I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, to leave out from the word "benefit," to the word "by," in line 12, and to insert instead the words: the insurance officer has disallowed the claim on the ground that either. We have now reached Clause 7. Although the Prime Minister stated, in reply to a question earlier in the day, that only two lines of this Clause were affected by the fact that we do not know yet what form Clause 4 will take, I submit that this particular Clause is of great importance. It is the Clause which decides whether a man shall be entitled to claim a second period of benefit, and whether he is qualified to do- so or not. Obviously, that must refer back to the terms of Clause 4, and none of us knows what they are going to be. I submit that we are making the Committee stage a perfect farce; it is extremely difficult to discuss Clause 7 in this particular manner. I should like to ask the Government if they can give us some sort of undertaking that there will be no weakening of the machinery. We recognise two things. First of all, it is quite obvious, if a man is disqualified on account of his refusal to take work offered to him, that refers hack directly to Clause 4, the form of which we do not know. The second possible disqualification is in the case of a man who belongs to a skilled trade and who is offered work in a trade which is not his own and which, if he accepted it, might be detrimental to his capacity as a skilled workman. Of course, he should not be disqualified. Nobody disputes that fact. It formed part of the 1927 Act, and I think every Member of the Committee wants to preserve the right of a man to maintain his efficiency in his proper job.

We feel, and feel very strongly, that we are put in an impossible position in carrying on the Committee stage of the Bill when obviously the whole of Clause 7, and not only two lines of it, are directly connected with Clause 4. Conceivably, therefore, the Minister may be able to throw some light upon this matter, although we understand that consultations are still proceeding as to what is to be the form of Clause 4. I would remind the Committee that we heard quite clearly from the Attorney-General what are the principles affected by Clause 7. If we can hear from the Minister, in answer to this Amendment, what is intended, I am sure that I and my hon. Friends will be very much obliged.

An HON. MEMBER:

On a point of Order. Since this Amendment would be rendered unnecessary if the following Amendment—in page 8, line 12, to leave out from the word "benefit" to the word "because," in line 15—were put and carried, would it be in order to take the second Amendment first?

We have not reached the second Amendment.

The Prime Minister pointed out this afternoon that Clause 7 was one of the Clauses affected by the decision in reference to Clause 4, and he also pointed out that it would probably need some Amendment on the Report stage. There is a pail of this Clause which refers to the transitional stage and which is not affected by that decision, and all I can say at this moment is that the general principle is one by which the Government would stand in regard to the non-suspension of benefit, and I scarcely need add anything, except that, as far as the general phrasing of the Clause is concerned, it will certainly receive consideration on the Report stage.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how it is proposed to amend Clause 7 temporarily until we reach the Report stage? We cannot let this Clause go through in its present form.

After hearing what the Minister has said, I think we may assume that it means that we shall have ample time to discuss this Clause on Report; in fact, that we shall have A Committee stage and a Report stage, as we cannot discuss it properly now in Committee. If this is the Minister's view, and he will give us an undertaking to ensure ample time, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I can only give the guarantee which was given by the Prime Minister this afternoon, and, I think, given later on by the Minister of Labour herself, that, in so far as this runs in conjunction with Clause 4 and with the time given to discuss that particular Clause, such time will be given on the Report stage. I cannot go further than the statement which was made on that occasion.

On that, I think I am right in saying that the Prime Minister did confine his remarks to two lines. I think he said that lines 11 to 14 were the lines really affected, and that they were going to be moved out of the Clause and put back into it. My point is that you cannot take two lines out and discuss the Clause now. We must have all parts of the Clause; otherwise, it makes discussion impossible.

The next Amendment, which is to remove the words after the word "benefit," in line 12, to the word "because," in line 15, deals with the present point. That will leave the Clause in order and open for discussion according to the knowledge which we possess.

On the understanding that we shall have ample time for the whole of the Clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 12, to leave out from the word "benefit" to the word "because," in line 15.

I wish merely formally to move this Amendment.

I think it is rather curt on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary. I can only assume that he was engaged, perhaps, in some of the many duties of which all Under-Secretaries are aware. Perhaps he was engaged in some consultation with his right hon. Friend or with his hon. Friends below the Gangway as to what the draft of some new Sub-section was to be. I am certain that at least he must have the official brief on this subject, and I suggest that we might have the privilege of having it read to us. I do not want to place any strain upon the Parliamentary Secretary, who, heaven knows, suffers from strain enough in these days under a continual bombardment, not only from this side but from hon. Members behind him. Really, the proposal simply to omit these words does, after all, knock a very great deal out of the Clause. It brings to our minds how far hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House are right, that there is still a shade of the Attorney-General's formula to be left in the new Sub-section which is to be drafted. The hon. Members below the Gangway say, if I understand them aright, "You may shatter the Clause, as you will, but the aroma of the Attorney-General will hang round it still," and hon. Members below the Gangway on that side say: Ah, love! Couldst thou and I with fate conspire,To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire.Would not we shatter it to bits, and thenRemould it nearer to the heart's desire?

We certainly ask for the loaf of bread.

I always understood that the hon. Members below the Gangway, when it came to a jug of wine, would make stronger objections. We could, all the more, if we could have the Minister of Labour singing beside us in the wilderness; then Wilderness were Paradise enow! But we on this side are in the wilderness, and, no doubt, we shall be replaced before very long by the Minister if discussions go on as they are at present. The point is, that the "Hayday formula" has not been carried out. Our difficulty in regard to Clause 7 is due to the fact that we do not know where we stand with regard to the "Hayday formula." We are dealing with the "Hayday formula" and the Attorney-General's principle. We have not had the conflict between these two resolved, and, until we have the conflict resolved, it will not be possible for this House intelligently to discuss the Amendments which are before it. Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, and failing him, the Minister of Labour, whether it is possible to elucidate a little more the Amendment which she is making and to say whether she intends on the Report stage to move in again in Clause 7 words dealing with the new Sub-section which she intends to draft and have put upon the Paper, or will the Clause, as we part with it now, with the words left out as she desires, actually be the form in which it will subsequently appear in the Bill as Clause 7? Is she looking forward to the redrafting of Clause 7 accelerating the redrafting of Clause 4? What is her intention, in so far as she is able to give an inkling of her intention at this stage?

The simple and sole purpose of putting down this Amendment is to expedite business. It is the only part of Clause 7 which deals with Clause 4, and, therefore, we move it out with the intention of moving it back again on Report stage when Clause 4 is before the House. The Prime Minister, when he made his opening statement this afternoon, also referred to Clause 15. It was decided that both these should be moved out in order that Clause 7 should be kept in line with Clause 4.

I am bound to agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) that an explanation was desirable. It is obvious that the words to be left out would expedite business, but the distinction is that these words refer to the permanent conditions for benefit whereas the words left in refer to the Act of 1927, to benefits received under the transitional provisions of the Bill. Surely, that is the difference between the one and the other. We need not follow the hon. and gallant Member in his excursions into that delightful poem; nevertheless, we are making a change in the structure of the Clause due, of course, to the decision taken by the Committee last Thursday.

I am much indebted to the Minister for her explanation. I ask for the attention of hon. Members below the Gangway to this matter, because business cannot be done in the absence of the leader of the fourth party. The Minister has now stated that Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) will be moved in again on Report.

On a point of Order. I am afraid that I did not express myself clearly. What I intended to say was that the part of the revised Clause 4 which will be relevant to Clause 7 will be reinstated.

7.0 p.m.

Quite so. But the new Sub-section which is to be drafted will refer to some extent to the provisoes in the existing Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Clause 4. That refers to certain things which my hon. Friends dislike, and they must have some reference to these Sub-sections or the points involved in them, or there will be no point in the Minister saying on Clause 7 that they will have reference to the new Clause 4. We can only discuss these things in the abstract, because we have no Clause 4 before us, and the House will look with keen interest, and in many quarters with keen anxiety, for the appearance of the new Clause 4.

Are we quite sure that in accepting this Amendment we shall be able later to deal with what may be in Clause 4? The old Clause 4, particularly Sub-section (3), dealt with a person offered a job, not, in his own employment, but what has been called suitable employment not in his own occupation, and in this Clause we have to say who is to decide what is suitable. Many of us are not quite certain, after what took place on Thursday, whether it still remains that he has to take the job.

This Amendment does not deal with that point; only with the provision for payment of benefit in respect of Sub-sections (2) and (3).

What is to be left out was vitally affected by Sub-section (3), and suppose that on the Report stage, something like Sub-section (3) is put back, shall we be safeguarded by seeing that something like suitable machinery to deal with it will be put in?

I suggest that the Clause means little as it stands, and we are asked to take out nine-tenths in the hope that in some future stage it may mean something. Would it not be a more sensible thing to leave out the Clause, and bring it in when we know what it means?

The hon. Member may raise that on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

We are opposing this Amendment, because it will make the Clause ineffective, and the Committee will be asked to approve a Clause which means little or nothing. The obvious course is to remove it.

The effect of the fishing of the hon. Member has been to make the waters muddier than ever. It is a simple point. The Committee are asked to take out certain words connected with provisions which are not to be proceeded with, and, as a matter of business, it is a perfectly reasonable request. Since these words are connected with Sub-sections which have been withdrawn, there is no reason for them remaining in this Clause, and their omission is being formally moved. It is a mere matter of drafting.

The position is most difficult. We are dealing with a Clause which refers back to a Clause which has been omitted, and it is a matter of the greatest difficulty to decide what Clause 7 is to amount to. The Parliamentary Secretary said, very frankly, that he could not answer an Amendment on the Paper, because he did not know what the effect would be when Clause 7 was put back. My hon. Friend on this side very kindly withdrew his Amendment, but the admission was there from the Minister that he himself did not know what the effect would be. Certain words are now to be added, and certain words withdrawn. What is the Clause to amount to? I am at a loss, stupid as I may be, to understand what it is to mean, and I think the Clause should be withdrawn and brought back.

It is important that the Committee should understand that Clause 7, with the words deleted as my Amendment suggests, will read complete in itself. I am asking the Committee to say that there shall be no suspension of benefits where a doubt arises until the point is settled. That is the principle, and it does not depend on the words which I propose to leave out, because if you turn to line 16— or because he has failed to satisfy etc., the principle obtains whether the words proposed to be left out are in or not. I ask the Committee to give a decision on that important point.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I have not the least doubt that what the right hon. Lady (Miss Bondfield) says is perfectly true, that this Clause makes sense if you leave out the words, but the situation is that we are asked to pass a Clause which is intended also to refer in the future to some new Clause, not now in existence, and of which we do not know the contents. If there was any sense in withdrawing Clause 5 for this reason, it applies with even greater force to Clause 7. It would be far better for the Government to make sure what they are going to ask the House on the Report stage, rather than ask the Committee to give them Clause 7 now. It vitiates the discussion as it did on Sub-section (6), and it is asking too much of the Committee to ask it to pass this Clause in vacuo without regard to future conditions, to which it is intended to apply, in the belief that you will be able to insert some words that will make sense of it. Nobody can decide before we have the intricate and important points which must come before us, whether we want this Clause. It would be far better for the Committee and for legislation if the Minister were to withdraw this Clause.

There is some advantage surely in passing the Clause, because it will mean that the Committee will have dealt with the question that the benefit is not to be suspended while a case is under inquiry. Inasmuch as we shall have so much time occupied on the Re- port stage, it is well that the Committee should come to an opinion on that central principle, leaving the alterations to be made later. It is essential to save such time as we can on the Report stage, and, if we can by the passing of this Clause in its present form relieve the burdens on the House, it will be a wise thing to do it.

We are anxious to help the Minister of Labour but we must have one point clear. Are the Sub-sections (2) and (3) referred to here in Clause 4 to remain as they stand as at the present time?

Sub-sections (2) and (3) are withdrawn and out of the Bill entirely. They are not under discussion now.

If that is the case it is really the answer to the point that I am making. It is perfectly ridiculous to ask the Committee to pass the Clause as it stands and the Minister would be well advised to withdraw it.

There is not a single Member who does not agree with the principle which the Clause attempts to carry out. We object to the procedure, because we think it highly dangerous, and, if we had attempted anything of that sort, hon. Members on the opposite benches would have kept us up several nights. If Parliament is to do this work properly, it is impossible to consider the Clause when the major Clause on which it depends has been withdrawn, and we do not know what form it will take. The Minister gave us an assur

ance that we should have time on Re port to discuss this Clause. We object to the system whereby it is possible to force through a Clause—in some other Bill it might be rather an objectionable Clause—merely by taking out certain words and saying that they are going to be put back. There has been a lot of talk about the omnibus nature of Clause 4. This is a trailer proposal, and there will be two or three trailers to the omnibus. We do not know what will be the speed or nature of the omnibus until we see the new Clause, and we object to the Committee being asked to say "Yea" or "Nay."

I am anxious to clear the mind of the Committee on this point which seems to me simple. There are four conditions of benefit, of which only one is in suspense. This Bill refers to the other three, and the House will have ample opportunity to decide on the other. I wish to say that I did not use the word "omnibus." It was used on the other side of the House, and I object to it.

I apologise. The Minister complains that I have misquoted her, and I confess that I have done so. I used the word "omnibus," and she used the words "a composite Clause." I leave it to Members of the Committee to say whether it is such a grievous misquotation as the right hon. Lady would suggest.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 139.