(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether she will furnish to the House an actuarial Report supplementary to Cd. 3437, showing the full financial effect of any new Clause which may be introduced on behalf of the Government to take the place of Clause 4 of the present Unemployment Bill as introduced?

I propose to lay a white paper on this matter.

When will it be laid, and shall we have ample notice both of the terms of the new Clause and of its financial effect before it is taken on the Floor of the House?

I shall give as long notice as possible.

Can the right hon. Lady give us some idea of the date when we may expect to have the terms of the new Clause and its financial effect?

I shall probably be able to put the terms of the new Clause upon the Order Paper to-morrow night, and the white paper will be laid at the earliest date.

Does the right hon. Lady propose to proceed with the further Clauses of the Bill before the House knows the new terms of Clause 4?

I propose to go on with the Bill, certainly.

How can we do so if we do not know the terms of the Clause?

Is elementary justice to the character of the unemployed to be determined by financial considerations?

Has the Prime Minister any information to give us about business?

We propose to take down to the Section arranged—the end of Clause 11.

Has the Prime Minister any further information to give us about the business for the remainder of the Session?

I should be very glad to answer that question if I had had some notice of it. The business will be, roughly, the finishing of the unemployment Insurance Bill, and we hope to get the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill. The minor Orders have already been announced.

How many days has the right hon. Gentleman allotted in that programme for the Report stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill?

Sir H. SAMUEL:

When shall we have the Coal Mines Bill?

The Report stage and Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, I think, might very well be done in two days. I hope the Coal Mines Bill will be circulated this week.

Major WOOD:

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he does not intend to take Friday for Government business?

The right hon. Gentleman promised to introduce the Education Bill before the Christmas Recess.

The Government will have to take Friday of next week, but not this week.

Do we understand the right hon. Gentleman proposes to dispose of the whole of the Report stage as well as the Third Reading of the really new Bill which we have before us within the same time as he thought reasonable for the Report stage of the old Bill?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong in his mathematics because it is an extended time. It is a whole day probably with the Eleven O'clock Rule suspended. When he considers, he will also find that he is not only wrong in his mathematics but very exaggerated in his language when he says a re-draft of Clause 4, so as to make it conform more to the original intention, is a new Bill.

What does the Prime Minister say about the Education Bill?

indicated dissent.

I do not intend to discuss mathematics with the Prime Minister. We were at variance on that before. Not having been in the House, the right hon. Gentleman is unacquainted with the extent to which the Bill has been redrafted. The right hon. Lady is introducing a new Clause dealing with the demand of Members both above and below the Gangway in the matter of juveniles. That, in itself, is a very large and important issue. That has to be considered as a new Clause, and the re-drafting of Clause 4 means the redrafting of several other Clauses.

First of all, the Amendment regarding the juveniles is to be taken in Committee, and not on the Report stage. I was answering a question regarding the Report stage and Third Reading. Secondly, I again think, if I may say so with respect, that my hon. and gallant Friend exaggerates when he says that there are several Clauses materially affected by the redrafting of Clause 4.

Sir H. SAMUEL:

As regards the proceedings to-day, can the right hon. Gentleman or the Minister of Labour say what course will be taken with regard to Clauses 5 and 7 in view of the deletion of Clause 4?

Yes. Clause 5, I think, goes with Clause 4. Clause 5 is only an annulment of a provision in the existing law, and it would be far better to let that go with Clause 4. As regards Clause 7, there is only one of two alternative provisions in Clause 7 affected by the temporary disappearance of Clause 4. As I am dealing with the matter, it will be better to deal with it completely. In Clause 7, page 8, lines 12 to 14, hon. Members will see that one of two alternatives hinges upon Clause 4. It is proposed that that alternative should be taken out now and re-inserted in appropriate form in consequence of the Amendment of Clause 4, as it is to appear, on the Report stage. That will be dealt with on Report. Perhaps if hon. Members will allow me to guide them again, they will find in Clause 15, page 12, lines 16 and 17, another reference to Clause 4. I think that when we get to that Clause it will be advisable to deal with it in the same way as we deal with Clause 7.

Arising out of the statement about dropping Clause 5, may I call the attention of the Minister to the fact that there is a slight error in the Clause itself; it has been amended by subsequent legislation.

That is so. The Minister is aware of that fact.

May I ask the Prime Minister, without wishing to exaggerate in any way at all, whether he realises that, in the first place, we are putting further business on to the Report stage in connection with Clause 5, Clause 7, and Clause 15. Not only so. When he says that a reasonable amount of time has been given to the Report stage, really two days for Report and Third reading, on broad grounds, cannot be enough now. Clause 4, as is recognised by everybody, is the kernel of the whole Bill. It is recognised on all sides to be the most important part of the whole Bill. The action taken on Thursday last—and I am sure everyone agrees with this—has completely changed the whole structure and purpose of the Bill. From that point of view, it has to be started and debated afresh, and, therefore, I want to put before the right hon. Gentleman that one day for Report and Third Reading is not doing justice to the importance of the Bill.

Really, my right hon. Friend must not exaggerate. Clause 4 is not and was never intended to be the kernel of the whole Bill. Clause 4 deals with one of the items which we have been trying to get reformed for years, and Clause 4, as redrafted, will simply carry out more precisely the intention of the original Clause.

What about the Attorney-General?

So far as the Report stage is concerned, two days are more than one day.

There is only one more point. The Prime Minister has pointed out that he is giving us more time. Can he tell us whether in that time is included the time for the Supplementary Estimates which will be necessary, or is this additional? Is that, as well as the other items, to be put into the programme of the business which he has anticipated?

There is a Supplementary Estimate that will be required, but not for this Bill. It will be required in respect of past legislation. That will be put down, and will be excepted. It will be separate. As I have already said, if only I had received notice I might have been able to give more details, but it must be passed before the Consolidated Fund Bill. Then there is the question of providing for the possibility of a deficit on the existing fund, with the £3,500,000 added, if this Bill does not become law before the Christmas vacation. I understand that there will be little danger of that happening before the beginning of February, but the matter is being very carefully considered, and a statement will be made upon it as soon as we get the final report from the Department.

I am sorry if I have put the right hon. Gentleman to any inconvenience by asking him about future business, but I WAS under the impression that I was expected to ask that question to-day. It is very important for the convenience of the House that we should know at the earliest date possible, and I hope that by repeating the question possibly to-morrow, I may be able to get a complete reply. The two or three points which want clearing up are these: I agree that one or two of the questions which have just been put will be legitimate sources of debate when business begins to-day. I think that certain points of procedure under the Bill now under discussion will come in on the First Motion which is to be moved. But I think that Members of the House will want to know for their own convenience whether they will be spending Christmas in London, or whether they will be able to go home. On that question, we want to know on this side whether we are going to get facilities for the discussion of the two subjects on which we have asked for a debate—Egypt and Singapore. All sections of the House will want to know when the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill will be put down, and how long before that Second Reading we shall be able to see the Bill itself? It is perfectly obvious, whether this Bill from anybody's point of view is a good one or a bad one; that it is going to be one of first-class importance to trade and to employment. Therefore, we shall want, all of us, wherever we may sit in this House, to consider most carefully the terms of the Bill, of which we are in complete ignorance at the present moment, before the House of Commons passes to a discussion of it.

I shall be very much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will repeat his question tomorrow. Regarding the Coal Mines Bill, as I have said, it will be circulated this week. The time when its Second Reading will be taken will be determined when the present Bill now before us has left this House. It will follow that Bill.

With reference to Clause 4, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Minister stated that she was going to draft a new Clause in consultation with those hon. Members interested in the subject, and whether that still holds?

That still holds.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Proceedings in Committee on the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill and the Proceedings on the Third Reading of the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Additional Grant Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.