Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 3) BILL. – in the House of Commons at on 15 July 1931.
I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word "Minister," to the word" to" in line 12.
The purpose of the Amendment is to leave out the words,
after consultation with the Advisory Committee constituted for the purposes of this Section,
and it raises the question of the setting up of the Advisory Committee. I had not an opportunity on the Second Reading of this Measure to take part in the Debate or I should then have expressed my dissatisfaction with the setting up of the Advisory Committee. The purpose of the Advisory Committee appears to provide a smoke screen for the Minister. It is an attempt to bring the question of unemployment insurance outwith the range of politics. Every Member in the House of Commons knows that in connection with unemployment insurance the attitude of the individual who is anxious to represent a constituency is one with very great political consequences. It has been said that it is unfortunate that this matter should not really be outwith the struggle between parties, and that we should really consider this problem from an impartial point of view. Again and again, with regard to one question after another, I have heard appeals made to take the subject concerned out of the arena of party politics. I have heard it with regard to unemployment generally, with regard to housing and with regard to practically every question with which we deal in this House. The same case has now been made out with regard to unemployment insurance.
If the Advisory Committee is set up, I believe that it will only be a question of time before unemployment insurance will very largely be outside the control of Parliament and will cease to be a political issue, and we shall find it more and more difficult in the House of Commons to raise the question of the treatment of any persons in connection with their entitlement to benefit or the position into which they have got with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. It is going to be a very unfortunate thing for the unemployed people in this country if they are put into that position. This is one of the big innovations in connection with the Bill, and I am anxious that the Committee should consider very fully what they are going to do in this respect. Again and again it has been said that in this country the individual who is wronged or is aggrieved has always got the constitutional avenue whereby he may obtain justice and satisfaction, and very largely that constitutional avenue has been through the ventilation of the matter in the House of Commons. Consequently I intend to set my face steadfastly against any attempts to limit the opportunity of an individual to have his grievance ventilated in the House of Commons. If the Advisory Committee is set up there can be no doubt that it will become more and more difficult to raise the grievances of people with regard to the payment of unemployment insurance benefit.
I wish to point out to my colleagues on these benches that the setting up of the Advisory Committee, as far as the Committee will function, will be a cloak or a smoke screen for a reactionary Minister of Labour, and the setting up of such a Committee will be quite contrary to the ideals and the methods of the party which sits upon these benches. Very largely owing to the way in which the Labour party voiced the claims of the unemployed and emphasised the right of the unemployed worker to work or maintenance, the Labour party became the greatest party in the State. Very largely because of the slogan of the right to work or maintenance this party has come into a position in which it acts as the Government of the day, and it will mean that this party will be committing suicide if, now, when it is in a position to afford the protection of a Government which consists of the largest party in the House, it is going to provide machinery which will make it more difficult for Members in this House to protect the interest ot the unemployed.
I know that it will be said that the Advisory Committee is not going to act in this way and that it is not going to be a smoke screen but a very helpful body, and is going to be in a consultative capacity, and that after all the ultimate responsibility will rest with the Minister, and that when the ultimate responsibility-rests with the Minister the House of Commons will have full control. We have had such things said to us again and again in connection with a whole series of Acts which we have passed and bodies which have been set up. We have set up various bodies. We have had the Rota Committee, the Court of Referees and Umpires, and in connection with that machinery every Member will have had a letter from the Minister telling him that the position, say, for example, of the Court of Referees, is outwith the control of the Minister; the duties of the Umpire are outwith the control of the Minister.
While it is true that the Advisory Committee is not being put into precisely a similar position to that of the Court of Referees or the Umpires, it will be asking the Minister to take very strong steps indeed to disregard the findings of the Advisory Committee in the future. The Minister will be able to come to the House of Commons, and, if an act of administration is challenged, be able to say that while there may have been a certain amount of sympathy with the complaint that had been made, the Advisory Committee had fully considered it; that it was composed of experts and represented the Trades Union Congress, the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations, and the Treasury, and was an impartial body. How can we, in the House of Commons, not having the specialist knowledge and the opportunities of the Advisory Committee of going into all the circumstances and of weighing all the pros and cons, to set aside the findings of the Advisory Committee? I may be told by some hon. Member opposite that the present Government have found it possible to set aside the findings of their own Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance. For the time being they have set aside the findings of the Royal Commission, and what they have done in that respect may be done again.
My impression is that in this Bill there is machinery which may afterwards be used to implement practically the whole of the findings contained in the interim report of the Royal Commission. I do not believe that although the Government has set aside the recommendations of that Commission with regard to the reduction of benefit and the increase of contributions, since they have introduced this Bill, they are really departing very largely from the findings of the Royal Commission. The Advisory Committee appears to be a very dangerous instrument. It is dangerous in the form in which it is to be set up under this Bill and in regard to the power that is to be put into its possession in connection with the Clauses of the Bill. If the swing of the pendulum leads the Members opposite to this side of the House, and the Members on this side of the House to the opposite side of the House and a Minister comes in with very strong views upon economy, you are going to provide the machinery for such a Minister to carry out the most ruthless attacks upon the unemployed. What will the answer be if this Measure were succeeded by another Measure giving larger powers to the Advisory Committee to deal with the whole question of unemployment insurance and benefits, and the Minister concerned said that the machinery was set up by a Labour Government, that it had the approval of the Trades Union Congress, and that therefore they could trust the Advisory Committee upon which we had had three representatives appointed
after consultation with the General Council of the Trade Union Congress.
What is the answer going to be? The setting up of this Advisory Committee is entirely wrong. I should not be in order in dealing with its composition at the present moment and the power which three representatives of the working classes in a committee of nine will have, but from my experience this is going to be one of the most retrograde steps ever taken in the matter of unemployment insurance. It will give this Committee and the Minister a discretion which they should not have. In 1925 the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) who was then Minister of Labour, introduced a Bill in which he amended the Act passed by the Labour
Government in 1924 and restored the ministerial discretion taken away by that Act. This party nearly choked itself at the restoration of ministerial discretion in the matter of decisions as to claims for benefit, and the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) went to the Trades Union Congress and told them what a tremendous fight we were putting up in order to prevent ministerial discretion being restored. Here is a Labour Government setting up an Advisory Committee and giving to the Minister a discretion over a far greater number of people than was the case in 1925. It may be necessary to set up this Committee because of the ideas of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in regard to people drawing unemployment benefit, but in my opinion it will almost inevitably become an instrument for the oppression of the unemployed and we are not prepared to allow it to pass without making our protest.
The Minister of Labour may tell me that it is a great experiment, she has already said so during the Second Reading Debate, and that it has always been felt that it would be a good thing to bring the various parties to the tripartite arrangement more closely into association in the working of the scheme. This was a beginning, she said, in giving them an opportunity to take part in administering the scheme. There you have it. I can see great possibilities for hon. Members opposite in that statement. There could be a much closer association yet everyone knows from their previous experience that the one great protection of the unemployed in the matter of the payment of insurance benefit is the way in which the question can become a predominant issue at a general election or at a by-election. At the last General Election the question which aroused more interest than almost anything else—I give this as an illustration—was the not-genuinely-seeking work qualification, and every party refused to admit its parentage.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:
If I admit a discussion on general matters on each Amendment there will be no end to the Debate. Hon. Members must confine themselves strictly to the purpose of the Amendment.
I have no wish to trespass the rules of order, and I prefaced my remark by saying that I was simply using it as an illustration. I had no intention of entering into the merits of the question. I was simply showing that the treatment of the unemployed in the matter of the payment of unemployment benefit has very great political consequences, and every hon. Member knows how important is his attitude on this question. I want to make it plain that this Advisory Committee will make this question of less importance at elections. You are taking away from the unemployed person the instrument which enables him to protect himself against reactionary legislation. This Advisory Committee may be the most wretched instrument in the future for the oppression of the unemployed. I am not willing to have it even in an advisory capacity. It will be even more dangerous sitting only as an advisory committee than if it had fuller statutory powers. It may be even more deadly as an advisory committee. It will certainly be more difficult to get at it by question and answer in this House. I hope we shall not have it set up at all. Every hon. Member should be willing boldly to face the unemployed and to say what in his opinion is the best line to take. It is the one question which should be in the forefront of the political arena, the treatment of the unemployed should be something to fight about.
It may be said that this is to introduce bribery into politics because certain people will offer more to the unemployed than others. I have heard that said again and again. Every hon. Member offers his policy to the people in his constituency as the best because of the material benefits it will bring to them. Is that bribery? Is that bringing undue influence to bear on the people? The unemployed have learnt how to make their political power felt and this Advisory Committee is going to be the instrument whereby that weapon of the unemployed may be blunted. In the last Government we spoke about the administrative persecution of the right hon. Member who was then Minister of Labour and his colleagues. This is going to bring in statutory persecution; it is going to set up a Star Chamber persecution of the unemployed. The Labour party has no mandate to set up such a committee. There is no hon. Member who would have agreed at the last General Election to set up this committee to deal with the unemployed. There would not be so many Members on these benches if they had made any such promise, and having been returned to this House I say that it is a betrayal of the unemployed if we set up this machinery which will be used to cut many thousands of people off benefit. I hope that Members of all shades of thought will press upon the Minister the advisability of dropping this committee altogether. The Minister must make regulations herself and accept full responsibility for them, and bring them to the House of Commons in order to get its consent.
It is said that it is difficult to frame a statute which will cover all the anomalies. If that is so difficult it will be no less difficult to frame regulations to cover them. Let the Minister of Labour take the responsibility which should be hers without seeking to shelter herself behind some association of the general council of the Trade Union Congress and the employers. It is not that the representatives of the unemployed will not be able to make their protest effective. The unemployed will make their protest. If they are subjected to the ruthless persecution of this Advisory Committee they will put paid to the account of the Government that set it up and to the party which was responsible for the Government which set it up. Just as the Liberal party has become a sort of ghostlike remnant of its former self because of their failure to keep their pledge to improve the conditions of the great masses of the people, so the Labour party will finish as a great party if they pursue this policy of oppression of the working-classes.
I wish to support the Amendment which has been so ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). The defence of this advisory committee by the Minister of Labour is that she must have some body to consult; in other words, that she must have some body by which she can be advised as to her action or her desires in a particular matter. She says, in effect, "I set up these nine people, who are drawn from various ranks, and they will be able to advise me on any particular matter on which I want advice." But the Minister knows that she can go to these people already if she wishes to do so. There is nothing at any time to hinder her going to the Trades Union Congress. Indeed, if my information is correct, she has already had the Trades Union Congress's advice on this Bill. Any Minister can go to the Trades Union Congress for advice, and it has constantly been done. It is the same with the employers. In their case it has constantly been done. This Government and the previous Government have had consultations, for instance, with the parties interested in unemployment insurance for agricultural workers.
An hon. Gentleman opposite who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in the last Government had advisory committees, but they had no statutory powers. He said, "I would like a few persons to meet me and advise me." He constantly went to the dockers, to building societies and to local authorities. I remember, too, that Mr. Wheatley, the late Member for Shettles-ton, went to the building trades repeatedly and sought their advice. Such advice was gladly given. To-day, what is proposed? A new thing entirely. The Minister proposes to do a thing that can now be done, but proposes to add the force of law to it. It is that which we challenge. In the past, none of as had the power or would have dared to interfere with the Minister going to any group for advice and assistance. What we complain of is not the setting up of a committee or the obtaining of advice from a committee, but the proposal to give the force of law to this advisory committee. Why alter the practice of years? I remember that Sir Montague Barlow, when I first entered this House, had long consultations with the Trades Union Congress on one or two matters. That method has been adopted by every Minister. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), when a Minister, sometimes sought such advice.
I think that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment was slightly unfair to the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). In his 1925 Bill the right hon. Gentleman introduced Ministerial discretion, and he introduced it for extended benefit, that is to say, for benefit for which persons were alleged not to have paid. Hitherto any advisory committee, any Minister's discretion, any interference, dealt only with those persons who had exhausted their insurance right. It has been said repeatedly in these Debates that a person is entitled to have his insurance contract carried out. I have heard hon. Members opposite say, "If I pay an insurance premium I am entitled to have the contract carried out, but if my premium is exhausted new conditions arise and different treatment is allowed." That has been the case hitherto. But what now? We are giving this Advisory Committee power to alter the contract of an insured person. Furthermore, we are giving the Minister this discretion.
I see sitting opposite the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith). His predecessor in the representation of that Division took an active part in these discussions, and I believe that the hon. Member is equally interested in the subject. He is a lawyer and he will appreciate this point. These people have entered into an insurance contract. Is that denied? The married women, the seasonal workers and the others have all got a contract for insurance. It may be that when the State made the contract it was too generous or too mean. It may be that in the case of married women the State should not have entered into the contract, and that the State was badly advised financially. It may be true that now the State is poor, that this rich country is not quite as rich, and that the contract entered into in 1927 cannot now be upheld in the same way. But if we are to alter the insurance contract the contract should be altered by law just as it was made by law. Is that not reasonable? In return for certain payments the State guaranteed a certain thing. It was an honourable bargain. I take it that hon. Members opposite, being honourable men, would no more dream of breaking a contract with a poor married woman than of breaking a contract with anyone else. Here we have a greater responsibility. When the 1927 Act was introduced the contract entered into was the result of the long and laborious inquiry of the Blanesburgh Committee.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:
The hon. Member is covering a very wide field. The question whether a contract has been broken or not should be raised on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The only issue at the moment is whether or not the Minister should have this advisory committee as proposed in the Bill.
My point is that the Advisory Committee are given powers to advise the Minister to break a contract.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:
The hon. Member is seeking to try and prove that certain contracts are being broken by the Bill, but that question does not arise here. The only question before us is whether the regulations to be issued shall be issued by the Minister on her personal responsibility or on the advice of a committee to be appointed.
I accept your Ruling that we must raise the question on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Let me return to the advisory committee. As I have said, the Minister always had power to go to these bodies and did go to them. The difference now is that what was the practice, of going to ask for advice, is being altered. The Minister sent for the Trades Union Congress or for the employers or for the experts of the Ministry. Now it is proposed to give the advisory committee statutory status. For what purpose? The committee is to advise and the Minister is to act. When the Minister comes down to the House what will be her defence? She will be questioned as to why she intends to do certain things. She will rise and say that she has made a certain alteration only after consultation with and acting on the advice of the advisory committee. She will state that such a course has been agreed to, and the Minister will not be judged on her merits. If regulations are made let the Minister come here and say, "I made the regulations and I am responsible for them. I sought advice, but nobody else imposed his will on me. I made the regulations voluntarily, on my own part." That is what has been the practice hitherto. What is now proposed is that in order to provide an excuse, in order to have someone to lean on, in order to have a buffer, this statutory body is to be created, and the Minister will say in regard to action that she has taken," I have done it only with their advice." The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me said that this is capable of expansion. I see in the advisory committee not merely the purpose of the moment, but once it starts we shall be told that it has been a success. They will begin in a small way, and we shall be told that they are working smoothly. Then we shall be asked to give them a little more power, and each succeeding step will lessen the control of the publicly elected representatives, by taking business out of their hands The advisory committee will serve no useful purpose. If there is a useful purpose to be served in consultation, the Minister has channels open to her. The real purpose of the committee is twofold, in the first place to act as a buffer against criticism and, secondly, to be the beginning of an engine which will one day seek to eliminate popular Parliamentary control and leave it to outside hands to deal with the comfort and well-being of our unemployed population.
As I understand it, the issue that we are discussing is not the delegation of powers to the Minister, but the delegation of the powers of the Government to an outside body. We have no objection to the delegation of powers, but we want the powers to be delegated for a very different purpose. The issue on this Amendment is whether the proposed delegation of powers will be covered and screened by the appointment of the committee. We see no purpose in the appointment of the Advisory Committee. If the powers are to be delegated, why should not the Minister have full responsibility for their exercise? We see in this proposal an attempt to remove this subject from politics. A plea that we should do that has come from various parts of the House at different times, but it seems to me to be either the most ignorant or the most hypocritical plea that could possibly be made. Why should this subject, perhaps the most vital subject in the whole of our public life, which affects 2,500,000 of our citizens, be removed from politics? What an extraordinary commentary it is that the Measure which takes the first step in that direction should be introduced by a Labour Government. I think it was Mr. Gladstone, who is still quoted in this House, who said that the whole subject of employment was utterly unfitted for discussion in this House. Hon. Members opposite possibly owe almost their entire political existence to bringing unemployment into politics. Now we have this movement, perhaps only a comparatively short one, to take the unemployed out again. We protest against that. I cannot believe that this Advisory Committee will act in any way to improve the provisions of the present Acts. Under the powers given by this Bill, it is excluded from making improvements which many of us would like to see. I can see no useful purpose to be served by it.
The attitude of hon. Members towards the Amendment will be governed by their attitude towards the main purposes of the Bill. My attitude to the Amendment is almost entirely governed by my general attitude on the Bill. The purpose which the Bill is intended to serve is, quite frankly and unashamedly, that of reducing public expenditure upon unemployment benefit. I must not argue the Tightness or wrong-ness of that proposal on this Amendment, but that being the purpose of the Bill, it makes it vital that responsibility for effecting those reductions shall be place-able and shall be known. The Preamble of the Bill says that it is anticipated that there will be a saving of £5,500,000 from the operations of the committee. I do not think that those savings ought to be made, But if they are to be made, let the Minister make them herself and not shelter behind anybody else.
If we look at the proposed composition of the committee, which I cannot criticise at this stage, one finds that there will be three representatives of the Trades Union Congress, a corresponding number of representatives of employers' organisations, an alleged independent chairman, and a Treasury representative. My experience of independent chairmen is that they are never independent, and my experience of Treasury representatives is that their primary concern is to save the Exchequer. We are rapidly reaching a stage where a new technique of government is being perfected. That new technique takes the form of selecting two or three people of known views, then two or three people of known opposite views, then an independent chairman, invariably drawn from the employing class. Then you confirm the independent chairman by the appointment of a young and very able Treasury or departmental representative, who can be relied upon implicity, even if the chairman wants to stray, to keep his feet in the straight and narrow way. The truth of what I have just said has been evidenced in the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:
That does not arise on this Amendment.
I do not want to come into conflict with your Ruling and I immediately accept it. I want to make the point in a form which is in order. Past experience ought to show us that it is fatal for a party which represents working class interests to trust effective power to bodies which, by their very composition, are loaded against the interests of the working classes. An exceedingly strong case can be made for objecting to the appointment of this committee, and for pressing to delete the provision for its appointment from the Bill. There is nothing more contemptible in political life than what I would call duck-shoving. That is a preoletarian phrase for dodging an issue. [Interruption.] In Parliamentary language, statesmanship. The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Strachey) was right when he said that the very existence of the party on this side had been based upon its treatment of the unemployment problem and the cognate problem of maintenance during unemployment. Is there anything more contemptible, more dishonest than for a party to build up political strength on the basis of an assurance to democracy that it will handle a given problem along given lines, and then, immediately it assumes power, to throw overboard the whole of its philosophy in relation to that problem and to hand over the real administration to a committee of this kind? That is on a par with the series of shifts and evasions that have characterised the whole of this Administration, and for my part I shall do my best to stop it on this Bill.
We have to be very careful to ensure that this Clause, if it passes unamended, does not result in grave injustice. There are three sets of people concerned. First, there are the members of the committee, then the Minister and the House and, finally, the unemployed man and woman. What will the situation be if this committee is allowed to function? All that we shall know will be that certain orders will he brought to the House, after having been put into operation. We shall probably never know where the real responsibility for an order rests, if this committee system is allowed to work. Let us suppose a concrete case. Suppose the Minister comes forward with orders relating to the position of married women, and I ask whether it is her recommendation to the House or the recommendation of the Committee. She knows perfectly well that the whole Ministerial and Civil Service tradition would forbid her to reveal that there was any gulf between her own position and that of her advisers. It may be that the line recommended by the Minister differed from that recommended by the committee. The members of the committee, whose names will become very unpopular and very well known, will be charged in the public mind with responsibility for what the Minister does. Conversely, it may be that the Minister will be charged with responsibility for what the committee does. Finally, you get to the position of the unemployed man. If his contract is to be broken—do not make any mistake about it, this is a contract-breaking Bill from beginning to end. It may be argued that the State is in such a position that it cannot honour its contracts. I cannot now discuss the fact that it is breaking its contract, but if the contract with the unemployed man is to be broken, at least he is entitled to know on whose shoulders the responsibility for the breach directly rests.
If the Clause passes unamended, it will produce calamitous consequences for the unemployed in this Parliament and in the next. How is it that this Bill is being rushed through now, when we have no time to discuss the cotton industry and other great national issues?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:
Those matters are before the Committee. The hon. Member can deal with the substance of the Bill on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." The Amendment is a simple one, whether regulations should be issued on the Minister's own responsibility or after consultation with the committee it is proposed to set up.
What I have in mind is that two sets of circumstances may arise in the future in which this committee, if we allow it to be set up, will play a very important part. The first thing that I have in mind is what is going to happen to the rest of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance. There is a common impression on this side that all that is going to be put into operation of the recommendations of that Commission is what is contained in the Anomalies Bill. But there are Members on the Front Bench who will understand me if I go as far as to say that this is a first bite at the cherry. I do not think I shall be very far wrong in saying that later on there will be further legislation because the whole of the capitalistic logic which leads to this Bill, when carried to its right conclusion—
May I put this point because it is rather important? If this Bill passes unamended this committee will come into existence, and it will function, not only in regard to present legislation, but also in regard to future legislation on unemployment insurance.
That is precisely the point about which I am concerned.
May I respectfully put this point? We are creating here a piece of permanent machinery quite different from anything which now exists, for the purpose of dealing with unemployment insurance. If the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) were in order in envisaging the use that might be made of such a committee, after a change of Government is it not in order for me to discuss its possible effects in the lifetime of the present Government. I do not wish to wander too far of course.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:
The hon. Member is not entitled on an Amendment of this kind to range over controversial matters on which there are acute differences of opinion on both sides of the Committee. Otherwise the purpose of this Amendment would be obscured by the discussion of other matters more or less irrelevant.
I do not wish to obscure the point and I dismiss that aspect of my case with the short statement that I believe that in the present Parliament there will be further unemployment insurance legislation and, that in the event of the passage of such legislation, this Advisory Committee will act as a tremendous menace to working-class interests in this country. As to what will happen in the event of a change of Government, we know that the Conservative party never take unemployment insurance out of the arena of party politics. That happy and bright idea is left to us. There is no question which affects the relations between classes in this country which the Conservative party leave outside the range of party politics, and the idea that you can leave unemployment insurance outside the range of party politics is what the Prime Minister in his brighter and better days, would have described as "nursery polities." If, when Labour Governments are in power, we are to have advisory committees, loaded against the interests of the working classes then, in order to nullify that, we will have to have a Minister of Labour infinitely stronger, from the working-class point of view, than we have got. If we are to have such a committee as this with a Conservative Minister of Labour in office, then I say, bluntly and frankly, God help the unemployed in this country.
We are now getting to a stage in this country where a new technique of government is going to be worked out—the technique of advisory committees and the Royal Commissions. There is a case for that technique, but that case only exists so long as in the House of Commons there are no grave divisions on social theory and social principle. If the House of Commons were a Council of State, with Members on all sides working upon a common philosophy, then there would be a case for utilising the machinery of Royal Commissions and Select Committees and the kind of machinery envisaged in this Bill. But the poor deluded public imagine that there is a real fundamental clash of social theory and principle in the House of Commons. They believe that we on this side stand for one thing and hon. Members opposite stand for another. If that were true—and I doubt it with increasing emphasis every day—then clearly the kind of machinery proposed here would be absolutely inapplicable. Its whole purpose is to obscure the issues and not to clarify them, and to bring us to a stage where everything in the House of Commons is non-political and non-party except the jobs. I regard this Clause as dangerous. I regard the Bill as contemptible. And I hope that, if it must go through, at least we shall eliminate from it what I regard as an exceedingly vicious proposal, designed to facilitate the cutting down of unemployment benefit, and to save the capitalist Exchequer at the expense of the unemployed men and women.
A great deal of what has been said in this Debate—said quite sincerely I have no doubt—has been based upon a complete fallacy and upon a misunderstanding of the Clause. The Advisory Committee is not a shelter behind which the Minister can hide. It is being set up precisely for the purpose laid down in, the Bill, that is, for the purpose of consultation on very technical points of industrial practice and the industrial arrangements which may be affected if and when Parliament gives the power asked for in the Bill. The Minister remains responsible to the House of Commons for the regulations made by the Minister. The fact that the Minister consults with the Advisory Committee does not interfere with the right of individual Members to take all the steps which are now taken to raise matters on the Floor of the House of Commons, in connection with individual cases, where they feel that injustices have occurred.
There was one sentence spoken in this Debate with which I am most cordially in agreement—and it was perhaps the only sentence with which I am in agreement—and that was the opening remark of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that this is a very important matter. I regard this Advisory Committee as one of the most important matters in the Bill, because I believe that the proposal is another step in the evolutionary development that has been going on in connection with unemployment insurance during the whole of its history. We have had industrial bodies directly brought into contact in an advisory capacity, with various stages of the administration of unemployment insurance. We have had the stages of local employment committees, of assessors and courts of referees and of employers' and workers' representatives appearing before the umpire to put their points of view on different cases. What I am now asking is that we should bring them organically into contact with the administration in the earlier stage of consultation before these regulations are made and become operative.
Such a proposal does not take away from the Minister's responsibility to the House of Commons. It is not, I repeat, any attempt to hand over the administration to an outside body. It is not a question of abrogating in any way the right of the House of Commons to criticise a Minister and hold a Minister responsible. It will be, I hope, a helpful and useful development of what already takes place as regards consultation with the two great industrial bodies, directly affected by contributions to the Fund, in the matter of the administration of the fund. It is too late in the day to begin to talk about these great organisations as though they had no relation to insurance. They have been in the heart of the whole business from the very beginning. I can see nothing at all upon which to base the alarmist speeches that we have heard—speeches which I venture to assert are really gross misrepresentations of the position—against the proposed Advisory Committee.
On a point of Order. Is it in order or within the terms of Parliamentary decorum for the Minister to refer to speeches as grossly misrepresenting the truth? We have a vocabulary too.
May I ask are there two kinds of decorum in the House of Commons?
I quite understand that a Minister has to be a cockshy for any statements made in criticism of proposals of this kind. If any remarks made by me in reply appear to be at all severe I, of course, withdraw. But in considering many of the speeches and statements made, I must say that they have been utterly mistaken and entirely contrary to the facts. As I say, there is no question of handing over the real administration to the Advisory Committee but I claim for the Advisory Committee a very important place in the Bill. I place the greatest possible emphasis upon the importance of securing the assistance of this Advisory Committee in connection with the very difficult questions which arise in subsequent Clauses of the Bill, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
I wish, first, to reply to some of the remarks of the Minister and then to put forward certain general considerations which I regard as important. The Minister takes the view that the Advisory Committee is to be without any great or new powers, and is to fulfil little more than the functions of a consultative body on technique. If that is a complete analysis of the functions of the Committee then I put this point to the Minister. Under this Bill, a thousand technical details will have to be dealt with. In the case of the married women alone there may be married women in Lancashire, miners' wives who want to work, and women in London under entirely different conditions. There may be the biscuit makers to whom the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referred and a hundred other different types to be considered. An Advisory Committee of nine persons, however competent those persons may be in the representation of particular in- terests, is not a body from whom the Minister can get the best technical advice.
The hon. Member has obviously overlooked page 3, Clause 2, Sub-section (6).
No, I have not overlooked that, and it is because I have read it that I believe the functions of this Advisory Committee are much wider and bigger than the functions which she has suggested. It is true that this committee will have power to call evidence from a large number of persons, but if the function of the committee is only that of technical advice, there is no need for the committee, there is no reason why the Minister herself and her permanent officials should not go directly to the interests which are involved, there is no reason whatever why the right hon. Lady, when she is dealing with the question of married women, should not herself and, through officials directly responsible to her, in the ordinary course of her administration obtain the information and upon that information take the responsibility of issuing the necessary Regulations. If the committee is only a committee for technical consultation, there is no need for the committee, but in our view the functions of the committee are very much more than those of technical consultation.
I want to illustrate the point which I have made, because it may be even more powerful in the case of seasonal workers, intermittent workers, casual workers, and not only those three classes, but the very wide class of workers who come under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. Indeed, almost every type and class of worker who comes under the insurance scheme is involved in this Bill, and I suggest that a committee of nine may be the wisest representatives of the Trades Union Congress, or of the Employers' Federation, or of the Treasury, or of the Ministry of Labour that it is possible to find, with a remarkable chairman to act in an independent and impartial character, but there are no nine men and women in this country who are able to fulfil the function which the Minister has in mind if that function is merely to be one of technical consultation. A much more effective way would be for the right hon. Lady to have direct conferences, without anyone standing in between, with all these interests concerned, and upon that kind of detailed information to be able to deal with the issues involved.
That was the point of detail that I wanted to discuss, but I now want to discuss the very simple issue which is in this Amendment, and we need not go outside the Amendment, because I believe the issue of the Amendment itself is of fundamental importance to the government and the administration of this country. I believe that in passing a Bill which will set up this Advisory Committee we are making a development of Parliamentary machinery which will have a tremendous influence upon every administrative Department in the future and upon the proceedings of this House itself. The right hon. Lady, in introducing the Bill, spoke of it once as an experiment, then as a beginning, and again, in her conclusion, as a great experiment, and it is because this is an experiment, a beginning, a new departure, which may affect the whole governmental system of this country, that the Committee ought to pause before it rejects this Amendment.
I want to draw particular attention to the words used by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). As a new Member of this House during this Parliament, may I say that there are very few Members to whom I listen with greater appreciation than the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove, because I find that in his speeches he is not just scoring party points, he is not merely endeavouring to make capital for his party against another party, but there are ideas, there is a philosophy, there is a contribution, and he is seeking to get to fundamentals? That is the type of speech which this House of Commons wants from every side of the House. In his introductory speech, the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove used these words, and I believe that they illustrate the fundamental importance of the Amendment now before us. He said:
The Minister has used one or two words which are bound to evoke at any rate a sympathetic response from all sides of the House. She has spoken of this as an experiment and said that during this experimental period we must try the new method which she has submitted for the consideration of the House.
This is with reference to the Advisory Committee.
She is asking the House to take a decision of very great consequence. We are asked to set up what is neither more nor less than a D.O.R.A. Act for the whole scheme of unemployment insurance. We remember the wide change wrought in the social structure of this country by means of that small Bill which was passed in the early days of the War without any Debate; I believe there was only one question asked, as to whether it was retrospective or not. That Act transformed the whole structure of this country; and it is no exaggeration to say that the operation of the machinery which it is proposed to set up and the Orders which may be laid as a result of this Bill may very easily have a similar transforming effect upon the whole structure of unemployment insurance as we know it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1931; col. 2113, Vol. 254.]
I believe that those words are true, and I want to ask this Committee, before it makes that tremendous departure in administration and in Parliamentary control, to pause and consider very carefully what it is doing. If we debate this Amendment from that point of view, I admit at once that if the House is to do its work effectively whether in reference to unemployment or to the other great issues which arise before it, we must devolve from this particular Chamber a great deal of responsibility for the operation of our administration.
I want to point out one very great difference between the reasons which are often given for the need to establish advisory and other committees and the particular Advisory Committee which is to be set up under this Bill. In the case of the other advisory committees, they are committees which are going to carry out detailed administration regarding material things upon the principle of which this House has already decided, but that is not the case with the Advisory Committee proposed under this Bill. The powers in this Bill are so wide that it will be possible for the Advisory Committee which is established under it to change substantially the conditions of benefit of almost any unemployed person within the unemployment scheme.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:
That is a matter dealt with by the Bill itself. The appointment of an advisory committee is a separate issue.
I am only arguing that this advisory committee is to have tremendously wide powers, and I must leave the point at that, but because it will have these wide powers of dealing with matters of fundamental principle, this House ought not to remove the responsibility from its own shoulders and those of the Minister to the advisory committee. So far as those of us in this House who are Socialists are concerned, the right of an unemployed man to maintenance from the community is a fundamental right, not a right for which the responsibility should be shifted for decision to an advisory committee. It is a right wherein this House ought to be a determining factor. You might as well say that an advisory committee should declare whether particular classes of persons in the community should have the right to vote as to say that this advisory committee should have the power to issue reports to the Minister, upon which the Minister is going to act, as to whether an unemployed person should have the right to benefit.
It is because these grave issues are concerned in this matter that we hope that even now the Minister and the Government will pause before making a departure which may have the gravest effects upon the whole future of legislation, which will not merely affect the period of this Parliament and the unemployed while a Labour Government are in office, but must inevitably affect future Parliaments and the conditions of the unemployed under a Conservative Government. For these reasons, I hope the Government will reconsider the answer already given. If not, it will be necessary for us to press this point to the utmost limits in our power.
When I heard the Minister say that one of the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Camlaehie (Mr. Stephen) had raised, in which he said that this Amendment was of very great importance, was one with which she heartily agreed, it seems to me extraordinary that on an Amendment supported by a considerable number of Members in this House and declared by the Minister to be of the most important nature there should be such a remarkable degree of unanimity among those who desire to address the Committee as to the very dangerous nature of the lines which the Amendment is intended to delete. When we realise that the Minister of Labour says that this is a highly important Amendment and yet we have the most amazing spectacle of the ex-Minister of Labour, sitting opposite, exercising the most admirable self-restraint, but tendering no word of advice to the Committee on this issue, when we remember that there is hardly a Member of the Opposition party who is active in the Press or on the platform who has not denounced this Bill, and when we find that they have no advice to give us on this Amendment, we begin to realise the stage to which party politics have arrived in this country.
I am disappointed also that no Member of the smaller Opposition has got up to ease our doubts or calm our fears, and I congratulate the Minister on her twin team of dumb oxen who are prepared to sit patiently through the Debates in order that they may rally to her support in carrying out their policy in the Division Lobby. If I find among hon. Friends of mine a reluctance to justify what I fear some of them will be voting for in a short time, they will have plenty of opportunities when they next face their constituents to justify their action.
The Minister herself, having declared the Amendment to be so important, devoted a few minutes to throwing charges about gross misrepresentations at my hon. Friends who had spoken before her, but not a single moment to justifying the setting up of this advisory committee. This committee will cost the Insurance Fund a considerable amount of money. We have never heard how much, or whether the chairman and vice-chairman are to be fully remunerated. If we have, I have missed the statement. When the Unemployment Insurance Fund is in such a, bad way, it seems rather amazing that it should be proposed to spend money—which, I presume, will come out of Parliamentary funds, and which might otherwise have gone to relieve the unemployed—on an advisory committee the duties of which still remain embedded in a dark and mysterious shroud. I should like to hear from the late Minister of Labour why he never needed a special advisory committee to assist him in his task of administering the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I would not be in order if I quoted him in this Debate. I have here a copy of the OFFICIAL REPOET in which statements were made by hon. Friends of mine with regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tam-worth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) which, if he remembers them after this lapse of years, must make him feel impelled to plunge into this fray in order to rebut the serious charges that were made against him at that time.
I must plead guilty to having said some of the hard things about him, but he did, at any rate, come to the House to face the music himself. He did not ask for a committee of three trade unionists, and three employers to see that the trade unionists did not do any harm; and three people appointed by the Minister to advise him in the way he wanted to go so that he could come to the House and say that he had had most expert advice. He was courageous enough to come to the House and take the blame and face the abuse which many of my hon. Friends heaped on his head for the misdeeds which he so often and so unrepentently committed. We are on specially strong ground with this Amendment, because when the Bill was introduced there was an attempt on behalf of the Government and their supporters to take the attitude of those who would say, "Well, we do not want to be too hard on the unemployed; after all, we are very surprised at the report that a Tory commission which we appointed has made with regard to the unemployed"—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:
That must not be debated on this Amendment.
I am sorry if I strayed. I think that I can make this point without incurring your displeasure. If nothing can be found in any external document to justify this Bill, nothing can be found to justify the Advisory Committee. If the right hon. Lady knows of cases about which she will need technical advice which she is not able to secure without the expense, trouble and bother of this committee—if she can prove later in the Debate that that is the case, there is still no reason why an advisory committee is necessary or the best way of dealing with any anomalies which may later in the Debate be proved to exist, and which so far have not been proved to exist. I suggest that if we get support for this important Amendment from nowhere else, we ought to be able to look for support from the economists in the Committee. I cannot understand the Committee, when it is bemoaning—at least I hope it is—the necessity of making economies at the expense of the unemployed, being prepared to elect a committee with a blank cheque as to what it will cost the Government.
I hope that on this the first of many discussions that must take place on this important Bill, the Committee is not to be allowed to divide on what the Miniser has truly said is such an important Amendment without getting some guidance from those to whom the majority of the Members of the Committee look for guidance upon these matters. We ought to get more than a few words of rebuttal from the Minister. We ought to hear from her exactly what kind of work this Advisory Committee can do which is not already done to the ordinary process of consultation and conference which every previous Minister of Labour has had. It is extraordinary that Labour Ministers seem unable to govern to their own satisfaction until they get a committee of their political enemies to tell them what to do. The Minister should certainly tell us what peculiar kind of technical advice she wants of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth and the present Secretary of State for War were deprived during their tenure of office at the Ministry of Labour. The Secretary of State for War succeeded in administering without an Advisory Committee, and I hope that he will tell the Committee and his colleague the Minister of Labour how he managed to do his duties without a Tory committee to help him. If the right hon. Gentleman can make that statement, and if it can be supported as it must be by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, the Committee would be most gratified to hear the right hon. Lady say that she was prepared to shoulder her responsibilities, and that she did not need any special committee composed of her political opponents—or who used to be, at any rate—in order to advise her what to do with a large percentage of the unemployed.
If this Bill which contains features which many Members on this side seriously deplore, and which will formulate a new technique in government, must be carried, and if all those dangers of which many of its supporters are afraid have to be faced, do not let us have them faced with an Advisory Committee. Will that committee meet in public, and will its evidence be published? Will the poor, unfortunate people whose fate is to be decided by the committee have an opportunity of attending its sittings and having their representatives heard? Will the deliberations of the committee be printed and laid on the Table of the House? We do not know how much the committee will cost, or whether it will be a secret or a public committee. We do not even know, until we get to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, precisely what classes of unemployed will be consigned to it. For the Committee to appoint a Star Chamber with unspecified powers at an unspecified cost to deal with unspecified questions, with the leaders of the House in an ignominious silence, would be a travesty of the dignity of the Committee—[Laughter]. I was saying when that interruption occurred, that you are appointing a committee of which you do not know the personnel or the cost, and you are going to hand over to your political enemies the people who supported you at the last election and to whom you have made the most lavish promises.
The answer to some of the comments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham (Mr. Beckett) is to be found in the fact that the House by a large majority gave a Second Reading to this Measure. I would remind the hon. Member with regard to the point that he made as to what authority there was behind this proposal, that, at any rate, the responsible leaders of the trade unions have come to the conclusion that there is a grave abuse or anomaly—I prefer to call it abuse—which requires remedying. The question for the Committee is as to how best it can be remedied. The House and the country are determined that something should be done. What is the best way of dealing with it?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman on what authority he bases his statement that the Trades Union Congress agree about this? The evidence of the Trades Union Congress given before the Commission strenuously denied any of the anomalies which are now supposed to exist.
I base what I said on my own personal knowledge of trade union leaders who support action being taken to deal with these grave questions. I know them personally. They have sat with me on a committee spread over years, and I have some knowledge of what I am talking about. The question is, How are we to deal with this problem? I entirely agree that Parliament ought to watch very carefully the experiment which is being made, because without any doubt Parliament is delegating—and indeed in many respects derogating—its own authority to an outside committee. At the same time, is this House really capable of dealing with this matter? With the numbers and complexities of the classes of workers who must come within this investigation, it appals me when I think of a committee of this House endeavouring to deal with the problem in detail. Hon. Members opposite who are opposed to the principle of the Bill are quite justified in throwing every legitimate Parliamentary obstacle in the way of this investigation and against the passing of the Bill, but the remarks made the other day by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) evoke a very large response from me.
I ask again, How has this problem to be tackled? I would remind the Committee that the proposals have been made by the responsible Government, and not merely by the Minister of Labour. The proposal to set up a committee is the act of the Government as a whole. My only comment is that I am afraid the committee will act much too slowly. Members opposite who are opposed to the Bill will have much reason to congratulate themselves on the slow progress of the inquiry, and the long time before we have these Orders or Regulations laid upon the Table of the House. It is important to see that the right sort of people are appointed to this Advisory Committee. Who of us is there who is competent to inquire, in the meticulous way which is the only method by which a fair conclusion can be arrived at, into the cases of coal trimmers or of weekend assistants or of a whole range of employments? We must have people who know the subject they are investigating. With three members drawn from the greatest representative body of the workers, namely, the Trades Union Congress, and three members drawn from an employers' association, we shall have, so far, the right sort of people.
I have had some experience of committees and have worked with representatives both of employers and employed, and while they have due regard to the great interests which they are particularly engaged to represent, I never saw anything but a really earnest desire on their part to ensure a thoroughly impartial investigation. In so far as the House of Commons is going to make an experiment, it is making an experiment with the right kind of materials. Then there will be three other members selected by the Minister, and they will certainly have a considerable amount of expert knowledge of the problem with which they are dealing. For this experiment I cannot imagine a committee selected from better areas than those indicated.
But I come back to my point as to the experiment which Parliament is making. This evil with which we are dealing has grown to its present very large proportions very swiftly and within the last year or two. When the Conservatives were in office it had attained only comparatively small proportions. There has grown up very swiftly a regular system, which at any rate reflects great credit on the ingenuity of somebody. All the same, I hope the Bill will be limited as to time. As it is an experiment, let us limit the experiment. Although we shall not be able to cure it altogether let us hope that we shall to a very large extent Lave mitigated this evil at the end of a term of years. By that time the House will have seen how this kind of legislation works, and whether or not it seriously infringes the authority of Parliament. If it does infringe, then the experiment ought not to be repeated; but to the extent to which it has been a satisfactory experiment it will be a guide for other committees of this character. I say quite frankly that I dread this method of legislation—by committee, through the Minister, through regulations laid upon the Table, and only to be discussed after 11 o'clock at night, and then in the most cursory manner, and with the whole weight of the Government of the day quite naturally against the discussion. I understand your uneasiness, Mr. Dunnico, but I think this is relevant.
One of the uses of this Debate is that it will probably assist you, Mr. Dunnico, in the selection of Amendments later.
Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in anticipating discussion and trying to prevent other Members in the future from taking part in that discussion?
May I put two questions before we go to a Division? If the Minister could give us an answer to them it would clear up some misapprehensions. The point before us now is whether my right hon. Friend should have the services of this committee or not, and as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has just pointed out, that raises the whole question of the usefulness and propriety of this method of legislation. If an Amendment to be considered later is carried the committee will consist of 10 persons. We know that three of them will be appointed in consultation with the Trade Union Congress and three by the National Federation of Employers Organisations. Then one is to be appointed after consultation with the Treasury. I want to know whether it is intended to appoint a Treasury official. It is very important that we should know that. I presume it means that a permanent member of the Civil Service is to be appointed from the Treasury. Then there is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Miss Rathbone), and the hon. Lady who represents East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) suggesting that at least one woman member should be appointed.
I will not pursue that point, but that still leaves us with three other members to be appointed. What sort of person is to be appointed as chairman of the committee?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:
The whole question of the constitution of the committee can be discussed on Clause 2.
I do not want to contravene your Ruling, but we have to decide in a few minutes whether my right hon. Friend shall have the services of this committee at all, and I respectfully suggest that if we could have an answer on some of these points
One of the objections to the committee which has been expressed is that it will be, it is said, a Tory committee, and another objection has been that only three members will represent the Trade Union Congress, although the majority of the people concerned are members of trade unions. I do not want to pursue this matter, but if within the rules of order my right hon. Friend could give us some reassurance on these points I think it would help, and I ask for this information with a genuine desire to clear up certain misapprehensions that undoubtedly exist.
Division No. 402.] | AYES. | [6.15 p.m. |
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Chater, Daniel | Gray, Milner |
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Clarke, J. S. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) |
Addison, Rt Hon. Dr. Christopher | Cluse, W. S. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Groves, Thomas E. |
Alpass, J. H. | Cocks, Frederick Seymour. | Grundy, Thomas W. |
Ammon, Charles George | Compton, Joseph | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
Angell, Sir Norman | Cripps, Sir Stafford | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
Arnott, John | Daggar, George | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) |
Aske, Sir Robert | Dalton, Hugh | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) |
Attlee, Clement Richard | Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) |
Ayles, Walter | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) |
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston) | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Harris, Percy A. |
Barnes, Alfred John | Dukes, C. | Haycock, A. W. |
Barr, James | Duncan, Charles | Hayes, John Henry |
Batey, Joseph | Ede, James Chuter | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) |
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Edmunds, J. E. | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) |
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) |
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
Benson, G. | Egan, W. H. | Herriotts, J. |
Birkett, W. Norman | England, Colonel A. | Hirst, G. H (York W. R. Wentworth) |
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
Bowen, J. W. | Foot, Isaac | Hoffman, P. C. |
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Freeman, Peter | Hollins, A. |
Bromfield, William | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) |
Bromley, J. | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) | Isaacs, George |
Brooke, W. | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
Brothers, M. | Gibbins, Joseph | Jones, Llewellyn-, F. |
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Gill, T. H. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) |
Burgess, F. G. | Gillett, George M. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Glassey, A. E. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) |
Cameron, A. G. | Gossling, A. G. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
Cape, Thomas | Gould, F. | Kelly, W. T. |
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M | Muggeridge, H. T. | Smith, Ben (Bermondasy, Rotherhithe) |
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Murnin, Hugh | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
Lang, Gordon | Naylor, T. E. | Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley) |
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
Law, Albert (Bolton) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
Law, A. (Rossendale) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
Lawrence, Susan | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
Lawson, John James | Palin, John Henry | Sorensen, R. |
Lawther, w. (Barnard Castle) | Palmer, E. T. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
Leach, W. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Strauss, G. R. |
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Perry, S. F. | Sullivan, J. |
Lees, J. | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Sutton, J. E. |
Leonard, W. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
Lloyd, C. Ellis | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
Logan, David Gilbert | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
Longbottom, A. W. | Pole, Major D. G. | Thurtle, Ernest |
Longden, F. | Potts, John S. | Tillett, Ben |
Lunn, William | Price, M. P. | Tinker, John Joseph |
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Quibell, D. J. K. | Tools, Joseph |
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Tout, W. J. |
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Raynes, W. R. | Townend, A. E. |
McElwee, A. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Vaughan, David |
McEntee, V. L. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Viant, S. P. |
McKinlay, A. | Ritson, J. | Walker, J. |
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Romeril, H. G. | Watkins, F. C. |
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
MacNeill-Weir, L. | Rowson, Guy | Wellock, Wilfred |
Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
Manning, E. L. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
Mansfield, W. | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) | West, F. R. |
March, S. | Sanders, W. S. | Westwood, Joseph |
Marcus, M. | Sawyer, G. F. | White, H. G. |
Markham, S. F. | Scott, James | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
Marshall, Fred | Scurr, John | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
Mathers, George | Sexton, Sir James | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
Matters, L. W. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
Millar, J. D. | Sherwood, G. H. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
Mills, J. E. | Shield, George William | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
Milner, Major J. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
Montague, Frederick | Shillaker, J. F. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Shinwell, E. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Simmons, C. J. | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter Withington) | |
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
Mort, D. L | Sinkinson, George | Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton. |
Muff, G. | Sitch, Charles H. | |
NOES. | ||
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Kirkwood, D. | Wise, E. F. |
Brockway, A. Fenner | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | |
Brown, w. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. | Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley. |
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Stephen, Campbell |
Division No. 403.] | AYES. | [6.24 p.m. |
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Birkett, W. Norman | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. |
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Cocks, Frederick Seymour |
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Bowen, J. W. | Compton, Joseph |
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Cowan, D. M. |
Alpass, J. H. | Bromfield, William | Cripps, Sir Stafford |
Ammon, Charles George | Bromley, J. | Daggar, George |
Angell, Sir Norman | Brooke, W. | Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) |
Arnott, John | Brothers, M. | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) |
Attlee, Clement Richard | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Denman, Hon. R. D. |
Ayles, Walter | Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Dukes, C. |
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Burgess, F. G. | Duncan, Charles |
Barnes, Alfred John | Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Ede, James Chuter |
Barr, James | Cameron, A. G. | Edmunds, J. E. |
Batey, Joseph | Cape, Thomas | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) |
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) |
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Chater, Daniel | Egan, W. H. |
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Clarke, J. S. | England, Colonel A. |
Benson, G. | Cluse, W. S. | Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead) |
Foot, Isaac | Longbottom, A. W. | Sawyer, G. F. |
Freeman, Peter | Lunn, William | Scott, James |
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Scurr, John |
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Sexton, Sir James |
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
Gibbins, Joseph | McElwee, A. | Sherwood, G. H. |
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | McEntee, V. L. | Shield, George William |
Gill, T. H. | McKinlay, A. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
Gillett, George M. | Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Shillaker, J. F. |
Glassey, A. E | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Shinwell, E. |
Gossling, A. G. | Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
Gould, F. | Manning, E. L. | Simmons, C. J. |
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Mansfield, w. | Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) |
Gray, Milner | March, S. | Sinkinson, George |
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Marcus, M. | Sitch, Charles H. |
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Markham, S. F. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
Grovel, Thomas E. | Marley, J. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
Grundy, Thomas W. | Marshall, Fred | Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley) |
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Mathers, George | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
Hail, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Matters, L. W. | Smith, Tom (Pontetract) |
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Mills, J. E. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Milner, Major J. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Montague, Frederick | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Sorensen, R. |
Harris, Percy A. | Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Stamford, Thomas W. |
Haycock, A. W. | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Strauss, G. R. |
Hayes, John Henry | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S-) | Sullivan, J. |
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Sutton, J. E. |
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Mort, D. L. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Muff, G. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Muggeridge, H. T. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
Herriotts, J. | Murnin, Hugh | Thurtle, Ernest |
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworlh) | Naylor, T. E. | Tillett, Ben |
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Tinker, John Joseph |
Hoffman, P. C. | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N) | Toole, Joseph |
Hollins, A. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Tout, W. J. |
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Townend, A. E. |
Isaacs, George | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Vaughan, David |
John, William (Rhondda, West) | Palin, John Henry | Viant, S. P. |
Jones, Llewellyn-, F. | Palmer, E. T. | Walker, J. |
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Watkins, F. C. |
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Perry, S. F. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline). |
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Wellock, Wilfred |
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
Kedward, R. M. (Kent. Ashford) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | West, F. R. |
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Pole, Major D. G. | Westwood, Joseph |
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Potts, John S. | White, H. G. |
Lang, Gordon | Price, M. P. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Quibell, D. J. K. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
Law, Albert (Bolton) | Raynes, W. R. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
Law, A. (Rossendale) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-spring) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
Lawrence, Susan | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
Lawson, John James | Ritson, J. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Romeril, H. G. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
Leach, W. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Rowson, Guy | Wood, Major McKenzie (Benff) |
Lees, J. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | |
Leonard, W. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
Lloyd, C. Ellis | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) | Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton. |
Logan, David Gilbert | Sanders, W. S. | |
NOES. | ||
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell |
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Kirkwood, D. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
Brockway, A. Fenner | Longden, F. | Wise, E. F. |
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | |
Cove, William G. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. | Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley. |
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:
The next Amendment that I select is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise)—In page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "regulations," and to insert instead thereof the word "orders."
What about the Amendment standing in my name and those of two colleagues of mine—In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words "as soon as may be," and to insert instead thereof the words "three years"?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:
The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the Chair has power to select. I have not selected the Amendment to which he refers.
I do not know whether, in your consideration—
I would like to submit that, in my experience in the House, the Chair has always been willing to listen to Members submitting reasons why an Amendment should be taken as a substantial Amendment.
On that point of Order—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:
There is really no point of Order at all. If the Chair announces that it has not selected an Amendment, no point of Order can arise on its decision. That is quite definite. If the hon. Member's point of Order is to question my selection, no point of Order can be raised.
I am not questioning your right to make a selection. The point of Order that I am submitting is this: When you have intimated that you are calling another Amendment, is a Member not in order in rising and submitting to you reasons why an Amendment that has been put down should be selected?
I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "regulations," and to insert instead thereof the word "orders."
This is one of a number of similar Amendments, appearing all through the Bill, to delete references to the regulations, for the purpose of submitting, for this Bill, an alternative procedure, which is set out in a later Amendment also standing in my name and those of my colleagues who are associated with me in this Amendment—in page 3, line 5, at the end, to add the words:
(6) Any order made by the Minister under this Section shall be laid forthwith before each House of Parliament, and shall be of no effect until a resolution approving it has been passed by each House.
The procedure laid down in the Bill as it stands, for bringing into effect the very big changes in legislation foreshadowed in the Bill, is that such changes shall be effected by regulations made under Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. Those regulations require what is often known as the negative procedure in respect of Orders made by departments, that is to say, they come into force as soon as they are made, but, as soon as may be after they are made, they have to be laid before each House of Parliament and to remain for 20 days on the Table of the House, becoming fully effective unless during those 20 days an Address has been agreed to in either House praying that the regulations may be annulled. That means that, unless it is possible one night at the conclusion of the ordinary business—because the Standing Orders closing business down at 11 or 11.30 do not apply to such Motions—to secure a quorum of the House and move an Address to the King to annul the regulations, the regulations are operative; and one knows that, in 99 per cent. of such cases, it is neither possible to find a convenient time for moving such an Address nor to keep a House to carry it through, unless, of course, the Government accord proper time earlier in the day for its discussion.
If, therefore, the Bill goes through as it stands, without some modification on the lines that' I have suggested, the moment the Bill is passed, early in August, the Minister may, having got the Advisory Committee together, make regulations depriving a large number of insured persons of benefit, and those regulations would come into effect at once, and would operate with the full force of law, without any power of challenging them until after the House has reassembled in the Autumn; and then it would only be possible to annul them, and not to modify them, by the very cumbrous, obsolete, and antiquated procedure of an Address to the Crown, moved, if at all, somewhere in the middle of the night.
I am sure that that is not a procedure which commends itself to the House. It may be, and no doubt is, reasonable for the purposes for which it was devised in the Unemployment Insurance Act—purposes of ordinary, simple, administrative routine, dealing, for example,
with the method under which the insurance offices issue stamps and cards, the procedure by which they return contributions collected in error, the detailed procedure of courts of referees, and matters of that ordinary administrative kind which raise no point of important principle, and on which, quite rightly, the Departments have, after proper inquiry and examination into all the details, to formulate their own regulations. But the purposes with which this Bill proposes to deal are quite otherwise. It is a Bill to provide procedure for the amendment, in vital and essential parts, of existing Acts of Parliament. We are not dealing here with small points of administrative detail, but with legislation. This Advisory Committee, plus the Minister, have full powers of legislation. As the Bill says, they can
impose such additional conditions and terms with respect to the receipt of benefit and such restrictions on the amount and period of benefit, and make such modifications in the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts relating to the determination of claims for benefit, as may appear necessary.
The whole case which the Minister has put before us is that these are very difficult points, not of administration, but of legislative detail, which it is not easy or convenient to discuss in the House. This is an entirely different type of problem, an entirely different set of circumstances, from that with which the regulations under the original Acts were framed to deal, or which were normally dealt with by procedure similar to that set out in this Bill. The House has always, in matters of this importance, jealously guarded its powers, and this point is no new one in this Parliament, for in three or four Bills already the procedure proposed by the Government in this Bill has been submitted to Committees, either on the Floor of the House or upstairs, and has been rejected by those Committees, generally without a Division, and with the full approval of the Minister in charge of the Bill, and procedure on the lines of that which I am proposing has been incorporated in the Bill.
That happened, for example, in the case of the Consumers' Council Bill. Under the original draft of that Bill which was laid before this Session of Parliament, an Order by the Board of Trade that the council might investigate—not to mention taking action—claims or cases in which profiteering was alleged, could be laid on the Table and would have gone through under the negative procedure set out in this Bill. The Committee, without, as far as I remember, a Division, decided that in a matter of that sort, which is of infinitely less importance than the matters dealt with in this Bill, it was necessary that the Order should not become law unless there was a definite Resolution of the House making it law. Again, in the case of the Agricultural Marketing Bill which is now before Parliament, the original draft suggested the procedure which is now suggested by the Government for this Bill, but in the Committee, without any opposition from the Minister, the procedure was changed to that which we now propose in this series of Amendments. In the Coal Mines Bill of last year, orders enabling central schemes to be made were found necessary and the same situation occurred. The Government originally proposed to let such schemes come into operation without a vote of the House but, in deference to pressure, persuasion and argument in Committee, they changed it to the procedure now contemplated. In regard to orders under the Road Traffic Act, the Government took the course proposed by our Amendment. I hope, on a matter of such vital importance as this affecting, as it does, the interests of tens of thousands of insured persons, the Government will give the House an opportunity of saying whether it approves or disapproves the proposals that have been fashioned by the Advisory Committee and by the Minister.
I am aware that the procedure in the House in regard to these Departmental orders is very unsatisfactory in either case, but the main criticism directed against the procedure of the House in dealing with Departmental matters of that sort is that the House exercises not too much but too little control over the Departments. I do not agree with a great many of the things that the Lord Chief Justice said in his book dealing with the growing powers of the Departments. I think you have to give a good deal of discretion to the Departments on points of administrative detail. At the same time, you have to provide a proper procedure by which the House, if it pleases, quite properly, in full Session, not at two or three o'clock in the morning, with a large portion of its membership too worn out to give proper attention to the matters that may come before it, should have an opportunity of criticising, and of accepting or rejecting, the administrative legislation which the Department may put forward. That point is at present before a Committee of the House and a Departmental Committee outside. Both of them, as far as I know, have been more concerned to give the House proper control over the Departments than to let that control slip out of their fingers. To go backwards now in a matter of this importance would seem to be a very reactionary and unfortunate step.
There is no point of principle involved. I cannot conceive that the matter has ever been before the Cabinet or that any Cabinet time has been devoted to it. Speaking with some little knowledge of the habits of Ministers in dealing with complicated Acts of Parliament, and of other very important matters which would have to be brought before the Minister, I rather doubt whether even the Minister has given very much attention to the matter. It is plain, from what has happened in other Bills which have been laid before Parliament, that the Government draftsmen have got into the way of slipping in a Clause which takes the real power of revising this Departmental legislation away from the House. One knows quite well how it happens. Permanent officials who are asked by the draftsmen how they should put it, whether negatively or positively, naturally say, "We do not want to be held up by the possibility of Parliamentary discussion. Put it in such a way that we can slip it through the House with the least interference as quickly as possible." I expect that is the reason why it appears in this form in the Bill.
If there was any case—and I am sure there was—for changing the form of this reference to Parliament in the Agricultural Marketing Bill, the Consumer's Council Bill and the Coal Mines Bill, all of them of the last year or two, there is an infinitely stronger case for dealing with a matter of this sort, affecting directly and personally the interests of a very large number of poor and com- Paratively poor people, who may be very apprehensive as to the effects of the Bill or alarmed as to what may happen to benefits to which they think, rightly or wrongly, that they are entitled, and who look to the House to give proper care and attention to any proposals that may come before it for amending the Bill. If they realise that the control of this House can only be exercised, if at all, in the middle of the night in a negative way, if you can find time even then to move an Address to the Crown, they would be even more apprehensive than they are. This Amendment raises no point of primary Government policy. It raises no question as to whether the general structure of the Bill is right or wrong. I hope very much that the right hon. Lady will accord to representations made from her own side of the Committee the same sympathetic consideration as has been accorded on most other Bills which have been brought before this Parliament to representations made by other parties.
The Amendment raises two rather different considerations. One is the question of its application to the declared objects of the Bill and the other, the point which has perhaps stressed rather more strongly, of the procedure in the House generally in a matter of this kind. In regard to the application of this method of dealing with the objects of the Bill, the hon. Member and I will probably take very different views. We take the opinion that the Government are not doing their duty courageously, thoroughly or properly. We consider that the thing should have been dealt with in a totally different way.
You never gave any indication of that in the Lobby.
Sometimes one feels that a Bill that is imperfect may be better than nothing. That may be one way of looking at it. Those words were merely given as a reason for my saying, as I was about to do, that I do not propose to waste the time of the Committee by any discussion of the application of the Amendment to the object of the Bill, but rather to say a word or two from the point of procedure. I do not think, in all the many examples of delegated legislation which have taken place since the War, there has been a more flagrant ex- ample of delegation of power to alter Acts of Parliament which, if they are to be altered at all, should be altered by Parliament. In these circumstances, entirely apart from any question of the merits or demerits of the Amendment with regard to the objects of the Bill, this is a case where the Committee ought to support the Amendment in order to draw attention to the very unsatisfactory condition of our procedure in regard to delegated legislation and to the very extreme nature of those proposals, which I do not consider is justified in the least by the circumstances in which the Bill is brought forward. I support the Amendment strongly from the point of view of the interests of the procedure of the House and of the retaining by this House of its control over executive Ministers and Departments.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene to explain the issue that is involved in the Amendment. I should like to assure the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) that this matter of the difference between order and regulation has been considered most carefully from every angle, and I want to put before the Committee the reasons why we have definitely come down on the side of regulations, and why we feel that the position would be far too complicated to be of very much value in dealing with the situation if we (had to proceed by way of the process of order as described by the hon. Gentleman opposite. We have to remember that the very purpose of the Bill, which is an experimental thing, is to see whether there is by this method a possibility of securing elasticity, the possibility of appropriate action either to make or amend a regulation. If we find, for example, that in the drafting of a regulation dealing, let us say, with the position of certain categories of married women, words that we thought were water-tight were capable of two interpretations by a court of referees, we should want to reconsider that quickly without having to wait until we could lay the matter before Parliament. Anyone who knows anything about administration in regard to health or unemployment insurance knows what a tremendous output of regulations has to be made on all sorts of small points. In the 1925 Act the word "order" was used. An order is in the same position as a regulation, in that it becomes operative as soon as it is made and, if the House deals with it, it cannot deal with it retrospectively, but deals with it as it is at the moment when it is being considered.
7.0 p.m.
The other point is that we are exploring, quite admittedly, almost unknown territory. We have to select certain categories of persons. I said on the Second Beading that, in my opinion, it would be a very small number within this circumscribed area which would really be personally affected by any of these regulations, but it does mean that there is to be this exploring of these areas where up to now we have not had any machinery by which we could make a differentiation of the nature suggested in the subsequent Sub-sections in Clause 2. Therefore, the greatest administrative objection to accepting the Amendment is that it would cause such delay as to defeat the very object of the Bill itself. That, of course, is a matter which is within the power of the House to decide, but if they want me to work the Bill, I think they will require to give me the elasticity which is obtained by regulation and which could not possibly be obtained under the method of the Order which has to be laid before both Houses. There is another point, which I might call the constitutional point, in connection with a positive Resolution having to be laid before both Houses. Personally, I have the strongest objection to requiring a positive Resolution from the other House on a matter of this kind which might involve a question of finance. I think that is a fundamental objection.
With regard to the illustrations that we are given about the categories of Orders where concessions have been made in connection with other Departments, I have said enough to show that, in my opinion, these regulations will be of a different kind to those referred to in connection with those other Bills. I think that there is a very real misapprehension on this matter. I quite understand it, because it is almost impossible to enable people who are not really familiar with the details of this very complicated business of unemployment insurance to realise the ramifications of the administrative machine, but I want to make it perfectly clear that these regulations which are to be made will not say that persons within a class will not be entitled to benefit. That is not the intention of the Bill itself. The intention is that the effect of the regulations will be that the persons within the several classes which have to be decided will still be entitled to benefit if they satisfy certain additional conditions. The whole point of making the regulations is to lay down what other additional conditions are required in these various categories. It is from that point of view, and with a desire for elasticity and from the point of view that it is an experiment, and that you cannot really conduct it with any chance of success on the principle of proceeding by positive order, and because the Bill itself will very definitely restrict the area in which the regulations may be made, that I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, and to allow me to proceed by regulation.
I am very much disappointed at the attitude which the Minister has taken up. This Bill gives, in effect, the power to make laws by Regulation. In effect, the Regulations to be made are to create an arbitrary change in the position of scores of thousands of the unemployed. The Bill gives to the House only an exceedingly clumsy method of intervention which we all thoroughly understand, which we all know is general in effect, and which can only be made effective when there is a very big general opposition to a thing which is thoroughly understood. The "after Eleven o'clock" business is no good unless there is already a firm opinion that is going to assert itself. It is now proposed to introduce Regulations which, as has been repeatedly Said, in matters of detail are going to alter the position of unemployment insurance. There are matters where very likely these Regulations may have something to be said for them, but where after discussion it may very easily come to the mind of the House that the Regulations, as a whole, are bad. We want to have an opportunity to decide upon them. I am very much disappointed at the speech of the right hon. Lady. All that she really told us was that what was wanted was prompt action, and no delay. It is a very odd thing that these anomalies have only just been discovered, and that the prompt action was not asked for by the late Government or by the present Government until to-day. Why is prompt action and no delay so very much wanted?
The right hon. Gentleman, I think, has misunderstood what I said. I said the principles of the Regulations governing the whole of the work of insurance had been on the basis that the action taken by Regulations was required promptly. I was not referring to what is going to happen in future, but to what has been the practice in connection with Regulations.
I have pointed out that these are Regulations which may affect the whole status of unemployed people. There may be many meticulous administrative details where prompt action may be desirable, but the question is what is going to be the main position of the unemployed people, and not what is going to be the particular Regulation that is going to affect them. I think that the House of Commons ought to have an opportunity of dealing in the open with a question of this kind, and I do say that to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench who, of course, have very big majorities, while, of course, minorities on any question in this Parliament are liable to look very small. But that does not in the least remove the amount of uneasiness which is in the minds of their own party. The uneasiness in the minds of their followers consists largely in this. I speak in rather a different way, perhaps, on this Amendment from some of my hon. Friends here. They have been saying that this Bill is going to be at once used in a disastrous way to the unemployed. Perhaps it may be, but what I am quite certain exists in the minds of numbers of those who are voting for the Bill is uneasiness as to what will happen if this Government ceases to be in office, and another Government comes in. It is not the short run but the long run that is affecting my mind more than anything else.
For this reason, I ask myself what the control of this House is? I say that whether this Government or any future Government is in office, if these regulations are brought in to control the opportunities of scores of thousands of unem- ployed people, the House of Commons ought openly and consciously to make up its own mind by definite resolutions as to whether it wants it or not. It does not matter what the other House does, because we all know perfectly well that if these regulations are going to have any effect, they are for the purpose of economy, and you may be perfectly certain the House of Lords is going to do what you want. That does not matter. What does matter is that this House should give its decision openly. I am thinking of the time when right hon. Gentlemen opposite may possibly be—I hope not—on the benches here. If they are, they will use this Bill as it stands to do comparatively secretly what they want. Then let this House try after 11 o'clock to stop them. It is not a very easy thing to get at the unemployed in these days, and even if a Conservative Government, which wanted to cut down a large number of unemployment benefits, were to bring forward a proposal, they might find it very difficult, if there were a public debate in this House where they had to get a Resolution passed, to get that Resolution through, even if they had a majority. That is what I am looking forward to, and that is why I ask hon. Friends of mine on this side of the Committee, who may feel that they must generally support the Bill, to try to put pressure on the Government to keep the real power of this House to control the operations of this Bill.
I should have thought, after the experience some of us have had in the House in the last few months, that an Amendment of this kind would at least be receiving support from the benches immediately opposite. If my analysis is correct, I should have thought that on this occasion the Liberal party would show themselves the defenders of the real democracy. The reason why the procedure followed on this Bill has been adopted by the Government is because of their experience on the last occasion when they had an Unemployment Insurance Bill before the House, when Members were able to show with exactitude what the consequences of a certain thing would be and they deleted this proposal by the Government. Now, of course, every effort is being made to short-circuit the House of Commons in order that the Government may be able to do something that they could not obtain the consent of the House to do if a Bill were brought in.
The procedure which is followed in this Bill is of a most dangerous kind. I should have thought that all my hon. Friends on this side would have been particularly anxious to have retained as much control as possible over the character of unemployment insurance legislation. Whatever view may be taken of anomalies, many of my hon. Friends here, like the Secretary of State for War, believed that there are certain anomalies in the administration of unemployment insurance benefit which could be abolished. There appears to be general agreement in all parts of the Committee that there are certain abuses that ought to be remedied. I do not subscribe to that point of view, but I admit that there is a very general feeling of that kind. If there are these anomalies and these abuses, then there is such a case for their abolition, that a Bill could be passed through the House of Commons by a considerable majority. The Minister of Labour ought not to have any dubiety about what reception a Bill or Order would have if it is to deal with manifest abuses. If the case is so overwhelming, why is it you cannot have this Amendment accepted in order that we may be given, what we have not heard up to now from any source, namely, a fair description of the sort of anomaly and abuse that this Bill is intended to deal with?
When I saw this Bill, in the first place, being a very young and innocent Parliamentarian, I thought it was a very clever device to postpone a very difficult question. I took the view which I believe is still held by many Members on this side, that the Government did not seriously intend to use these powers at all. One hon. Member said, "Do not give the game away." It has already been given away by the Minister of Labour and by the militant speech which the Secretary of State for War made on the Second Reading. I understood that at first this was simply an ingenious bit of shifting of the burden of responsibility.
The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young):
The hon. Member must keep to the difference between "Regulations" and "Orders" as covered by the Amendment.
I understand that the difference between an order and a regulation is that an order would have to have the positive approval of the House, whereas the regulation need only have disapproval. I am attempting to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that an order will have to be adopted by the House before it can become law, and to the consequences involved through allowing this action to be taken by regulation. What the Committee has to remember is that although on this side there are many hon. Members who are supporting the Bill because they think that its provisions will never be carried out, there are hon. Members on the main Opposition Benches who are supporting the Bill because it is precisely what they want and have been hoping for for years.
The only alteration I need have made to keep strictly in order was to have used the word "Order" in place of the word "Bill." Then my words would have been perfectly relevant. Members of the Opposition are supporting the procedure by regulation because it contains for them the very principle for which they have been fighting for years, and that they may be able to reduce the standards of the employed in this country without paying the full democratic price for doing so. That is the whole basis of it. I should have thought that the one thing that a Labour party which had come into office and had attained whatever power it enjoys at the present time because of the poverty of unemployment, would have kept its hand upon, and kept upon the Floor of the House of Commons as much as possible, is the question of unemployment. No attempt ought to be made by a party depending upon the working-class vote to shift responsibility in respect of unemployment and surround it by red tape and make the position as difficult as possible. I should have thought they would want to keep it as much as possible on the Floor of the House and so be able to expose the party opposite to the consequences of their attitude towards the unemployed. This procedure will have the effect of shifting unemployment insurance benefit from the centre of the political stage.
I have had experience of unemployment which has made me very bitter. I was unemployed for nearly three years, and I remember that in 1923 this House carried an Unemployment Insurance Act which was intended to fix an income limit for the receipt of unemployment insurance transitional benefit. A regulation was issued in pursuance of that Act which laid down certain income limits. At that time I was supporting a widowed mother. As a consequence of that regulation—and I shall never forget it; it was a matter over which Parliament itself had no control, and it-was a misinterpretation of the intention of Parliament—and because the earnings of my sister, who was 19 years of age, divided by three came to more than 11s. a week my unemployment insurance benefit and the benefit in respect of my mother were stopped and I had to live upon the earnings of my sister. If you attempt to make the grievances of the unemployed inarticulate by preventing their representatives from having an opportunity of giving expression to their grievances on the Floor of this House you will bring greater discredit upon Parliament and Parliamentary institutions than by anything else you can do. We are not merely dealing with the question of insurance but with a vital human tragedy. The only way in which that tragedy, which is being experienced by 2,500,000 of our fellow citizens, may become a political drama of equal status is by keeping everything which deals with unemployment insurance in the centre of Parliamentary politics so that the unemployed may feel that they will always have a voice at Westminster.
This is a niggardly, mean spirited attempt to vary the contractual relationships between the State and the citizen by means of regulations over which the citizen has no control. It is an attempt to make the administration of unemployment insurance benefit at the mercy of the fiat of the Minister of Labour over which Parliament will have no control whatever. It will bring Parliamentary institutions into discredit. I wish to appeal to Members of this Committee who have a regard for Parliamentary institutions which young Members like myself have not yet acquired, and which our experiences of the last two years make it increasingly difficult to acquire, to try and keep this matter on the Floor of the House of Commons in order that it may be given proper ventilation whenever the opportunity occurs.
The claim of the Minister of Labour for procedure by regulation is that it will enable her to be elastic and to change the regulations day by day. The same argument could be used with respect to every class of legislation passed by this House. I understand that the constitutional position is that this House passes legislation and that the courts of law interpret that legislation. It has become an intrinsic part of our constitution that the judiciary shall be entrusted by the Constitution with the task of interpreting the mind of Parliament. From time to time it has become necessary in the lifetime of a Parliament to revise Acts of Parliament which have miscarried because the courts have given an interpretation to an enactment which Parliament never intended should be so interpreted. That is a common experience. The courts of referees have exactly the same relationship in regard to unemployment insurance legislation as the courts of law have to the Statutes generally, and it is perfectly true—no one denies it—that from time to time the umpires and the courts of referees give interpretations of insurance legislation which the House of Commons never intended. But is that any reason for the House of Commons to give up its legislative power? The same sort of thing might be done with every piece of legislation which goes through this House.
Members on this side of the Committee have been complaining for years that many Acts of Parliament intended to give benefits to the working-classes have been misinterpreted by the courts, and we have pleaded from time to time that amending legislation should be passed so that the intention of Parliament might be implemented in administration. I have the question of workmen's compensation in mind. Does the Minister of Labour suggest that in future, because of the unnecessary rigidity and the lack of elasticity in the interpretation of workmen's compensation, this House should surrender its powers to deal with workmen's compensation entirely and that we should legislate by regulation? I had the honour to be associated with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) in the preparation of certain proposals. We suggested that the House of Commons should be brought up-to-date.
I am afraid that the suggestion made in connection with the hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) does not arise here. The question again is the difference between "Orders" and "Regulations."
If the Chairman will permit me, I intended immediately to come back and point out that the suggestion of the hon. Member was that we should legislate by regulation. It was received with derision and indignation, and hon. Members on this side of the Committee said that we were vandals.
I think my hon. Friend does the hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) rather an injustice. What he asked to be done was by order.
The hon. Member for Smethwick wanted to legislate by decree, and Parliament would have had to express its approval or disapproval before such a decree could have been promulgated. I was about to point out before the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) interrupted me that, adventurous though we were in our proposals, the Front Bench now go far beyond us. They do not want to wait for the consent of the House of Commons before their decrees are promulgated. As a matter of fact, it has been whispered to me that they want to promulgate their decrees while the House is in Recess, so that there shall be no opportunity to enable hon. Members to express their views upon the intended regulations. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee, as I have said, were very indignant and said that we were laying hands on the holy of holies and attempting to take away from this House the power which had been built up during a hundred years of democratic struggle. We wanted to do that in order that something might be done to make this kind of panic legislation unnecessary. We wanted an efficient machine to be produced in this House, so that it might be possible for us to rescue Parliament from a dilemma, to escape which it is now resorting to this cowardly device. We wanted to do that, but no one ever suggested, and no one connected with the working-class movement of this country could suggest, that the problem of poverty could be shifted out of politics and made the subject of legislation by regulation.
As far as I am able to understand philosophy, I believe that when you have power, it is then that you want to escape democratic pressure. It is when you have got power by exploiting the poverty which exists, as the Labour party have exploited it for the last 50 years, and as a consequence of exploiting it have achieved power in the House of Commons, that perhaps it will be justifiable for a Government taking a revolutionary outlook to get rid of stupid persons who sit on the Front Opposition Bench, and short circuit the House of Commons by legislating by decree or regulation. I would subscribe to that if I thought there was a revolutionary outlook on the Front Government Bench. That is not their intention. We have not yet accomplished power, and not having accomplished it, and until we have accomplished it, the problem of poverty should be kept in the centre of the political stage. I can understand hon. and right hon. Members opposite desiring to obfuscate political issues, if I may use an awkward word, and to make the outline between the parties more difficult to discern. They want to make it appear that the sufferings of the unemployed are due to the action of omniscient gods over which Parliament has no contral. That is their desire, and their intention, and for a party which is defending power it is a perfectly good doctrine to make democracy as little articulate as possible on poverty. Those are the tactics and strategy of a class which has power, but for a class attempting to get it they want to keep to the broad and easy road of keeping all the issues perfectly clear.
The duty of a democratic party is to expose the rich to the attack of the poor. That is their duty, and that is what we have been doing for over 60 years. It is the duty of a working class party organisation to direct the attack, to surrender no democratic privilege or political articulation until power has been accomplished. This Clause, which this Amendment is designed to amend, is a piece of political craftsmanship which, if it is developed, prevents my class and people seeing exactly what is being done, and who is doing it. Hon. Members have talked about the corruption of politics and the House of Commons being no longer able to deal with these problems because it is shovelling out money to the people who vote for them. No working class party can ever be in any different position.
Order, order.
I beg pardon. I seem to find it extremely difficult to keep myself in order on this occasion, but I understood that the issues raised by the Amendment were of the broadest kind, involving Parliamentary prerogative and constitutional practice, and that on such issues I should be allowed to raise the questions I have endeavoured to discuss. I want to submit to my hon. Friends on this side that they ought not to allow this Amendment to be defeated. I do not want to say anything which will arouse bad feeling among my Parliamentary colleagues, but I am satisfied that if this Clause goes through unamended they will be cursing this Bill from one end of the country to the other. They will curse it because the powers will be exercised by the Minister, or, if she does not exercise them, they will curse it because they will have given a valuable precedent to hon. and right hon. Members opposite. If the Government is to remain in office for a year or two longer the powers contained in this Clause, to amend legislation by regulation, will expose the right hon. Lady to weekly, monthly and yearly pressure from hon. Members opposite so that she will be forced to exercise these powers more and more to the detriment of the people.
The party to which I have the honour to belong is defending itself in the country because, in consequence of its unemployment insurance legislation, it is possible to hold an umbrella over the heads of the working classes and defend them against attack. That claim is substantially founded and I would like hon. Members to remember that it is not only the amount of benefit which makes an unemployed man feel secure, it is the security in the receipt of that benefit, and if these regulations are to be issued one after another, not preceded by any Parliamentary Debate, but like a bolt from the blue, are issued from Whitehall one after another attacking this class and that class, you will get such a neurosis amongst the unemployed and such a feeling of insecurity that you will undo all the good work we have done by our last protection of the workers.
I beg the Government to accept this Amendment. It is the protection which a minority Government is entitled to expect from Parliament. Whatever is done Parliament should accept full responsibility for it. I ask the right hon. Lady not to place us in the position of having to go to the country as though we were arguing against our own people. All we want to do, all I want to do, and I have 49 per cent. unemployed in my constituency, is to have an opportunity of voicing my opinion about a piece of legislation before it comes into operation, and I feel that in the interests of democracy and of the working class in general it will not be safe for any Government to take away such powers from Parliament because it will have the result of driving our people into channels of activity which we should all subsequently deplore.
I do not intend to delay the Committee for more than a few moments, but I want to say one or two things in reply to the speech of the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Sir C. Trevelyan) and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Wise). The question is whether we should adopt the system in the Bill of regulations as the best means for dealing with this matter or whether we shall adopt the system of orders, which will have to be passed through this House. The whole tendency of legislation should in my opinion be to clear a way in Parliament for constructive legislation, and the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leicester, East, of having these endless orders passed through this House, would lead to an absolute congestion of busi-
ness. At the present moment business is very much congested, but the suggestion of the hon. Member would make it much worse and would prevent a Labour Government from dealing with constructive legislation. The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle says that we should take a long view and think of what may happen if the present Government falls and another Conservative Government comes in. Does he think that a Conservative Government with a majority in this House would not amend this Bill if it is in the form in which he suggests? Does he think they would allow themselves to be held up by this cumbrous method and by taking up the precious time of Parliament by a discussion of these orders 2 I suggest that in this matter my right hon. Friend is not taking the long view. I think the method suggested in the Bill as good as any, although we none of us welcome it. I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the words in the Clause:
The Minister shall cause every report received by him from the Advisory Committee to be laid forthwith before each House of Parliament.
There will be ample opportunity to debate the administration of this Bill even if we are in opposition, which we all hope will not be the case for the sake of the men and women we are discussing now. There will be, however, ample opportunity to discuss these matters, and a resolute opposition can always raise opportunities for debate. The regulations themselves can be debated after 11 o'clock at night. I cite the case of Electricity Orders and Gas Orders. They can be discussed in this House, and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) on one occasion initiated a most useful discussion on one of these orders.
Such orders have to be dealt with under the procedure which we are proposing.
Exactly the same thing applies to regulations. You can raise any matter on them in the same way; and there are not the safeguards which the hon. Member for East Leicester supposes there are if the Amendment were carried. With all due respect to hon. Members below the Gangway, they do not yet know the opportunities they have of raising grievances. They have not yet learnt all that there is to be learnt about ventilating grievances in this House. My main reason for supporting the Government on this matter is that I want to see more power given to Ministers, when they have the support of Parliament. I wish to see the road clear for useful and constructive legislation which will raise the whole status of our population.
Division No. 404.] | AYES. | [7.45 p.m. |
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Mort, D. L. |
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Muff, G. |
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Muggeridge, H. T. |
Ammon, Charles George | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Murnin, Hugh |
Angell, Sir Norman | Harris, Percy A. | Naylor, T. E. |
Arnott, John | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) |
Attlee, Clement Richard | Haycock, A. W. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hayes, John Henry | Palin, John Henry |
Barnes, Alfred John | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Paling, Wilfrid |
Barr, James | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Palmer, E. T. |
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Perry, S. F. |
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Herriotts, J. | Peters, Dr. Sidney John |
Benson, G. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
Birkett, W. Norman | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Hoffman, P. C. | Pole, Major D. G. |
Bowen, J. W. | Hollins, A. | Potts, John S. |
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Pybus, Percy John |
Broad, Francis Alfred | Isaacs, George | Quibell, D. J. K. |
Bromfield, William | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
Bromley, J. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Raynes, W. R. |
Brooke, W. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Richards, R. |
Brothers, M. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring). |
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Ritson, J. |
Burgess, F. G. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Romeril, H. G. |
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
Cameron, A. G. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Rowson, Guy |
Cape, Thomas | Lang, Gordon | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
Chater, Daniel | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) |
Clarke, J. S. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Sanders, W. S. |
Cluse, W. S. | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Sawyer, G. F. |
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lawrence, Susan | Scott, James |
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Scurr, John |
Compton, Joseph | Lawson, John James | Sexton, Sir James |
Cripps, Sir Stafford | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
Daggar, George | Leach, W. | Sherwood, G. H. |
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Shield, George William |
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lees, J. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
Denman, Hon. R. D. | Leonard, W. | Shillaker, J. F. |
Dukes, C. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Shinwell, E. |
Duncan, Charles | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
Ede, James Chuter | Logan, David Gilbert | Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) |
Edmunds, J. E. | Longbottom, A. W. | Sinkinson, George |
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lunn, William | Sitch, Charles H. |
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
Egan, W. H. | Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
England, Colonel A. | McElwee, A. | Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley) |
Foot, Isaac | McEntee, V. L. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
Freeman, Peter | McKinlay, A. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Smith, W. R (Norwich) |
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
Gibbins, Joseph | Manning, E. L. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Mansfield, W. | Sorensen, R. |
Gill, T. H. | March, S. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
Gillett, George M. | Marcus, M. | Strauss, G. R. |
Glassey, A. E. | Markham, S. F. | Sultivan, J. |
Gossling, A. G. | Marley, J. | Sutton, J. E. |
Gould, F. | Marshall, Fred | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
Gray, Milner | Mathers, George | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Matters, L. W. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Mills, J. E. | Tillett, Ben |
Groves, Thomas E. | Montague, Frederick | Tinker, John Joseph |
Grundy, Thomas W. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Toole, Joseph |
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Tout, W. J. |
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Townend, A. E. |
Vaughan, David | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
Viant, S. P. | West, F. R. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
Walker, J. | Westwood, Joseph | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
Wallace, H. W. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
Watkins, F. C. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. | |
Wellock, Wilfred | Williams, David (Swansea, East) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
Welsh, James (Paisley) | Williams, T (York, Don Valley) | Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton. |
NOES. | ||
Allen, w. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Sandham, E. |
Ayles, Walter | Horrabin, J. F. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Simmons, C. J. |
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell |
Brockway, A. Fenner | Kirkwood, D. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Maxton, James | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
Cocks, Frederick Seymour. | Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Wise, E. F. |
Cove, William G. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | |
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley. |
Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
The next Amendment I select is that in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton)—in page 1, line 14, after the word "impose," to insert the words" during the continuance of this Act."
On a point of Order. I would point out that you also, Mr. Chairman, are failing to select an Amendment which stands in my name. Tour predecessor was unfortunately unable to select my previous Amendment. Now I find that you also have jumped an Amendment. It seems to me rather unfair that two very substantial Amendments standing in my name—that is of some importance to me at least—should in the selective process of two chairmen find themselves dropped out of opportunity for discussion.
The hon. Member has a large number of Amendments on the Paper, and probably he will be luckier with the others than with this one.
On a point of Order.
I have selected an Amendment, and there is no question of Order.
With great respect, you can hardly tell what is my point of Order until I have put it. The point on which I ask your Ruling is this: What effect will the failure to select the Amendment mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) have on the other Amendments standing in the names of various hon. Friends of mine dealing with the classes of anomalies that affect insured persons disadvantageously—the other types of anomalies on which I made various statements to Mr. Speaker earlier in the day? The particular Amendment to which the hon. Member for Bridgeton has referred links up with later Amendments. It deals, not with the question of transitional benefit, but with the question of ordinary benefit. I would remind you, as I reminded your predecessor in the Chair, that when the Unemployment Insurance Bill of 1929 was before the House you, or whoever was in the Chair at the time, ruled that Amendments dealing, not with transitional benefit, but with ordinary benefit, were in order.
I cannot recall the previous decision. The hon. Gentleman says that the Amendment refers only to ordinary benefit, but that has been a matter for me to find out. The Amendment referred to, and others, especially one at the end of the Order Paper, a new Clause, will come into conflict with the transitional benefit arrangement. At the moment I am not going beyond that.
I am not concerned—
That is my decision. Many of these Amendments interfere with transitional benefit and are outside the scope of the Bill and the Money Resolution. I call on Mr. Winterton.
I ask your Ruling on this point. If I am able to satisfy you, as I am sure I can, that the later Amendments deal, not with transitional benefit, but with the power of the Committee to make—
I have called a specific Amendment. I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that in my opinion the later Amendments to which he refers will affect transitional benefit, and that therefore I must rule them out of order. I cannot go beyond that. I have given my decision and call Mr. Winterton.
But I am asking your decision on a point of Order, not on the later Amendments, but on this Amendment. If I am able to satisfy you, as I think I can, that when we get to the later Amendments they affect ordinary benefit and not transitional benefits, will the exclusion of Debate upon this first Amendment render the moving of the later Amendments impossible?
Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON:
I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, after the word "impose," to insert the words
during the continuance of this Act.
It is necessary to read the Amendment with another on Clause 5, line 19, which proposes to insert the words:
This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines.
8.0 p.m.
I think it has been evident to the Committee that there is considerable misgiving on all sides as to the nature of this Bill. If we read the Second Reading Debate we find that in every quarter of the House there was testimony to the fact that the Bill was brought forward by the Government in some fear and trembling. The case for this Amendment was made out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot), and I expect him to be with me whole-heartedly in supporting the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out in his speech that it is not the machinery which is important, but what you mean to do with the machinery. In order that there may be some opportunity to revise and review this machinery, the Amendment suggests that until Parliament otherwise determines the position shall be capable of review at the end of December, 1932. The reason for that proposition is that none of us feel very easy about this Bill. Serious doubts have been expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove. He told us that it was a departure of great importance, that it was a new D.O.R.A. for the whole scheme of unemployment insurance, that it had a transforming effect on the present Acts, that it was a much more powerful engine than the Minister had indicated in her speech, that it was strong meat in view of our financial situation, and that it was over-riding every safeguard which had been given to the unemployed persons. In view of that summary of the effect of the Bill by the hon. and gallant Member, whom no one would charge with exaggerating in a matter of this kind, the House would do well to accept the principle of the Amendment.
Hon. Members on this side ought to welcome the Amendment, otherwise we are going to carry the baby so far as the unpopularity of this Measure is concerned. Although hon. Members opposite have egged on the Government to bring in some such Measure as this, it is noticeable that they do not appear in the Division Lobby in support of it. They remind me of the individual who eggs on other people to a foolish if not a criminal career. They hold a pistol at the head of the Government and say: "Unless you bring in some such Measure as this you will not get your £25,000,000 additional money for the Insurance Fund." Then these conspirators disappear and they will be able in their constituencies to plead the sufficient alibi of the Division Lobby. That is a very clever piece of strategy and it places everyone who supports this Measure in a very difficult position. I hope that we shall receive from the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove and his friends support on our proposal to review the situation. I do not think that this is the last effort on the part of the Opposition to force the Government along this path. I was very much interested to see in a very responsible journal of Conservative opinion, the "Observer," of 24th November, a statement that:
The first essential of sound financial reform is to throw nearly 400,000 persons off the dole and to relegate them to plain outdoor relief.
Unfortunately, we are being made the unwilling instrument for this policy which has been declared by the Conservative party. Therefore, because I feel that
that strategy should be exposed and that we should be safeguarded from the unpopularity that will accrue from the passage of this Act, I hope the House will accept the Amendment. This Measure is likely to come up against the Labour party months hence, and we have some claim to be delivered from the misrepresentations under which, undoubtedly, the Opposition will seek to place us. We are conscious of the risks we run in bringing in this Bill, but it is a Bill which will not develop the difficulties which some of my hon. Friends on this side foresee. The right hon. Lady has said that this is an experimental Measure. If it is experimental, then there is all the more reason, as suggested in the Amendment, that the House should have an opportunity of reviewing the whole situation and that it shall not remain on the Statute Book unless Parliament so determines at the end of the period.
I cannot accept the Amendment in the form in which it stands on the Order Paper, but if I may put in a manuscript Amendment I think I shall be able to meet my hon. Friend in the purpose that he has in mind. I do not move the Amendment on most of the grounds which he has put forward. I move it because, as he said and as I have said repeatedly, this is an experimental Measure and I am willing to put a date in the Bill. I would draw attention, however, to the awkwardness of the date suggested in my hon. Friend's Amendment. The end of December from the insurance year point of view is a most awkward time. I propose to ask the House to accept the manuscript Amendment later, to insert the words:
Sections 1 and 2 of this Act shall continue in force until the 30th day of Juno, 1933, and no longer.
That puts on the date by six months and it synchronises with the end of the insurance year. Another reason for that date, which is sometimes forgotten, is that in the 1930 Act a date was put in by another place, and that Act expires in June, 1933. Therefore, the whole question is bound to be reviewed before that date. For these reasons I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment and I will move the manuscript Amendment in its appropriate place. The
Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper covers the whole Bill. Clause 3 has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing, and that is why I confine the manuscript Amendment to Clauses 1 and 2.
Had we known that December, 1932, would be in any way awkward, we would have suggested June, 1933. It is a satisfaction to us to know that the matter will be reviewed, when we shall have ample time to consider whatever abuses or difficulties may have arisen. I am glad that the right hon. Lady has met the point.
Mr. WINTERTON:
After the reply of the right hon. Lady, and on her assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
It was difficult to get the sense of the manuscript Amendment. I am afraid that I have not assimilated the meaning of it.
I am moving on the date by six months, from December, 1932, to June, 1933. It applies to the Clauses in the Bill which are germane.
What will be the effect? Does it limit the right hon. Lady's powers to make regulations?
May I then draw attention to the later Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood)—in page 3, line 5, at the end, to add a new Sub-section:
(6) The power of the Minister to make new regulations under this Section shall not continue after the Dissolution of the present Parliament.
I hope that Amendment will catch the Chairman's eye. It proposes to limit the power of the Minister to make new regulations under this Section to the continuance of the present Parliament. She will appreciate the purpose of the Amendment. It is a purpose which will com mend itself to everyone who sits on this side of the House. There are very few hon. Members opposite, and I am not sure that they are very wide awake. Therefore, possibly the Amendment may
commend itself to the whole House. Before we accept the manuscript Amendment I should like to know whether the right hon. Lady is prepared to accept our Amendment, which is an addition to hers.
We cannot discuss that Amendment, which will come later.
The right hon. Lady read her Amendment to the House.
She suggested that at a later stage she will move it.
Certainly.
Shall we have an opportunity of discussing the other Amendment to which I have referred?
Order! Order!
We are placed in a difficulty. I am sure that the Chair has given consideration to the Amendments on the Order Paper. All that I am asking is whether after the Amendment which the right hon. Lady proposes to move we shall have an opportunity of discussing the other Amendment.
There will be an opportunity of discussing the right hon. Lady's Amendment. She has read out the Amendment. That will be a. Government Amendment.
On a point of Order. My point was not as to the intention of the right hon. Lady. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton) was moving his Amendment in order to make it possible for a date to be inserted at a later stage. The right hon. Lady tells the House that she is prepared to accept the insertion of a date at a later stage, and on that undertaking my hon. Friend said he would withdraw his Amendment. What I have not got clear yet is whether her subsequent Amendment fits into the Bill without the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Loughborough.
Yes. The Amendment which has been moved is unnecessary.
I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, to leave out from the word "for" to the end of the Subsection, and to insert instead thereof the words "the purposes aforesaid."
This is really a drafting Amendment and is intended to avoid the possibility of confusion. Hon. Members will notice that the words at the end of Sub-section (1) duplicate, in effect, another form of words which have the same intention in Sub-section (2). The purpose of my Amendment is to simplify matters, so that there shall be only one set of words to construe instead of two. If my Amendment is adopted Sub-section (1) will read:
relating to the determination of claims for benefit, as may appear necessary for the purposes aforesaid
leaving out all reference to what those purposes are, because that is already stated in the first part of the Clause, while the classes of persons are dealt with in Sub-section (2).
There are two Amendments to the Minister's proposed Amendment on the Order Paper, and I wish to have advice from the Chair in regard to them.
I propose to give the hon. Member an opportunity on the Amendment which stands further down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen)—to insert the words:
so however that there is no reduction in the benefit of persons whose earnings and benefits together during such period amount to less than an income for the whole period at the rate of two hundred and fifty pounds per year.
I am sorry. I am not trying to be obstructive, but I wish to know if we shall be able to move either of the Amendments to the proposed Amendment.
If the hon. Member gets his Amendment in, it does not matter where he gets it There are three Amendments on the Paper dealing with this point. Two of these are Amendments to the Minister's proposed Amendment, and these I do not propose to select. Then there is an Amendment further down, in the name of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), which deals with the same point, and that I propose to select.
Again, I am in considerable difficulty in following this discussion. Do I take it then that it is not the purpose of the right hon. Lady to give a more extensive use of these powers in dealing with anomalies? Her claim is that this is a purely drafting Amendment.
I think the hon. Member is referring to his own Amendment further down on the Paper which proposes to insert the words "Dot less than five years."
No, I am referring to the words "the purposes aforesaid."
I hope that I can assist and reassure the hon. Member. The words which we propose to leave out are the words which describe the class of persons. The hon. Member will find on reference to Sub-section (2) that the class of persons is there defined. I am not certain that it was very happy drafting originally, unless you had complete similarity between the two classes of persons. However, to meet a point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), when we come to deal with Sub-section (2) we propose to move an Amendment which narrows the description of the class as therein set out. That Amendment provides that we can only make regulations in respect of the prescribed period, being a period not exceeding four weeks, and the effect of that Amendment is to narrow the Clause—a purpose to which, I take it, the hon. Member does not object. Then, as a corollary to that, having already two descriptions—having once described the class and once described the persons—directly we get a narrowing of Sub-section (2) we get a dissimilarity between the two descriptions, and to deal with that, we have to take out these words down to the end of Sub-section (1) which are merely descriptive of persons. The hon. Member may take it from me, that I have considered the matter carefully and, in my opinion, it is merely a matter of drafting. If we alter Sub-section (2) in the way proposed by the later Amendment, and leave Sub-section (1) as it is, we shall define who the persons are, in different words and that being so, it is necessary in order to propose the Amendment to Sub-section (2), to take out these descriptive words which, in any case, were unnecessary.
It is not my purpose to limit the amount of embarrassment in the operation of this Measure. I do not want to make its operation easier against the unemployed people who are being questioned on benefit.
If we keep in these words then we cannot move our Amendment to Sub-section (2).
If the hon. Member wants to keep them in, let him keep them in.
I take it from the interjection just made by the Secretary of State for War that he is anxious to do as badly for the unemployed as possible.
I beg the hon. Member's pardon. What I remarked was, "If the hon. Member wants these words in, let him keep them in." I do not want them in; I want them out.
That is not the way to do business in Committee. I want to be satisfied, and I have a perfect right to be satisfied on what is the effect of the Amendment. That is the purpose of a Committee stage. It differs from the closing speech on Second Reading where general denunciation and vituperation are regarded as sufficient. Here we have to apply our minds to the details of the problem. That is what I am trying to do, with considerable aid from the Attorney-General but none from the Secretary of State for War. I propose to use my rights, and I ask if the cutting out of this phraseology—
are in receipt of substantial earnings or other similar payments"—
is not removing from consideration, a point which is very important to me, namely, the question of the earnings of the persons concerned. The Attorney-General assures me that this point is fully covered by the closer definition in Sub-section (2). I shall be very glad to be satisfied that the use of this phrase—
For the purpose of removing anomalies which have arisen"—
that is the purpose referred to in the present Amendment—applies to the closer definition which is presently to appear in Sub-section (2).
This Amendment has nothing to do with purposes at all. The words which we propose to leave out relate to persons and have nothing to do with purposes, and the confusion has been caused because we have defined persons here and also brought them into Sub-section (2, a). As we propose to alter Sub-section (2, a) in a way of which I think the hon. Member will approve, we must make Subsection (1) correspond.
I do not want to appear chary of accepting the Attorney-General's assurance, because experience has shown us that where a proper assurance is needed, we shall receive it from him with authority, but I must confess that the manner in which this Bill is being conducted in Committee is not very reassuring. We have this Amendment brought forward by the Minister in a very neat, charming, and uninformative speech, to correct something that was wrong, and apparently there are a number of other mistakes of even greater magnitude which have to be amended later, so that I think it is incumbent on the Committee to examine this proposed alteration with very great care. The Ministry of Labour has not an extraordinarily good reputation for being free from mistakes of this kind. It may occur to the Committee that, in spite of the very scant and almost discourteous treatment received by other Amendments which have sought to point out mistakes, the seriousness of this matter may not be confined entirely to this statement.
I am certain that the Attorney-General is correct when he assures us that the words now proposed to be left out are extremely dangerous words. Some of my colleagues are going to receive serious punishment for suggesting that there are dangers in this Bill. In fact, for a Labour Member nowadays to suggest that there is any danger to the unemployed is becoming a cardinal and almost a criminal offence. I am very glad to see these words deleted, because they are words which have disturbed the minds of many of us ever since we first had the privilege, if not the pleasure, of reading the Bill. I think the Attorney-General's statement has been a complete justification of the fears expressed by hon. Friends of mine, both inside and outside this House, but it does not make me feel happy with regard to the words which the Minister now proposes to insert. I think they are far too wide.
The fear that many of us have had in discussing this Bill has been the fear that, intentionally or inadvertently—though the result would be just the same whichever it was—not only the very tiny number of so-called anomalies, if there be such, would be affected by this Bill, but that the Bill was so loosely worded and so carelessly drawn that people whose receipt of benefit could not in any way be called an anomaly were going to be affected by it. While the Attorney-General has given that view considerable support, for which we are very grateful, we still do not feel that the new words suggested by the Minister are as great a safeguard as we could wish. When the Minister says that she will delete these words, which apparently more learned authorities have told her were dangerous, she also says, "I cannot get at these people whom I have had it in mind to sweep into my net before, but I will have a general Amendment down," and she proposes to make the Clause read as it is now proposed that it should read. I appreciate the point that the Attorney-General has made that someone has used his influence to get the Minister to restrict the area of the Amendment, but I feel unhappy about these words, "the purposes aforesaid."
It would be improper to stand here and criticise the powers of selection which you, Sir Robert, hold by right of your office, but I am sure that some of my hon. Friends would have been happier if, instead of having to say "Aye" or "No" to this extraordinarily loose wording of the Minister's, they had been able to have the opportunity of suggesting to the Minister, whose own wording has proved so dangerous, some more beneficial wording for insertion in the Bill; but without the opportunity of making any further suggestions, deprived of the opportunity of assisting the Minister in drafting a more satisfactory form of words that might be a greater safeguard to these people, whom the Attorney-General said we ought to protect, I feel that the Minister should, in view of the fact that the Attorney- General so frankly, honourably, and openly told us that the Minister made a mistake, be here now to rectify that mistake and tell us, in view of the highest legal advice, exactly what she proposes to do. [Interruption.] I have often heard the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) make speeches demanding, with great indignation, that the Minister should be present to explain something that he did not like, so I am sure that he will not object to my making the same demand, though not perhaps in so eloquent a way.
I think it is time that the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) came to our assistance, to see that, at any rate when important Amendments are moved and the Minister makes a statement which afterwards turns out to be completely mistaken, though made no doubt in good faith, but under a complete misapprehension of the Amendment which she was moving, she should be here to give us some assurance that the new wording is not so dangerous as—
The hon. Member has already said that several times.
You, Sir Robert, have been here so much longer than I have, and no doubt will have heard speeches again and again, much more often than I have, and it has been, I think, accepted as a common practice that where there was a very strong case felt for an explanation by a Minister, and that explanation was not forthcoming—I have heard many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, make that appeal repeatedly to the Committee. I hope the Committee will not allow this extraordinary procedure to go through without some voices being raised in protest at this method of treating us. I have to leave it there—I have no remedy—but I feel that, in view of the complete failure of the Minister to explain this, it would be a good course to take if the Committee were to adjourn for an hour in order to enable the right hon. Lady to get her very well deserved evening meal and then to come back here and explain the matter to us.
I have been here throughout the discussion, and per- haps I may tender some assistance. Clause 1 as it stands defines certain purposes, and in the concluding words defines certain persons to whom those purposes are to be applied. What the Minister now proposes is to take out of Clause 1 any definition of persons, leaving the Clause restricted to a recitation of purposes. My hon. Friends, whose disquiet I appreciate, desire to exempt those persons to whom the purposes are to be applied, and the course which the Minister proposes will help them. It creates the opportunity which they desire, and removes from the Clause an obstruction which otherwise they would have to meet. In the circumstances I venture to suggest that the course proposed by the Minister helps them.
I appreciate that point, as I have appreciated the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the point that is worrying me is this. It is now a limiting Clause and limits very strictly the number of persons who can be dealt with under the Bill. The Amendment will extend it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, supported by the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), urges me to permit this extension on the ground that it is for my benefit. It will be very difficult for any Member of the Government to prove to me that any Amendment is put down on the Paper for the purpose of aiding my point of view. With all respect to my Friends on the Government Front Bench, I do not think that their attitude towards this Bill is quite the same as mine. If damage is to be done to the unemployed, as I believe it is being done in this Bill, I want to limit that damage to the smallest number of persons. The words that it is proposed to delete are limiting words which will reduce the benefit to persons who have substantial earnings—
The course proposed by the Minister will take out of Clause 1 any reference to persons. It restricts the Clause to a recitation of purposes. If the hon. Member wants a closer defininition of persons, his way is open by the course proposed by the Government. If the Clause remains as it is without the Amendment, there will be a definition of persons, and it is that definition which the hon. Gentleman wants to get at. If it is taken out, his difficulties are diminished, and his aim in defining "persons" can be pursued in connection with Clause 2. My hon. Friend knows that I appreciate what he has in mind, and I suggest to him that if he adopts the Amendment of the Government, it will eliminate all reference to persons and confine the Clause to purposes.
Again, I thank the hon. and learned Member for his intervention. He is certainly making the point much clearer, but he is strengthening my antagonism to the Amendment. It is all very well to say that it is definition of persons, but Clause 1 is the Clause which defines the scope of the Bill. If it passes in its present form, you may start putting anybody in at any subsequent point, unless he is
in receipt of substantial earnings or other similar payments or who would not normally be in insurable employment during a period in respect of which benefit is claimed.
If the Clause is passed, that is the absolute limit to which you can go in your subsequent definition. I do not want to bring more people within the scope of this Bill. Therefore I shall resist the Amendment very strongly.
There is something in the point put by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). If I follow his argument aright, he is afraid that the words "for the purposes aforesaid" may embrace more people in the Clause. If there is any doubt on that point, it ought to be cleared up, because the Clause as it stands does limit the number of persons fairly definitely, and cannot bring any more in. The words "for the purposes aforesaid" however, may mean that other people can be brought in. The Minister ought to assure us that it does not bring in any other persons.
May I move an adjournment in order to give the Minister of Labour an opportunity of being here to explain exactly what her Amendment does? It is obvious that there exists in the minds of hon. Members a considerable confusion following upon the statement of the Minister, and surely it is in the interests of good legislation that we should have an opportunity of having a clear explanation from the right hon. Lady as to what her Amendment proposes to do.
There are representatives of the Government on the Front Bench now.
I am in the same difficulty as my hon. Friend. We ought to have some information about the effect of the Amendment. As I read Clause 1, it applies to certain classes and to certain persons who are in receipt of substantial earnings. The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) says that if the Government Amendment be accepted, "persons" as distinct from "classes" come out.
"Persons" will not be defined.
For the moment I am on Sub-section (1), and so far as Subsection (1) is concerned I gather the hon. and learned Member expresses the view that "persons" go out. If that view be accepted I am in this difficulty, that not only do the "persons" go out but the very important qualification as to "substantial earnings" also disappears. I am not sure that the persons really do go out, or whether they are not covered by the word "classes," on the axiom that the greater includes the less. If the classes remain in, the persons remain in, even under the Government Amendment, and they remain in, not with the limitation about substantial earnings, but with no limitation at all. If I am right, then so far from this Amendment making the unemployed man safer it actually exposes him to greater danger, because it removes the qualification about substantial earnings. I regret that there is not one of the Law Officers on the Front Bench. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can deal with the point, which is rather a refined technical and legal point, but if he can help me I shall be very much obliged, and if he cannot perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham can.
I do not think I can add anything to what has been said already. The Attorney-General reminded the Committee that during the Second Beading Debate the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) had pointed out that the words which the Government now desire to cut out seemed to make it possible to include everyone, regardless of the classes which are set forth. It is the desire of the Government to avoid that difficulty of having two sets of words to interpret, and so the words are to be cut out here. That removes what would appear to be the danger of two interpretations. The amending words limit this Clause to "purposes."
Will the hon. Member allow me to interrupt him? What are the purposes? The purpose is to remove anomalies—anomalies without definition, without restriction. I remember the Minister of Health standing at that box last night and saying that wherever a line is drawn there will be anomalies and hard cases. Here the Government are asking us to give our assent to a Clause for the purpose of removing anomalies, and this Amendment is asking for a freer hand for this advisory committee. Once we have given the Government Sub-section (1) then in Sub-section (2) they can specify 100 more anomalies; but if Sub-section (1) remains as it stands then the Government are restricted.
If what the Minister says is correct, and the idea of the Government in moving this Amendment is to limit the scope of the word "persons," would it not have been a more satisfactory thing to insert after the word "persons" in line 20 the words "within the aforesaid classes"? Would not that secure what they desire without incurring danger?
No, that would not be right at all, because "classes aforesaid" are not mentioned. The reference is simply to purposes. The classes are defined in Sub-section (2). I can assure the Committee that if the Clause is left as it is at the present time whole masses of people whom I am sure my hon. Friend would want to protect might be thought to come within the ambit of this Clause.
I have listened very carefully to the arguments on the proposed Amendment and have come to the conclusion that if the words which it is proposed to leave out remain in the Clause—namely, "persons who during a period which includes both days of unemployment and days of employment "—it will apply to everybody claiming unem- ployment benefit. There are 2,500,000 unemployed at present, and as we know that this number of persons turns over three or four times in a year there may be 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 people affected. I take it that my hon. Friends want to prevent all those 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 being subjected to that scrutiny. If they do then I suggest that these words should be deleted, but if it is their intention to make the Clause so wide as to deal with the whole lot they should persist in their present attitude.
I am bewildered regarding what the Attorney-General meant when he informed us that the purpose of the words at the top of page 2 was covered by the Amendment which stands in the name of the Minister of Labour—In page 2, line V, to leave out from the word "who," to the word "receive," in line 10, and to insert instead thereof the words:
within the calendar week ending in the period in respect of which benefit is payable or within any prescribed period (being a period not exceeding four weeks) so ending.
The words which the present Amendment proposes to leave out govern, as I understand them, the whole of the four classes of persons defined in Sub-section (2). In other words the operation of Sub-section (2) is limited if the Bill stands as it is presented to us to persons who are in receipt of substantial earnings or other similar payments. Those are words of limitation. They mean that under Subsection (2) we cannot penalise persons seasonally employed unless they are in receipt of substantial earnings or other similar payments; we cannot penalise persons casually employed unless they are in receipt of substantial earnings or other similar payments: and we cannot deal with married women unless they are in receipt of substantial earnings or other similar payments. The Amendment which the right hon. Lady proposes to move later on refers only to persons covered by paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2)—neither the seasonal workers, the casual workers nor the married women. In other words, the effect of the Amendments now proposed by the right hon. Lady is to extend the possible operations of the Bill to tens of thousands of persons who will not be touched if the Bill be left as it is at present. That is a most serious situation.
The Attorney-General told us that the right hon. Lady was wrong and then went off, I presume to dinner, or to consult her behind the Chair, or for other purposes. I do not mind. I would like to go to dinner myself. However, the Attorney-General, at a critical stage of the discussion of a very important point, has left the House, after telling us that his view as to the meaning of the Clause is different from that of the right hon. Lady. Neither the right hon. Lady nor the Attorney-General nor the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to this effect, which I submit will be the result of the Amendment now proposed; and I do not think the Committee ought to proceed further with this Amendment without knowing precisely what is the effect of it. It is a most iniquitous thing to come to us at this stage with an Amendment the effect of which will be to bring within the ambit of the Bill tens of thousands of persons who are not now covered by it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, look at the Bill yourselves. If I am wrong let the right hon. Lady or the Attorney-General or the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what will be the effect of the Amendment. I do not want to repeat the arguments, but the effect of these words at the end of Sub-section (1) is to limit the operation of the Act to certain classes of persons. The effect of taking out these words is to remove that limitation. As I read the Bill, by cutting out these words we are cutting out a very important limitation to the power of the Minister and the Advisory Committee, dealing with seasonal workers and casual workers, and we are knocking them off benefit. If that is the purpose of this Amendment, it should be explained clearly what its effect will be.
I have been induced to take part in this discussion by the statement made by the Minister of Labour, who told us that, if those words were not cut out, it would mean that there would be tens of thousands of persons affected. If ever there was a condemnation of a Bill it is the statement which has come from the mouth of a Member of the Government. The Attorney-General told us that the Minister of Labour had herself made a mistake, and then he left the House. The Attorney-General has not remained to tell the Committee what the mistake was which the Minister of Labour made. If a Tory Government had treated the House of Commons in that fashion there would have been some noise made here. The Attorney-General conducted himself towards my colleagues in a very gentlemanly fashion, such as no Minister has done since we started the discussion of this Bill. After the Attorney-General had given that fatal decision, which will have far-reaching effects, the Minister of Labour got up and told us that, as the Bill stood, it would condemn tens of thousands of the unemployed to punishment. We are simply defending the working class and the unemployed. With reference to the manuscript Amendment, we have not had time to give it close enough attention to understand what it means. Here we have put forward an Amendment which, at the first glance, we cannot understand all its implications, and it is not fair on the face of it to press it forward at this moment.
Just a few of us on these back benches have wrung from an unwilling Front Bench information of such a character that condemns the Bill and the Government out of their own mouths. That is my justification for asking the Government to take the Bill back. Hon. Members will recollect that on the "not genuinely seeking work Clause" we moved an Amendment at 5.30 at night asking the Government to take the Clause back, but the Front Bench turned us down. Later on it was left to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) to suggest that the Clause be taken back for further consideration, and that suggestion was accepted from the Tories although the Government refused to accept it from these benches. I am giving that as an illustration, because we want to be fair and generous in our dealings with the Front Bench. Whether the Government are going to be generous with us or not in return I do not care a button, but we will be generous to them, and I am being generous to them, because I am now giving them a chance of their lifetime, a chance to take the Bill back, and I am considering this question in calm blood. [Interruption.] I was asking the Government to take this Measure back, and I am in earnest. It means everything to me. It is no easy matter for me to fall foul of men that I have worked with all my life, but I am going to stand by the working class, irrespective of all the Governments that ever have governed, and I am asking the Government to take this Bill back because here is proof positive, given by the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson)—no less a person than the Minister's right-hand man. He makes the statement that, if the Bill goes through as it is now, thousands of workers will be penalised.
I did not say anything of the kind. What I said was that there is a danger of whole classes of people being included that are not meant to be included.
Surely, the hon. Gentleman remembers the Attorney-General's speech.
Surely, to be penalised means to be punished. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet. It is all the same to the man who is unemployed, whatever words you use, if he is deprived of money, if he is deprived of his right to go to the Employment Exchange; and every method and every means that is employed here is detrimental to the unemployed. I would ask the Government—and some of them are very good friends of mine—to weigh well this fact, that there is not a constituency that the Government represent where the unemployed—and there are almost 3,000,000 of them—are not a powerful factor in determining whether they will be here again or not. I hope they will consider well that fact before they proceed any further here. You may take it from me that, as far as I am concerned, I will defend myself and the country with the votes that I register here to-night, and I have drawn attention to the fact that the Attorney-General, standing at that Box, told the Committee that the Minister of Labour had made a mistake. He explained it to us, and I readily agree that we require a good deal of explana- tion to get to understand just what is meant by certain words.
My learned colleague, the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), is always impressing on us that the lawyer fraternity have spent all their lives in understanding the implication of words. But we have spent all our lives working, not in understanding the implication of words, and the men and women that are going to be affected here do not understand the implication of words. They have never been at a college. It is quite true that some of them have met the scholars, and are expert at getting round these regulations, but the vast majority of the unemployed do not know how to dodge these regulations. They do not understand the implication of words; they only understand how to work. It is all they were taught; it was their mission in life, when they were little boys and girls at school, to get away from the school and to get to work to help to eke out the miserable pittance that the breadwinner was able to earn. That is the type of individual that is going to be affected by the part that the House of Commons is playing to-night.
This is no mere juggling with words; this is not a mere Debate between astute lawyers. Where is the Liberal party now? This is a discussion around which ranges the welfare of tens of thousands of the poorest people in our country. It is not the burly, well-fed section of the unemployed that is going to be affected here; it is not the astute section that is going to be affected here. They manage to get round it. It is that section which every member of the Labour party has time and again gloried in defending. We have said that, if there were any amongst us with outstanding ability, mental or physical, that was not given to us for our own aggrandisement, but in order that we might defend those who could not defend themselves. It is that section of the community—the helpless, the class that have even been described as untouchables—that is going to be affected here—the
Poor o'erlabourd wight,
So abject, mean, and vile,
Who begs a brother of the earth
To give him leave to toil;
And see his lordly fellow-worm "—
in this case the Government—
The poor petition spurn,
Unmindful tho' a weeping wife,
And helpless offspring mourn.
You talk about this Bill being an experiment, and this Amendment attached to it being an experiment. I wish that that were the case, but it is nothing of the kind. This Government has experimented along those lines before. What happened at the advent of the Government in regard to handling unemployment? They started a special Department, and we had an individual then dealing with unemployment—I am only using this as an illustration—an individual who was set apart to deal with it. We harassed that individual because he was there. They dissolved the Department and appointed a Committee. What has been the result? Has unemployment gone down? The unemployment figures are soaring and we are not able now to get at the Lord Privy Seal. The Government is sheltering itself. It is a deep, well-thought out plan. They saw quite well that they were going to be faced with unemployment rampant— millions of unemployed—but they have shouldered the responsibility away from the Government. They are doing the same thing here. I ask the Government before they go any further in the handing away of our power, our democratic control of the Government, before they cramp the activity of the members of the working class, who are here voicing the sentiments of the workers—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:
The hon. Member is getting very wide of the Amendment.
I agree, Sir, but I wanted to get that in. There is nothing in it but what I have carefully thought out I intended to make that speech when we were discussing the formation of the Committee and, when I rose, the Minister of Labour moved the Closure on me. But I have got it in and I am satisfied for the moment, although I have intimated that I am holding myself in reserve for the midnight hour.
On a point of Order. If this Amendment is passed leaving these words out of paragraph (a), shall we be in order in moving manuscript Amendment" to (b), (c) and (d), applying to them the limitation which the words, if left in (a), would have applied to the whole operation of the Act?
We shall propose to add to (b) (c) and (d)—
The question is that certain words shall be left out. The Minister has explained that the purpose for which he desires to leave them out is that the point is already covered by an Amendment which he is moving to (a). We have asked on one or two occasions, but have not yet had a reply, why those words of limitation which apply to (b) (c) and (d) should now be withdrawn, thus extending the operation of those paragraphs to large numbers of persons who, as the Bill passed Second Reading, were outside its scope. I am asking whether we shall be in order to in moving Amendments later on to (b) (c) and (d) covering the limitation that (b) (c) and (d) shall not apply except to persons who are in receipt of substantial earnings or other similar payments. It was not possible for us to put our Amendments on the Paper because the Amendments of the Minister only appeared on the Paper this morning, and there was no opportunity for us to appreciate the effect of them or to deal with them.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:
Without committing myself to accepting any definite Amendment, I should say, generally speaking, Amendments would not be out of order which dealt with the matter in such broad terms, but the hon. Member must not take it as an indication that I shall accept any Amendment.
Should I be in order in moving to report Progress at this stage in order to clear up this position? It is obvious that a very big change has been made, affecting the interests of many thousands of people. I should like to report progress so that we may have an opportunity on some other day of having Amendments before us which would protect the interests of the various people concerned.
May I submit to you, Sir, that the Committee is now in the situation that the Government is moving an Amendment to Clause 1 and that it is quite uncertain whether it achieves the desired result or not. If it does, it appears sensibly to alter the sense of Sub-section (2). In the circumstances, in the general doubt about the
Division No. 405.] | AYES. | [9.25 p.m. |
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Lloyd, C. Ellis |
Adamson, W. M. (Staff.. Cannock) | Gibbins, Joseph | Logan, David Gilbert |
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Longbottom, A. W. |
Alpass, J. H. | Gill, T. H. | Longden, F. |
Ammon, Charles George | Gillett, George M. | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. |
Angell, Sir Norman | Glassey, A. E. | Lunn, William |
Arnott, John | Gossling, A. G. | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
Attlee, Clement Richard | Gould, F. | McElwee, A. |
Ayles, Walter | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | McEntee, V. L. |
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Gray, Milner | McKinlay, A. |
Barnes, Alfred John | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | MacNeill-Weir, L. |
Barr, James | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Malone, C. L. Estrange (N'thampton) |
Batey, Joseph | Groves, Thomas E. | Manning, E. L. |
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Grundy, Thomas W. | Mansfield, W. |
Bennett, William (Battersea, south) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | March, S. |
Benson, G. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Marcus, M. |
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Markham, S. F. |
Bowen, J. W. | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Marley, J. |
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Marshall, Fred |
Broad, Francis Alfred | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Mathers, George |
Bromfield, William | Harris, Percy A. | Matters, L. W. |
Bromley, J. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Middleton, G. |
Brooke, W. | Haycock, A. W. | Mills, J. E. |
Brothers, M. | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Milner, Major J. |
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Herderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Montague, Frederick |
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
Burgess, F. G. | Herriotts, J. | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) |
Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) |
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Hirst, w. (Bradford, South) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) |
Cameron, A. G. | Hoffman, P. C. | Mort, D. L. |
Cape, Thomas | Hollins, A. | Muff, G. |
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Hopkin, Daniel | Muggeridge, H. T. |
Charleton, H. C. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Murnin, Hugh |
Chater, Daniel | Isaacs, George | Naylor, T. E. |
Clarke, J. S. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
Cluse, W. S. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Noel Baker, P. J. |
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) |
Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) |
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Palin, John Henry |
Compton, Joseph | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Paling, Wilfrid |
Cripps, Sir Stafford | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Palmer, E. T |
Daggar, George | Lang, Gordon | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Perry, S. F. |
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
Denman, Hon. R. D. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
Dukes, C. | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Pole, Major D. G. |
Duncan, Charles | Lawrence, Susan | Potts, John S. |
Ede, James Chuter | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Pybus, Percy John |
Edmunds, J. E. | Lawson, John James | Quibell, D. J. K. |
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Rathbone, Eleanor |
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Leach, W. | Raynes, W. R. |
Egan, W. H | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Richards, R. |
Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead) | Leonard, W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
Foot, Isaac | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
Freeman, Peter | Lindley, Fred W. | Ritson, J. |
Romeril, H. G. | Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley) | Walker, J. |
Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Wallace, H. W. |
Rowson, Guy | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Watkins, F. C. |
Salter, Dr. Alfred | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Wellock, Wilfred |
Sanders, W. S. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
Sawyer, G. F. | Sorensen, R. | Westwood, Joseph |
Scurr, John | Stamford, Thomas W. | White, H. G. |
Sexton, Sir James | Strauss, G. R. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Sullivan, J. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Sutton, J. E. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
Sherwood, G. H. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
Shield, George William | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
Shillaker, J. F. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
Shinwell, E. | Thurtle, Ernest | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Tillett, Ben | Wilson, J (Oldham) |
Simmons, C. J. | Tinker, John Joseph | Wilson R. J. (Jarrow) |
Sinkinson, George | Tout, W. J. | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
Sitch, Charles H. | Townend, A. E. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Vaughan, David | |
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Viant, S. P. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson. | ||
NOES. | ||
Brockway, A. Fenner | Kirkwood, D. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Wise, E. F. |
Buchanan, G. | Maxton, James | |
Conway, Sir W. Martin | Sandham, E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
Horrabin, J. F. | Stephen, Campbell | Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley |
Division No. 406.] | AYES. | [9.35 p.m. |
Brockway, A. Fenner | Kirkwood, D. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Wise, E. F |
Buchanan, G. | Maxton, James | |
Horrabin, J. F. | Sandham, E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Stephen, Campbell | Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley. |
NOES. | ||
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) |
Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Compton, Joseph | Harris, Percy A. |
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Cove, William G. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
Alpass, J. H. | Cripps, Sir Stafford | Haycock, A. W. |
Ammon, Charles George | Daggar, George | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) |
Angell, Sir Norman | Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) |
Arnott, John | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
Attlee, Clement Richard | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Harriotts, J. |
Ayles, Walter | Dukes, C. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) |
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston) | Duncan, Charles | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
Barnes, Alfred John | Ede, James Chuter | Hoffman, P. C. |
Barr, James | Edmunds, J. E. | Hollins, A. |
Batey, Joseph | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Hopkin, Daniel |
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Hudson, James H. (Hudderefield) |
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Egan, W. H. | Isaacs, George |
Benson, G. | Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead) | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Foot, Isaac | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Freeman, Peter | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
Bowen, J. W. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) |
Broad, Francis Alfred | Gibbins, Joseph | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
Bromfield, William | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
Bromley, J. | Gill, T. H. | Lang, Gordon |
Brooke, W. | Gillett, George M. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George |
Brothers, M. | Glassey, A. E. | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) |
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Gossling, A. G. | Law, Albert (Bolton) |
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Gould, F. | Law, A. (Rossendale) |
Burgess, F. G. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Lawrence, Susan |
Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Gray, Milner | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) |
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lawson, John James |
Cameron, A. G. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) |
Cape, Thomas | Groves, Thomas E. | Leach, W. |
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Grundy, Thomas W. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) |
Charleton, H. C. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Leonard, W. |
Chater, Daniel | Hall, G. K. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
Clarke, J. S. | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Llndley, Fred W. |
Cluse, W. S. | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Lloyd, C. Ellis |
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Logan, David Gilbert |
Longbottom, A. W. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
Longden, F. | Perry, S. F. | Sorensen, R. |
Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
Lunn, William | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Strauss, G. R. |
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Pole, Major D. G. | Sullivan, J. |
McElwee, A. | Potts, John S. | Sutton, J. E. |
McEntee, V. L. | Pybus, Percy John | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
McKinlay, A. | Quibell, D. J. K. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
MacNeill-Weir, L. | Raynes, W. R. | Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow) |
McShane, John James | Richards, R. | Thurtle, Ernest |
Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Tillett, Ben |
Manning, E. L. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Tinker, John Joseph |
Mansfield, W. | Ritson, J. | Tout, W. J. |
March, S. | Romeril, H. G. | Townend, A. E. |
Marcus, M. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Vaughan, David |
Markham, S. F | Rowson, Guy | Viant, S. P. |
Marley, J. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Walker, J. |
Marshall, Fred | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) | Wallace, H. W. |
Mathers, George | Sanders, w. S. | Watkins, F. C. |
Matters, L. W. | Sawyer, G. F. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
Middleton, G. | Scurr, John | Wellock, Wilfred |
Mills, J. E. | Sexton, Sir James | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
Milner, Major J. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Westwood, Joseph |
Montague, Frederick | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | White, H. G. |
Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Sherwood, G. H. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Shield, George William | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Shillaker, J. F. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Shinwell, E. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
Mort, D. L. | Short, Alfred (Wednestury) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
Muff, G. | Simmons, C. J. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
Murnin, Hugh | Sinkinson, George | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
Naylor, T. E. | Sitch, Charles H. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhiths) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
Noel Baker, P. J. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) | Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | |
Palin, John Henry | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
Paling, Wilfrid | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson. |
Palmer, E. T. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
I beg to move after the words last inserted, to insert the words:
so however that there is no reduction in the benefit of persons whose earnings and benefits together amount to less than an income at the rate of two hundred and fifty pounds per year.
The general effect of the Amendment is to put a limit of £250 per year on eases which can be dealt with. All the cases with over £250 a year limit can be brought within the ambit of this restrictive legislation, but all people with incomes of less than £250 per annum are not to be subject to the new additional restrictive conditions proposed in this Clause of the Bill. There is no need for me to labour the points in support of this Amendment. The Secretary of State for War on the Second Reading of the Bill almost burst in his indignation at the thought of people with incomes of £7 and £8 a week also drawing unemployment benefit. We do not want to be specially obstructive of the Government's attempt to get at the people who are drawing £7 or £9 a week and also unemployment benefit. We are willing to allow them to be free to go in search
of the mythical person who is getting £7 a week and also drawing unemployment benefit, so that they will be able to say to him when they catch him, "We have got you, and you will get no more unemployment benefit." All we say is that it is a different case where the income is under £250 per annum. A person with that income is is no very comfortable circumstances, and hon. Members who are in receipt of £400 per annum will not want to go out with an axe in pursuit of people who have less than £250 per annum. It would not be dignified. It is not the thing for the people with an income of £400 to pass legislation imposing restrictive conditions upon these people.
If the Minister of Labour is unwilling to accept the Amendment she should give us figures, which we have not yet been able to get, of the number of people who will be included within the ambit of the Measure. There is a great deal of uncertainty as to who is within the scope of the Bill, especially after the last Amendment accepted by the Committee. I should like the Minister of Labour, or the Parliamentary Secretary, to tell us what exactly it will mean in loss to the insurance fund if the Amendment is carried. The Committee, so far, has been in a very trustful mood. We have had no figures. The statement regarding £5,500,000 in the Memorandum is something which was imagined by the Royal Commission, and the Minister of Labour has no idea as to what will happen if the Advisory Committee goes out searching for the people who are dole dodgers. I hope she will tell us what it will mean in additional expenditure if this limiting Amendment is carried, and also give us some idea of the classes of persons who will be affected. I think she should also give us the number of people in receipt of over £7 a week, the number in receipt of between £7 and £6, and the number in receipt of under £5 per week. That is a reasonable demand, particularly as so much of the propaganda and agitation in regard to this Measure has been around the £7 and £8 per week man. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) gave us a case which had aroused his indignation and led him to support the Government.
I hope we are going to get something more definite. The unemployed are entitled to more definite knowledge as to what is going to happen, and it will not be to the credit of the Opposition that not a single voice, with the exception of the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert), has so far been raised in the defence of the unemployed. The whole Opposition has been dumb. I do not know whether that is a tribute to the wisdom of the Minister of Labour, but I simply mention the fact for this reason, that if she proposes to make any concession and accept this Amendment the silence which has oppressed the official Opposition may be broken and the former Minister of Labour may become vocal. I would remind her that the Government on previous occasions have disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), and I hold out to her the encouragement that if the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with her on this point it may be to the advantage of the country. We must have a limit to this new inquisition which is going to be set up in regard to certain sections of the unemployed. There should be a limit, and the limit I suggest is the figure of £250 per annum. I look with interest to see how many Members of this Com- mittee who themselves have a, larger income are willing to vote against this limitation.
My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment asked a good many questions, but I did not hear that he gave any particular reason why this figure should be accepted. The proposal of the Bill seems to the Government to be the proper course, in laying down that the amount should be, as stated in the Bill, a "substantial" amount. The Bill states that the Minister shall take counsel with the Advisory Committee before that substantial amount is fixed. The body which fixes this amount in consultation with the Minister has at least three workers' representatives upon it.
The Government have been able to get an Amendment passed which has taken out the reference to "substantial amount." The substantial amounts, it is true, still apply to Subsection (2, a) of Clause 1, but do not apply to Sub-sections (2, b), (2, c) and (2, d) classes, and there is no limit of income so far as they are concerned.
This matter will be discussed on Clause 2 later, when my hon. Friend will get, perhaps, a more detailed answer to his question. I can assure him that he is not right in what that particular statement implies. On this Committee there are three working class representatives, three trade union representatives.
Out of nine.
The numbers of the Advisory Committee were suggested by the Trades Union Congress, which certainly represents the organised opinion of the workers of this country. When these amounts are fixed they will be fixed by the Minister in consultation with the Advisory Committee composed of three of the workers' representatives as well as three representatives of the other two sections which contribute to the Insurance Fund. As this matter will be discussed in detail later, all I can say on behalf of the Government now is that we cannot accept this arbitrary amount, which would interfere with the consultations with the Advisory Committee.
I am afraid that the reply of the Minister will carry very little conviction to those of us who are really concerned with the way in which the Clause will work out. Reference to the Trades Union Congress does not help the Minister at all. It may be perfectly true that the Trades Union Congress in its evidence before the Royal Commission made some suggestion for a. committee upon which the trade union representatives should be in the proportion of one to three. If the Government had been bringing in a Bill to implement the representations which the Trades Union Congress made to the Royal Commission, the Parliamentary Secretary would have been entitled to quote the Trades Union Congress as a justification for the three representatives out of nine, but no one knows better than the Minister that that is not the Bill before us.
On a point of Order. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted the Trades Union Congress, and it is customary for an hon. Member who is replying to reply to such a point.
I should not have referred to a matter so completely irrelevant to this Clause of the Bill if the Minister himself had not referred to it. The Minister has told us that the reason why he cannot say anything on this part of the Clause is that he may be saying something later on Sub-sections (2, b), (2, c) and (2, d). Assuming that the Minister were in a position to announce beforehand his acceptance of the Amendments to Sub-sections (2, b), (2, c) and 2, d), which refer to "substantial earnings," that would still leave unsettled the question of what constitutes "substantial earnings." Therefore the attitude of my hon. Friend in regard to Sub-section (2, a) is not in the least affected by what the Minister may say later. The hon. Gentleman inquired on what basis the figure of £250 had been selected. I would remind him that the figure of £250 is not a minimum but a maximum, a figure which defines the upward limit of unemployment insurance in this country, and also in housing legislation defines the upward limit of what are described as the working classes of this country. The last function of a Government which is supposed to represent the working classes of this country is to resist Amendments which are designed to protect the working classes. On this Amendment, as on every other, we have also to bear in mind the different frames of mind that people bring to the interpretation of Acts of Parliament. The phrase, "substantial earnings," which appears later in Subsection (2, a), may conceivably be interpreted by the present Minister of Labour in one sense, and by subsequent Ministers of Labour in another sense.
The Conservative conception of what constitutes substantial earnings is a very slender conception. It is a conception which ought to be resisted from these benches, and because there is a possibility, indeed, a certainty, that this Bill and this Clause will be administered, not merely by the present Government, but by subsequent Governments, this very tenuous phrase about substantial earnings ought to be reasonably defined before the Bill is allowed to leave the Committee. There are very few Conservative Members present. I imagine that most of them have gone home. Presumably, they have gone home because they feel that Conservative interests are amply protected by the Front Bench. Certainly, the speech of the Minister so far leaves no room to suppose that he is standing for working-class interests against the protection of Conservative interests in this House. We have had a discussion on the propriety of referring this sort of issue to a committee. We cannot go over that Debate again, but if, as the House has decided, this issue is to go to a committee, I suggest that the very least that this side of the Committee ought to do is to restrict the discretion of that committee within limits which protect genuine working-class interests. In these circumstances I hope the Committee will support the attempt which is being made to define substantial earnings as earnings up to £250 a year.
When the Second Reading Debate was in progress the case that was made from the Liberal Benches, to a very large extent supported by the Secretary of State for War, who wound up the Debate for the Government, was that there were substantial numbers of people who were only engaged for part of the week, and who were drawing very much larger incomes than other workers normally got for a full week's work. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) drew a picture of dockers at Cardiff, and gave illustrations of the earnings of those dockers over a period of 17 weeks. He drew the conclusion that in only two weeks out of the 17 were those part-time dockers earning less than about £7 or £8 a week. It is characteristic of those who stand for what is popularly known as economy in this House to make an attack upon masses of the people by citing the cases of small numbers of people. In the same way that the poor old widow is trotted out when the Budget is under discussion, so the docker who is drawing £8 a week for a few days work, if there be any such, is brought into prominence when the House is discussing the subject of social insurance. I could understand the official Oppositions doing that; it is their job, and I make no complaint that they do their job. But what I cannot understand is a Labour Government proposing phraseology so vague that it would cover not merely the kind of case to which attention was drawn from the Liberal and Conservative benches, but almost an illimitable number of cases, an undefined area of cases, which might include scores of thousands of people who were getting not £8 a week or £5 a week but much lower sums.
If the Government think it is wise to remedy the kind of anomalies to which attention was drawn from the Opposition Benches—I do not think they were—they would only have been justified in remedying those anomalies as part of a very much larger and more comprehensive scheme of social insurance. If they think they are wise in trying to remedy the kind of case cited, then let them remedy it in such a way as does not throw into the melting pot the cases of scores of thousands of people who are not in anything like the same position as the cases cited. This Government will not last for ever. Its own conduct has rendered its dismissal at the next election certain. When the Government do go out of office there will be a Conservative Govern- ment manning this Committee, and there will be a Treasury representative on the Committee acting under the orders of a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, administering the phrase about "substantial earnings." A very prominent Conservative once said that the job of the Conservative party was to serve the interests of the possessing classes, whether the Conservatives were in power or out of power. I suggest that the Labour Government might take that for its motto, and say that it is its job to serve working-class interests whether there is a Labour Government in power or not. The last way to serve the interests of the working classes whether there is a Labour Government in power or not is to leave the discretion of this committee unfettered in regard to what constitutes substantial earnings.
In these circumstances, I hope someone from the Front Bench will make a further statement that will make it abundantly clear what is in the mind of the Minister as to what constiutes substantial earnings. We have not learned that yet. We do not know whether it is in the mind of the Minister that £3 a week constitutes substantial earnings, or £4 or £2. We are left in complete ignorance as to what is in the Minister's mind. Without any kind of definition in the Bill, if we allow it to go through, we are giving a blank cheque, an unrestricted cheque, to the Committee to determine what constitutes "substantial earnings." To allow the Clause to go through without defining substantial earnings is to place innumerable cases of unemployment benefit in jeopardy. If it is in the mind of the Minister only to deal with the alleged abuses, let her interpret the phrase in terms which will make it clear that it is only the alleged abuses that are being dealt with and that she is not interfering with reasonable earnings, even where the week has not been a full one. Above all, do not let the Minister leave in a vague and undefined form a phrase like "substantial earnings" which is going to be interpreted by a committee in which working-class representatives are hopelessly outnumbered, and will be interpreted by another Government, in another committee which has no concern for working-class interests.
I gather that the point of the Amendment is to have a definite amount inserted in the Bill by the House of Commons rather than to leave the fixing of the figure, covered by the words "substantial earnings" to a committee consisting of nine people—in the majority of whom, I gather, my hon. Friends who put forward this Amendment have no great confidence. I desired to see how far this figure of £250 which they propose in the Amendment, represented their views when they were engaged in constructive rather than critical statesmanship and when they produced a Living Wage Bill. I secured a copy of their Bill in the Vote Office, and I find from the Memorandum that
Clause 1 gives a definition of a minimum living wage based partly on Australian and other precedents and authorises the President of the Board of Trade to set up a committee to interpret the definition in exact figures, having regard to the cost of living and the limits set by the actual amount available for distribution in wages at any moment, proper provision being made for replacement of wasting capital and the provision of new capital.
A solicitude for the capitalist class which does them every credit.
The committee will include representatives of housewives and of the trade unions and the co-operative movement as well as competent economists.
Thus the committee which was to interpret their own vague words in actual figures, was not limited in numbers and it could have been packed by a Tory Government so as to have an overwhelming weight of opinion against their views. I have made it a rule in my life never to be more royalist than the King and my hon. Friends who support this Amendment were all in this Bill. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) introduced it and he was supported by an hon. Member whom we are all sorry is not here to-night, namely, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wall-head), the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Jowett), the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway), the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham), the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise), the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Miss Lee), the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), the hon. Member
for Bootle (Mr. Kinley), and the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown), who was with them in those days and who appears to have rejoined them. I cannot help feeling that if, when they were engaged on that task, they found it impossible to put in a figure or to ask the House of Commons to put in a figure, that we should be very unwise on this occasion to try to be more definite than they were when they were not acting as critics but engaged in constructive statesmanship.
No one reading this Bill can doubt for a moment that what this committee is going to do is, in fact, to apply means tests to various categories of workers in connection with unemployment insurance. Those means tests will, of course, be on the lines that persons whose earnings rise above a certain figure should have their unemployment benefit reduced or abolished. That principle of means tests is being introduced and supported by the Government. We now find the Government unwilling to accept the opposite kind of means test, that if an individual's income drops below a certain figure, he shall not have his unemployment benefit either reduced or curtailed. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is no question whatever of an arbitrary figure. Every figure which is mentioned in this case will be an arbitrary figure. The figures which the committee will lay down as their means tests for the various categories whose unemployment benefit can be reduced or abolished altogether by this Bill will be arbitrary figures.
The point is that they are willing to apply the principle of a means test in the sense that they curtail the benefit of persons whose income rises above a certain figure, but they are not willing to apply it when the principle works in favour of the insured person, and I would like to know on what conceivable ground a Labour Government introduce a means test in the one case and refuse it in the other. It seems to me almost inexplicable that the principle can be introduced when it penalises the workman but is definitely resisted when it protects the workman, and we should like to have some explanation and not a mere riding off by the calling of a particular figure arbitrary. It is the principle of a protective means test instead of a penalising means test, and the Parliamentary Secretary does not seem to have realised that that is the issue. He has not even alluded to it in his speech, and it seems that he is paying no attention to the issue before the Committee.
May I express my surprise at the replies that were given by the Parliamentary Secretary? In response to the moving of this Amendment, he suggested a two-fold answer. The first was that there would be Amendments moved by the Government to the various Sub-sections to be dealt with later, and in another part of his reply he suggested, and much more definitely, that the fixing of this "substantial earnings "figure would be a matter for the Minister in consultation with the Advisory Committee. He further suggested that that committee, not yet set up, would be fully qualified owing to its composition, to decide what ought to be the figure that would be covered by the term "substantial earnings." I want the Committee to understand that we are here effecting legislation that is directed to the worsening of the conditions of certain of the less fortunate sections of the working class. In the worsening of those conditions, a certain machine is being set up, and it is being asked that the power of that committee, the scope of that committee, in its interpretation of the amount of earnings, shall be left completely unfettered by this House. I want hon. Members on this side to understand that that committee must either have a limit fixed by us, or else it will sit down to its task with the power, deliberately given to it, to wander over the whole field of insured occupations.
No class of individuals will be free from the operations of the committee unless we are prepared to insert safeguards based upon our actual experience and knowledge of how the people live. The Parliamentary Secretary must know that to leave this figure unstated, and we ought not to leave the committee, whose personnel he himself does not know, to decide from time to time what shall he interpreted as substantial earnings, and to vary their own interpretations to bring in an ever increasing number of men and women who have hitherto looked to us for a defence. We have suggested the figure of £250 a year, equivalent to £5 a week. The Minister is not prepared to accept that, and in his non-acceptance he declares that those whose earnings are below that figure are to be attacked by this committee. We ask that all those below that figure shall be protected, but the Minister said "No." What does the Committee say and particularly what does this aide of the Committee say? Are we to declare that those who earn less than £5 a week belong to that section of society which no longer needs the protection of the Labour Government? If we are to say that, are we prepared to say that there is no limit to the extent to which we will extend the field of operations of this precious Advisory Committee?
Are we to defend any of the workers from its operations or are we to include all those who are unfortunate enough to have recourse to the unemployment insurance machinery, and who, by that very reason alone, will be forced into contact with the committee? Members on this side know the conditions under which the unemployed exist, and are pledged to improve these conditions. Are we now to let the world know that all the things that we have said hitherto are only spoof for the purpose of getting position here? Are we now to let the whole working-class know that if they want to be saved from a worsening of their conditions during the existence of the Labour Government the one thing they have to do in future is to see that in no circumstances are they unemployed; in other words, to avoid the limitation we are asking, they will have to submit to any terms the employers impose on them, realising that if they do not stay in their jobs and have to approach the Employment Exchange it will be the first step towards the time when this Advisory Committee will deal with them. When that time comes they will realise what a misfortune for them it was that on this occasion we were not prepared to limit the activities of the Advisory Committee.
I suppose there are very few Members on this side who do not say now that there are abuses, but there were times when they were unemployed themselves when they knew that there were no abuses—except those committed against the unemployed workers. In these days we are changing our views, having changed our clothes and our habits, and we look at things from a different angle. What I want to know is, Is a man who gets 35s. a week to be treated as a man with substantial earnings? What is to happen to a man or woman who is used deliberately by an employer in the in human fashion which is developing in our industries to-day, the employer contriving to have his work come along in such a way that by putting the screw on for a day and a night, or two days and two nights, he can get the whole of his week's output manufactured, compelling those whom he employs to flay them selves during that period, and then turns them out? He will leave them to be defined by the advisory committee as persons having substantial earnings. I appeal to this Committee to realise what they are doing. In the absence of some definite figure such as we have suggested, hon. Members must realise that no member of the working class when unemployed will be safe from this advisory committee, however little he may be earning. I would remind hon. Members, also, of the variations in definition which will come with changes of Government. There may be a Labour Minister who is prepared to suggest—
This is the first time I have made this point; and I would point out also that this is the first time I have spoken.
I suggest that hon. Members on this side of the Committee do believe, or did believe, that there is a difference in the administration of our Acts of Parliament which affect the unemployed when there is a Labour Minister on the Treasury Bench as compared with the administration under a Tory Minister. What a Labour Minister, with a full knowledge of working-class conditions, would accept as an interpretation of substantial earnings would be very different from the interpretation to which a Tory Minister would agree, and in considering all these points, we have to keep that consideration in mind, because we shall be held responsible for what happens to unemployed people under this scheme. We are now creating the machinery. What that machinery will be able to do in the future is what we decide to-night that it shall be capable of doing. When the chickens come home to roost it will not be the Government in power who will be blamed, but those who, by their actions to-night, are deciding to what extent the unemployed can be persecuted in the near future.
I represent a constituency in which there is a large number of working people, and in which a large number of persons are employed for only two or three days a week. The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) who represents the members of the Civil Service must know very well that many civil servants do not earn £5 a week; in fact, a good many of them do not earn £3 a week.
It is a fact that the Government in the case of civil servants regard £2 or £3 a week as reasonably substantial earnings, and that is what makes me doubly apprehensive about the same test being applied to people under this Bill.
I think this Amendment is very unreasonable. It is unreasonable that a man who picks up £5 for two days' work should, because he is unemployed four days, draw benefit. I have been a member of the Independent Labour Party ever since its formation, and I was a member for nearly 30 years, and I have never asked that unemployment benefit should be paid to a man who is earning £5 a week. Unemployment insurance is a heavy tax on industry, and why should that burden be increased in order to maintain men who are earning £5 a week?
Division No. 407]. | AYES. | [10.40 p.m. |
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hayes, John Harvey | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Pole, Major D. G. |
Alpass, J. H. | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Potts, John S. |
Ammon, Charles George | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Pybus, Percy John |
Arnott, John | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Quibell, D. J. K. |
Attlee, Clement Richard | Herriotts, J. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
Ayles, Walter | Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth | Raynes, W. R. |
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Richards, R. |
Barnes, Alfred John | Hoffman, P. C. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
Barr, James | Hopkin, Daniel | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
Batey, Joseph | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Ritson, J. |
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Isaacs, George | Romeril, H. G. |
Benson, G. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Rowson, Guy |
Bowen, J. W. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) |
Broad, Francis Alfred | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) | Sanders, W. S. |
Bromfield, William | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Sawyer, G. F. |
Bromley, J. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Scurr, John |
Brooke, W. | Lang, Gordon | Sexton, Sir James |
Brothers, M. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Sherwood, G. H. |
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Shield, George William |
Burgess, F. G. | Law, A. (Rosendale) | Shillaxer, J. F. |
Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Lawrence, Susan | Shinwell, E. |
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
Cameron, A. G. | Lawson, John James | Simmons, C. J. |
Cape, Thomas | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Sinkinson, George |
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Leach, W. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
Charleton, H. C. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
Chater, Daniel | Leonard, W. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
Clarke, J. S. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
Cluse, W. S. | Llndley, Fred W. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Logan, David Gilbert | Sorensen, R. |
Compton, Joseph | Longbottom, A. W. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
Cripps, Sir Stafford | Longden, F. | Strauss, G. R. |
Daggar, George | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Sullivan, J. |
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Lunn, William | Sutton, J. E. |
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Taylor R. A. (Lincoln) |
Denman, Hon. R. D. | McElwee, A. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
Dukes, C. | McEntee, V. L. | Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow) |
Duncan, Charles | McKinlay, A. | Thurtle, Ernest |
Ede, James Chuter | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Tillett, Ben |
Edmunds, J. E. | Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton) | Tinker, John Joseph |
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Manning, E. L. | Toole, Joseph |
Egan, W. H. | Mansfield, W. | Tout, W. J. |
Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead) | March, S. | Townend, A. E. |
Foot, Isaac | Markham, S. F. | Vaughan, David |
Freeman, Peter | Marshall, Fred | Viant, S. P. |
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Mathers, George | Walker, J. |
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Matters, L. W. | Wallace, H. W. |
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Middleton, G. | Watkins, F. C. |
Gibbins, Joseph | Mills, J. E. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Milner, Major J. | Wellock, Wilfred |
Gill, T. H. | Montague, Frederick | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
Gillett, George M. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
Glassey, A. E. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Westwood, Joseph |
Gossling, A. G. | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | White, H. G. |
Gould, F. | Mort, D. L. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Muff, G. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Muggeridge, H. T. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Murnin, Hugh | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Naylor, T. E. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
Groves, Thomas E. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
Grundy, Thomas W. | Noel Baker, P. J. | Wilson, J, (Oldham) |
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Palin, John Henry | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Paling, Wilfrid | |
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Palmer, E. T. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. William Whiteley |
Harris, Percy A. | Perry, S. F. |
NOES. | ||
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Sandham, E. |
Brockway, A. Fenner | Kirkwood, D. | Stephen, Campbell |
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
Buchanan, G. | Maxton, James | Wise, E. F. |
Forgan, Dr. Robert | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | |
Horrabin, J. F. | Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley. |
On a point of Order. May I ask whether, in view of the repeated low numbers in the Divisions that have taken place, it is not within your competence, Mr. Dunnico, to count the Members in their places?
May I draw your attention to the fact that this is a Bill of extraordinarily great importance and that a very limited time has been allowed for it? May I suggest that the Amendments brought before the Committee have in every case dealt with serious matters and that the discussions here ought not to be limited in any way or exceptional steps be taken to deal with the points at issue?
May I hope that you will respect the rights of minorities in this Committee?
May I respectfully point out to you that, although the numbers in some Divisions may have been small, they have been composed of different hon. Members on each occasion.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out paragraph (a).
This Amendment is in the name of myself and hon. Members who sit with me and also in the name of three hon. Members of the party that has just been formed. I am willing and ready to accept any help, no matter from what quarter it comes, if I think it will benefit the unem- ployed person. This Amendment deals with what is called the casual worker. The criticism which I levelled at the Bill on the Second Reading has been justified. When I suggested that the Bill should be rejected many hon. Members ridiculed the idea put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) and myself that under this paragraph powers were given to deal with every unemployed person, it was not confined to the casual worker. When we made that statement we were met by a mixture of cynicism and abuse from the Secretary of State for War, who said that we understood nothing and learned nothing, and that we were filled with hatred of certain people. Before a week has passed the Secretary of State for War has been proved to be wrong, not by me or by the Conservative party but by his own draftsman. I anticipate that the Attorney-General has advised him that this Clause needs amendment in order to limit the powers given under it. As it is the paragraph applies to no period of time. The Advisory Committee can go back for years in order to find out a man's earnings. We have urged that this should be amended, and the Government are proposing to alter the Clause so that the search shall be limited to a period of four weeks.
I do not want to encroach on past discussions, but when we were moving limitations earlier to-day, we were told that it should not be done, that we should trust the advisory committee, who were people above reproach. Here the Minister herself, through the Attorney-General, is placing a limit on the advisory committee's powers. The principle is admitted that the advisory committee cannot be granted unlimited powers, and that four weeks ought to be the time taken. What is paragraph (a)? Under it the Minister possesses full power to go back to any period in the past and to calculate a person's earnings, and if she thinks that the earnings are of a "substantial" amount benefit can be deducted in the future. That is the position with which we are faced.
I say to trade unionists here that they ought to consider the trade union point of view. Hitherto it has been the function of trade unionism to assist in getting the highest possible remuneration for services rendered by its members. I see hon. Members here who, with me, accepted the Marxian doctrine that labour is a commodity, and that the workman who sold his labour had the right to force the highest possible wage from his employer. Indeed, the function of trade unions has always been to make the hourly rate, the daily rate or the weekly rate of pay as high as possible. The test of trade unionism, wherever it has been successful, has been its success in getting the highest rate of wages from employers.
I see the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in his place. What I am saying now I am not saving sarcastically or with a desire to score a point. He has been looked upon as a successful trade union leader, as a man capable of handling a great trade union. What is the test? It is said, "Jimmy at least fought for his men." That is a common statement. The right hon. Gentleman has been the object of attack by certain employers. He has been able to force for a day's work or a week's work a guaranteed wage often higher than that of other workers. Take another illustration, the case of the dock workers. There has been a man who has been associated with the right hon. Gentleman. I refer to Ernest Bevin, who has earned justifiably a great reputation for being able to gain concessions for his men. What was the test applied to him? That he has been able to get for his men a remuneration that other workers could not get. In each case the test has been, how high the union and the power of organisation could make the reward? The great thing held out to non-unionists has been this: "Join the union, and we will force up wages." We have constantly said in regard to the worker who gets £4 or £5 for two days' work, that that worker has shown success in organisation and that his leaders have shown success. In this Bill we reverse the programme. We say: "If your earnings are substantial in amount, if your organisation has been effective, if you have joined the union, if you have fought in your union, if your leaders have been skilled and have been able to get high wages for two days' work, then, because you have done that and you are getting substantial payment for the days that you work, we will not pay you unemployment benefit for the other days." In the case of the man who does not organise, who does not fight for high wages, who remains outside the trade union, with the result that his wages are low, we say to him: "Because you did not organise, because you do not get £4, £3, or £2 10s. for two days' work, but only £l or 30s., the Labour Government, because you have not organized, because you have not fought and because, as a result, your remuneration is low, will give you unemployment benefit." [Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary of State for Air has anything to say I will resume my seat.
I was only wondering whether Karl Marx was turning in his grave.
I have said that organisation and the power of the union to get high wages is the test of trade unionism. Why should we say that we will give unemployment pay to those who have not organised? Under the Clause, as originally drafted, the Minister had power to take two or three years earnings, but now that is limited to one month. She is entitled to say: "For the past month your earnings were substantial, your union has been able to get substantial wages for you for the past four weeks, therefore"—
The hon. Member suggests that the trade union has succeeded in establishing high wages for two or three days. Unless those two or three days were the habitual employment of that individual, the hon. Member's statement falls to the ground.
No. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the Bill. This Sub-section, as amended by the Ministers proposal which is next on the Paper, would read as follows:
The classes of persons to whom this Section applies are the following:
What is there in that Sub-section about habitual work? Can the Minister show me in this Clause, or any cognate Clause any reference to habitual work? Where,
in the Bill is there any provision about habitual work? If a man joins a union, and the union forces four weeks of high wages for him, that is good trade unionism. He should not be penalised; he should be complimented and assisted. Another man alongside him, refuses to join a union and he gets four weeks of bad wages. Instead of £12 or £16 for four weeks, he only gets £7. Then, under this Clause you say that £7 is not substantial and therefore that man shall get benefit; but the other man whose union forced good wages for him, you say, had substantial earnings' and there for he shall be denied benefit. Near where I live, as in every other part of the country, there are unionists and non-unionists. I am thinking of one factory where the men have refused to organise and where they are paid indefensibly low wages. The waitresses of this country are practically unorganised, with the result that they are paid shockingly low wages and a trade board has had to be applied to their ease. Yet, according to this proposal, the unorganised, low paid waitresses are to get benefit and the girls of the Co-operative movement, who are organised, who have made sacrifices and who are paid a good wage are to be refused benefit.
I ask the Government where are they going? When the Secretary of State for War was replying to me he asked me did I defend a man getting £7 for two days and then drawing benefit. I do not need to defend it. Every Member on that Front Bench defended it. The provision which we are now limiting by this Bill was originally put in because of pressure from the Labour party, when £7 was a more common wage than it is now. No one will deny that £7 is a less common wage now than it was six years ago. Yet in 1924, in 1927, each succeeding Government said that the £7 a week man was to get benefit—fought for it, and gave him it. Every one of those men has an insurance qualification, and I put this to hon. Members: You may have a right—I have disputed it—to apply a means test to those with no insurance qualification. I disagree with that philosophy and will oppose it, but now you come to those who have an insurance qualification, and you break your contract, and you leave it to a vague committee to decide the terms on which it is to be broken. If the Government or any succeeding Government come along and say, as indeed trade unions have done, that they find the country is not well off and must save money—that is a position that trade unionists have had to take up. I have been on an executive and had to do it. They have found they bad no money, and they have had to go to their members and say, "We cannot meet our obligations." But when we have done it, we have done it putting the facts before the members.
But what are you doing here? You are breaking your contract here without definitely allowing the members to know their exact position at all. If I enter into a fire or burglary insurance policy, I know the conditions of my payments. If the society finds itself bankrupt or partially so, it alters the conditions, and gives me notice, but here you are altering their insurance policy without giving the men a day's notice, and furthermore giving them no definite policy and no definite arrangement. You say to these men, "Pay to us, and our contract with you will be remitted to another body and will not be put in a Statute." Surely you cannot defend this.
It is said that the defence of this thing is the £7 or £8 a week man. I am not saying that that case does not exist, and after you have passed this Bill he will exist, but the greatest fallacy under the sun in our unemployment insurance system is setting out to catch some fancy man like that. Rarely speaking do you ever catch him, and when you have caught him you have succeeded in catching hundreds and thousands of others whom you never intended to catch. As an illustration—I do not do it to go beyond your Ruling, Sir—I take the Debate in 1924, when the Minister for War was the Minister of Labour. Some of us take the view that the" not genuinely seeking work "condition should be abolished. What was fairer on a bit of paper than to say that only people genuinely seeking work should get benefit? The Secretary of State for War said it and said that no decent person would ever be refused benefit, and I think he meant it. I think in his heart of hearts he wanted to do it, but, as a matter of fact, when the thing began to work the one person that could escape was the not genuinely seeking work, and the one person sure to be caught was the genuine person for whom you never intended it.
I know a stevedore from Glasgow, a member of the Glasgow City Council, a magistrate, a moderate, a Tory, a large employer of labour. He is a stevedore dealing with thousands of men a year, and I asked him how many men earned £7 a week, and he said that the £7 and £5 a week man in the Glasgow docks was disappearing, and that while they were there really few ever made any attempt to get unemployment benefit. I have asked for figures, and have not been able to get them. I can imagine the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), if it was a Clause dealing with something which he had at heart, insisting on figures being provided. We might find 100 or 1,000 of these men, but in trying to embrace them, we should embrace tens of thousands of others whom we never meant to embrace.
This paragraph is an attack on trade union standards—the lower the income the more the unemployment benefit. Unscrupulous employers will take advantage of it and screw down wages so that their employés can get benefit. If an employer is decent and exercises Christian feelings so that his employés' earnings are substantial, benefit will not be granted. This paragraph is anti-tradeunionism and will be an encouragement for wages to be lowered. This is a Bill to cure anomalies, but now it is proposed to investigate a man's wages during the last four weeks, and that will create further anomalies. When I worked in an engineering shop, my wages in the last four weeks might have been well outside the limit. In another four weeks they would be well inside. In the last four weeks a man may have good earnings, but in the previous nine months he may have had a very lean time. You will have anomalies like there are in widows' pensions; a man with a penny over is out and a man with a penny less is in. You have no right to take only a man's earnings; you should take his income. A man may have earned small amounts, and may have an income from another source, but you allow that to go. The £7 a week man got benefit in 1924. Nobody ever thought he was a bad man. Larger numbers got it than is the case now, because then it was a much more common wage. To-day we hear of it only because there is a press campaign. Therefore I hope the Committee will reject this paragraph (a) with the scorn, contempt and derision which it deserves.
I have one or two questions respecting paragraph (a) which I wish to put to the Minister. There is some apprehension that this paragraph will apply to men whose normal period of work is 6 days a week but who, during a long period of depression, have been working only two, three or four days a week. In what has already been said all the emphasis has been thrown on the £7 a week man; but there is greater anxiety respecting large ranges of men who never attain that figure. In the textile machine shops of Lancashire there are to-day thousands of men working three days a week and earning even with payment by results, below 45s. a week. Earnings vary, there may be a period of three days in which they earn relatively high sums, and that may be followed, when jobs are repriced, by a period when they earn nothing beyond the 25 per cent. plus which a piece worker is expected to earn over day rates. Their earnings over a full week do not reach £7.
Then there is the case of the miner who may work in a favourable place for a short period and earn relatively high rates. Is it intended under paragraph (a) to regard the categories I have referred to—and there are many others—as coming within the term "or abnormalities" or is it intended that they shall apply only to those classes of employment where, regardless of trade boom or slump, normal employment is for two or three days a week only, during which relatively high wages are earned?
I think that it would be appropriate to respond now to the questions put by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes), and I would like also to clear up one or two quite obvious misconceptions on the part of the mover of the Amendment. May I remind the Committee that this Bill has arisen from the interim report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, that the paragraphs of Clause 1 (2) are dealing with the anomalies laid
down in certain paragraphs in that report, that the paragraphs have to be considered in relation to the discussion which took place in that report on this question, and, if the wording of paragraph (a) does not convey what we intended it to convey, I will undertake to make the necessary alteration on the Report stage of the Bill. Let me explain what paragraph (a) means to me and to my colleagues. I would refer the Committee to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for War on the occasion of the Second Reading on Wednesday, 8th July.
I say deliberately that I am not in favour of paying benefit to any man who, by working a short week regularly, makes double the average wage. I am not in favour of paying a man of that kind unemployment benefit,"—(OFFICIAL REPORT, July 8th, 1931, col. 2221, Vol. 254.)
The cases that were discussed in connection with the Royal Commission report were the cases specially mentioned, the coal trimmers, for example, who work intensively for a short time, and certain other classes. They are included in paragraph (a) as casual workers and those regularly working short time regularly earning substantial wages—those are the categories, and those only are the categories intended to be covered by paragraph (a). If the wording does not make that clear, then I undertake to make it clear on Report stage. That was all that was in our mind, that particular category of short time and casual workers as against intermittent workers. The short time and casual workers are proposed to be dealt with by taking into account the nature of the substantial wage, but the intermittent worker is regarded as to be taken into account as a person who is normally employed for an intermittent period and who does not intend to be employed on other occasions. There it is not a question of taking substantial wages into account, but of taking employability into account. Those two categories have got mixed up in the discussion and that is one of the difficulties. We propose to deal only with wages in the first category. In the other it is a question of whether it is employment or unemployment; it is a question of unemployment rather than wages.
Will the right hon. Lady make it clear what is meant by "intermittent"? Does "intermittent" mean something beyond a week?
Miss BONDFLELD:
If you look at paragraphs (a), (b), and (e), the first deals with short-time casuals, the second with seasonal workers and the third with what we call the week-ender. There is the person whose normal employment is employment for portion of the year only in seasonal occupations. That is one group who in the other portions of the year are not to be regarded as in employment at all. Then there are persons whose normal employment is in occupations for which they are not normally required more than two days a week. That is the intermittent worker. There are then seasonal, intermittent, and short-time workers.
May I put to the Minister the ease of an engineer working on payment by results, and earning, in three days, 35s. or 40s.—a married man with a dependant wife and two children? He would be entitled to 15s. for three days' unemployment, and would earn at work, say, 45s. Do I understand that that would be regarded as an abnormal case?
That point is not settled, and it is exactly one of the points with which the Committee will deal. There may be variations in different categories. If the House desires that what are called abuses should be dealt with at all, they must be dealt with in some such way. We have tried to devise a way by which we can find out what is to be regarded as an abuse, and we have felt that it was impossible to draw any hard-and-fast line, because the abuse would arise at a certain figure in the trade and at quite a different figure in another. The intention is that the Committee should consider this point as to what must be regarded an abuse of the Fund when people regularly work short time and regularly receive substantial wages. This is an attempt to deal with it by regulations, and that is the purpose of paragraph (a).
I listened with much interest to the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and there were various points in it with which I found myself somewhat in agreement, but again, as the Minister has put it, confusion has arisen even in my hon. Friend's own mind. [Interruption.] I think I know something about the conditions of the casual labourer, and I would remind my hon. Friend that for many weeks I myself, as a representative of the casual labourer, have been considering, as a member of the committee which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean), and which included also Mr. Ernest Bevin, this very complicated question of casual labour. In 1920 I prophesied that the extension of Unemployment Insurance to casual labourers on a contributory basis would lead to confusion worse confounded, and my prophecy has been more than fulfilled. These men have neither standard employers, nor standard employment, nor security of tenure, and, therefore the application to them of Unemployment Insurance, which was based on the assumption of standard employment, has created all this confusion that exists to-day. It is true that men of the type earning £7 a week are few and far between, but they are there. I do not go so far as to justify payment of unemployment benefit to anyone who is regularly earning £7 10s. a week. A man may be put on a dangerous job and may get good wages for that particular week, but there may be eight or nine months' interval between that and a similar job coming along.
The intermittent worker is dealt with in another Clause. Here it is going back four weeks.
I am dealing with the man who earns a big wage with three or four weeks intermittently. He may not get a job for months. What I protest against most strongly is the assumption on the part of these embryo statesmen who, unlike the hon. Member for Gorbals, have had no experience of these intricate questions of Unemployment Insurance and casual work, who claim to be sole repositories of all the wisdom about the economic evils under which we are suffering. It would be better for them not to talk about things they do not understand, but to leave them to those who have experience and are doing their best to solve the difficulty. The difficulty is very great. They talk about the poorest of the poor. I come from the poorest of the poor. I was reared in a slum, as the hon. Member for Gorbals was. I left school when I was nine years old. I have had a sad experience for many years and I claim to know something of the conditions of the men whom I represent.
This question requires intricate inquiry so far as the casual labourer is concerned, despite apparent injustices, I think he has, in the main, been very generously dealt with. I would not like to see one single case of injustice occur, but we ought to have some sense of proportion in dealing with this very intricate question. As far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to face my constituents, either politically or industrially, in the backing of this Bill.
I wish the Minister had been rather more definite, because on her reply depends the attitude of a large number of her supporters. I would like her to remember the support given to this Bill on the very explicit speech made by the Secretary of State for War on a previous occasion. No one was led to believe that certain classes of people to which the right hon. Lady has referred to-night would be brought under the surveillance of the committee at all. I gather from her reply that it is now possible that coal miners, for example, may be considered by the Advisory Committee, which might result in depriving one section of a body of workmen who have worked three days a week of their benefit, while another section of the same body would obtain full benefit. Let me show the right hon. Lady where she may lead us in her attempt to remove some anomalies. In the mining industry in South Wales at the present time three days' wages come to almost exactly 25s. a week. A single man would get 25s. plus 8s. 6d. unemployment benefit for the three idle days. A married man would get 25s. plus 13s. unemployment benefit. The Minister has led me to believe it is possible that she would allow the Committee to consider whether the 13s. benefit now payable to a married man would continue to be payable.
Perhaps the hon. Member did not understand. It will continue to be payable.
The single man who earns 25s. a week plus 8s. 6d. benefit may continue to draw that 8s. 6d., but working side by side with him in the same district is the man who is on piece work and who may be earning 2s. a day more in wages. That man, having 6s. more wages in the three days week, might find his unemployment benefit reduced by Is for each of the idle days, because his daily wage as a piece-worker was 2s. in excess of the wage of the daily man. Speaking for myself and for the miners, let me warn the Minister that that would not be tolerated in the mining districts. It would be regarded as a greater anomaly than anything which exists at the present time, as a breach of the contractual obligations, and as a distinct breach of faith to hon. Members on this side who have supported the Government so far on this Bill. I speak for myself and for large numbers of miners when I say that, if one penny piece of unemployment benefit is to be taken away in any circumstances, there is not a single miners' Member on this side of the House who will vote for these proposals. Let the Minister reconsider the position and give a more favourable reply.
I confess that I am very much disappointed with the reply of the Minister. In reply to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs got up and said that the habitual worker working on short-time would not be penalised. The Secretary of State for War, in his very good speech, made a similar statement, that the Bill definitely provides that the Minister shall have power to deal with the case of the man who works two days a week and earns normal or more than normal wages. I think that that was quite clear. The Minister confirmed it to the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes), until he put a supplementary question. Then she went on to say that cases mentioned by hon. Members would have to be considered by the Committee. The right hon. Lady may not have meant that, but that was the impression conveyed to us behind. Is she quite satisfied, after her former speech and the remark made by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, with her second statement? I hope the Minister will take the opportunity of putting us right upon this point. With the present im- pression in my mind, I shall feel bound to vote against the Bill.
I am sorry. I thought that I had made the matter clear in what I said in a supplementary reply to the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes), who asked me if I excluded certain categories in industry. I meant to make it clear that the line of demarcation is not certain categories of industry, but is where it is habitual on the part of one, two or any number of persons in the industry to work short-time and earn high wages. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is habitual?"] That is the point. I am trying to make the position clear. It is not intended to deal with the normal ease of the ordinary man who occasionally discovers that he is working on short-time work. It was never intended to deal with that case. That was not the class of case before the Royal Commission. It was the extraordinary case, the abnormal case, more particularly in relation to docks. I cannot say at this stage that it will not be discovered in any other category of trade, and that is why I was safeguarding myself. It is a question of inquiry. I do not think that you ought to ask me to say that certain trades in no circumstances can reveal a case of that kind. But the point I very definitely put to the Committee is, that the only class of case with which paragraph (a) is intended to deal is that of the abnormal case of men habitually working short-time or casually, as distinct from the weekender, mainly at the docks. Those who, as a matter of fact, earn substantial wages and in addition habitually draw either three or four days' unemployment benefit.
On the Second Reading of the Bill we had a very definite assurance from the Secretary of State for War upon this point, but, as far as I am concerned, the Second Reading was taken under false pretences. I know that the intentions of the Minister of Labour and the Government are good, but that does not make any difference when you are arguing a case before a court of referees. I have been in the casual dock. I have started on a Friday night and worked continuously until Monday morning, in the bottom of a dock at the tail end of a ship, and during that earned substantial wages, but I never earned another penny for more than three weeks. My wages for that particular week were at the rate of £3 15s. 0d. per week, but my earnings for the 12 months amounted to 29s. 3d. per week. There is an obvious danger here and words like "substantial" and "normal," and all things which require a definition, are simply leading us into a bog. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. I know that her intentions are good and that she does not desire to deprive any person of benefit to which they are entitled. I have pleaded cases before courts of referees and have said what the intention of Parliament was in the matter. I have also quoted what the Minister of Labour has said, but the Chairman of the court has said that it was no concern of his what Parliament intended, he interpreted that Act in such and such a way. It may be unfair to ask the right hon. Lady to define "substantial wages" until she has consulted her legal advisers, but I think that we should have an undertaking that she will reconsider this matter, and, if necessary, re-intro duce the paragraph in an altered form on the next stage of the Bill.
May I put the point which I raised on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution. The Secretary of State for the Dominions will remember what happened then. The Minister of Labour had been called out, and when I made a speech with reference to dockers who had to attend twice a day and sign on twice a day. My right hon. Friend then got up and said that those men were not aimed at at all, and I said that I was perfectly satisfied with that reply so far as the dockers were concerned. The Minister of Labour has harped on the dockers. It is the dockers who are aimed at. The right hon. Lady was absent from her place for a time, and there is obviously some confusion. The matter will have to be gone into very carefully. There will have to be the usual discussions to clear up the matter. I reinforce the suggestion that paragraph (a) be withdrawn for the present and a new-form of words introduced on Report.
As to the case mentioned I thought I made it clear that a man who is earning good wages for a part of one week and then is unemployed for other weeks will not be concerned with this Clause. It is a question of regular employment. I would again emphasise the fact that this Clause represents one of the very clear points upon which the interim report required some action to be taken. I have already promised to reconsider this matter and to see whether we can get more satisfactory wording for the Report stage of the Bill. I ask my hon. Friends to leave it at that point now.
I must press for an interpretation of what the Minister regards as habitual short time. Everything hangs on that.
I think it is a little unfair to ask me now to say what is "habitual." That is exactly the kind of thing about which I wish to consult.