own account shall be deemed to be voluntary contributions by the employer, and voluntary contributions paid by an employer on behalf of a workman shall be deemed to be voluntary contributions by the workman and the voluntary contributions by an employer and by a workman may be equal or unequal.
    (3) In respect of the voluntary contributions paid in respect of a workman, either by the employer or the workman, the workman shall be entitled to receive additional payments (hereinafter referred to as "additional unemployment benefit") beyond the rates specified in the Seventh Schedule of this Act at the following rate, that is to say: In respect of every penny so paid for each week when the workman is employed in an insured trade he shall be entitled to receive payment of a weekly sum equal to three-twentieth parts of the rates specified in the said Seventh Schedule, or of such other rate as may be prescribed under that Schedule, and applicable to such workmen, and so in proportion for any fraction of one penny so paid: Provided that additional unemployment benefit shall only be payable during the same periods, and subject to the same conditions and limitations as apply to the payment of unemployment benefit.
    (4) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall, subject to any necessary modifications apply to and in respect of additional unemployment benefit and voluntary contributions in the like manner in all respects as such provisions apply to and

    2043
    in respect of unemployment benefit and compulsory contributions subject nevertheless as follows:—

    (a) No contributions out of money provided by Parliament shall be made in respect of voluntary contributions;

    (b) It shall not be lawful for the Board of Trade either by direction of the Treasury or otherwise to make any temporary modifications in or to revise any of the rates of voluntary contributions but under the circumstances and conditions subject to which the Board of Trade may be required by the Treasury to make temporary modifications in any rates of compulsory contributions the Board shall, if the Treasury so direct, make temporary modifications in the rate of additional unemployment benefit, and, under the circumstances and conditions subject to which the Board of Trade are authorised to revise the rates of compulsory contributions, they may in like manner revise the rate of additional unemployment benefit by increasing or decreasing the same;

    (c) An employer shall not be entitled to be refunded any voluntary contributions paid by him on his account or on behalf of any workman;

    (d) Voluntary contributions may be paid in respect of a workman during any period which he is employed in an insured trade, whether he receives remuneration from his employer or not, and if voluntary contributions are so paid the workmen shall for the purpose of determining his right to additional unemployment benefit be deemed to be employed notwithstanding that he receives no remuneration;

    (5) Any employers desiring to discontinue the payment of any voluntary contributions either in respect of any particular workman or class of workmen shall give not less than one month's (week's) notice in writing to the Board of Trade of such desire, and at the expiration of such notice the employer shall cease to be under any liability to continue the payment of any voluntary contributions in respect of such workman or class of workmen either on his own account or on behalf of such workman or class of workmen.
    (6) In the event of the payment of any voluntary contributions being discontinued in respect of any workman either on account of the workman ceasing to be employed by the employer who has paid the same or otherwise the amount, if any, by which the total amount of voluntary contributions paid in respect of such workman either by the employer or the workman has exceeded the total amount received by the workman as additional unemployment benefit shall be dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed.
    The point I wish to raise is the question of voluntary contributions and additional unemployment benefit. I have been struck, from the time when I first began to consider the Government proposal with regard to unemployment benefit, with the inadequacy of the amount. When we are dealing with old age pensions, I can understand that 5s. per week is a very useful amount of money to keep an old person when beyond work. What has always been on my mind when thinking of the unemployment question, as we all have for years, is the workman with a wife and family, with perhaps four, five, or six children perhaps earning 30s. or 33s. a week, living in London, and paying 8s., 9s., or 10s. per week rent. I have always been anxious to think what we in Parliament could do for him. Where does that man come in under this Bill? What is the use of 7s. a week to him? He has perhaps got his children at school coming to the age of eleven, twelve, or thirteen, and is desirous that they should continue their education. I want that something more should be done to give that man such a sum of money as will enable him to keep his respectability, to keep his health, to keep his clothes in good order, and to prevent him from deteriorating as a workman. Then I ask myself, how is it to be done? Can I ask that the employer should be made by compulsion to pay more than 2½d.? and I say No; I do not suppose I can ask the Government to compel the employer to pay more. Then I ask myself, can I ask the Government to compel the workman to pay more than 2½d.? I cannot see that I could suggest that now.
    I do not suppose it would be any use—in fact it would be out of order—if I asked that the State should increase their contribution. Therefore I have no other way of getting this question of a larger amount of benefit for the unemployed than by raising it on the voluntary principle. I

    2045
    believe there is a large number of working men in this country who would gladly make a voluntary contribution in addition to the compulsory contribution. I belive there is a large number of men who look forward to the time of unemployment when they would like to feel secure for a sufficient number of weeks to maintain their wives and children in a proper position. I believe if we had some provision in the Bill which would enable a workman to put, at any time he pleases, any additional amount to his credit, it would be largely availed of. I may be told, "let him go to the savings bank. He can have another account." But we who know human nature know that it is difficult for a working man to have several accounts going, but if he is one of a saving kind, and he can put on the card, or whatever the machinery may be for collecting the money, any sum that he pleases from time to time, so as to increase the benefit when he is unemployed, I believe he would gladly accept the opportunity. I also believe that in many cases an employer would be very glad to make some addition to the amount.
    I quite recognise that under Clauses 79 and 80, there is a provision for a man to increase his benefit when he is unemployed, but does that go far enough? We do not know yet what the extent of the operations of Clause 79 and 80 will be. I hope with all my heart the trade unions will be able to cover the whole ground, but I doubt whether they will cover the whole ground. Even under the scheduled trades, I understand the number of trade unionists is about 400,000 out of two millions, and while we may all be friendly to trade unions, and anxious that they should cover the ground, and anxious to give them full opportunity for covering the ground, yet, at the same time, we ought to have regard here to the whole question, and even if men cannot come within trade unions, we ought to be more certain as to what their opportunities would be as groups of workmen or as individual workmen.
    Then we are taking very wide powers in this Bill. We not only have the scheduled trades but we are giving power to the Board of Trade, and I am glad we do, to extend it to other trades, so that the framework of this Bill is broad enough to take in the whole of the working population of this country. If it is big enough for that should it not also be strong and big enough to deal with the voluntary
    2046
    contributory question, apart from trade unions, or apart from groups of workmen, or associations of workmen? I do not think the Bill is broad enough for all future contingencies to enable workmen to get what I want them to get; that is, a larger amount of unemployed benefit. That is the only thing I am striving for. I know the Government are hostile to it. I have had pourparlers with those in charge of the Bill and I know they have made up their minds that it is absolutely impossible. It is a long Amendment, and it will not have many friends. We all want to get done, and we will soon get it out of the way. I would like to point out to them, if they look years ahead, this Bill opens up a future when all trades are brought in, and I think they will regret it if they do not give an opportunity, and every opportunity, for all workmen to increase their unemployment benefit. It will not be long before we have a great uprising in the country, and when people will say that 7s. or 10s. a week is an inadequate sum for a man when out of employment. It is not sufficient, and when this Bill comes into operation that is what the Board of Trade will find when they are carrying out the measure. I only want it to be so broad as to give every opportunity we can, while we appeal to the workman to do certain things which will encourage him to help himself at the same time, without driving him into the Post Office by saying, "If you want further help you can go to the Post Office." Give him the opportunity of building up his Unemployment Benefit Fund.
    I do not think the Committee will say that I have unduly taken up their time. I have tried to put the matter as concisely as possible. I believe it is a big point. I also know how helpless a Member of the Committee is, especially when he is on the Government side, when he raises a question, and I know how anxious other Members are in regard to other Amendments which they have on the Paper. We have all that feeling, but I do feel very strongly that there is a principle here, and I would ask my hon. Friends of the Labour party, who may be against this proposal because they think they see in it some danger to trade unions. to believe that I have no such object. My object in moving the Amendment is to get a larger amount of benefit. It is not the words on the paper that I expect to be accepted. I want the Government, and I want this Committee to help me to induce the Government, to deal

    2047
    with this question in a more extended way than they have done in Clauses 79 and 80.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The hon. Member has certainly supported the very long new Clause in an admirably concise speech, for which we are all grateful. The Clause is, indeed, framed with so much benevolent intention and real public spirit that one is loth to seem to make light of it; but I think the Committee will see that it is really not a workable business proposition. The hon. Member lays stress on the importance of encouraging voluntary insurance, and he admits that in Clauses 79 and 80 we do make some provision. He thinks we do not go far enough. He thinks, for instance, that outside of the sphere of trade unions much may be done, and he thinks his Clause will have the effect of promoting such insurance. I would point out that under Clause 80 there is no limitation to trade unions.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I did not say there was.
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Clause 80 provides for insurance by
    "Any association of persons not trading for profit the rules of which provide for payments to persons whilst unemployed, whether workmen in an insured trade or not."
    In that case a subsidy is given to encourage such insurance, and we do think that is a real encouragement of voluntary insurance. It is quite true that at the best this Bill does not provide very good maintenance, and it may very well be that the time will come when people will say: "We are not going to rest satisfied with a 7s. provision of this kind." Well and good. When public opinion reaches that point we shall be ready for a new Bill with new provisions. But the insertion of the hon. Member's Clause in this Bill would have no effect whatever in promoting the development of public opinion. Let us see how it would work. It is to be purely voluntary. There is no compulsion. The employer or the workman may contribute if he will. What kind of area or contributions will you have under such a provision? Obviously those who have most fear of unemployment. That is to say, you make a selection of
    2048
    precisely the worst risks, and those who most fear being thrown idle will be most anxious to come into the voluntary association, while those with least fear of unemployment will not contribute. You have therefore a selection against the interest of the fund. You will find in connection with attempts made in voluntary associations on the Continent that they got the insurance of the least insurable people—people who represented the maximum of risks. That is to say, in so far as you widen the area of insurance under the Bill, you widen it precisely in the most dangerous direction, and put upon the fund a burden in regard to which you cannot make an actuarial calculation.
    Where it is a matter of compulsory insurance, you can calculate the number of people who will be affected, but in this case there is no way of testing what will be the number of workmen or masters. All you can reasonably be expected to do as regards the workmen who will make the contribution is to say that they will be those who are most afraid of being unemployed. Actuarially the proposition is inadmissible. I may point out as regards actual experience that every association formed on these lines has been a complete failure. You do have success where you subsidise voluntary associations. That is actually done under Clause 80. The result as regards Ghent, where they do subsidise, was successful, and as regards Cologne, where they had a voluntary scheme at work for twelve or fifteen years in a town of 400,000 inhabitants, you have only 1,500 persons insured. I think that these considerations taken together suffice to show that my hon. Friend's well-meant Amendment cannot usefully be added to the Bill.
    Mr. BARNES: I should like to say a word or two on this Amendment, as the mover has referred to the Labour party. I have no doubt that the object he has in view is one with which we sympathise, that object being to secure more than 7s. per week for the unemployed man. We all agree that 7s. is too little, but we have this proposition to improve his position brought before us in a manner which cuts into the Bill, and cuts into trade unionism, and therefore is calculated to do more harm than good. There are ways and means within the four corners of the Bill whereby a man can get more than 7s. a week. Under Clause 79 a union can administer the Bill, and that

    2049
    union can only administer the Bill if it pays one-third of the total money given for unemployment out of its own funds apart from this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "A quarter."] Very well, a quarter of the amount.
    So you see there is a method by which the purpose of my hon. Friend is effected by this Bill, and effected in a much better way than he proposes. We regard this additional benefit which trade unions give over and above the Bill as one of the best things in the Bill. We would not support a Bill which would have given from these funds exactly the same amount as trade unions give, because we want a different scale existing financially as between the position of the trade unionist and the man who is not a trade unionist. After this Bill comes into operation the trade unionist will get his benefit exactly the same as he has hitherto done, and his benefit is more than the benefit under the Bill. The trade unionist covered by this Bill in the insured trade will get 10s. or 12s., as the case may be. The position is always open to the man who is not a member of a trade union to get inside his trade union and get this 10s. or 12s. a week, so there is this inducement for a man to get into a trade union to get the additional benefit.
    The object of the Amendment is to effect that result apart altogether from trade unionism in the sense in which I have been speaking of it. We want additional benefits for the man out of work, but we want at the same time to maintain what might be called the solidarity of the working people. This proposal would separate the working people into groups here and there. Take an employer who carries out some scheme of voluntary supplementary unemployed benefit, as proposed, in his workshop. This would tie his particular workmen to his workshop and the scheme would necessarily mean limiting the groups of workmen to a particular employer and thereby setting up a tendency for workmen to remain in those particular shops and therefore separate themselves from their fellows elsewhere. For that reason, as well as for the practical reason, we must oppose this proposal which we think altogether unnecessary because the Bill leaves it open for any man, who wants to do so, to supplement his unemployed benefits by becoming a member of a trade union, thereby identifying himself with his fellows in the general uplifting of his class.
    Mr. PETO: With regard to what fell from the hon. Member the Secretary to the Board of Trade, whatever decision the Committee may come to it is desirable that we should not come to a decision on what I regard as a wholly false issue. The hon. Member said it was perfectly clear it would be only the worst class of workman, the persons most in dread of unemployment who would take advantage of the provisions of this new Clause. I entirely disagree with him. Another factor comes in, that is one which would affect the best class of workman, those who, as the hon. Member who moved the Clause pointed out, would want to make sure that they had got some better provision than either 7s. or 10s. a week for their wives and families in case they were ever unemployed. I do not think that men who are frequently unemployed and are likely to be so, and consequently whose average rate of earnings would be excessively low would be able to spare from that low average rate of earnings a considerable additional contribution in order to provide for the case of unemployment. Whatever else you may think of this Clause, there is no doubt that it will not apply to the worst class. I believe it will apply to the best class of workmen we have got, and I shall vote in favour of it.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I do not think that this is likely to be carried by the Committee. A great deal more might be said in favour of it, but I have raised the point which was my object. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    New Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. BARNEShad given notice of the following new Clause:—
    (Cost of Certificates.)
    In any regulations for the production of certificates of birth or death provision shall be made for giving effect to The Friendly Societies Act, 1896, Section 97 (1) in respect of payment of fee by an insured person to a registrar of births or deaths."
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendmen, in the name of the hon. Member for Blackfriars, is out of order because there is no marginal note.
    Mr. BARNES: I have now given in a marginal note. I understand that the Government are going to accept this, and if that is so I need not say any more. I

    2051
    have told the reason why I have submitted it. I beg to move that the Clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. BUXTON: I do not propose to accept it in this form, for this reason: this particular provision should apply equally to Part I. as to Part II., and to cover that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has an Amendment down on the Paper to-day on the Third Part, where it would affect both, and which, I think, will meet the view of my hon. Friend, because on payment of sixpence, and not a shilling, he can obtain the birth certificate in question, so that it not only meets my hon. Friend's point, but is a little better than possibly he desires, and it comes much better under Part III.
    Mr. BARNES: Under those circumstances I withdraw. I put down an Amendment to Part I. as well as to Part II., and was not aware that the Chancellor had met it in this manner.
    Mr. BUXTON: It is down to-day.
    New Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I beg to move the insertion of the following Clause:—
    (Remission or Repayment of Contributions.)
    "The Board of Trade may provide by regulation for the remission or repayment of the whole or part of any contributions made by employers in insured trades in the case of workmen under the age of eighteen attending a course of technical instruction or other continuation classes approved by the local education authority, provided that the hours of labour of such workmen have been reduced to enable them to receive this instruction."
    I move this Clause because it is a purely permissive Clause. It does not involve necessarily that action will be taken on it at once, but it does hold the door open for a course of action which I think commends itself to all who are interested in the question of industrial education. Both the majority and the minority of the Poor Law Commission call attention to the need for greater training applied to trades where no apprenticeship exists. There is a great number of trades—and it will be specially the case, of course, in trades which will be added later—where there is no form of apprenticeship, and where it is not possible to expect apprenticeship to be introduced. In those trades especially this need for the provision of continuation
    2052
    classes which is possible during working hours is very great. There may be cases where that is impossible, and where classes must be held in the evening, but in those cases employers can make it easy for young workmen to attend these classes by allowing them to leave their work at an earlier hour. This is a purely permissive Clause, it involves no difficulty, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
    Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment though I entirely sympathise with the view which my hon. Friend holds. This is not a matter within the actual purview of the Bill. The question of unemployment and the question of technical training are not exactly directly connected, though I admit that in some ways they no doubt have some connection, but it is very difficult in an Act of Parliament to except the case of attending technical instruction as a statutory definition and one which must bring particular juveniles and employers under the operation of this Act. If the Committee agree, I have an Amendment further down in which I suggest a course that I understood was more or less generally accepted that in the case of both the juvenile and his employer the contribution be reduced from 2½d. to 1d. I really do not think there will now be a sufficient inducement one way or another to an employer to prevent a boy from attending these classes. Under those circumstances, the difficulties of statutory definition being very great, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, because, unfortunately, we are not able to accept it.
    Mr. HOARE: I had hoped that the President of the Board of Trade, having gone so far yesterday, would have gone a little further to-day. The difficulties are not quite so great as he seems to think. I am quite aware that the encouragement of technical education is directly outside the scope of this Bill. At the same time we have already passed a variety of other proposals that will have many indirect results, and which are also outside the scope of the Bill. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman, for instance, of the encouragement given to the decasualisation of labour and a variety of other things, which cannot be said to be technically within the eighty-one Clauses of this Bill. Next, it is by no means a difficult thing to submit some kind of test for this technical instruction. I should have liked my hon. Friend opposite to add

    2053
    one or two sentences that would have defined the matter in the most explicit manner. He might have added, for instance—and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see that it is a very easy matter—"attendance at a class of technical instruction approved by the Board of Education for not less than fifty attendances per year." That is a perfectly simple test as to which no difficulty in its application would arise. I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade will not accept this new Clause, but as it is quite evident that there is no chance of getting it through I suppose there can be no object in pressing it. I am very sorry that it is so.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I think the President of the Board of Trade seems to show, or desires to show, that there is no connection between this Bill and educational matters. But already the Bill provides that you may ask a workman to submit himself to the test of a technical institute, and, therefore, it does seem to me that the relation of education to unemployment is within the scope of this Bill, and is already dealt with under the provisions which have secured the approval of the President of the Board of Trade himself. I think it would be but consistent if the light hon. Gentleman went further, and allowed the giving to apprentices of an inducement to further educational equipment, for that would be likely to reduce the amount of unemployment later in life. Therefore the two things are very closely interwoven, and I should have been very glad if the Clause had gone even a stage further, and given extra inducement to any employer to allow his apprentices or workmen to take technical instruction during the hours when they are normally employed, by giving differentiated deduction in that case, as against the deduction in the case of the allowance for attendance at classes only in the evening. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will not throw entirely on one side this proposal, but give it more consideration than at present he seems disposed to extend to it. I do not think the point has been met by the President's speech. We have not yet decided whether it would still be in the power of the Board at a later stage to alter the contributions by Special Order, and this proposal merely reserves power to the Board to make regulations in respect of these provisions.
    Mr. BUXTON: My real difficulty is really to get anything to put into the Act
    2054
    of Parliament in regard to this matter, and I think the speech of the hon. Member for Chelsea shows the difficulty which exists. I will certainly consider the point, but I could not undertake to accept the proposal. The real difficulty is a statutory difficulty, and I think at the present time if we reduce the contribution there is not the same need for the Clause as there otherwise would have been.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I would point out that the Committee has not yet decided on the contribution to be made, and the President is thus prejudging the question, and in any case the Board might decide to raise the contribution for other trades not yet included in the Schedule.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am very sorry my hon. Friend is putting us to the painful necessity of voting against this Clause, and if we do vote against it, it is his own fault, and not ours. The proposal suggested by the hon. Member for Chelsea, for instance, is obviously quite impracticable, because he could not say whether the apprentices had attended these classes until the end of the period. You cannot lay down regulations which come into operation after that period unless you deduct in respect of the coming year for virtues practised in the previous year. This is not the way to deal with the question at all; you cannot deal with it in this way; and it is not that I am against the intention of my hon. Member that I am going to vote against him, and I am very sorry that he should have compelled us to vote against him. I can assure the Committee that it is not the case that we are against his idea, because I wish we could do something to carry out these objects, but this is really not the way to do it.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: In view of what has been said, and as it appears that the Committee are averse to accepting the Clause, I ask leave to withdraw it.
    New Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    STANDING COMMITTEE B.

      SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(List of Insured Trades for the purposes of Part II. of this Act relating to Unemployment Insurance.)
      (1) Building; that is to say, the construction, alteration, repair, decoration, or demolition of any building or any part thereof.
      (2) Construction of works; that is to say, the construction, reconstruction, or

      2055
      alteration of railroads, docks, harbours, canals, embankments, bridges, piers or other works of construction.
      (3) Shipbuilding; that is to say, the construction, alteration, repair or decoration of ships, boats or other craft or any parts thereof, and of the tackle thereof, by persons not being members of a ship's crew.
      (4) Mechanical engineering, including the manufacture of ordnance and firearms.
      (5) Construction of vehicles; that is to say, the construction and decoration of vehicles or any parts thereof.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move in paragraph (1) of the Schedule to leave out the words "any building or any part thereof," and to insert instead thereof the word "buildings."
      The reason for this Amendment is that the words that I propose to leave out may give rise to some misapprehension as to what is included or what is really intended. For instance, if the whole building was not in question, some arch, or some portion of it, might equally come under the provisions of the Act as if in respect of the whole building. Therefore to make it clear I propose to omit those words and to insert "buildings."
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: I should like to have a better reason for this Amendment than has been given by the President of the Board of Trade. "Any part thereof" would include any part of the building. For instance, it would be a very doubtful point, supposing a person proposed to build a new porch, whether that porch would come within the scope of the Bill. I think it would be far better to leave the words in. I could give a number of instances in connection with buildings, as to which it would be arguable whether they came within the scope of the Bill or not. I understood the object of those who are responsible for the Bill was to bring within its scope as many workmen as possible. It seems to me that they are going to take advantage of these technicalities in order to exclude as many workmen as possible.
      Sir J. SIMON: I can assure my hon. Friend that in the Schedule we desire to avoid these technicalities, and it was because we thought a legal technicality might be urged if we left the words as printed that this change was proposed For instance, I do not suppose my hon. Friend suggests that a manufacturer of door handles by the gross is building, but I
      2056
      can imagine a lawyer—such as is the devilish ingenuity of lawyers—arguing that it really was, by construction, a part of the building. In order that they should not be given the opportunity of arguing anything so absurd, we thought it would be better to make the definition "the construction, alteration, repair, decoration, or demolition of buildings." I can assure my hon. Friend that when the President of the Board of Trade adds a porch to his house, that that will be within the Clause. It will be an alteration of the President's building, and therefore will be clearly within the Clause. I can assure him that our object, so far from introducing this as a technical distinction, is simply to get a common sense and, I hope, a clear rule. The use of the word "buildings" in the plural I think makes it plain as to the real scope which we intend the words to provide for.
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: It is proof of the self-sacrificing spirit of the legal profession that I entirely agree with what the Solicitor-General has said. Therefore, I would suggest that the lay members should gratefully accept the Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (1) to insert the words "including the manufacture of structural fittings."
      The Committee may have noticed that we are proposing when we get to the end of the list to add a sixth division. Originally our idea had been that it would be in that sixth sub-division that these words might be conveniently brought in. But it is pointed out to us by those who know these trades extremely well that the Amendment as to structural fittings ought to be regarded as falling more naturally into the first sub-division. It appears, therefore, better to bring in the words at this point in order that it may be quite plain that the fact that a thing is made of wood instead of brick is no reason why it should not be regarded as building.
      Mr. PETO: I desire to ask, as an old builder, exactly what is meant by "including the manufacture of structural fittings." Structural fittings is certainly not a term I am familiar with. I would like to know whether he means structural ironwork, because the only way in which I have heard the words used is as to what is essentially some of the finishings of a building. There might be plumber's

      2057
      fittings, joiner's fittings, and so forth, but structural fittings is quite a novel expression as far as my experience goes. Does the Solicitor-General intend to include the whole of the manufacture of plumber's fittings, lead, pottery, porcelain, and so on, or does he mean structural ironwork, and does he limit it to that.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: What is the mean-of the words "structural fittings"? I happen to be a lawyer when I am at home. I confess, like the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I have not the remotest idea of what is meant by structural fittings. We have an Amendment further down, and we are anxious to include those who make slates. Slates are used, not only for roofing, but in other parts of the structure, such as for window-sills. Am I to understand that quarry-men engaged in making slates for window-sills come within this Section, while the men who make slates to be used for roofs, do not come within the Bill? Slate is used in electric fittings, and the installation of electric light, both in buildings and in houses. I am rather curious to know whether we are to understand that the quarry-men are to be divided into two classes, so that those who make one kind of slates will come within the Bill, and those employed in making roof-slates are to be excluded, and on what principle I do not know. I confess there was something to be said for the Bill as it stood. We understood, and we were told, that, the Government had decided once and for all that under present conditions, such an occupation should be excluded, but the Amendment which the President of the Board of Trade circulated this morning for the inclusion of the making of window-frames, doors, and other structural fittings of wood, opens the door for the inclusion, and I think quite rightly, of others who are absolutely dependent for their living on the prosperity of the building trade. I do not know the exact meaning of the words "structural fittings," and I should like to know what is really intended to be included. Is it intended to include within the scope of this Bill all those subsidiary employments which are really dependent on the building trade, and in which, of course, the rate of unemployment is quite as large as in the building trade?
      Mr. HOLT: I am very much concerned about this proposed addition. It does seem to me to almost take us back to the position from which we started. There is
      2058
      in my Constituency a manufactory where they make all sorts of earthenware, including things like sinks, and w.c.'s, and lavatories, and pipes, and articles of that description. Am I to understand that a sink, or a washstand, would be regarded as structural fittings. I suppose a drainpipe is not. You could hardly say a drainpipe is a structural fitting. If a man is making a wash basin, and if it is built into a house, would it be a structural fitting, and would it be a structural fitting if it was intended to be exported abroad and not to be used in a house in this country. If you are making the structural fittings not for use in this country, but for export abroad, are they structural fittings under this Bill, because I do not think anybody intended or contemplated that the manufacture of articles for the building trade abroad—and there is a very considerable manufacture for the building trade in foreign parts—that that was going to be included in a scheme for insuring persons in the building trade in this country. I see very great danger in these words. I would press on my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw them. They have not been on the Paper, and I suggest he should take time to think them over.
      Mr. J. WARD: I certainly feel dubious about supporting this Amendment. I can quite understand if you leave it as the construction, alteration, repair, decoration, or demolition of buildings, that you have practically included the whole of the building trade. I seem to imagine that if these words are included you will include all quarries. Go to Portland, for instance, and you will see stretched out at the quarry the front elevation of plenty of buildings which are to be erected in London. Surely you could not say in such a case that the men were not making a structural fitting. As a matter of fact, they do the work that used to be done in the builder's yard, and which is done in some cases still in the builder's yard. If these words are adopted you will include all stone quarry and slate quarry men. I am not so sure that you will not go even into ironstone mining, because a great many buildings are built with skeleton of steel and iron. It seems to me that the words of this Amendment will include nearly every trade there is.
      Mr. PETO: I think the real crux of the matter is that "structural fittings" is not a term known in the building trade, and nobody, no matter how well inclined, could

      2059
      ever interpret what was the original intention of this Committee in putting it in. I do not believe, however, that any one in the wildest flights of fancy could say that a Portland stone front of a house was affected by this Amendment. I think that certainly would be excluded. I cannot think what is in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade in putting in these words, unless that it was intended to mean "constructional ironwork"; that would bring in a whole trade, which may be desirable or not, but everyone, at any rate, would then know what was meant; there could no longer be any doubt, and I suggest if that was the intention, the matter should be made quite clear.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think the best plan would be for the Government to withdraw this Amendment now, and to reconsider it later on. I think, like my hon. Friend, what was really intended was constructional ironworks, steel girders, and so on. As I pointed out, the term "structural fittings" is not a work of art so far as the building trade is concerned.
      Sir J. SIMON: I think this has been a useful discussion, because it is hardly necessary to say the Government does not desire to alter anything in the Sixth Schedule except after they have had the fullest assistance from critics who speak with knowledge from that point of view. I shall give the reasons why I asked the Committee to allow these words to go in now, on the clear understanding that they are to be reconsidered, and reconsidered in no perfunctory spirit. Of course it is very familiar to all of us that when one gets to this part of a Bill everyone gets up and propounds his own conundrum, I do not complain of that; the only submission I respectfully make to hon. Members who propound their conundrums is that I should be greatly indebted to them if they will bear in mind that the Schedule will have to be read as a whole, and, secondly, I ask them to remember that whatever you say there may be a difficult case with which, I am glad to reflect, it will not be for a law officer, but for the umpire to deal. Take the first point first. The hon. Gentleman who raised the first difficulty said he supposed that "structural fittings" referred to constructional ironwork. I do not know if he meant that if these words were not in the construction of such work would be outside the Schedule. But when we
      2060
      come to mechanical engineering we shall find that steel girders would come in there. Do not let us lose sight of other parts of the Schedule when discussing this matter; it is not an easy matter, and this is a necessary warning to give. Whatever else structural fittings are intended to mean, they are intended to mean something that has to do with structure, and something that is fitted, and some of the illustrations given here as hard cases are very easy to deal with when that is borne in mind. For instance, I am sure my hon. Friend (Mr. Ellis Davies) will see that a slate is certainly not a structural fitting.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I never said it was; what I pointed out was that one man employed in a quarry would come in under the Bill under this Amendment, while another would be outside it.
      Sir J. SIMON: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that putting in a window-sill in a house is any part of building, and whether taking a slate out of a quarry is any part of building? What we must do is to get the clearest words possible, and when a difficult border-line arises we shall have to fall back upon the powers the Board of Trade are given in an earlier section to exclude from the Schedule things which it is well to exclude in order to have a clear boundary. If the Committee will permit me, I shall ask them to insert these words for this reason—members well know it is not possible on Report stage to make any change in a Bill which would increase the public charge. If we do not have our Schedule wide enough before we come to Report we shall not hereafterwards be able to enlarge it; and while I am very far from submitting that these words do not need further consideration, and they certainly shall have it, surely it is better, if we have to choose between two courses, to submit this Bill to the House with areas rather too wide which we could cut down later on than with areas which may be found to be too narrow but which we could not enlarge. That is the only reason. I press hon. Members to allow the words to be added, and then by all means let us shape them as a result of further consideration.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: Personally, I think this Amendment is an improvement upon the first proposed Amendment, and as far as I am concerned I am prepared to support it. I am afraid the Solicitor-General is a little bit jealous of the

      2061
      umpire; I prefer a lay umpire to a lawyer in this matter. I am surprised at the attitude of the hon. Member for Stoke, because, on page 76 of the Amendment Paper, he has an Amendment providing for bringing in "brick, cement and lime manufactory for building purposes," and still he seems to oppose the widening of the scheme of the Schedule. I hope the Committee will allow this Amendment to pass.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I want to say a word or two as to the difficulty in which I find myself after the explanation of the Solicitor-General. I understood him to say that stone would not be considered a structural fitting. I represent a constituency in which the work of the preparation of stone for building purposes and dock purposes is largely in existence. If stone is excluded, that would place me in the difficulty of not knowing whether the same worker one day employed in working stone for building, and another day for docks, would be included or excluded.
      Sir J. SIMON: I did not say a word about stone.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: The hon. Member for Stoke raised it, and I think we ought to know something before these words are passed.
      Mr. HOLT: Will the learned Solicitor-General answer my question? Do the words include the manufacture of fittings for export trade?
      Sir J. SIMON: That certainly is not intended, and we will see whether we can get words, so far as the ingenuity of man goes, to make that plain.
      Mr. PENRY WILLIAMS: Supposing a firm manufactures both for London and for export; how will they be affected? In my own Constituency there is very big works, which has houses in London, in South Africa, and in Australia. Will they have to keep staffs of workmen for London separate from the men who make for Australia, South Africa, and so on.
      Sir J. SIMON: I think it may be that my answer was misunderstood, and I should not wish that to be so at all. I certainly do not anticipate that anything that comes under this Sub-section (1)—which was, I thought, what we were particularly considering—would be related to the export trade. It had not so occurred to me. The question of structural iron-
      2062
      work will come under Sub-section (4). I do not think that the Committee had better take it that it would be possible for us to insist that a series of books shall be kept that will earmark the destination of each particular thing produced. I was rather referring to the fact that the structural fittings used were in connection with buildings, and it appeared to me—I will, however, look at it again—that that would cover things like staircases, windows, and doors, which are, in point of fact, structural things for buildings. [An HON. MEMBER: "Earthenware."] I do not think earthenware fittings are really intended by the Sub-section.
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: One does not want to give the appearance of opposing the suggestion to put the Amendment into the Bill now with a view to probable reconstruction on Report; but I am bound to say that to my mind this Amendment is a very dangerous one, and I think certainly a most important one. The amount of time spent upon it, I think, is not half equivalent to the importance of it. I can quite appreciate the difficulty of opposing the Amendment in view of what the Solicitor-General has said. It certainly, however, will require very careful consideration. I think if we put it in now it must not in the least be accepted that we are not going to strenuously object to it on Report. [An HON. MEMBER: "If you get the chance."
      Mr. PETO: I would like to reply to the Solicitor-General in respect to what the hon. and learned Gentleman on this side has just said. Is it at all certain that we shall have any opportunity of going into this question at Report stage? It seems to me quite possible that we may not reach this part of the discussion since Report will be under the rules of the Closure. On the point which we are discussing I want to press very strongly upon the Solicitor-General that it would not be in the interests of the Bill to include these particular words for the simple reason that I firmly believe that those two simple words "structural fittings" are practically a contradiction in terms. They may mean a part of the structure of the building or a part of the fittings of the building. If you try to include them you get into a difficulty. One man is in a slate works, and will be making the parts of a cistern, or urinal, or something of that sort, which will be interpreted as being the structural fittings of a house. The rest of the people—it may be 90 per cent.

      2063
      of the workmen—will be engaged at some other slate works, where they do not make those things.
      Again, in the case of structural iron work, which I agree may come in under "structural fittings," it is not only a question of the export trade, but the destination of the actual girder or whatever it may be that is being made. One may be for a building and another may be for some purpose which does not come within the four corners of the Bill. Therefore I submit that the inclusion of these words, which I believe are wrong words and wholly unacceptable words, is not a thing which the Committee ought to agree to. It is infinitely better to leave it to the Government to ascertain what words they do want to put in, and let them put them in. If they cannot do it on Report stage, for the reason stated by the Solicitor-General, it would be infinitely better to leave them out, and leave the Act to be amended at some future time. The inclusion of these words means the inclusion of dozens of subsidiary trades that have nothing whatever to do with the trades which are really intended to be insured trades. In every case where such a trade is intended, whether pottery works where baths, sinks, and such things are made, you may have two lots of scheduled workmen. Most workmen in the works will be engaged on things which are not an insured trade, and nine or ten, possibly eight per cent. of the workmen may be engaged in an insured trade. The only result of these words will be that the administration of this Bill will end in absolute and hopeless confusion. I hope the Solicitor-General will not press to try to include by a side wind fractions of other trades which are not intended to be in the Bill. If he wants to include some other definite trade, by all means alter the Schedule and let us debate it, but let us know what we are really discussing.
      Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: Would it not be well to suspend the discussion of this question until after the Adjournment, because I think we are working in a condition of some duress at the present moment. This appears to me to be the most important Amendment we shall have to discuss in this Schedule. We here take out the words "or any part thereof," and put in words that are scarcely less vague.
      Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me to make an explanation on this matter. May I say that I
      2064
      think the Government, the President of the Board of Trade certainly, owe an apology to the Committee in this matter, for this reason. We had intended to move an Amendment dealing with this, which we proposed to put on the Paper last night, but the House rose earlier than we expected, and, therefore, it did not appear on the Paper. The Amendment was circulated as far as possible to Members of the Committee, and, on its circulation, it was suggested to us that the matter would be better met in other words. We committed perhaps the great folly which Lincoln always objected to, of swopping horses while crossing the stream, and, as the thing was just coming on, we suggested words instead of the words which we have circulated to the Committee. Those words were obviously, therefore, really not properly considered, and by the light of the discussion which has taken place, I am bound to say the words then suggested have been shown to have had no friends, and also to possess great disqualifications—for instance, as to structural fittings, and so on. It was also held by some Members on both sides that they carried the extension of these insured trades much farther than was intended; and looking at them again in the light of the small opportunity we have had of considering them during the luncheon period, we quite agree with the view the Committee held with regard to them.
      I assure the Committee that we had no intention by those words of extending the scope of this matter at all, and it was shown that those words would certainly do so. I therefore propose to withdraw the words now before the Committee, and, for their convenience, perhaps I may just read to them the words we propose in substitution, which I really think carry out, as far as I was able to follow the Debate, the original intentions of the Government, and, I think also, the views of hon. Members who discussed this matter. Instead of the Amendment which has now been put from the Chair, I would propose to add these words, and, if the Committee will allow me, I will read them as they would run with the whole of the sentence. It is on page 75, line 4, the first Sub-section: "Building—that is to say, the construction, alteration, repair, decoration, or demolition of buildings, including the manufacture of any fittings of wood of a kind commonly made in builders' workshops or yards."

      2065
      That was really what was intended by the original Schedule, and the words we circulated this morning. I ought perhaps to point out in explanation of a remark which fell from the Solicitor-General, under a misapprehension of the question put to him, that in any trade included under this Act, whatever may be the ultimate destination of the manufacture, whether export or import, obviously, if it is an insured trade, it will come under the provisions laid down. The answer of the Solicitor-General may have left an impression that that would not be so, but clearly, whatever trade is brought in, it would affect the manufacture of that trade. I beg to withdraw the Amendment moved by the Solicitor-General in order to insert the words I have proposed.
      Mr. J. WARD: May I ask a question of the Solicitor-General before the Amendment is withdrawn, otherwise, I am afraid I shall not be able to ask it on the Amendment that is going to take its place. I think it is now in order for me to ask the question. I want to know whether the term "Building," in this Sub-section, will include such work as drainage work attached to the building of a house? Such work is usually done, of course, by labourers who are actually employed in the building construction, and, therefore, unless it is understood that that was included also, there would be a most peculiar situation developed. I would like to know therefore, whether it is understood that drainage connected with the construction of a house which is carried out by the ordinary builder's labourers is also included in this Part.
      Sir J. SIMON: In answer to the question my hon. Friend asks, I do not entertain any doubt that that is so, and that the work that has been described would fall within the words of the Schedule. That is the intention of the Government, and I think it is plainly the effect of the words.
      Mr. STEWART: Might I ask one question, also, as the words proposed seem to refer to things made of wood? There is in my constituency a great industry in connection with corrugated iron. People not only construct houses, but make additions to their houses of corrugated iron, and I should like to know how that trade would be affected, as there is a very large number of people employed in that particular industry.
      Sir J. SIMON: It seems to me fairly plain, as the words run which are now proposed to be inserted, that the putting of a roof of corrugated iron on a building, to take that example, would clearly be within the words. The manufacture of the corrugated iron, the rolling and the preparing of it, would not be within the first Subsection of the Schedule, because it would not be a building as explained by these words, but I should imagine it might come under Sub-section (4), "Mechanical Engineering."
      Mr. BUXTON: Not necessarily.
      Mr. BIGLAND: I have a list of brick makers who are very anxious to know whether they come under this category or not. I should like to have a definite answer upon that point. Would the brick makers rank as builders?
      Sir J. SIMON: No, they would not.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: Would a mason employed on stone making or moulding come under the provisions of this Bill?
      Sir J. SIMON: Yes, certainly.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: Do I understand that the same person employed in the quarry in stone making would come within the provisions of the Act as a mason?
      Sir J. SIMON: Yes.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move in paragraph (1), after the word "building," to insert the words, "including the manufacture of any fittings of wood of a kind commonly made in builders' workshops or yards."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. BIGLAND: I beg to move, in paragraph (3), after the word "ships," to insert the words, "carried on in a shipyard or graving dock."
      I propose those words so that we may know clearly where our Constituents are, and who are the persons who come under this Bill. In the shipbuilding industry there is an enormous number of subsidiary trades, many of them very closely allied to it, and we want a definition of what this really means to those trades which are very closely allied to shipbuilding, though not actually under the roof of the shipbuilding yard. If those words are added which I propose, then there will be no misunderstanding as to who comes

      2067
      under the Bill and who does not. The Committee know that in the building of ships there are many parts brought to the shipyard all ready to put into the ship, and there are a great many men employed in certain shipyards constructing those things, while in regard to other yards they are constructed outside the actual shipbuilding yard.
      Mr. J. WARD: I am anxious to hear the view of the Solicitor-General in regard to this Amendment, because I can quite see how dangerous it is likely to be. If you put in the words "carried on in a shipyard or graving dock" it might be that a ship would be moored just outside the shipyard or graving dock undergoing repair, and the whole of the men in the shipyard or graving dock would be excluded. Of course, a limitation of that description would make the Schedule absolutely ridiculous. That is why I want some explanation.
      Sir J. SIMON: I am afraid, for the reason which has just been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke, that we could not accept the limitation proposed by the hon. Member. For the convenience of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment and of other Members of the Committee, I may state that we shall propose to leave out the words "any parts thereof, and of the tackle thereof," and to substitute words similar to those which the Committee have already inserted in paragraph (1) of the Schedule. The words we propose to substitute are "including the manufacture of any fittings of wood of a kind commonly made in a shipbuilding yard." That will prevent the inclusion of some cases which might otherwise not properly fall within the general object of the provision.
      Mr. BIGLAND: I quite accept the explanation of the Solicitor-General, and I can see what the hon. Member for Stoke meant when he spoke of the ship moored either outside the shipbuilding yard or the graving dock. All I want is a clear definition to show who will come into the Bill in connection with the construction of a ship. Parts might be made in quite another quarter of the town, and there is great confusion in the minds of many men as to whether they will or will not come under this Bill. So long as we have a clear definition as to who are to come under the Bill, and which will prevent any squabbling or wrangling in
      2068
      future as to whether or not a particular trade does come under it, then I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me the words he proposed to move.
      Sir J. SIMON: We will have to dispose of the hon Member's Amendment before we can deal with that which the Government propose to submit. The proposal of the Government is to leave out "any parts thereof, and of the tackle thereof," and to insert in their place the words, "including the manufacture of any fittings of wood of a kind commonly made in a shipbuilding yard." I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he will find that this does exclude some of those cases which he had in mind when he moved his Amendment.
      Mr. BIGLAND: I am quite satisfied, so long as the matter is clearly defined. A certain number of workers are very much dissatisfied at present. If the word "wood" were put in—
      Sir J. SIMON: That can be discussed when the Amendment has been moved, after the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn his Amendment.
      Mr. BIGLAND: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move in paragraph (3) to leave out the words, "or any parts thereof, and of the tackle thereof."
      Question, "That those words stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
      Mr. HOLT: Before the further Amendment is moved, I propose to move another Amendment in paragraph (3). I move after the word "being" ["persons not being members of a ship's crew"] to insert the word "usually."
      Sir J. SIMON: I accept that.
      Mr. HOLT: I may explain that it is purely a technical point, because at the time these men may be engaged on the work of the ship they may have been paid off, to be re-engaged afterwards. They are not technically members of the crew.
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I doubt very much whether this will be a safe Amendment—"not being usually members of a ship's crew." Sometimes members of the crew are employed for this purpose, but if they are engaged in carrying out the

      2069
      actual operation one does not see why this word "usually" should be inserted at all.
      Mr. HOLT: I am afraid my hon. and learned Friend has not understood my point. It occurs in the interval between one voyage and another. There is technically no crew, though, they are the same individuals, who were the crew in the last voyage and will be the crew in the next.
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: The result is not being members of a ship's crew, they might be members of a different ship's crew.
      Mr. HOLT: The ships have no crew.
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Not being members of a ship's crew, what I suppose is meant is not being members of any ship's crew.
      Sir J. SIMON: Would it do to make it the crew?
      Mr. HOLT: They change from ship to ship; they are regular seafaring men.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move at the end of paragraph (3) to insert the words "including the manufacture of any fittings of wood of a kind commonly made in shipbuilding yards."
      The words which we suggest here are the same as those we added a little time back at the end of the building definition, except that we speak of shipbuilding yard, whereas in the case of the building definition we speak of builders' yard. I hope I shall find that the hon. Members of the Committee who are very familiar with this branch of the industry, will recognise that these words are apt for what we mean. The hon. Member for Birkenhead said he thought it might be a question whether we should limit the reference to fittings of wood. If you take such a thing as a water-tight door, which is not made of wood but of iron, it would still be within this, because it will be shipbuilding, and it would probably also come under mechanical engineering. What we desire to avoid is the furnishing of the cabin as opposed to the fitting of it, with wood fittings and the like. I think we have probably chosen accurate words to express that idea.
      Mr. BIGLAND: I fail to see why the Government insert the word "wood" and
      2070
      exempt the word "iron." In my own constituency there is a factory for making wooden fittings for steamers that have been built, and there are other large industries making ironwork which also goes into steamers. It might be remarked that they would come under Paragraph (4), and that they will be mechanical engineering, which is such an enormously wide term, that I suppose every iron worker in the country would come under that head. Suppose there was a foundry outside and not under the roof of the shipbuilding yard, manufacturing castings for the yard, would the foundry workers come under the Bill?
      Sir J. SIMON: They would come in under paragraph (4).
      Mr. HOLT: I think this Amendment does meet the case, and does take out the objection as to bringing in subsidiary trades, and includes those men in trade in the shipbuilding yard engaged in woodwork, which is almost entirely done in the yards. As to the point of the hon. Member for Birkenhead about ironwork, it is quite clear that the next Amendment on the Paper will raise the whole question.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, in paragraph (4), after the word "including," to insert the words "iron founding and."
      It was intended that this should be included under mechanical engineering, but as we are a little doubtful about it we think it is as well to insert these words.
      Mr. PETO: May I ask why iron founding? If it is in reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, he was speaking of subsidiary trades which manufactured parts which ultimately go into the ship, and quite outside the ordinary shipbuilders' yard, and which are made inside the shipbuilding yard too. I will give the President of the Board of Trade an example of what I mean. Bronze or brass portholes and the porthole doors are always made in brass foundries. But this is only one item of various manufactures carried on in such a place, a great many of which are quite unconnected with shipbuilding and some unconnected with the building trade. So far as we have already got we have excluded as far as the building trade is concerned the manufacture of such things as door knobs and so on, specially mentioned by the Solicitor-General as being excluded. If we are

      2071
      to take his statement to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, practically the whole of those things come into mechanical engineering. We have got there a term which is of such wide application that no member of the Committee will know where it begins or ends. I should not have imagined that mechanical engineering included brass founding, which is a trade. I was still more surprised to hear the hon. Member for Wirral Division include the manufacture of corrugated iron, because that is understood to be absolutely a trade by itself. If you mean that in an ordinary mechanical engineering shop, a place with which I am very familiar, that you do not want the men who are engaged in brass founding, which is undoubtedly a part of the industry, that is to say, you find in most mechanical engineering shops there is a means of making iron castings necessary for their business, although some buy iron castings, then why on earth should you include the men who are engaged in working iron and exclude or do not include a larger number of men engaged in working crucibles for brass castings, bronze castings, and the other articles which are still more used in mechanical engineering.
      As the thing stands, I admit I have not, myself, the haziest idea of what is the intention of the Government to include or exclude. If I might suggest what we really want is words either to include a trade or exclude a trade. We do not want to have groups or bodies of a man's employés contributors to the unemployment scheme, whereas the main number of men he employs may be outside of it. A perfectly valid argument may be brought forward for introducing words including any trade before this Schedule passes, but I do not think any argument can be brought forward for including only parts of a trade. By the words which it is proposed to include you would only make confusion worse confounded, because we do not know whether brass founding is to be included, or whether it means that iron founding, even where iron founding is practically the sole industry carried on the premises, is an insured trade, because for the first time I learn that iron founding, as a trade, is part of mechanical engineering. On the other hand, it may mean that if, on the premises of a genuine mechanical engineer, iron founding or brass founding is carried on, there is no intention to leave
      2072
      these particular employees outside the Act. With that I should entirely agree. Therefore I suggest, if that is the intention, to let people know who is in and who is out—which is what we want to do—you require words limiting it to the men who are employed on iron founding or brass founding on the premises of a mechanical engineer, as you do not want to include these people where it is the sole business carried on. There are many cases that I know well, where they are not mechanical engineers at all. They are perfectly plain and simple brass-founders. The same thing occurs in Birmingham, where there is an enormous industry of brass founding. Are you going to include the whole of the brassfounders? If so, I submit that you want a fifth and perhaps a sixth sub-division, saying perfectly frankly that all people engaged in the Birmingham trade of brass founding are to be included in the Act. If that is the desire, what becomes of the Solicitor-General's argument in relation to the building trade, where he was so anxious to define what he meant that he positively took, as a typical example of what he did not mean, the casting of brass door-knobs.
      Sir J. SIMON: Really, I took the casting of brass door-knobs as an extreme illustration of a possible misunderstanding of the phrase "constructing part of the building." I did not use it for any other purpose.
      Mr. PETO: I am not complaining in the slightest degree. I meant that we had specially limited the first Sub-section of the schedule so as to exclude such things. But if we are going to leave Sub-section (4) so vague and so wide that it will again include all these same things, I say, by all means let us do so, but let us do so by a definite Sub-section which says that all brass founding carried on in this country is an insured trade. If it is intended to be only brassfounding carried on in the ordinary workshops of a man who may be properly termed a mechanical engineer, you want words to the effect "including brassfounding and ironfounding if carried on on the premises of a mechanical engineer."
      Mr. BARNES: I sympathise with the Amendment now before the Committee. I think it is probably meant to include a trade which was not thought to be included before, but I agree with the hon. Member opposite that it may have exactly the opposite effect. In the absence of

      2073
      these words, I should have said that not only iron moulding, but brass moulding, copper moulding, and other sorts of moulding incidental to the engineering trade, were covered by the term "mechanical engineering"; but inasmuch as the Amendment specifically mentions iron-moulding, therefore, inferentially, it excludes other sorts of moulding.
      Mr. PETO: The term is "iron founding." It is not clear that it includes even iron moulding.
      Mr. BARNES: I am using the terms as synonymous.
      Mr. PETO: There is all the difference in the world.
      Mr. BARNES: I think iron moulding is a general term covering iron founding. My point is, if you are going to make any addition at all, make one which will include all these different grades or classes of founders and moulders. For my part I do not see that anything at all is necessary if it is understood that founding or moulding is included in mechanical engineering. I cannot follow the hon. Member in his statement about portholes and brass fittings. It seems to me obvious, without any extension, that that is included, in mechanical engineering. The men engaged in making porthole fittings are brass turners, and are exactly the same type of men as those employed in the building of an engine or in the building of a ship. Therefore, for that reason alone, and because of the term "mechanical," it clearly would be part of the mechanical engineering trade. If you go on putting in special branches, such as we are now engaged in discussing, you will very likely find in a general way that, instead of including somebody whom you had forgotten, you will inferentially exclude a great many more. Therefore, before we vote on this question, I hope the Government, if they are going to adhere to their Amendment, will add words so as to bring in all classes of founders instead of including only ironfounders.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: Will the manufacture of belting in connection with driving machinery, or of wire-roping for driving machinery, or haulage purposes be included within Sub-sections (3) and (4)? It constitutes part of a ship's equipment, and it is part of mechanical engineering. There is a very large factory of wire-
      2074
      roping in my constituency, and I have been asked whether it will come under the Act.
      Sir J. SIMON: The question which has been raised is a very difficult one, and we are all much indebted to those Members who have spoken with an intimate knowledge of the trade. It will be for the Committee to determine what is the best thing to do. I may explain the object the Government have in view, and then the Committee will judge whether we have carried it out, and whether they would wish that object to be varied. The original idea was to include mechanical engineering which does not mean the same thing as the occupation of every man who calls himself a mechanical engineer. We shall all agree that the occupation of mechanical engineering is not necessarily the same thing as that of a man who is called a mechanical engineer. Mechanical engineering is an expression which people generally understand. We were in this position. Some branches of iron founding I conceive would probably be included in the term "mechanical engineering" anyhow; but if you take such a thing as the making of stoves and grates—the Wolverhampton trade, for example—it seemed to us at least open to great doubt whether mechanical engineering would cover such a case. It was our intention to cover it. The Committee will probably approve of that. That is why we propose to put in the words "iron founding." Now we come to the case of brass founding, which the hon. Member opposite has been discussing. There the position is not quite the same. The reason why we thought we would include all iron founding is, first, because most iron founding work is essentially part of mechanical engineering—[An HON. MEMBER: "NO"]—a large part of it, at any rate; and secondly, that the iron founding which is not engineering is very closely associated with processes which do come into mechanical engineering. That is really not true of brass founding as a whole. There is some brass founding that is undoubtedly included in mechanical engineering in the general sense. You have brass founders in a place where mechanical engineering is going on, but it would be a very serious extension of the Schedule, and would really be invading quite a new piece of country, if we were at one fell swoop to include all those small trades connected with the working and making up of

      2075
      brass. I call them "small" only because there is such a great variety and number of them. The hon. Member mentioned my brass door-knobs. That is the sort of thing we had in mind. Therefore the Committee will see the object we had in view was, not to exclude all brass founding, but to include it in so far as it fell within the general description of mechanical engineering, and I think it will be agreed you do have things that deal with brass founding in mechanical engineering. But, on the other hand, we wished to exclude such brass founding as is really outside the scope of mechanical engineering. That was our object. As regards iron founding, realising, as we thought, that for the most part it is mechanical engineering, it seemed to us better to bring in iron founding as a whole. I only say this in order that the Committee may see the view which has presented itself to our mind, and it will be for the Committee to say whether that view is right or not, and, secondly, whether we have carried it out as well as we can. It is desirable to keep the two things distinct, and that is the general view. Now, my hon. Friend opposite has asked me whether wire-rope making would be included. I think the answer to that is "No."
      Mr. BIGLAND: I rather agree with the hon. Member opposite who has spoken that the including of those words excludes a great deal that might come under the natural term "mechanical engineering." To decide in future what is mechanical engineering and what is not will be a most difficult matter. I have no opposition to the Bill in any way. All I want to do is, as a member of this Committee, to make it sufficiently clear that when my Constituents and the people in other towns come to read the definite Act of Parliamnt when it is passed, they will see that there will be no ambiguity as to whether they are in an insured trade or not, and I am still afraid that we shall have a great deal of trouble on that point. Take, for instance, chain makers. I do not say, and I could not say personally, whether a chain maker is a mechanical engineer or whether he is not, and no doubt there will be hundreds of industries in which people will immediately ask the question of their Members of Parliament, "Am I in an insured trade, or am I not?" I am rather inclined to vote against this Amendment, and leave it as it originally stood.
      Mr. BARNES: So far as I can understand the Solicitor-General, he wants us to believe that iron founding in the sense in which it is now inserted, is only intended to cover iron founding as apart from engineering workshops. Now, if that is so, why not say so; because you do not say it here? By putting those words in the Bill as they are now, you include, as I understand it, iron founding as part of mechanical engineering, and, therefore, inferentially, you exclude other sources of founding. Of course, I know the class of founding the hon. and learned Member has in mind, such as that in Falkirk and elsewhere, and also a much larger industry, that is to say, the founding of water pipes, and similar pipes, that public bodies carry water in for long distances, and I have no objection to them being brought in. Then again, there are castings for sewing machines, and I have no objection to all these being brought in, but they are all part of the iron founding business carried on apart from an ordinary engineering works, and, therefore, if you want to bring them in, say so in the Bill, or, otherwise, as these words now stand, they will exclude the other classes of founding to which reference has been made by hon. Members opposite.
      Mr. BALDWIN: I must say that the sudden inclusion of the iron trade as a whole has come rather as a surprise to us who know the trade. I know the last thing I want is to be at all technical, but I wonder if the Board of Trade realise how much is covered by these simple words, iron foundry? Of course, I have to come back once more, and I must apologise for coming back to the point of the weight of the double incidence upon English industries of the first Part and the second Part of the Insurance Bill. I am sure that everybody on this Committee on both sides, quite independently of party politics, wishes to see that this Part is given a fair trial, and they will be only too pleased if it has this consequence; and if, in process of time, it can be extended, no one will be more pleased than I; but I do realise that we are making an enormous experiment, and that we have already got in very large numbers of men, and I think we are rather risking the success of this Part II. by overloading the trades introduced at the beginning. Now, let me just in a few untechnical words remind the Board of Trade of what iron-founding comprises. It comprises various items which are distinctly connected with

      2077
      the building of houses coming under No. 1, such as the manufacture of grates, hinges, window frames, and so forth. Now we come to a very wide subject of manufacture which has been hitherto supposed to be entirely outside the Bill, in a manufacture carried on in many parts of the country where competition is keen and where not very large profits are made, and where, consequently, the incidence of 2½d. and 5d. as between masters and men will be seriously felt. You cover at once the whole industry of hollow-ware manufacture and of cast iron pots and pans, which are used as domestic utensils.
      You also, as the hon. Member for Black-friars (Mr. Barnes) has said, cover cast iron pipes, which is a large industry. They are used for post-office purposes, and are largely used for export, and you cover also the manufacture of certain kinds of plant for practically every industry in the United Kingdom, thus throwing an extra burden of cost on production on the cost of your plant in nearly every manufacture in the country. If you look at an iron works, for instance, of any kind, or a steel works and rolling mills, though I do not know whether they can come under mechanical engineering or not, you have got all your floor-plates, and the constructional parts of your furnaces, and all your roll houses, and all your rollers, that is to say, everything which is used in the manufacture of rails, and every kind of constructional steel work that there is. You have, generally, the castings of every description used in the erection of every form of machine that is put up in any way, and I should like to have some assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that he realises what that means, and that this inclusion of iron founders will bring in many small industries, many of them struggling. I think it will bring in a great many more men, and a great many more industries than he has any idea of.
      Mr. BUXTON: I may say this particular Amendment in regard to iron founders was really put in at the request of the employers themselves, because they professed to represent the Iron Founders' General Federation. They were representing those who were interested in this matter, and they thought it would add to their difficulties unless the whole were included. Therefore it was very largely at their request that we proposed to include them. But as regards the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member from Glasgow, I quite appreciate his remark. He says that if we put in the words "iron founders"
      2078
      in this way, it might be held to include some, and exclude others in the ordinary course coming under it. I do not know whether my hon. Friend had the words suggested to him, but at all events, I will say to him, that looking at it as a matter of drafting, possibly the simplest way to meet this point, which is a very good one, probably would be to accept these words now, but to put in in the Report "iron founders" in a second category, and making it clear that it was not in any way to be held to diminish or affect other industries, or other branches of the trade, but that it would apply to the mechanical engineering as well as to the rest of the iron founding. It is really a question of drafting. We are in accord with him in regard to that, and either now or later, we can accept words as to that.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: May I ask, are the words which will include all the trades and industries to include all the industries spoken to by the hon. Member opposite?
      Mr. GOLDMAN: May I just ask one question in relation to the actuarial side of this Amendment? I should like to know whether the calculation of the large number of men who are likely to come in under this proposal has been considered by the actuaries who have made the reports. You are bringing in iron foundries. How many men is it calculated approximately would come in under this provision.
      Mr. BUXTON: We calculated originally that they were to be included in the words. After further consideration we came to the conclusion that the words would be ambiguous, and in order to make it quite clear we proposed to insert these words. The men are already included in the actuarial calculation.
      Mr. HOLT: I do not think the Board of Trade can have thoroughly realised what an enormous extension of the Bill this involves, because, surely mechanical engineering means colloquially the manufacture of those articles which if exported would be classified by the Board of Trade as machinery, that is, I take it, what any ordinary person would understand by the term mechanical engineering. It includes the whole manufacture of iron articles, such as plates, angles, bars, pipes, armourplate, joists, and all sorts of things that anybody who knows the term would classify as machinery. It may be right or

      2079
      wrong to do it, and to represent it as a very simple extension of mechanical engineering. But it is as well to make the point clear, so as to leave no doubt of what mechanical engineering is; for it seems to me that the matter has not been considered as its importance deserves. This addition is a far bigger thing than mechanical engineering: it means a very much bigger thing, and includes far more people than would be included in the term "mechanical engineering." If we want to do it, I would suggest that it would be much better to withdraw this Amendment, and to propose a new Sub-section dealing with the iron trade.
      Sir. J. SIMON: The hon. Member is quite right. I was going to follow up the suggestion of the hon. Member; the same idea has occurred to others of us. It is quite plain, as a result of this discussion, that there is in the minds of some Members doubt—and I think it is a perfectly reasonable doubt—as to whether the introduction of the word "iron-founding" into this Sub-section might not lead to confusion, and make "confusion worse confounded." I would suggest, therefore, to the Committee to allow us to withdraw this proposal so that we may bring in a new Sub-section (5), which at any rate will leave the thing open to be discussed.
      An HON. MEMBER: Why?
      Sir J. SIMON: I want to avoid the argument since iron-founding is put in a separate category in the Bill as to whether iron-founding is mechanical engineering or not. I must not be treated as though I had finally committed myself to the words, but I am prepared at once to move a new Clause.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in paragraph (4), after the word "including" ["including the manufacture of"] to insert the words, "such metal casting and moulding as are incidental to the trade of mechanical engineering, and are carried on on the premises of a mechanical engineer and". The statement of the Solicitor-General made me hand in that Amendment. Whether we adopt the further Sub-section (5), which the Solicitor-General suggests, to include the whole trade of iron-founding, or not, it seems to me essential that if we do adopt it, that we ought to make it perfectly clear that metal casting, whether in brass, bronze, or iron, or
      2080
      anything else incidental to the trade of mechanical engineering, if carried on in the specified works, are included. If the article properly and finally takes its form specifically in an iron foundry, I think it will be more than open to argument, almost to attack, as a prima facie case, for if iron-founding be included, brass-founding, and the moulding of other metals are excluded by the Bill. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars, that mechanical engineering wherever it is put in specifically, will exclude all else. If you include one particular metal, or moulding, the tendency is to exclude other metals.
      I think it would make it much clearer, that in mechanical engineering you should limit it, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hexham said, to what everybody has always understood—that it is a trade engaged in the manufacture of such things as is classified on exportation as machinery. That is a very wide term. Therefore I think the Amendment makes the Sub-section very much clearer, makes it, in fact, perfectly clear, that it is not only fitters, turners, and all other trades who are usually engaged in mechanical engineering, but that there are also included founders of metals, and moulders of metals, if they are carrying on their industry on the premises of a mechanical engineer. That will still specifically exclude brass-founding as a trade entirely separate. Iron founding is an open question; brass-founding is not. Brass-founding specifically does not want to be upon this experimental portion of the Bill, Part II., though for some reasons I have not yet heard, and which we shall get later, there is some good argument for including the great trade of iron-founding in this country. I hope the Solicitor-General will agree with me that it makes the matter much clearer in regard to what is included and what is not, that metal moulders and metal founders, if they are carrying on that trade on the premises of the mechanical engineer, in connection with the trade of mechanical engineering, are all included. I particularly want these to be included, because I think it should be the desire of the Committee, as I said once before—I only repeat it—to include all the men in a certain workshop, and not to exclude any of them; not to include a few men in any workshop.
      Mr. STEWART: May I ask for a clearer definition of this particular Clause, be-

      2081
      cause the industry in which I am especially interested—not personally, but as regards my Constituency—is that of corrugated iron. I do not quite know how it stands.
      Mr. BUXTON: It is not in.
      Sir J. SIMON: Let me first say a word before dealing with that matter about the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I can assure him that the object which he has so very clearly explained in his speech is exactly the object which those responsible for the drafting of this Bill have in view. Therefore it is a pure question of words. I hope I am not so obstinate as to prefer any words of my own simply because they are my own. I have no desire except to get things right. It seems to me that the particular matter which the hon. Gentleman is anxious to guard against does not arise. If the Committee is disposed to include iron-founding it can do so whether under this head or not. It is said that it is included, and if so, it is mechanical engineering that includes it. On the other hand I am extremely unwilling, without good cause, to add a series of words to mechanical engineering, we have already had so many incidents of unexpected consequences. It is not obstinancy on my part which prompts me to refuse these words but a desire to keep things in their proper order, that is the reason I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, especially in view of what is proposed below. Then when we have the Bill reprinted we can go through it item by item and line by line and we will not overlook what he said.
      Mr. PETO: Will the hon. and learned Solicitor-General agree that some words are necessary to include iron-founding?
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I think the Government would be far better advised if they said at the start they were going to stick to the schedule as it is and would not alter a line of it, because it seems to me that the result of our discussions is going to enormously widen the scope of this Bill. If mechanical engineering is to include iron-founding, metal-casting, and metal-moulding at the one end, and is to include fire-irons at the other, why should you not have watchmaking in the middle? You are making a perfect farce of the Bill. No ordinary mortal would think that a man who made fire-irons was a mechanical engineer. I do not know whether a gun-maker would regard himself as insulted or exalted by being called a mechanical
      2082
      engineer. If we are to determine whether mechanical engineering includes iron-moulding, brass-moulding, and the making of fire-irons and ordinary pocket pistols, and all other constructions of this class, I am glad to think that it is an umpire of the Board of Trade and not a lawyer that will have to deal with the matter. The conclusion I venture to submit is this—it would be far better to leave the Schedule as it is instead of trying to construe manuscript amendments, formulated while discussion is going on, and the ultimate meaning of which nobody can understand. Not only my hon. Friends but the Government have moved manuscript amendments which it is perfectly impossible can be regarded as intelligible. We have had three or four changes made in this very important Clause while we are here discussing it. One Amendment is withdrawn, another is put in, and we really do not know what we are doing, and as to the proposals that we are told we can consider at a future time, let it be remembered there are only to be five days for the whole Bill, and we simply will not have time to consider half of it. I respectfully suggest that as the Government have taken three years to frame these Clauses they had better let them stand, and not try to alter them in three minutes.
      Mr. HOLT: I am inclined after the last speech not only to support this Amendment but every other Amendment that shall be moved, as then apparently we shall have accomplished a job which a lawyer thinks impossible of accomplishment. There are two things under consideration here which ought to be kept separate. Let us keep mechanical engineering properly water-tight, and then we can come to a scheme which includes other forms of iron-founding. I think these words ought to be inserted because they are designed to make the question of mechanical engineering fairly watertight, and I think these words are better than the alternative words. I think that the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Scott Dickson) that the words of the Schedule should be left as they are is the best of all, but of the two alternative Amendments I prefer the words of the hon. Member Mr. Peto to those of the Solicitor-General.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 21.

      Division No. 11.]

      AYES.

      Baldwin, Mr.

      Holt, Mr.

      Peto, Mr.

      Bigland, Mr.

      Nuttall, Mr.

      Stewart, Mr. Gershom

      Hoare, Mr.

      NOES.

      Alden, Mr.

      Hackett, Mr.

      M'Callum, Mr.

      Barnes, Mr.

      Harmsworth, Mr. Cecil

      Robertson, Mr. John

      Brady, Mr.

      Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund

      Roch, Mr.

      Buxton, Mr. Sydney

      Hayden, Mr.

      Smith, Mr. Albert

      Davies, Mr. Ellis

      Jones, Mr. Haydn

      Ward, Mr. John

      Denman, Mr.

      Jones, Mr. William

      Williams, Mr. Penry

      Goldstone, Mr.

      Leach, Mr.

      Wilson, Mr. Tyson

      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move to insert a new Paragraph at the end of (4) "Iron-founding, whether included in the foregoing headings or not."
      The argument in favour of that has already been stated more than once, namely, that iron-founding in the ordinary way is an essential part of mechanical engineering, and so far as it is outside mechanical engineering, the two branches are so connected that to draw a line between the men employed in one branch and the men employed in the other, would give rise to great difficulty. As I have already said, its inclusion has been urged upon us by the employers quite as much on the ground of simplicity—they would rather have the whole of the men in than some in and some out. This is to meet the point of the hon. Member for Glasgow, that it should not by implication be thought that some of the men were out.
      Mr. HOARE: On a point of Order. May I ask, does this preclude the discussion of paragraph (5) on the Paper to which I have an Amendment?
      The CHAIRMAN: No.
      Sir J. SIMON: It will come in between (4) and (5).
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. HOARE: I beg to move at the end of paragraph (4) to add the words, "and motor chassis." Although I fear that it will bring my right hon. Friend's wrath in adding yet another category to that paragraph, I hope that what I shall say will relieve the Schedule rather than make any addition to it as a whole, if you take it altogether My second Amendment, to leave out paragraph (5) is consequential on my first Amendment. My object is to break up into two parts the group of trades here described as the "Construction of vehicles," and to bring a part of it into paragraph (4), and to exclude another
      2084
      part of it altogether from the scope of the Bill. If I understand the Bill aright, it is expressly designed to be restricted to certain trades which have a mutual similarity. May I make good what I mean by quoting what the President of the Board of Trade himself said in his Second Reading speech with reference to these groups of trades? He said:
      "Assuming that there are selected classes, the House may ask why particular classes are in fact chosen. The trades to which I have referred are the trades in which we found, on the whole, that the fluctuations of employment were the greatest and, on the whole, they were the trades most sensitive to ups and downs of depression and good times. I find that in the trades concerning which we have information in the twenty years on which we have actually based our estimates, taking the trades as a whole, the unemployment percentage varies between 2 per cent. and 7.8 per cent., while in regard to these particular trades the figures vary between 2.7 per cent. and 18.4 per cent. which shows that in these trades the fluctuations are greater than in the rest of the industrial field.…. They are trades also in which I have already said the difficulty is met rather by discharges than by short time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1911, col. 278–279.]
      Let me apply those remarks to the two branches of the carriage trade. First of all, there is the manufacture of motor chassis. I think that that branch does come within the scope of the President of the Board of Trade's remarks. We have there a trade which is virtually an engineering trade—a trade which employs large numbers of men at certain given times and then dismisses them. I think, therefore, that that branch of the construction of vehicles trade might very well come within paragraph (4). But if you pass to the other branch of the construction of vehicles trade, I think you will find that that is not so. It is worked on quite different conditions, and whilst motor chassis should come into this paragraph, the construction of motor bodies and horse carriage bodies should be excluded altogether. Should I be in order in elaborating that point? The two Amendments are virtually the same.
      The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that the hon. Member quite understands what has taken place. He has moved an Amend-

      2085
      ment to add the words "and motor chassis" at the end of paragraph (4). If those words be added to the end of the paragraph, as it now stands, it will not be grammatical because the words "iron-founding, whether included under the foregoing heading or not," has been added.
      Sir J. SIMON: If the hon. Gentleman will move to leave out "construction of vehicles" we will put it in on Report.
      Mr. HOARE: Then I will move my second Amendment.
      The CHAIRMAN: I have not put the Question yet, so I will simply call upon the hon. Member to move the next Amendment standing in his name to leave out paragraph (5), which will now be paragraph (6).
      Mr. HOARE: Yes, I will do that. I beg to move to leave out paragraph (5), "Construction of vehicles."
      My second Amendment is complementary to the one I intended to move. The attitude the Board of Trade took up with regard to the inclusion of these men was that in the first place their employers dismissed them rather than keep them on on short time; and, in the second place, that they were liable to great ups and downs and sudden fluctuations. Take the trade of the construction of carriage bodies. There I find that very different conditions apply. I am informed that it is the practice for carriage bodybuilders to keep their men on the whole of the year. They work them very often overtime during the summer months, when the demand for carriages is great, and in the winter, keep them on very often on short time, employing them not upon building carriage bodies for actual purchase by private customers, but for building show bodies to place in the windows of their shops. The first condition, therefore, does not apply. The carriage body-building trade does not dismiss its men, but, on the whole—though, of course, there are exceptions to this case—keeps its men on in the winter.
      Then, again, the carriage body building trade is not liable to sudden fluctuations. I think this is more than proved by the Schedules and Tables in the Actuary's Report which we have all read. If the Committee will refer to the first Table on Page 5 they will find that the average rate per cent. of unemployment in the coach building trade is only 3.5, and the average unemployment rate in the shipbuilding
      2086
      industry is no less than 10.4. Further, if they will look at Table 1 on Page 14 they will find those figures further amplified, and going back as far as 1891 that the figures of unemployment in the carriage body building trade have on the whole remained constant. In 1891 it was 2.4. In 1902–3 and 1904 it rose to an average of about 4.6. It then went up as high as 7.5 in 1908, but that is altogether exceptional, and taken all through the average has been 3.5. If, on the other hand, the Committee will look at the figures for the shipbuilding trade they will find that they have jumped suddenly up from 4 or 5 per cent. to 15 and 16 and even as high as 22 to 23 per cent. in 1908 and 1909. I think therefore the Committee will agree that it is to some extent unfair to include a trade that has so small a percentage of unemployment with a whole number of other trades, where the percentage is very low. I need not remind the Committee that the contributions are pooled. If they were not pooled it would be different, but as they are pooled it does seem hard on this one industry, which I would remind Members is a very small one, should be called upon to contribute the greater part of their unemployed premiums to provide bonuses for unemployment in the shipbuilding and engineering industries, where the unemployment is much greater.
      I have no wish in any way to appear to be specially pleading for a particular industry, but I honestly believe, where a particular trade is not likely to get its full share of benefit under this Act, it had better be excluded altogether. Take the case, for instance, of the two carriage building trade unions. I am told that both of these unions give a higher rate of unemployment benefit. Yet in spite of that there is very little unemployment at all as I read their annual reports. I find in the report for March, 1911, of the United Kingdom Society, which I believe is the biggest Union, these words used, "no members need have been unemployed, if they were prepared to remove to where the demand for men was."
      Mr. BARNES: The shipbuilders have said the same thing this year.
      Mr. HOARE: I am only speaking of this one particular branch. That is what the men say—not the masters. It seems, therefore, established that there is very little unemployment in that particular branch of the construction of vehicles trade, which deals with the building of carriage bodies as apart from motor

      2087
      chassis; and in addition to that, the conditions of the trade are such that men are kept on the whole year round, and are not dismissed as they are in the shipbuilding and engineering trades, where large bodies of men are taken on during busy times and dismissed during slack times. I beg to move to leave out paragraph (6), and on Report I will move to include motor chassis in the previous paragraph.
      Mr. BUXTON: I need hardly say that assuming the Committee agree to this Amendment, there will be no difficulty in making the Schedule agree with that decision; but, on behalf of the Government, I propose to oppose the Amendment of my hon. Friend, very much on the ground that he has himself given. He says that this is not a fluctuating trade, and that he desires to distinguish between the motor chassis building and the carriage body building, and that to bring this trade under the Act will throw a great burden upon the employers and the men and that they will not benefit from it. As regards the question of the fluctuation of the trade, my hon. Friend quoted some figures from the Actuary's Report—and I do not deny the fact—showing on the whole a fairly regular percentage of unemployment. But that requires this further analysis, I think, which bears on the reason why we are unable to accept his Amendment, and why we think it a singularly suitable trade to bring under the Act, that, taking the years as a whole, the fluctuations during twenty years vary from 2.4 to 7.5.
      Mr. HOARE: 7.5 is exceptional.
      Mr. BUXTON: That may be, and it is for exceptional periods of unemployment that the Act is particularly intended. But taking the average of twenty years, and taking the years as a whole, I agree that the fluctuations are not so great as is the case in some of the other trades within the Act. Taking the average of the last ten years, and taking each trade month by month, we find that this trade is prosperous. The percentage of unemployment is very low in the months of April, May, Jane and July. When we get to the other parts of the year, it rises from 2.31 up to 7.5. If you take the years as a whole, there is very considerable fluctuation in nearly every year, and therefore, an advantage will accrue to the men employed in that industry. But as regards the question of the burden, to
      2088
      which the hon. Member referred, he said that it was throwing a heavy burden on the men because being a non-fluctuating trade they would not receive the benefit. I do not know on whose behalf he is speaking. All I know is that representatives of the men employed in these industries have come to us and said they are extremely anxious to be brought within the Act, and yet, if it is a fact that the fluctuations the hon. Member mentioned are correct, those men are the very persons who will pay a larger amount and receive less benefits.
      As far as we are concerned we do not see why they should be deprived of the advantage for which they ask. The hon. Gentleman says you can distinguish between the body building and the chassis building, and that you can bring one in and exclude the other. We have looked into this matter. I have had an opportunity of discussing it with the employers themselves, at a deputation and in other ways, and we think it is quite clear that there is no distinct line to be drawn between one and the other. At Coventry, for example, and at other places, you will find that the whole of the car is made by one firm, but whether the whole of the car is made by one employer or not, and the same men in the same workshop, the two works are going on side by side, and I think the Committee came to a decision an hour or so ago that in any particular workshop where the men are working at substantially the same work they should all be in or all be out. Therefore, on the ground that in our opinion this is a very suitable trade to come within the Act, and that the men themselves desire it, and on the ground that you cannot, I believe, distinguish between one and the other, I am afraid I must resist the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: My hon. Friend, the Member for Chelsea, has made out a very good case in favour of excluding motor chassis builders, and it would be much more advisable, as he feels so strongly upon that point with regard to coach builders, to move an Amendment leaving them out, instead of moving to leave out the paragraph because this paragraph deals with a much wider trade than that of motor cars. You have the whole question of the rolling stock of railways, the question of drays, tradesmen's vans, motor 'buses, and vehicles of various descriptions. This paragraph deals with the very large volume of trade and a very great number of men employed. I think it

      2089
      would be rather hard that all these men should be excluded, because my hon. Friend is able to make out a strong case on behalf of the Coachbuilders. Surely it would be better to move an Amendment to exclude them?
      Mr. BARNES: I should like to give one reason in addition to those already advanced as to why we should reject this Amendment. As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he says we should exclude these men from the operations of the Bill, because they are not subject to unemployment, and in support of that, he read a report from the United Carriage Builders Alliance of 1911. As a matter of fact, he might have read a report of the Boilermakers or the Shipbuilders which he would find couched in the same strains as that from the United Coachbuilders. The Boilermakers and Shipbuilders have stopped all unemployment pay benefit because they practically say to their members, "you can get work if you want it, and that being so you shall not get unemployment benefit." Yet these are the trades that are put at the other end of the scheme. However, that is incidental. Assuming that the rate of unemployment is not so severe, and not so fluctuating in the motor coachbuilders' trade as in other trades, it should be remembered that that is due to the fact that this trade is a new trade which has sprung up in the last few years. You had practically to build up a new body of mechanics for the construction of these motor-cars. It is because this is a new trade, and that its ranks are filled from what is practically a new body of men, that it is not subject to the unemployment that are other trades. But we are not passing this Bill for the next year or two, but for a very long time, and I should say that before very long this very industry will be subject to fluctuations just as are the iron or shipbuilding industries.
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman, although it is not a very rosy picture he draws of British trade. I have not been able to make up my mind from the discussions which I have heard whether it is a blessing or a curse to be under this Bill. There is one well-known phrase in political life that would apply to that and that is—"Wait and see." If my hon. Friend would pardon me I should again advise the Government to stick to the Schedule as it is.
      Mr. HOARE: Let me in the first place, in answer to my hon. Friend, say I think
      2090
      it will be a blessing for people to be under this Bill, provided that at each stage they get their full share of benefit. In reply to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow, I desire to say I read from the publication of March giving the figures for the last two or three years, but I acknowledge there has been a boom in certain kinds of motor cars. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the figures he will find they are fairly consistent for twenty years, and that for that period the rate of unemployment has been much lower in the coachbuilding trade than in other groups of trade included under this Bill. However, I see that the feeling of the Committee is against my Amendment, and I shall not press it now, but will, if I have the opportunity, bring it up again on the Report stage.
      Mr. BALDWIN: Can the President of the Board of Trade tell us for our information what is included exactly under the term "vehicles." A vehicle may be everything from a perambulator to a locomotive.
      Sir J. SIMON: It includes for instance the making of bicycles.
      Mr. BALDWIN: Does it include all rolling stock?
      Sir J. SIMON: Oh, yes, certainly.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: In Paragraph (5) leave out the word "and" ["the construction and decoration"] and insert instead thereof the words "repair or."—[Mr. Buxton.]
      Amendment made: In Paragraph (5) leave out the words "or any parts thereof."(Mr. Holt.)
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move "That this Committee sit after four o'clock."
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: That is rather difficult for us, because there are some important Scotch clauses coming on in the Bill (National Insurance) now before the House.
      Mr. BUXTON: My right hon. Friend was not here at the last meeting, when I think it was generally agreed that it would be possible to finish the Bill to-day.
      Mr. BARNES: Are we pledged to finish it to-day?
      Mr. BUXTON: Not necessarily.
      Mr. BARNES: If we are not to finish, let us adjourn pretty early.
      Question, "That the Committee do continue to sit this day after four o'clock," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move to add, at the end of the Sixth Schedule, a new paragraph:—
      (7) Sawmilling, including machine woodwork.
      In sawmilling the bulk of the work is done for builders, and some maybe done by outside workshops. It seems a right and proper thing that they should all come in. That certainly was our intention, but we thought that the wording of the schedule did not cover it.
      Mr. PETO: This comes upon me somewhat as a matter of surprise. After the discussion on the building paragraph, I certainly thought the words the right hon. Gentleman put in made that paragraph fairly water-tight, and showed perfectly clearly what was going to be included in wood-working as far as it applied to the building trade. Personally, I think that the five different trades included in this sixth schedule have a category wide enough for what is obviously only an experiment. There will be power to include other trades, but I cannot see any possible reason why saw milling should be included otherwise than as part of the building trade. If this item is added to the schedule, we shall have everything connected with building woodwork—sawmilling and everything else included. I strongly object to the extension of this part of the Bill to all sorts of other trades never contemplated during the six months that the Bill was before the country, or during the three years in which it was in the minds of the Government. Therefore, I oppose the inclusion of an additional trade, whether it be this or any other trade.
      Mr. BUXTON: As to the question that nothing was done during the six months that this was before the country that is not so. We believed that words covering this trade were actually in the schedule, and it is only to make the matter clear that these words are now introduced. So much did we think that was the case that if the hon. Gentleman will refer to the report of the actuaries, he will see that some of the actuarial conclusions are founded on the saw-milling trade.
      Question "That those words be there inserted" put, and agreed to.
      Mr. T. E. HARVEY: I beg to move to add at the end of the 6th schedule:
      (7) Labour or employment in connection with docks or the loading or unloading of ships.
      The promise was made, I believe, during the consideration of the financial resolution that this most important question should be raised. I think many Members were greatly dissatisfied when they came to examine this Bill that no provision was made for the insurance against unemployment in the case of the dock labourers. We had great expectations raised by the actual words in the King's speech, which promised a measure of insurance for unemployment in trades, especially liable to it. I think no industry stands in need of greater assistance in that direction than dock labour. Indeed, one of my hon. Friends has pointed out that this is not so much a question of unemployment as of under-employment, and though that may appear one reason for not dealing with it, careful examination would show that under-employment does necessarily involve unemployment as a sequel. A man only employed on odd days, finally becomes unemployable, at any rate for a time, and those who know anything of the conditions of East London and of other great centres connected with the dock industry must feel the need for dealing with it in this Bill. It may be said that it is very difficult to define what a docker is, but the same difficulty arises in connection with the Building trade. The percentages of unemployment shown in the returns of the Distress Committee in the case of general labourers and dock industry are very high. In the Report of Distress Committees for 1909, whereas only 7 per cent. of the applicants to Distress Committees come from the engineering trade, and only 20 per cent. from the building trade, 52 per cent. are classed as dockers and labourers. So that for including this branch a very strong case indeed is made out. I do not think the difficulties should be insurmountable, even under this Bill. It might be said that because dock labour is so largely recruited from the refuse of other trades there are special difficulties, but it ought, surely, to be possible under this Bill to establish a register which would prevent men thus coming in from other trades, and at once claiming to be regarded as dock labourers. That would tend to the gradual decasualisation of dock labourers. The other main difficulty that occurs is in the connection of

      2093
      docking industries with general transport. No doubt it may be thought inadvisable to deal with dock labour without dealing also with the general transport trade, but I very much hope, though it may be too much to expect, that in the present state of business Parliament will include dock labour now, that the President will take this opportunity of announcing his intention of including dock labour at a very early date under the provisions of this Bill. I think there will be a very great disappointment in the country if it is felt that it is not the intention of the Board of Trade to deal at a very early date with this very important matter. I beg to move accordingly.
      Mr. BUXTON: I agree with almost everything my hon. Friend has said, and like him I hope before long under the provisions of this Bill it may be possible to bring dock labourers under its advantages, because I regard it as an advantage and not a burden, and personally my interests if I may say so are in that direction, because I think I represent more docks than any other Member of this Committee, but in reference to this matter I wish to appeal to the Committee as I had to do in regard to other matters not to extend the Schedules of trades at this moment. We have gone very carefully into the whole of these insured trades which have been taken in the first instance. Everybody agrees, as has been stated, and it is obvious that this is an experiment and we have no precedents elsewhere on which we can guide ourselves, as in Part I. There is no such thing as compulsory insurance on a large scale anywhere at present, and therefore we have not much experience as regards the actual working of it. We are also somewhat handicapped by not having very accurate figures on unemployment, on which also to base the scheme, though we have a certain amount and quite sufficient to give us the actuarial calculations on which this Bill is based. Therefore I do think, apart from the question of the particular issue of dock labour, it would be a very great misfortune and a great mistake if we were to endeavour now, before we have more experience in regard to this matter, to extend the provisions of this Bill in the direction proposed by my hon. Friend.
      I am not going into the merits or demerits of so extending the operations of this Bill, but I am bound to say in reference to that that it involves a more difficult question than these other insured trades, which are in the first instance to come under the provisions of the Act. For
      2094
      reasons quite patent to anybody who has studied this question it is unquestionably a more difficult problem, and therefore I think that is all the more reason for letting us move slowly with regard to this matter, and for letting us see how the Act works out, in the first instance. But I can assure him that as far as the Board of Trade is concerned they have no hostility to including dock labour, but on the contrary we should like to see it included, but I do not think the time has yet come, because we have not the necessary evidence and experience before us. I have received considerable opposition to its being included on the part of certain sections, and I really have received hardly any support from either masters or men in regard to desiring to be brought in, at all events under the conditions of this Bill. It is quite possible we may have to deal with it in a somewhat different way, but perhaps my hon. Friend will rest content with the assurance now that it may be these particular trades can be brought in under Clause 77, and that we are not only not hostile to it but we hope they may be brought in under the provisions of the Bill.
      Mr. HARVEY: In view of that assurance I do not press my Amendment, and beg leave to withdraw it.
      Amendment by leave withdrawn.
      Mr. HAYDN JONES: I beg to move to add to the Schedule,
      "(8) Slate quarrying, i.e., the obtaining and preparation of slates for roofing and other building purposes."
      I believe those trades are in a state of fluctuation, and also are subject to a great amount of unemployment. Now, on referring to Table I. of the Report to which the hon. Member for Chelsea referred to a few moments ago, I find the main annual percentage of unemployment in carpenters and builders for the last twenty years is 5.8; and engineering, 5.6; shipbuilding, 10.5; boat-building, 3.5; and mill sawyers, 3.6; but now, Sir, I wish to lay before the Committee the facts so far as they affect the quarry-men in North Wales. Whereas there were over 14,000 in 1906, they have dropped in successive years to 13,552 and 12,714, and in 1910 to 11,140. Now, if we examine the percentage of unemployment and compare that percentage with the percentage in Table I., we find this to be the case. In 1905 the carpenters and builders are dealt with in this Report by Mr. Acland, and I want to be perfectly fair to the

      2095
      Committee, but I think he makes this remark: So far as the data can be relied on they appear to indicate that the average rate of unemployment in the whole of the building trade is double that of the carpenters and plumbers. This is what I find in the Schedule. In 1905 the building trade had a rate of unemployment of 16.6, and the slate trade 6 per cent. In 1906 the building trade had 14·4; the quarry trade 12 per cent. In 1907 the In 1906 the building trade had 14.4; the cent. In 1908 it was 23 in the building trade and 21 in the quarrying. In 1909 it was 23.2 in the building trade and 23 in the slate trade; 17.2 in 1910 in building trade and 23 in the quarrying trade. I quote those figures to show that the quarry trade is absolutely dependent upon the building trade. In fact the slate quarrying is at an absolute standstill when the building trade is also at a standstill. Slate is used for nothing else practically but building, and I take it that what the Government really seek to do is to relieve those trades suffering now from most unemployment.
      I am met with the argument merely that seeing there are so many men unemployed at present in the slate trade it will mean a very heavy charge on the fund. I wish to emphasise this, that men in the slate quarrying trade once they are thrown out of work have to seek work elsewhere, and though skilled they have to take the chance of getting any labourers' work in South Wales. So that there will be no immediate charge on the fund on account of the large number of men unemployed now. But we have to guard against this sort of thing in future, and we hope that the slate trade will recover, as the building trade has. When the building trade becomes slack we have to look for unemployment in the slate trade, and I venture to suggest that if any regulations could be put forward to deal with this matter of the slate trade of the Principality of Wales it would be beneficial. Then I am met with the argument that it is true that slates are required in building but so are stones and bricks, but I venture to say you cannot say that stones and bricks are so exclusively required as slate is for that trade, and in view of that, in a case where there is so much unemployment, I beg to ask the Government earnestly to include this trade, and to show that they really sympathise with those trades which have most unemployment.
      Mr. BUXTON: I much regret I have been unable to accept this Amendment to include this industry in the scheduled trades. I have explained that it was necessary to draw the line in the first instance, and we have drawn it at the particular trades which we are proposing to introduce. They are not necessarily the trades in which unemployment is greatest, but those in which we believe the experiment could be best made. We should be very loath under existing conditions to extend the area of those trades—not because we have any desire to exclude them in the end, but really because in experimenting, you must really draw some line, and obtain your information before extending the trades. Let me point out to my hon. Friend that my real difficulty, or my chief difficulty, in regard to this particular case is this: He says, as I understood him, that the particular quarries for which he is speaking produce slate solely for building purposes. Well, there are, of course, other purposes for which slate is used, but I do not know how far that may be actually the case. But, if it is as he puts it and if that particular industry can make out a good case for inclusion, I would venture to point out to him that we have provided for such a contingency, and especially so under our Clause 77, which enables us under certain conditions and in certain circumstances, and after proper inquiry, to extend the provisions of the Act.
      I would therefore venture to make an appeal to him not to press this particular Amendment, for the reasons I have given, but unless he is able and unless those who are interested in the trade are able to prove their case, of course it is obvious that I here am not in a position to say that there are special conditions in regard to this trade which do not apply to a good many others as well. He mentioned the brick trade and others. I may say I have had a letter, received only just now, in which it was indicated that the writer understood that the quarries were going to be included, and he thought that therefore bricks ought to be included. But if at this moment one does not draw a clear line at the trades already scheduled it would open the floodgates of all sorts of other trades, and it would be very difficult to deal with the question in that respect. My hon. Friend's case is one on which I have not sufficient knowledge, but if it is a peculiar one, particularly in the form in which he has put it, then it is open to that industry to ask for a

      2097
      special inquiry and to have the matter fully and properly inquired into, and if the report is satisfactory it can be added to the Bill. I hope under those circumstances, without any hostility to his proposal, he will allow me to say that I draw the line for the moment at the scheduled trades. Clause 77, as already passed, would deal with the last Amendment as to dock labourers and deal with other trades in the same position. I would, therefore, venture to appeal to the hon. Member not to press this Amendment at the present moment, but to rest satisfied with the observations I have made.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I listened with a good deal of curiosity as to what is the exact position which the right hon. Gentleman would take up in view of this discussion. One of his reasons for refusing the Amendment was that he had no knowledge of the special circumstances of this particular trade. May I point cut with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman that that is his fault and not ours. Eighteen months ago an application was made to the Board of Trade, while the Bill was being considered and drafted, that the quarrymen should be considered. In March last I brought the matter to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and surely in eighteen months, in view of the very large number of men affected, the Board of Trade had quite sufficient time to inquire into the circumstances of this particular case. The objection to the inclusion of this trade comes in this instance from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and not from his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, as a matter of fact, is in sympathy with the object we have in view, and who, as we understood, consulted with the right hon. Gentleman so that the quarrymen should be included.
      Mr. BUXTON: I do not know what right the hon. Gentleman has to say that.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The Chancellor of the Exchequer told me so, and said he would communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. BUXTON: I had no communication.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman's colleague is in favour of this.
      Mr. BUXTON: I am responsible for Part II. of this Bill. I know nothing of
      2098
      what is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's view, but, of course, if I did, it would receive consideration. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to bring in my colleague in this way. I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would resent very much if I were to say to some hon. Members, with regard to friendly societies, that I was in favour of some particular Amendment in Part I. I hardly think the Chancellor of the Exchequer authorised the hon. Gentleman to say what he has said. To say simply that the Chancellor is in favour of this Amendment is quite another matter. He is entitled to have his view, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to quote the Chancellor of the Exchequer against me.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: If the right hon. Gentleman had only a little more patience, he would understand better when he heard what I had to say. What I said was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in favour of the proposal and that I understood he was to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman this morning. This very information, which the President of the Board of Trade ought to have had, and has not got, is information which is within the knowledge of his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who represents one of the divisions of Carnarvon affected by that trade and who, with that knowledge, is ready to support my proposal. I did not understand when so many other trades were included that this particular trade would have been rejected. Surely this trade, where unemployment is very large, ought to be included. It is perfectly dependent upon a trade where it is perfectly well known that the rate of unemployment is very large. It depends entirely upon the building trade, and it is a necessary corollary that as the building trade goes down, the rate of unemployment in the quarry shed goes up. It is for that reason that we have been pressing the Board of Trade in the last two years to do something to assist the men out of work in this industry.
      Mr. J. WARD: I do not suppose it is any use attempting to support this proposition after the speech which has just been made. But at the same time I wish to point out in reference to this matter, especially as I have Amendments dealing with a similar subject lower down upon the Paper. After all, the President of the

      2099
      Board of Trade must take into account the question as it stands. There are districts in South Wales where, except for a little lining in the chimneys, the whole premises are built of stone; and you will find places where the houses are constructed of stone and where even the roofs are of stone, and certainly, in my opinion, you must take into account stone quarries as well as other trades.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I would like to support what was said by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward). I represent a constituency in which a large number of men are engaged in the quarrying industry. It is subject to very severe competition at the present moment, and I would like to feel that in any action that is taken to include slate quarrying, stone quarrying also shall have special consideration.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: I am afraid that the prospect of the quarrymen being included has been somewhat spoiled by the speech, or by the feelings that have been aroused in the Committee on account of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Ellis Davies), but I hope that it may not be allowed to prejudice the case of the quarry-men. I think that their trade is one that ought to be included. There is not a very large number of them, and, as a matter of fact, we adopted an Amendment this afternoon that would include a very much larger body of men. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will hold out some hope that he will give further consideration to this matter between now and The Report stage, and, if possible, include all these men.
      Mr. WALTER ROCH: I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will further consider this matter. I have received a great deal of representation in its favour, and I can assure him that there is a very strong feeling about it. After all, we are here to do the best we can for the quarry-men, and while I do not think for a moment that the President of the Board of Trade will attach any undue importance to what was said by my hon. Friend in reference to the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—which was expressed not only as a Member of the Government, but as a Welsh Member as well—I do not know whether it is too late to appeal to the right hon. Gen-

      Division No. 12.]

      AYES.

      Barnes, Mr.

      Leach, Mr.

      Ward, Mr. John

      Davies, Mr. Ellis

      Roch, Mr. Walter

      Williams, Mr. Penry

      Goldstone, Mr.

      Smith, Mr. Albert

      Wilson, Mr. Tyson

      Jones, Mr. Haydn

      tleman to consider between now and the Report stage whether he could not give effect to the representations which have been made.
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: We have plenty to do on the Report stage, and I hope that the Government are not going to pledge themselves to do any more.
      Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps my hon. Friend (Mr. Ellis Davies) did not exactly appreciate the effect of what he said, but I am bound to say that I resented the way in which he put it. Of course, if he did not intend it in that sense there is no more to be said about it.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I did not intend to make any personal observation that was offensive. On the other hand, I did wan to point out that the right hon. Gentleman objected, as President of the Board of Trade—which is the only capacity in which I know him—to a proposal for inclusion of which his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, knowing the circumstances of this industry, was in favour. I am extremely sorry if I said anything offensive, and I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have no personal animosity whatever towards him.
      Mr. BUXTON: I am very glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have already given an undertaking that, if a special case can be shown, whereby this and other trades should be included, there is a provision under the Bill which would enable that to be done. I had already given that promise, and it was ignored.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: That is in the Bill already.
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes, I already alluded to it, and when the hon. Gentleman says we have known all about this for eighteen months, the only knowledge that we can have is that which comes out in the inquiry, which necessarily must precede inclusion in the Bill I can give no other promise, and in these circumstances I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.
      Question put, "That those words be there added."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 10; Noes, 18.

      NOES.

      Alden, Mr.

      Ferens, Mr.

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Baldwin, Mr.

      Harmsworth, Mr. Cecil

      Nuttall, Mr.

      Bigland, Mr.

      Harvey, Mr. Thomas Edmund

      Peto, Mr.

      Buxton, Mr. Sydney

      Hoare, Mr.

      Robertson, Mr. John

      Denman, Mr.

      Holt, Mr.

      Solicitor-General, Mr.

      Dickson, Mr. Scott

      Joyce, Mr.

      Stewart, Mr. Gershom

      Question proposed, "That the Schedule be added to the Bill."
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move the addition of the words at the end of the Schedule,
      (8) Dressing of stone; that is, preparing of stone for building and construction and such work as comes within the meaning of this Schedule.
      I think my Amendment has been largely met already by the learned Solicitor-General and the President of the Board of Trade, and I only ask will it include the preparing of stone in respect of bridges and docks and so on? If that is included, I withdraw the Amendment.
      Mr. BUXTON: That is included.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: Then I withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. J. WARD: Paragraph two of the Schedule has not been under discussion at all, and I would like to ask a question with regard to it. It seems that all works of construction are pretty well included under it, but there are three or four sorts of works that I am not sure are covered. For instance, there are waterworks. I do not think they come under the term "embankments" or "harbours," although they may come under the term "other works of construction." There are cases again where things could not be called "embankments," such as big masonry dams for reservoirs and things of that description. Would such works as those come under the term "other works of construction"? Then, in the old Schedule, from which this has evidently been taken—the Schedule to the Act of 1894—the Notice of Accidents Act, there is the expression "tramway" as well as "railway." I should like to know whether the erection of tramways, which is really excavation and construction work, and almost exactly similar to railways except that they are constructed in roads instead of across country, is also included.
      Tunnels in railways are included, but I should like to know whether such tunnels as the Blackwall Tunnel is included?
      2102
      That is not a tramway or a railway or anything of the kind but still is a great public work, carried out by exactly the same kind of employers; the same system and the same men are employed. Then road making is a part of the building operations, and I should like to know whether that is included? Sewage work, too, is another matter on which bricklayers are employed for the building of the sewers and navvies for the excavating, and, as a matter of fact, it is all attached to building work. It is constructional work, and the Contractor who builds the railway very often contracts for and employs the same class of men to do the brickwork of the tunnels in railways and the sewerage work and other work of that description. Then there is the term "quays and docks." I was wondering whether that included quay works in the old Schedule which are neither docks nor harbours, and I should like to know whether quays would be included in "construction of works." With regard to the building of wharves which are not docks, but are used for the purpose of loading and unloading ships, and would not come under the term "dock or pier or harbour," as the case may be, would they be included? It seemed to me that the term "or other works of construction" included nearly all these things I have mentioned, and for that reason I did not move any Amendment with regard to it, seeing that it is the same set of men who do the work and the same set of employers who tender for the same. I should like to know from the Solicitor-General whether I am right in the inference I have drawn?
      Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and I think my Friends opposite will agree that that is so. It is difficult to use a list of words which does not leave something out, and it is for this reason that, after mentioning three or four obvious cases of works of construction, we have added the words, "or other works of construction." I feel no doubt that they will include many of the things the hon. Gentleman mentioned—waterworks, dams, tunnels, sewerage works, quays and wharves. The substance of the paragraph is that it includes on the one side everything which, in

      2103
      ordinary parlance, can be said to be done by a contractor, or on the other side, to be done with the help of the navvies, or navvy work.
      Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: I should like to make an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to adjourn until to-morrow, as it seems to me we shall not be able to get through to-night.
      Mr. BUXTON: Of course the matter is entirely in the hands of the Committee; but I do not think, with the exception of this Amendment, there are many Amendments, save the Government Amendments which are agreed—in reference to juveniles, and so on, that will take much time. So that I think really it would be actually for the convenience of Members of the Committee to finish now, rather than have to meet again, either to-morrow or on Monday. Of course, it is a matter of the general convenience of the Committee, and I have no personal feeling whatever with regard to it.
      Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Let me make an appeal to the Committee. It is that the Government should say that they are not going to take any more Amendments except their own. I am making this suggestion fearlessly, as we seem to be doing a great deal of talking and very little work.

      SEVENTH SCHEDULE—(Rates and Periods of Unemployment Benefit).
      In respect of each week following the first week of unemployment:—

      in the case of a workman engaged in building or construction of works, 6s.

      in the case of a workman engaged in mechanical engineering, shipbuilding, or construction of vehicles, 7s.

      or such other rates as may be prescribed either generally or for any particular trade or any branch thereof.
      No workman shall receive unemployment benefit for more than fifteen or such other number of weeks as may be prescribed either generally or for any particular trade or branch thereof within any period of twelve months, or in respect of any period less than one day.
      No workman shall receive more unemployment benefit than in the proportion of
      2104
      one week's benefit for every five contributions paid by him under this Act, or in such other proportion as may be prescribed either generally or for any paticular trade or branch thereof.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to move to leave out:
      In respect of each week following the first week of unemployment:

      in the case of a workman engaged in building or construction of works

      6s.

      in the case of a workman engaged in mechanical engineering, shipbuilding, or construction of vehicles

      7s.

      and to insert instead thereof the words,
      During any period of unemployment exceeding three days at the rate of 7s. per week, and a proportionate part thereof for part of a week.
      I acknowledge that the President of the Board of Trade has met me more than half way in inserting 7s. instead of 6s.; but, in the opinion of myself and colleagues and a large number of people who come under the Bill, a week is far too long a period for a man to be out of work before he becomes entitled to unemployed benefit. Therefore, with the object of getting over that difficulty, I move my Amendment. I do not know whether the President of the Board of Trade has met us with regard to a proportionate part of a week.
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes, we have.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: At any rate I think the period during which a man is unemployed should be reduced from a week to three days. If that is done, I think it would bring the Bill into line with a good number of societies who now pay unemployed benefit from the first day. It may increase the cost, but, at the same time, I think the people who are brought under the Bill ought to some extent to be considered.
      Mr. BUXTON: As regards the 7s. there is no difference between us. That, by a subsequent Amendment, I accept. The real point is this, and it is a practical one. The proposal in the Bill, from the point of view of the unemployed men, is a better one—to have a week's waiting rather than that the unemployed benefit should date from the beginning of the unemployment, or after three days, which is really the proposal of my Friend.

      2105
      Apart from the question of the man himself, and from the point of view of administration, it would be very difficult, because, after all, we must go in these matters, where a Government Department is handling money of this sort, through certain formalities in order that there may be an absolute check on those who are seeking the benefit in regard to the question of unemployment against malingering. A State Department has to exercise greater care and discretion in this matter than a trade union, which has necessarily the personal element to bring in as against the malingerer. Therefore, from the administrative point of view, I think six days is really not too long for the various formalities which necessarily have to be gone through. Another point raised by my hon. Friend affects the question of the trade unions. He says with perfect truth that most of the trade unions give unemployed benefit from the first day, but I would point out to him that the administrative question does not arise in their case. But might I put it to him in this way. We are as anxious as he is under the Bill that encouragement should be given to the trade unions, or, at all events, that they should be put at no disadvantage; and surely it would be an advantage to them if they were enabled to give this benefit before the first week, which they can do under Clause 79, and have a refund than if the State did it, and therefore putting the State in the same attractive position as the trade unions. And from the trade union point of view, I think it would be to their disadvantage if this Amendment were accepted.
      I come now to the question of the man himself, which, after all, is the most important element. My hon. Friend said that it was hard on a man who was out of work for a week that he could not receive any payment for his first week. I agree with him, but, after all, in a case of this sort you have the fund and the contributions; and as far as the contributions go you have your benefits, and you have to have a certificate that you can give certain benefits. The benefits we can give are 7s. a week up to a given number of weeks, possibly fifteen; but we have taken power, assuming the actuarial elements are underestimated, to reduce the benefits either in amount or in the number of weeks. I put it to my hon. Friend that it is as broad as it is long, because a man can have his unemployed benefits
      2106
      during the first week, but if he does so his benefit will have to be reduced at a later period of his unemployment, or the number of weeks during which he receives benefit will have to be reduced. That must be so, because the fund is balanced as far as we possibly can balance it, and if you put an extra charge on it at one end you must take it off at the other.
      From the point of view of the men in whom my hon. Friend is interested, I would put it to him whether it is not easier for a man to get through his unemployment in the first or second week, whereas in the later weeks the real pressure begins to fall upon him. Under my hon. Friend's Amendment, they would receive unemployed benefit during the first week, and that would necessarily be curtailed to the extent of considerably more than a week at the other end, if the man was out of employment for some time. It would be a greater advantage if he were to be deprived of his unemployment benefit during the first week, in order that he might draw full benefit at the other end. Therefore, from the administrative point of view, from the trade union point of view, and from the point of view of the benefit to the man himself, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
      Mr. BARNES: Sir, we feel very strongly about this Amendment and I think that the President of the Board of Trade has made a speech which at all events has not been satisfactory so far as I am concerned To take his first point as to the administrative part of the scheme, he says there are certain formalities to go through, and therefore the longer you have to go through them the easier to administer the scheme. Therefore, if you extend your week to a month you will get over your difficulties altogether. But that does not carry it very far.
      Mr. BUXTON: I did not say that. I did not use the argument that my Friend puts into my mouth. I did not say that the longer we had the better we should do it. I said it is necessary to have a certain number of days, limiting them as far as we can. If you have a Government scheme to prevent malignering you must have a limit.
      Mr. BARNES: I did not wish to deal with the hon. Gentleman unfairly, but it is a fair inference from his speech that the longer you extend the time the longer you have to go through the formalities. Let me take up a point with regard to this. It is quite true that the union has paid

      2107
      the benefit as from the first day, and I agree with him that there should be a period during which the unemployed should be paid, because then that would leave the union position more attractive than the position is under the scheme, without the union. I agree with that. Shall we say that three days is a fair number of days to go by? In the first instance, as my Friend points out, it makes it correspond with the number of days in Part I. for the man to wait for his sick benefit. But there is another thing about it. The union would stand to gain, but if the union is to pay from the first day we shall pay from the first day, but it is quite obvious that the union will have to make up that out of its own funds. Now we say that if we get the second three days of a week paid for it is quite obvious the union is going to gain in having less to make up for that man who is in the union as well as under the provisions of this scheme. But now I come to the point about the man himself. The President says that certain actuarial calculations have been made, and that the funds will only go a certain length, and that therefore if you are going to have the benefits in the first week you cannot have them in the last. But is not that rather unfair to the man who is in and out, and who is never out of work for three months? After all it is the exception for a man to be out of work for three months.
      We are all given to drawing the long bow in talking about a man being out of work, but that is all mostly rhetoric. It is perfectly true so far as these trades are concerned that it is the exception for a man to be out of work for three months, and therefore when the President argues that if you do not pay the man for the first weeks you are going to pay him for a week longer, that is all very well, but if the man is out fourteen weeks he will get thirteen weeks out of that fourteen. But, as I say, there is not one man in 50 who is out so long, and therefore we want some better provision made for the man who, after all, has to suffer a short period of unemployment for a week or two or whatever it might be, and I hope the President will reconsider this matter and let us have a change which will give the union the same benefit which an approved society has now under the sick part of the Act. In fact, it will not give him so much, even if you adopt my hon. Friend's amendment, because as the President says the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to make up the approved society in cases where sickness
      2108
      lasts beyond a certain time in respect of the first three days' sickness. We do not ask that here. All we ask is that the unemployment should stand from the termination of the third day.
      Mr. BUXTON: One word in order to give the financial result of this proposal. As the Committee knows, there is a much larger amount of unemployed in the first week than in the longer period, and therefore my Friend did not quite follow my argument that if you give the unemployed benefit during the first week you will have to reduce the benefits or the number of weeks. I will give the figures in the engineering trade and in the building trade. So large will the additional charge be on the fund that actuarially we should not be able to raise the 6s. to 7s. It is a very large financial question, and it is even possible that there will be probably a deficit, and I wish my hon. Friend would look at it from that point of view, because, as I have pointed out more than once, you must either have it in meal or in malt but not in both, and I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish the benefits to be reduced, and he would wish the building trade to be raised to the position of the engineering trade. This is really a financial question.
      The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member press it?
      Mr. BARNES: Seeing that later on after the Bill has become an Act it will be possible to give additional benefits, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. BUXTON: I now beg to move as to the 7s., raising the building trade group figure from 6s. to 7s. When the Bill was first introduced it was divided into two groups, because our actuary certified that it was more difficult to know in regard to the building groups what was the real percentage of unemployment for a certain number of years. But it was represented to us that if we were to take a longer period, till the next quinquennial valuation, the building trade would show an equal unemployment, and it would be equal to that in the shipbuilding and in the engineering trade, and under those circumstances, though it is a considerable financial sacrifice, I am glad to be able to adopt the 7s. But that will cost more money later. There is £30,000 a year, and as against that on the new Clause 70,

      2109
      by re-casting that Clause, we save about £70,000, partly from the employer and partly from State grant, and we shall get something like £30,000 or £40,000 in regard to the juveniles, and that will leave us with a financial balance of rather over £100,000, which our actuary thinks will be sufficient to put us on a sound financial basis. I have very great pleasure in moving this Amendment.
      Amendment proposed: To leave out,

      in the case of a workman engaged in building or construction of works

      6s.

      in the case of a workman engaged in mechancial engineering, shipbuilding, or construction of vehicles

      7s.

      and insert instead thereof the words "seven shillings." After the words "particular trade or any branch thereof," insert the words, "provided that in the place of a workman under the age of eighteen no unemployment benefit shall be paid while the workman is below the age of seventeen, and while the workman is of the age of seventeen or upwards but below the age of eighteen, unemployment benefit shall only be paid at half the rate at which it would be payable if the workman was above the age of eighteen."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]
      Mr. HOARE: The President of the Board of Trade made a statement just now which has thrown me into some apprehension. He said that under the series of Amendments of which this is the first the Government is to make £30,000 or £40,000 a year out of the inclusion of juveniles. I should like to see how that is to be done. I do not at all want the Government to make this large sum at the expense of these young persons. I would much rather the Government had not made that money, and that the young people should have come in with better benefits than are implied in these Amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move, after the words "any period of twelve months," to insert the words "from the time when last he became unemployed."
      I should like to draw the Committee's attention to what the Sub-section really means. It prescribes that no man should receive a benefit for more than fifteen
      2110
      weeks within one year. The point I should like to raise is as to when does this period date from? Supposing a man falls out of employment on the 1st January and he remains out till the 1st March. Having spent the first fifteen weeks he has to wait for another year before coming in for his next fifteen weeks, and my Amendment is to say that the fifteen weeks shall date from the time he was last unemployed. That is the point of my Amendment, and I beg to move that.
      Mr. BUXTON: That is it would date from the first application, and he would have his fifteen weeks from then. The words really are unnecessary. They are really covered.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: That satisfies my point and I withdraw it.
      Amendment by leave withdrawn.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, at the end of the same paragraph to insert the words "provided that where any workman has two hundred contributions or more to his credit he shall be entitled to such further extension in the number of weeks benefit as may be prescribed."
      The point is that if a man has been paying contributions for a period of four years, and he then suddenly finds himself unemployed, and having those four years to his credit, he should not be limited merely to the fifteen weeks unemployment benefit, but in that case, supposing he is unemployed for a longer period he should have the right of drawing on the fund to the extent of his credit. It seems to me an eminently reasonable proposition that where a man has made all these years' contributions and never drawn upon them, and suddenly comes into a state of trade depression and unemployment within the fifteen weeks, he should be able to continue to draw benefit to the extent of the amount that stands to his credit. I beg to move accordingly on my hon. Friend's behalf.
      Mr. BUXTON: I hope I shall be able to satisfy my hon. Friend that his Amendment would be undesirable from an actuarial point of view. This has been calculated by the actuary on the grounds of certain benefits and contributions, and if in certain cases you allow a man to have a longer number of weeks than fifteen, that upsets the calculations on which the

      2111
      actuary has calculated it in regard to the solvency of the fund, and any additional benefits must be either met by reduction of benefits in another way or by an increase of contribution. There is a certain fund to go round, and you cannot make it larger by giving certain benefits to certain persons without other people losing them. That is really a practical answer to the proposal of the hon. Member.
      Mr. GOLDMAN: I am sure my hon. Friend would not like to over-burden the fund, particularly after what the President of the Board of Trade has said, but it does seem to me it would have been a very fair proposal, though I will not press it.
      Amendment by leave withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed.
      Mr. PETO: I beg to leave out the words "or in such other proportion as may be prescribed either generally or for any particular trade or branch thereof."
      I have noticed that the learned Solicitor-General regarded this principle of the one-in-five as a sort of bed-rock basis for this part of the Bill, and I think, therefore, that that takes any alteration in that principle of one week's benefit for every five weeks' contribution.
      Mr. BUXTON: May I interpose to say that I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Another Amendment proposed:
      After the words "any period less than one day," insert the words, "provided that where any worker has two hundred contributions or more to his credit he shall be entitled to such further extension in the number of weeks' benefit as may be prescribed,"—[Mr. Goldman.]
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Further Amendments made: Leave out the word "time" ["computation of time under this schedule"] and insert instead thereof the words "periods of unemployment."—[Mr. Buxton.]
      Leave out the words "and fulfilled such other conditions."—[Mr. Buxton.]
      Question, "That this schedule, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—Contributions for the purposes of Part II. of this Act relating to Unemployment Insurance.

        Part I.—Rates of Contribution from Workmen and Employers.
        From every workman employed in an insured trade for every week he is so employed, 2½d.
        From every employer by whom one or more workmen are employed in an insured trade, in respect of each workman, for every week he is so employed, 2½d.
        Every such period of employment of less than a week shall for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule be treated as if it were employment for a whole week.

        Part II.—Rate of Reduced Contribution by Employer.
        For the calendar year or any part thereof, 15s.
        Mr. BARNES: The next Amendment standing in my name is to leave out the word "½d."
        "From every workman employed, 2½d."
        This raises the whole question of the State contribution. It raises also the question of the contribution of the employer and the workman. It proposes to reduce the whole sum, and proposes that the State should make up the amount of the deficiency. I should like to know whether my Amendment can be moved at all, because, if carried, it would mean a new financial resolution?
        The CHAIRMAN: I think the matter has been already decided by the Clauses of the Bill as it stands.
        Mr. BARNES: I gather, then, from your ruling that the Amendment is out of order?
        The CHAIRMAN: It is out of order, of course, to discuss the proportion of the State contribution, and the total contribution of the employer and the workman. Supposing the hon. Member's Amendment was carried, the State contribution would be proportionately altered.
        Mr. BARNES: Then I will not move.
        Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (2) ["for every week he is so employed … 2½d.] to insert the words—Provided that in the case of a workman below the age of eighteen 1d. shall be substituted for 2½d. as the contribution from the workman and from the employer, but

        2113
        for the purpose of reckoning the number of contributions in respect of such a workman the 1d. shall be treated as two-fifths of a contribution.
        Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Are we to raise the whole question of the contribution of young persons on this Amendment? I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give an assurance that when other trades are included, he will consider the advisability of making a similar alteration. Will he also consider whether it will be necessary to add words to Clause 76 in reference to the particular case of persons under the age of 18? It is now allowed under Clause 76 to alter the rates as between employer and workman. It may be desirable in certain trades to have a contribution from one only and it may be desirable that the Board of Trade should be free after due inquiry to ask for contributions from employers Only. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to give an assurance that he will consider favourably an Amendment of that kind.
        Mr. PETO: I do not quite understand the meaning of these words. If it means 1d. is two-fifths of 2½d., that should be put into an amending Clause. If it means that 12½ contributions at 1d. for every week of benefit taken out by young persons it seems to be eminently unfair because the contribution already represents 1d., and the benefit is to be nothing until the young person arrives at the age of 17, Is this a pious expression of opinion that 1d. is two-fifths of 2½d. Does it mean the young person shall only draw out one week's benefit, 3s. 6d., for every 12½ weeks of contributions.
        Mr. BUXTON: With regard to what was said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Harvey) we have already agreed to look into the matter between now and the Report stage, and perhaps he would allow the matter to stand over. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) he has hit a blot on the Bill. I see his point and I will consider it.
        Mr. PETO: The whole point will be met if you will leave out everything after "employer."
        Mr. BUXTON: No; but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to look into the matter.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Mr. BARNES: I wish now to make an appeal to the President. We have an
        2114
        Amendment which proposes to leave out the word "less" ["of employment of less than a week "] and to insert instead thereof the word "more."
        This raises the whole question of casual labour. It would give men employed in these branches of insured trade where employment is irregular the chance of getting the benefits of the Bill. But inasmuch as the President of the Board of Trade has an Amendment lower down meeting the whole thing—I have only seen it this afternoon—I suggest that the Committee might adjourn now and finish to-morrow.
        Mr. BUXTON: I hope the hon. Member will not press that. My Amendment has been down for some time, and its object is to meet the very point which the hon. Member has raised. That is to say it will be 1d. if the period does not exceed one day, and 2d. if it exceeds two days. I think that meets this point.
        Mr. BARNES: In that case I will not move the Amendment referred to.
        Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move after the word "than" ["employment of less than a week"] to insert the word "half." The paragraph would then read, "Every such period of employment of less than half a week shall for the purposes of this part of the Schedule be treated as if it were employment for a whole week."
        As the matter now stands each period less than a week shall be deemed to mean employment for a week. In other words, although a man may be unemployed seeing that he has paid his contribution, be it only for a day in respect to a week, he cannot get any unemployment benefit. He has to be a week employed before he can get any unemployment benefit, and my Amendment would enable him to get unemployment benefit after three days. As the Schedule stands now he is deemed to be employed for a week having paid his contribution, but he may be unemployed after the first day, and why not then give him unemployment benefit.
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must move to leave out the word "a" and the Amendment therefore is to leave out the word "a" in order to insert the word "half."
        Mr. DENMAN: The point is that by this paragraph here any period less than a week for all purposes in the Bill is to be deemed a week. If the hon. Gentleman will

        2115
        look further at the paragraph he will see it is only for the purposes of this part of this Schedule. If the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade is passed shorter periods will be added together merely for the purpose of reckoning the number of contributions and would have no relation to the benefits.
        Mr. HOLT: I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goldman) will not move any more manuscript Amendments. He has moved many, and it is impossible almost to know what they are about.
        Mr. GOLDMAN: I am very sorry to hear this rebuke from the hon. Gentleman, especially seeing that the Government themselves have proposed many manuscript Amendments. In these circumstances, I do not think the hon. Gentleman is justified in administering this rebuke to me.
        Mr. BUXTON: I think the explanation of my hon. Friend Mr. Denman is quite clear. This only applies to contribution, and not to benefit and is for the purposes of this Schedule.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendments made: Add at end of the Schedule ["except that, where the period of employment is two days or less, the contributions both of the employer and of the workman shall be reduced to one penny if the period does not exceed one day and to two pence if it exceeds one day: and in such case in reckoning the number of contributions under Part II. of this Act and the Schedules therein referred to contributions at such reduced rates shall be treated as two-fifths or four-fifths of a contribution as the case may require."]—[Mr. Buxton.]
        Leave out Part II.—[Rate of reduced contributions by employer.]—[Mr. Buxton.]
        Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      NINTH SCHEDULE.—Provisions of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, applied to Special Orders made under Part II., of this Act relating to Unemployment Insurance.
      (1) Before the Board of Trade make any special order under this Act, they shall publish, in such manner as they may think best adapted for informing persons affected, notice of the proposal to make the order, and of the place where copies of the draft
      2116
      order may be obtained, and of the time (which shall not be less than twenty-one days) within which any objection made with respect to the draft order by or on behalf of persons affected must be sent to the Board of Trade.
      (2) Every objection must be in writing and state—

      (a) the draft order or portions of draft order objected to;

      (b) the specific grounds of objection; and

      (c) the omissions, additions, or modifications asked for.

      (3) The Board of Trade shall consider any objection made by or on behalf of any persons appearing to them to be affected which is sent to them within the required time, and they may, if they think fit, amend the draft order, and shall then cause the amended draft to be dealt with in like manner as an original draft.
      (4) Where the Board of Trade does not amend or withdraw any draft order to which any objection has been made, then (unless the objection either is withdrawn or appears to them to be frivolous) they shall, before making the order, direct an inquiry to be held in the manner hereinafter provided.
      81—(1) The Board of Trade may appoint a competent person to hold an inquiry with regard to any draft order, and to report to them thereon.
      (2) The inquiry shall be held in public, and any objector and any other person who, in the opinion of the person holding the inquiry, is affected by the draft order, may appear at the inquiry either in person or by counsel, solicitor, or agent.
      (3) The witnesses on the inquiry may, if the person holding it thinks fit, be examined on oath.
      (4) Subject as aforesaid, the inquiry and all proceedings preliminary and incidental thereto shall be conducted in accordance with rules made by the Board of Trade.
      (5) The fee to be paid to the person holding the inquiry shall be such as the Board of Trade may direct and shall be deemed to be part of the expenses of the Board of Trade in carrying this Act into effect.
      Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, after the word "competent" in section 81 paragraph (1) ["appoint a competent person"] to insert the words "and impartial."
      Mr. BUXTON: I do not object to the words "and impartial."
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, in the same paragraph after the word "person" ["appoint a competent person"] to insert the words "not being permanently in the employ of any Government Department." This Amendment is simply to carry out a pledge given by the President of the Board of Trade in the discussion on Clause 77.
      Mr. BUXTON: What I undertook was that the person carrying out the special inquiry should not be an official of the Board of Trade, but somebody competent in these matters and impartial. As I said at the time, that certainly was the view we took about it, but my hon. Friend's Amendment rules out all possible Government Officials in any other Department, and I think it might very well happen that in some of these cases an official of the Local Government Board, or of the Home Office, or some other Department, might be the most competent and impartial person to carry out the inquiry. That would really have nothing to do with the Board of Trade, and I certainly could not agree to rule out all Government Departments. I do not think my hon. Friend could expect me to accept those words in an Act of Parliament, and I did not think he was going to move them. I gave him an undertaking which was binding, but I hope he will not ask us to put words into an Act of Parliament which would really cast a slur upon Government Departments, and ought not to appear in any Act, and certainly, if they did appear, not in this part of the Act at all. I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that the person appointed shall not be a Board of Trade official.
      Mr. HOLT: I am sure there has been a genuine misunderstanding on this subject. I certainly understood that the President of the Board of Trade agreed to accept these words in the discussion on Clause 77, but if my hon. Frined says there has been a misunderstanding, that settles the matter, and I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
      Mr. BUXTON: Yes, you have the undertaking.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. PETO: I only want to ask the President of the Board of Trade this one question. In the Ninth Schedule there are provisions for holding various inquiries. In many of these cases it will be clearly necessary to occupy a good deal of the workman's time, and that will obviously mean some interference with the course of business. I do not complain about it, but I should ask that workmen should not be taken from their employment and compelled to spend many hours of their time without somebody or other paying them for it. It seems to me that it would be obviously equally unfair for the employer to pay for the time lost as for the workman to lose it, and I cannot see, on looking through the Schedules, any provision that, out of the unemployment fund, or from some other source, the workman's wages shall be paid during the time he is occupied in attending these inquiries.
      Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid we have no funds out of which the particular payments to which the hon. Member refers can be made. This is the ordinary special procedure rule. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to look into them, and I will report the result of my inquiry. This particular point had not occurred to me, but I am afraid we have no funds.
      Mr. PETO: I hope that neither workman nor employer shall be at a loss on account of the time which they have to spend in attendance.
      Mr. J. WARD: I have been connected with one of those inquiries under this Clause, and it was unquestionably the case, under the Home Office, that the witnesses who were called before the Tribunal to decide on these special rules were paid.
      Mr. BUXTON: I did not understand that the hon. Member was referring to official witnesses. I thought he was referring to others who might have to attend. Witnesses certainly would be paid.
      Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
      Question proposed, "That Part II. of this Bill, as amended, including Schedules 6 to 9 therein referred to, be reported to the House."
      Mr. BUXTON: I am very much obliged to hon. Members in all quarters

      2119
      of the Committee for waiting so late this evening in order now to finish this Committee stage. Perhaps they will allow me, also, on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend equally with myself, to thank them very much, not only for the courteous, but for the very friendly way in which the various discussions have taken place. The Government Amendments have been treated with the utmost possible consideration. I venture to hope that hon. Members may think also that their Amendments have been treated with equal consideration and courtesy. I think the fact that this Bill has gone through Grand Committee in six days shows that, taken as a whole, it was a fairly compact and water-tight proposition which was laid before the Committee; but I wish to recognise to the fullest possible extent that the labours of the Committee and the assistance which they have given will leave the Bill on
      2120
      a much more workable and water-tight basis than it was when it entered this Committee Room. I thank hon. Members opposite very much for the consideration which they have given it, and for the friendly way in which these discussions have been carried on. And, in regard to those who are supporters of the Government, whether they actually sit on Liberal benches or not, I have to thank them for the two things they have done. One is their great regularity of attendance, I am afraid very often at great personal inconvenience, and the second is their great self-repression—a quality which it is even more difficult sometimes to exercise. I thank them for both, and I thank the Committee generally for the kindness and consideration which they have shown to myself, and those who have been acting with me.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Committee adjourned at Twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock.

  Small Debt Claims (Belfast).
  Small Debt Claims (Belfast).
  Labourers Acts (Clogheen District Council).
  Labourers Acts (Clogheen District Council).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Army Air Battalion.
  Army Air Battalion.
  Yeomanry (Cost).
  Yeomanry (Cost).
  Territorial Force (Efficiency Medal).
  Territorial Force (Efficiency Medal).
  Royal Garrison Artillery.
  Royal Garrison Artillery.
  Revaccination (Soldiers).
  Revaccination (Soldiers).
  Returned Letter Office (Male Minor Staff).
  Returned Letter Office (Male Minor Staff).
  Telephone Transfer (Officers).
  Telephone Transfer (Officers).
  Office of Works (Architectural Assistants).
  Office of Works (Architectural Assistants).