The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow, after the word "dispute" ["due to a trade dispute"] to insert the words "in his trade," is identically the same as that disposed of last night.

This Amendment differs from that of last night in as much as some of the words in last night's Amendment are not in this, and therefore it is not open to the same objections as were urged by the Solicitor-General last night.

It is very much the same thing, and raises identically the same question. The hon. Member will have an opportunity of raising the same topic on the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "employment similar to that lost" ["because bonâ fide employed elsewhere in employment similar to that lost"], and to insert instead thereof the words "an insured trade."

I feel sure some Amendment of the words in the Bill are necessary. As it stands now it would be possible for a man to lose his employment owing to a strike or lockout, and to obtain as good employment, or even better employment, in another insured trade, but if he subsequently became unemployed he would not be entitled to unemployment benefit. If the Amendment is accepted, a man who obtained employment in an insured trade and became unemployed would receive unemployment benefit, where as the Clause now stands he could not obtain such benefit.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The words of the Clause deal with the case of a man who loses his employment through a strike or a trade dispute, and the question was whether, when he got work elsewhere and subsequently lost that work, he could obtain benefit. The object of the Amendment is to enable him to obtain work in an insured trade in another employ- ment, and if he subsequently lost that employment he should not be disqualified from obtaining benefit. I do not quite follow the aim of the Amendment. As the Clause stands if a man loses his employment and obtains work elsewhere and then subsequently lost that employment, he would not be disqualified from getting his benefit.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has really appreciated the point of my hon. Friend's Amendment. He does not object to the words of the Clause per se, but he says they are two wide. We quite agree that a man who loses his employment consequent upon a strike should be at liberty to get employment elsewhere and then if unemployed he should obtain the benefits of the fund. We say, why limit men to the particular trade in which they were originally employed.

You mean the words are too narrow.

The words of the Clause are "except in a case where he has during the stoppage of work become bonâ fide employed elsewhere." We are agreed entirely on the principle and assent to the view put forward by the President of the Board of Trade, but we say the words are limiting in their effects. Let me give a concrete case. A man in an engineering shop loses his job owing to a strike, the Clause says if he gets work in another shop in a different employment, provided it is the same class of work, and then gets unemployed, he should not be deprived of benefit. We say, why should he not be allowed to go into another trade altogether, provided he gets the standard rate of wages paid in that trade? What is the objection to a man moving from one trade to another in consequence of a strike and having the full benefits of the Act? The right hon. Gentleman limits it to employment in a similar trade. Why that limitation? We want to include as many men as possible and to allow them to move from one trade to another.

I am not surprised that the President of the Board of Trade does not appreciate the object of hon. Members opposite, because I myself do not quite appreciate it. It seems to me that either form of words suggested limit the application of this Clause. I would not mind voting for the omission of the words "employment similar to that lost," but I could not support the insertion of the words "on insured trade." If a man loses his work by a strike or lock-out he is disentitled to benefit if he goes to work in another trade, or until he finds work similar to that lost. It might be employment in an insured trade, or it might not, and this is not limited by the Bill. I take it that if a man found work outside an insured trade altogether, and then lost his job, he would come back on to the unemployed list, and he would be entitled to his benefit, whereas by inserting the words "an insured trade," if a man got work in a trade that was not an insured trade, he would not be entitled to benefits. If a man is on strike, and is disentitled to benefit, surely he ought to be able to bring himself into benefits if he gets another job at anything. Why should you limit a man to employment similar to that lost, or even to an insured trade? I have been trying to find out what is in the minds of hon. Members opposite in supporting this Amendment, and I cannot see any justification of it at all. It seems to me that it is much to the credit of a man if, instead of hanging around, he gets work for himself and his family, and if he becomes unemployed before the termination of the strike why should he be disentitled to benefits? I cannot vote for the Amendment as it stands, although I am inclined to vote for the deletion of the words "employment similar to that lost."

I think there is some misapprehension as to the effect of this Amendment. The intention is exactly the same as that which the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) has in view. A man whose employment ceases by a trade dispute is disqualified from receiving benefit, and this Amendment is brought in to take away that disqualification. It is true we propose to limit the exception, but the man is to be disqualified from receiving benefit except where he has become bonâ fide employed somewhere else. He has to get employment similar to that lost, and it might be in an insured trade. We propose to take out that limitation. A man might get employment similar to that lost, but it might not be in an insured trade, and therefore the insertion of "an insured trade" would not do any harm. This Amendment is not proposed in a hostile spirit, and it makes it quite plain that if a man gets employment in an insured trade, although it may not be the same or similar, he is still to get unemployment benefit. If a man gets employment in a trade which is not an insured trade he ceases to get employment benefit. I do not think the point has been met.

Assuming that a workman in an insured trade is on strike, or his society is on strike, and he is out of work, he does not get unemployment benefit. Supposing he takes on work in some other trade entirely different to the one in which he has been employed, but an employment which in no way breaks the rules of his society, would he be entitled to benefit with the Clause as it now stands?

The object of the Clause has been very clearly stated by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Scott Dickson). Let me put the point to the House again. We are of course obliged to protect our funds against claims for unemployment benefit if the man is out of work in consequence of a trade dispute, but although the trade dispute is still going on it may happen that he gets work under another employer in another part of the country, and if he does, as far as he is concerned the trade dispute ought not to affect him any more. The reason for putting in these words is that if we had not put in some such form of words the Clause would really mean that a man out of work because of a trade dispute would necessarily be deprived of unemployment benefit, although he had gone back to work in circumstances which are open to no objection, whilst the original dispute continues. There may be a dispute in a workshop which may be on the trade union black list for years. Some of those trade unionists might get work in another workshop which is not open to any objection. The question is under what limitation are you going to give him this right to come back to unemployment benefit? I will point out the sort of danger we have in mind. Obviously it will not do to allow a sort of sham reemployment. As I said in Grand Committee, it would never do for a man who was out of work owing to a trade dispute and got work at a by-election for half-a-day carrying round placards, to be entitled to say, "I am coming on to the funds, because I have lost my employment." It seems to us it is really a matter for the judgment of the House. We thought that probably the safest course was to say he was entitled to come back on the fund if he got "employment similar to that lost." I do not know whether there is any great objection to widening the words; but it is much more a question of general judgment than a matter of high policy. We must protect, however, our fund against the claims of persons who have got bogus employment.

That is done by the words "bonâ fide."

I agree the words "bonâ fide" would do so to some extent. Supposing a skilled mechanic is out of work because of a trade dispute, and he does a week's work as a builder's labourer, is it really the desire of the House that such a man should thenceforward be treated as entitled to come on the unemployed fund, even if the dispute of the skilled mechanic is still going on? I could not, on behalf of the Government, agree that these words should be struck out altogether, because I really think we should be leaving a gap in the Act. If we strike them out, we must put in something else. We hope this Bill may be extended to other trades. Supposing it were universal, the sort of difficulty I am suggesting would be much more obvious. Now we have only a limited list of trades, and to say he may come back on the fund if he becomes employed elsewhere "in an insured trade "seems quite practicable, but it would be more difficult supposing we were including a great variety of trades not now in the Bill. While we are all anxious to give a man the right to come back on the fund if he has, so to say, cut himself off from the trade dispute, it is a practical question on which we should be glad to know the opinion of hon. Members whether it is the better limit to put in the words "employment similar to that lost" or "employed elsewhere in an insured trade." I am sure the object of us all is exactly the same.

There is one other reason why we should retain the words in the Bill. There are Clauses in the Bill which absolutely compel the referee or the insurance officer to refuse unemployed pay to a man when suitable occupation is offered him. Therefore, unless we have the word "similar," an engineer might be offered a navvy's job. I do not know whether the work of a navvy would be suitable for an engineer, but it would be bonâ fide work, and you might have very serious difficulty so far as the workmen are concerned. It is absolutely necessary to have the words "employment similar to that lost"; otherwise you might find skilled mechanics offered work of an unskilled character for the purpose of getting them off the fund. These words are therefore a safeguard in a case of that description.

It is desirable the members of the Labour party should understand what is the real effect of the proposal. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that the first part of Subsection (1) is in one sense against the workman, restricting the circumstances under which unemployment benefit can be paid. The object of the concluding words are to say that, although there is a strike in the industry to which the workman belongs, nevertheless he can, if he gets employment similar to that lost, have unemployment benefit. We want to extend this, and give it to the workman if he is engaged in any other insured trade.

There are two conditions suggested: first, the words in the Bill, "employment similar to that lost," and, secondly, the words of the Amendment, "an insured trade." Let me give a concrete case. Suppose the Amalgamated Society of Engineers are engaged in a dispute. There is a very great deal of engineering work at coal mines. If you make the benefit contingent upon the workman finding work in "an insured trade," mining is not an insured trade, and he would be deprived of it, though he would really be engaged in "employment similar to that lost." The words in the Bill are infinitely preferable to the words of the Amendment. I was not present at the proceedings in the Grand Committee upstairs, but I must say that it seems to me that would be the inevitable effect of the words which it is suggested should be put in.

I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. He seems to think that if the word "similar" is left in it would enable someone working in a coal mine to get the unemployment benefit.

If it is an employment similar to that he has lost.

That will be so if it is an insured trade. But if it is not an insured trade he would never get the unemployment benefit. If you have the words "insured trade," in which we suggest he will always get it, but he might not get it, for you limit it to a similar trade.

Similar employment.

I think the words "insured trade" give the widest possible scope. You cannot get the unemployment, benefit unless it is an insured trade. I think the words of the Clause as at present framed are too narrow and limited. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Schedule of insured trades he will see the difficulty. It might very well be said that a man employed on a railway who subsequently went to work on bridges would be engaged in a similar employment. It might be quite open to argument whether it was or not a similar employment. Numerous other cases of a like nature might be quoted, and it would indeed be very difficult to decide whether or not an employment was similar employment. What we want to secure is that wherever there is unemployment in an insured trade this benefit should be given.

I take it that the kernel of this question is one of cost. The Government are quite prepared to broaden the basis if it is going to cost nothing. I should rather like to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, when the actuarial calculations were made in connection with this Bill, it was borne in mind that it will set free the £200,000 which the Government are now paying under the Unemployed Workmen's Act, and that therefore the authorities will now have that sum to play with. Has that been taken into consideration? There is another point I should like to raise. Suppose an employer locks out engineers' or other labourers in an insured society, not because they are asking for higher wages or for a reduction of hours, but simply because they belong to a trade union. Would men discharged under those circumstances be entitled to unemployed benefit under this Section?

That question has really nothing to do with the point before the House, and I think we had much better keep to that point. We do not want to encourage anything in the shape of merely sham employment. We do not want to encourage a man in deserting his own trade for his own private purposes at the very time he should stand up for it. The sole question is under what conditions a man is to come within the unemployment provisions of the Bill, and after the long discussion we have had I am prepared to accept the suggestion. If the man is not employed in an insured trade he will not get the unemployment benefit.

My hon. Friend pointed out that coal mining is not an insured trade. Yet in that industry they employ engineers. Are we to understand that if a man follows the employment of an engineer in connection with the uninsured mining trade his claim for benefit is stopped?

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "which are commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises."

This Amendment arises on the point we were discussing last night affecting the case of a factory in which one set of men strike and thereby throw out of work another set of men. It was the general view of the House that that other set of men should not be penalised under this Clause in consequence of a strike by other people in the same workshop. The Government take the case of a big employer who has several different departments in his works, and they say that where one department strikes, if it is the kind of department which is commonly a separate factory altogether—their Amendment says, "commonly carried on as separate businesses"—that where there is this distinction as a general rule, it is a separate business altogether, and in that case the disqualification in the Clause shall not apply. In other words, it means that if you have two separate businesses carried on on the same premises by one employer, and one set of men strike, thereby depriving the second set of men of the raw material for their work and turning them out, the second set of men should not be penalised. The proposal is not altogether satisfactory. What the Government were anxious about last night was to have a clear definition, so that an insurance officer could at once decide whether or not a man is entitled to 7s. a week unemployment benefit. Is that likely to be the case with the Government's Amendment? You are now putting on the insurance officer the very difficult question to decide, namely, whether these businesses are commonly carried on separately. I say there is no absolute standard for that, and it will be almost impossible for him to decide the question.

I will give one or two examples. In the iron trade in the black country you have works where they roll bars. Some of them have their own blast furnaces, belonging to the same employer, and practically on the same ground. In other cases you have blast furnaces alone, or iron-rolling mills alone. What is the common practice? In the district I am speaking of it would be impossible for anybody to lay down what the common practice is or whether they were both the same business. If the insurance officer decides that they are commonly carried on as separate businesses he will say that the man in the rolling mills will get an advantage if the men in the blast furnaces strike, but if he decides that they are not carried on as separate businesses, exactly the opposite result will follow. We want to have it made perfectly certain that, where there are separate trades, whether they are usually carried on on the same premises or not, if one set of men strike they shall not therefore penalise another set of men on the same premises. Another great trade in the district is chain-making, which is carried on quite separately from the ordinary iron works. In several cases it is carried on with the iron works. It is impossible to say what is the common practice, yet this very difficult question is under the Government's Amendment, to be decided, on the spur of the moment, by the insurance officer. Other hon. Members may know of other districts where the same difficulty will arise. In order that we may make the matter clearer, and also to give relief in all cases to men in a different place who are thrown out of work, I move this-Amendment.

I beg to Second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I deeply appreciate the fact that the Amendment proposed by the President of the Board of Trade is an attempt on the part of the Government to meet points we have put forward, but I do not think they have succeeded in meeting those points. They have raised other difficulties that we did not raise at all. For instance, there was a good deal said last night by the President of the Board of Trade about the difficulties of the insurance officer when he had to decide the point whether or not a man was entitled to the benefit. It was put to the House that we ought to have this Clause made as simple as possible, so that the insurance officer could decide on the spot, without any trouble, whether or not a man was entitled to benefit. I submit that the Amendment proposed by the Government would in most cases present a hopeless difficulty to the insurance officer. He is to decide whether separate branches of work are commonly carried on in separate premises or in the same premises. Sometimes they are one and sometimes the other. The hon. Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) has given instances from the black country. Let me give instances from the shipbuilding industry and its allied trades in the white country. Sometimes a shipyard covers on the one premises the whole of the operations necessary for the construction of a ship, including the gun and the gun-mountings, right away from the pig-iron up to the finished production. I believe that is the exception at the present time, but it is becoming the rule. We are gradually coming to live in the reign of the trust and the syndicate, when larger capital is being operated by one person or combination of persons. We get concerns like that at Dalmuir on the Clyde. The insurance officer, in the event of the Bill becoming law, will have to decide when the thing ceases to be the exception and becomes the rule. With my considerable knowledge of the engineering, shipbuilding, and allied trades, I really could not say whether it is the rule or the exception. The insurance officer would have to decide that. What is the meaning of "commonly?" I do not know that it would be common. There is the firm of Armstrong, Mitchell & Co. I do not think that that firm, although the biggest in this country, could be said to carry on all its operations under one roof, or on one premises. I think they do it in several premises on the Tyne and in Manchester, whereas there are other firms, such as that at Dalmuir on the Clyde, which carry on all these operations on the one premises. The insurance officer would have to decide on the spot whether or not the men are entitled to the benefit and therefore my first objection to it is the administrative one, that it would entail probable delay, because the man would find that his claim would not be settled off-hand, and would have to wait until the matter was settled by the operation of the Bill in regard to appeal.

But I have a further objection, and that is because it does not to a great extent cover the point that we raised last night. We will take the case where a shipyard is carried on which includes a rolling mill. I quite admit it is not much for a shipyard to include a rolling mill, and therefore in the event of a rolling mill being included on a shipyard premises I think the Clause would at all events go to the extent of meeting our point last night by giving the men benefit in the event of the rolling mill not being involved in the dispute, or rather, if they were involved in the dispute, it would not carry with it the exclusion from benefits of the other men. I quite admit that, and to that extent of course the Government Amendment is an improvement upon the Bill. But there are all the other departments, and factories are getting larger and larger, and apart from this abnormal case of a rolling mill being carried on in a shipyard, a shipyard or an engineering shop or any one of the ordinary insured trades under the Bill, whether big or little, cover a number of departments, and there is not really a great deal of difference, except in the size of these departments and the size of the factory, as to the method by which supervision is carried on. The small engineer's shop has its moulding, its pattern-making, and its fitting branches, even if it covers only 100 men, just as another shop might cover 10,000 men, and therefore, so far as the ordinary operations of these trades are concerned, the Amendment is of no service except in those cases where departments might be added which were not carried on in the ordinary way. I hope the Government may still further amend this Amendment in the direction indicated by the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen).

I desire to enter my protest against the method of the Government in dealing with this. They are endeavouring to limit it to the factory. The moment you do that you are going to bring in some of the greatest incongruities one can imagine, because you may have several factories in one yard. In one place you have joiners' workshops making material for the ship a few yards away; if these men were paid off because of a dispute in the ship they would not be entitled to benefit, but the men of the same trade and the same organisation doing the work in the shop and paid off would be entitled to benefit. That is the actual working out of this proposal. We have all along contended that if the dispute is in one distinct trade, and a stoppage takes place, the members of other trades who have no quarrel with their employers but are simply paid off through the dispute, are therefore entitled as much to that benefit as the men in another factory. There is no attempt, so far as I am concerned, to try to get the unemployed benefit for strike or militant purposes. It would appear from what was said last night that that was in the minds of the Government, and the proposals I have supported would not do that at all. We are not really asking that. What we are really asking is that the benefit should be not for disputes, but for maintenance when unemployed. If they cannot see their way to give benefit to men of one trade who may be paid off through the disputes of another, can they not see their way to give us the share of the 7s. represented by our contributions, and not those of the employer and of the State? That would certainly mitigate the difficulty.

This Amendment raises in a different form a matter which was discussed last night at considerable length. It is an important matter, and I hope the House will see that our proposal makes a concession which it is right to make, but very grave dangers may arise if we enlarge it and destroy the principle of the Clause. It was generally recognised that an improvement had been made in the Clause when we got rid of the test of whether a man was directly concerned in a trade dispute as to whether he was going to get the benefit or not, and substituted the test of whether he was employed in the same factory. That was recognised as an improvement because it got rid of a series of extremely difficult questions on the one hand and on the other it prevented the possibility of prearranged manipulation of the Clause in order to bring people in or leave people out. The Committee, which dealt with the matter very fully and in the most businesslike way, recognised that as a great improvement. It was pointed out that we were still left with the difficulty that you might have two trades which in the ordinary case are carried on in separate factories and separate undertakings, but which in a given case are carried on in a single undertaking. Messrs. Armstrong's works have been mentioned. I question whether the illustration is one which would raise a difficulty anyhow, because I strongly suspect that those works are a series of separate factories anyhow. But be that as it may, if they were not, certainly when you find in one factory and one undertaking all sorts of different labour being carried on, from blast furnaces on the one hand to complete pieces of machinery on the other, no one will doubt that that is a case which is properly to be dealt with by means of special exemption. When the matter was discussed in Committee, I said,

"Where two branches of an industry, though not normally found in one factory, happen to be in one factory, it is impossible to say it is desirable to consider how far we can deal with an undoubted difficulty of that kind."

The reason is because it is not fair on the workman that you should put him under a special penalty merely because he happens to have as fellow workmen a lot of people who normally would not be his fellow workmen at all. It is pointed out that possibly the test whether they are ordinarily carried on as separate businesses raises a difficulty, because it might be understood to mean you will have to judge whether it is more usual for them to be in one place, and that is a very difficult inquiry, which might be answered in different ways by different people at different times. Therefore we have made this further change, which is all in the direction of concession, to those who desire to include as many people as possible. We have said, where it is commonly so, that is enough for us. Spinning and weaving are, of course, in some parts of the north country carried on on the same premises, but may none the less be fairly regarded as commonly carried on as separate businesses. As long as they are carried on as separate businesses they will come within the Clause. That is a very large concession. Do not let me suggest to the House that the application of such a concession does not raise some difficult questions. What we are anxious to do is to reduce those difficulties to as few as we can. What is it that my hon. Friend (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) suggests? He suggests that we should cut out the limiting words "which are ordinarily carried on as separate businesses in separate premises," his argument being that those engaged in one branch of work shall always be entitled to go to the unemployment fund if he cannot find employment in his own branch of work. I am sure that those of us who have been responsible for this Bill will be acquitted of any charge of not desiring to give reasonable consideration to reasonable proposals. The only reason why I resist this Amendment is that all the advice we have at our command—and we have had highly skilled advice—is that it would introduce difficulty in administration in view of the conditions under which modern industry is carried on. Modern industry tends more and more to be organised not in particular grades, but on the larger scale of general confederations. The engineering federation, if I am not mistaken, includes within its trade union tens of thousands of labourers, and the idea that you can pick out a man who is going to get benefit merely by asking if he is engaged in a separate branch of work in the same factory is not possible.

Let us see what the facts are. If you could draw a line—and it would be difficult to do that—you would have this position. You would have the skilled man on the one hand doing one kind of work, and a man in the same factory doing work in another branch, both belonging to the same union and subscribing to the fund. What the hon. Gentleman opposite argues is that the employer's contribution, which goes to the unemployment fund, should be available to pay the unemployed benefits of that union. I am afraid that however plausibly that argument may be put forward—and I am sure it is put forward with great candour—it would be found in its application not to work properly. It would make it possible for those whose interest it would naturally be to make use of that position in times of industrial warfare to say that workers in separate branches of work should or should not get paid out of the fund at the very moment of crisis. Look at what would be the position of the officials of the Board of Trade in that case. Who is to be held responsible at a time of industrial warfare for deciding as to whether or not a man is to be rightly regarded as in a separate branch? I suggest it is not fair to put that responsibility on these officials. The class of cases which hon. Gentlemen were particularly anxious to meet last night would not be met by this Amendment at all. The hon. Gentleman opposite pointed out that unskilled labourers are at a practical disadvantage, because, though not really responsible for trade disputes, they are thrown out of employment through the action of the skilled workmen. In dealing with that position he will not be assisted by the Amendment. It was pointed out that it was very hard that a non-unionist not taking part in a trade dispute should suffer in the calamity which the organised labourer has brought about. I do not say whether that is so or not, but those who say so are not meeting the calamity by this Amendment. The union man and the nonunion man work side by side, and it will not relieve him in the least. Our object is a more limited one, and it is fairly secured by my right hon. Friend's Amendment. It is to prevent a workman being penalised because he finds himself working for an employer who is carrying on several businesses at the same time. It is clear that he ought not to be prejudiced on that account if it can be avoided. I agree that it is not easy to prevent it and to say whether all branches of trade ought to be regarded as separate businesses, but I suggest that the Government Amendment does do justice as between one man and another. It is really not the fact that modern industry is organised in compartments, and that a limited class of workers can conduct disputes in watertight compartments. The tendency of organised labour—and I think rightly—is to get a larger collection of workmen to look at matters from a common point of view. It really does not represent the fact to treat the matter as though you could regard all those persons who are in one branch of employment in a factory as being concerned in a trade dispute, and everyone in another branch as necessarily outside. I do not think that is a distinction that can be sustained, and therefore I am obliged to insist on the proposal of the Government, and to invite those who wish to see justice to support us.

Speaking for myself, I must agree with the Solicitor-General. I do not think anyone will deny that there is great difficulty in con- struing the Clause. We have got into the difficulty because we recognise that there must be some test applied to find out whether a workman is disqualified owing to a strike or not. We have all come to the conclusion that he is to be disqualified in certain circumstances. You can apply the personal test and ask whether a workman was directly affected by a strike or whether it had anything to do with his personal act. In Committee we struggled with that test, which was in the original Bill, and we came to the conclusion that it was a test which could not be applied. Still the test is applied: Is he or is he not employed at a factory at which a strike has occurred? We adopted the factory test as the best, but then it obviously occurred that that would not do as a single test. There might be in one building a large number of businesses which might be ordinarily carried on separately and yet would be treated as if there was no exception, as it were, in one factory. Then the Government bring forward their Clause and endeavour to separate the grouped business into separate factories, separate premises as it were. Whenever you have got to do that you are going to have the greatest possible difficulty in construing it. I do not envy the insurance officer who is going to make a survey of Armstrong and Whit-worth's works and find out whether all those buildings are the same premises or not. If I thought, my hon. Friend's Amendment got over the difficulty and did not lead to still further difficulties I would support it, but it would lead to another very serious difficulty, namely, that this fund could be manipulated in a manner which it is not intended for. It could be manipulated as a strike supporter, or alternatively, if it detached' from allegiance to trade unions, as a strike breaker; and neither side of the House wants the fund to be used in that way. The Government Clause is not easy to construe, but there is an umpire under this part of the Bill, and I should think, if he is called upon before the Bill comes into operation, that there would be plenty of work for him in discovering in various parts of the country whether separate branches of work are to be construed as commonly carried on in separate factories or not. We all recognise that there is machinery for dealing with the difficulty in this Clause. I do not like the Clause very much, but I cannot propose any better, and therefore I will support the Government.

Those of us who sit on these benches will acquit the Government of any charge of not seeking to find a solution of this problem. We know that they have been desirous of finding a solution that would be fair all round. The learned Solicitor-General spoke of what might be called the common practice. In England the practice is, so far as the steel trade is concerned, for blast furnaces and rolling mills to be treated as and to be one concern. But in West Scotland the practice is absolutely different. There the blast furnace industry is a separate concern, conducted quite apart from the steel workers and under different partnership. So if there were a strike in the blast furnaces in England under this Clause as it is the rolling mill men would be prevented from receiving any idle benefit under the Act, but in Scotland, if there were a strike in the blast furnaces, the rolling mill men rendered idle as a consequence of being unable to get pig iron would receive the idle benefit under this Bill. I think that that is most unequal and unjust treatment. I desire to refer to another case, the tinplate and sheet mill industry. There you have a common employment. The men who work in the rolling mills and the men who work in the finishing departments are all engaged in the one industry. But it so happens that the men in the finishing department are organised in separate trade unions from those who operate in the mills. If a strike occurs in the finishing departments the rolling mill men are thrown idle, and yet they have no voice or say as to the merits of the strike. The reverse is the case if the mill men go on strike. The men in the finishing departments suffer, but they have no voice in it. There you have common employment, and I think it would be equally unjust as in the other case. I may give a case in point. Years ago the blast furnace men in Scotland did strike for the purpose of getting rid of Sunday labour, and the various steel and iron workers were all thrown idle in consequence. Under the provisions of this Bill in Scotland all the men in the rolling mills and the ironworks departments would receive idle benefit under this Bill. But if the same thing had occurred in England the rolling mill men would be debarred from any benefit. The Government ought really to find some solution so far as that difficulty is concerned. Probably they might inform the House, as a result of the case that has been put up, that they will consider the matter with a view of offering a better solution when the Bill goes to another place.

I hope that the House will stick to the Government in this matter, and that the Government will go no further, because I think they have already gone to a dangerously far extent. To use the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the servant girls, let us do right and fear not. We do not want to transform this Clause into a strike-made-easy-Clause. I do not say that that is the intention, but at any rate it would be the effect, if the Amendment of my hon. Friend, along with the views of the hon. Members below the Gangway, were embodied in the Clause. Let us clear our minds of cant in the matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "A rather big job."] It is not our object to make the resources of the trade unions in case of strikes as great as possible for strategical devices. Take the trade with which I am well acquainted, the printing trade. The Federation of Printing Trades is very ably represented by an hon. Gentleman whom I do not see in his place now below the Gangway. He knows very well that it is their open endeavour to rope into their operations the labour councils of the different branches of labour in a printing house, carried on in different departments. But in case of a strike there as elsewhere it is very often an advantage to let one branch go out on strike and the rest remain, so that the drain on the funds is not so great, and so that so much money has not to be paid out for out-of-work and strike pay, and therefore their resources are left much larger for the general purposes of labour policy.

I am imputing no blame, please understand. I think that the employers would very likely do just the same. That is not the point. I am dealing with the effect of this Clause, and such words would undoubtedly be the means of making strikes easier and more possible, and increasing the funds at the disposal of the unions for the purpose of war. Industrial war is a very cruel thing, and produces very hard cases we all know, and of course it is easy enough to appeal to sentiment, and to say that it is very hard that some should suffer because others go out. But take again the trade with which I am acquainted. A printing house is a very good example where if you widen this Clause you will allow those to benefit who would other- wise be drawing out of work pay, and decreasing the federation funds which would be available for strike payment. In those circumstances I think myself that the Clause has been made dangerously wide. Whatever is done under this Bill surely it is not intended in any way to affect the question of industrial disputes either one way or the other. It is intended and wished to keep an even hand in those circumstances. I hope that not one word will be added. I concede that there are difficulties. Though the umpire may be able to solve them, I think they are likely to lead to a good deal of confusion. But if you wish to hold an even hand, as between employer and employed, the Clause should be kept as it is.

It is not a very popular thing to state what is looked on as an anti-labour view to the House now. I put it without prejudice, because the attitude of the employers will be exactly the same as that of the employed. But let us see what the effect of the proposal would be. The widening of the Clause would make industrial disputes more probable, and would increase the resources by which they could be carried on for a further period, and therefore it would be highly dangerous, in the interests of industrial peace, to go one inch further than is now proposed.

I think we may congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down on the fact that he does not disguise in any way his view, and that at least he has the courage of his convictions. It is quite clear that his object is to support the Amendment.

I have not supported the Amendment; I support the Government.

Exactly. But it is not the idea of the Government that such would be the effect of their proposal. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to support the view that this will make strikes easy. That is not the desire at all. The very opposite would be the effect if the provision comes into operation. There may be a set of men who are not parties to the dispute, but who, as the result of the action of their colleagues in another department of the works, engaged in the same business, are thrown out of work, and have to call upon the trade union funds. And that is what the hon. Gentleman desires, in order to make it extremely difficult for those men to get any benefit out of the funds to which they have contributed. Now we understand what is the anti-labour point of view which the hon. Gentleman has so thoroughly expressed here.

I agree with the hon. Member for Colchester in thinking that the Solicitor-General has put the point very clearly to the House. Of course we recognise that there are differences between the methods by which the rolling mills referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Hodge) are carried on in the West of Scotland and in various parts of England, and I do not in the least disguise from myself that questions may arise under this Clause. It seems to me that taking the Clause as a whole the Government have really done their very best to arrive at what seems a reasonable provision. While, with the hon. Member for Colchester, I do not altogether like the Clause as it stands, yet I do not see how one could make it better. Taking that view of the question, so far as I am concerned, I should be glad if the hon. Member for Blackfriars, and those who associate themselves with him, would make themselves content with the Government proposal, and accept it as an honest endeavour to make the best of a very difficult matter. I shall certainly support the proposal of the Government.

I listened very attentively to the Solicitor-General, who apparently laid down the position in this way. If a dispute takes place in one shop, the men affected in the other shops of the same works would not be entitled to benefit, although they might have no interest in the dispute. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will inform me whether I put his position correctly. Take Armstrong's works. There they have forty or fifty shops. Supposing the engineers in one shop are engaged in a dispute, none of the men in the forty-nine other shops who are affected would enjoy benefit. That is how I understand the argument of the Solicitor-General, and it makes it exceedingly difficult to know where we are.

I cannot make it any plainer than I have already made it.

The next point I want to deal with is where a firm has various departments and combines those departments. If a dispute took place in one of the departments of that particular firm, as I understand it the men employed in the other departments would not be entitled to benefit; but if the same firm had exactly the same departments scattered in different parts of the town, then I take it that the men in those departments which are dissociated from the department in which the dispute has arisen, would be entitled to benefit.

I listened very attentively last night to the discussion, and I quite realise that hon. Members below the Gangway, and some hon. Members on the other side, are animated by a very sincere and earnest desire to meet what are undoubtedly hard cases; but I cannot help suggesting to the House that this Bill is based on the idea of dealing as far as may be with what is ordinarily understood as economic unemployment, and in proportion as we depart from or go outside that root idea on which the Bill is really based we shall only encounter greater difficulties than those by which we are already faced.

The hon. Member for Central Glasgow has appealed to me not to press this Amendment, and I am disposed to accept his advice. This discussion serves to show that we are dealing with a great difficulty. We have not had sufficient time to deal with it, and we ought to have had greater opportunity to consider the matter. I, however, realise the difficulty which exists on both sides, and as I do not wish to put the House to the trouble of a Division, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie), is consequential, and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Tyneside is covered by the Amendment discussed yesterday, as it raises the same point.

May I ask your ruling, Sir, on this point: whether there is not a difference in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tyneside in this sense, that it specifically refers to a class of workmen, whereas the Amendment previously discussed referred to many classes of workmen thrown out of employment on account of trade disputes? This raises distinctly a separate question, and I hope you may be able to see your way to permit some discussion on it.

I submit that this Amendment raises a much narrower issue than that raised last night by the hon. Member for Dundee.

We have already decided that,

"a workman who loses employment by reason of a trade dispute involving a strike or lock-out by which he is directly affected shall be disqualified.…"

What is the difference between that, and saying:

"a labourer who is out of employment by reason of a trade dispute, etc."

The distinction is very easy. The skilled workman is a man who has served his time to a trade, and so far as I am aware the labourer is not required to serve his time.

I am quite open to conviction, but it seems to me that the hon. Member is only introducing the same thing by different words. Of course, we could go on defining all sorts of exceptions, such as men who are over six feet and below six feet; but would it not be always the same point, and practically the same question?

May I suggest that the difficulty does not arise in ordinary life. We would all know, whatever might be the legal definition of the term, what a skilled workman or a labourer is, and therefore this Amendment does arise. It is a quite different idea to that disposed of last night.

I do not want to place any technical objection in the way if the House would be glad to hear the thing threshed out.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,

"or except in the case of a labourer who is out of employment by reason of a trade dispute between his employer and the skilled workmen for whom he labours, and to whose union he does not belong."

This Amendment is to meet the case of those contributors in the shipyard industries who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being laid idle owing to a dispute between the employers and the skilled workmen. The last person whose interest is considered if it is a question of a trade dispute in a shipyard or engineering yard is the unfortunate labourer. He has no interest in the subject matter of the dispute, and for every skilled workman affected by the dispute there may be two or three labourers thrown idle through no fault of their own. In all our shipbuilding industries, and in all those districts, we who live there are familiar with the pitiable, pathetic spectacle of the distress which comes upon the labourers and their families when there is a dispute in the shipbuilding or engineering trades. Those are the men who have been struggling to maintain existence for themselves and their families upon a totally inadequate wage. They are the men whose wages are so small in many cases that they do not belong to a union at all, and where they are members of a union it is a union financially poor, and whose funds are easily exhausted.

I speak with recent memory of the lockout in the shipbuilding industry a year ago, when the shipbuilding employer locked out the boilermakers at twenty-four hours' notice, and I remember the awful distress that that inflicted upon thousands of my constituents who were labourers in the shipbuilding and engineering yards up and down the river Tyne. I ask the Government to say what answer have we to make to those labourers in the future under similar circumstances when they have been forced to contribute for months and perhaps years to this fund to make some provision, as they think, against periods of unemployment. What answer shall we have to make if those circumstances recur, and if those men find themselves, through no fault of their own, idle and without resources, and disqualified under this Clause? It is to that question that I desire the Government to supply me and others with an answer. If they cannot accept the Amendment, I hope at least they will endeavour to cover the same object in some other form of words.

I beg to second the Amendment. My hon. Friend has stated the case so very fully and clearly on behalf of those who are really always the most unfortunate in trade disputes that there is little necessity for me to repeat it. There may be some technical difficulty as to terminology and as to whether this clearly carries out the intention of my hon. Friend. The terms "labourer" and "skilled workman" are terms perfectly clearly understood in the various trades which are specially concerned, and if, indeed, some questions of difficulty arise under this Bill as to the precise definition of terms, it cannot be said that any difficulty would arise as to the definition of the terms implied in this Amendment. The labourer as a general rule does not belong to a trade union. The dispute does not as a rule arise in reference to his conditions and terms of employment. In the average case the trade dispute arises in regard to the conditions of employment of the skilled workman, and when the skilled workman goes on strike the labourer is thrown out, and he has no union on which he can fall back for support. Consequently the labourer is the person who is specially in need of consideration in the case of a trade, dispute.

I sympathise, and I am sure the whole House sympathises, with the object of the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment. He desires to deal with what undoubtedly is a hard case. There is no difference between us about that. My difficulty is largely due to the fact that I really cannot think that the hon. Member who has drafted this Amendment has really considered the whole series of difficulties which I am afraid would arise. I make no complaint of it, but it is the fact that we are here introducing the words "skilled workmen" and "labourers" as though they did not require any definition. I cannot find any consequential Amendments on the Paper, and I defy my hon. Friend to find the definition which would not cause all sorts of difficulties. I do not believe there is a single subject of industrial dispute short of open war which more commonly leads to difficulty than the question of what is a skilled workman if, say, a new machine is introduced into the shops. There is not a single subject of controversy so difficult to settle as the question of the rating of a new machine, and how far the man who attends it is a labourer and how far a skilled workman. We are asked to introduce into the Bill an Amendment which, however praiseworthy in itself, will at once raise that serious question. If the labourer belongs to the trade union to which the skilled workman belongs he is to be excluded from the benefit of this Clause, and if he does not belong to such a trade union he is to be entitled to the benefit. Do hon. Members who claim to speak specially in the interests of these men really desire that? Do they desire that a man who is a non-unionist, who does not belong to any trade union to which the skilled workman belongs, should get the benefit, and that the man who does belong to such a body should be denied the benefit? Is that trade unionism up to date? I am afraid that hon. Members have not given to this subject anything like the amount of detailed attention that is really necessary before you can propose such an Amendment. I have in my hand a document of the Federation of the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades of the United Kingdom. That is the trade union to which the skilled workmen belong, and I find that it has 35,033 persons who are national amalgamated labourers. Are all these persons to be told that they are not to have the benefit, and that other labourers are to have the benefit?

The hon. Gentleman must distinguish between a federation and a trade union.

I am always most grateful for any information on these difficult matters. But in the long run it will be necessary to know what "trade union" means according to the language of this Act of Parliament. Undoubtedly a federation of employers is a trade union, and a federation such as this is a trade union. I know my hon. Friend does not agree. I only use the illustration to show that we shall really be acting rather rashly if we introduce these well-meant Amendments without more consideration. The idea at the back of my hon Friend's mind is one that we should all be very glad to put into the Bill. Within the limits of my own powers I have applied my mind to this question not in the course of an afternoon's discussion, but for some weeks and months. When this question was in Committee I invited Members of the Labour party and others to make to me or to the Board of Trade practical suggestions which could be written down. I recognise with gratitude that the hon. Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Hodge)—has said quite fairly that he is sure we had done our best. Our complaint is not that Members do not say we have done our best, but that nobody comes forward and says that he can do better. The moment you propose an Amendment difficulties arise which the Amendment does not meet. I submit, therefore, that we cannot pub the Amend- ment in the Bill. It would at once raise half-a-dozen difficulties. But if anybody between now and the final passing of the Bill into law will show me how we can deal on fair terms with this very hard case, nobody will be better pleased than the President of the Board of Trade and myself.

I agree with the Solicitor-General that not sufficient consideration has been given to this part of the Bill.

I did not say that.

The Solicitor-General asked for more consideration. He said that the matter was very difficult, and that it was perfectly impossible to provide words which did not create fresh difficulties.

What I said was that as far as we were concerned we had considered this matter for many months. I said that I had invited my hon. Friend and others some weeks, if not months, ago, to see what suggestions they could make, and I pointed out that the only suggestion made is an Amendment put on the Paper at the end of last night's sitting. I do not want any more consideration, because I have exhausted my mind on the question; but if anyone can suggest anything better nobody will be better pleased than I.

Certainly I have done my best. Probably I have moved more Amendments to this Clause than anybody else, but the Government have refused to accept them. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have withdrawn."] Because the Government distinctly said that they would not have them. What was the good of my dividing when I knew that I should be defeated. I am one of those who always try to save the time of the House, and I was not going to force a Division when I knew perfectly well that I should be defeated. We are here dealing with a most difficult problem. The Solicitor-General himself said that more consideration should be given to it. What is the practical form that the more consideration takes?

I did not say so. I said that I had given to it all the consideration of which I am capable, but that if any- body else had a suggestion to make I should be very glad to hear it. I do not, however, hold out any hope of getting a more practical suggestion.

What chance has anybody had? Originally we had two and a-half days for the consideration of this part of the Bill on Report, but since then one day has been taken away. We are given no opportunity whatsoever. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. H. Craig) has brought forward the very difficult case of the unskilled man. The Solicitor-General says that we cannot deal with it in the way proposed, because there is in the Bill no definition either of labourer or of skilled workman. The hon. Member for Black-friars (Mr. Barnes), who speaks on this subject with far more experience and authority than I possess, says that it is common knowledge to everybody who understands the business what is a skilled workman and what is a labourer. Why on earth, then, should the labourer lose his right under this Clause because the skilled workmen strike? As a matter of fact, strikes generally occur amongst skilled workers, and when the strikes occur the labourers are thrown out. It is exceedingly hard on them. It might be equally hard lines the other way. This is a real difficulty which I agree ought to have more time for its consideration. We have done our best on Committee and here, and I appeal to the Government at all events to state that they will further consider the Clause. As to the statement of the Solicitor-General that there is in the Bill no definition either of labourer or of skilled workmen or of trade union, whose fault is that? Surely it is possible to put definitions of these terms in the Bill. Why not? In my opinion the Interpretation Clause is much too short. Many terms are not defined which ought to be defined. Really that is only a technical objection, and if the Government are relying upon it, my answer is that it is perfectly possible for anybody to put definitions in the Interpretation Clause when we get to it. But we shall not get to it except under the Closure. Therefore hon. Members will have no opportunity to move a definition. Government Amendments only will be put. While I do not think it is any use dividing on this particular Amendment, I think the hon. Member was perfectly right to raise the question of the skilled workers against the labourers, as it involves one of the greatest difficulties in the Clause.

Unlike the hon. Member opposite, I hope the hon. Member behind me will press this Amendment to a Division. If he does so I shall certainly vote with him. We have now narrowed the question down to the labourers, the most, helpless class who may be concerned in a dispute. For my part, I have heard no kind of reason from the Solicitor-General why we should not vote for this Amendment unless the Government promise themselves to insert words which will achieve the object in view. In the first place, the Solicitor-General says that there is no definition of the terms here used. Is there any definition of the terms used in the Clause we have just passed at the instance of the Government? That Clause involved inquiry as to what is the meaning of "commonly carried on," for instance. Or what are "departments"? My hon. Friend gave a case in which there are fifty different shops. Is each of those different shops to be regarded as a department? Or if a number of them are carrying on some particular branch of the operations, are they to be regarded as a department?

There surely is material for inquiry, and for definition, I should say, equal to if not more difficult than, the matter raised in this particular Amendment. The Solicitor-General says there is nothing in this proposal to define what is a labourer and what is a skilled mechanic. As a matter of fact, as I said before, that does not present any serious difficulty in practical everyday life, and the matter is to some extent defined here. The question of the machine does not arise at all, because the hon. Member behind me suggests that the man who gets the benefit of this particular proposal, if he labours for a skilled workman, or for a machine-man, could not be said to be labouring for a skilled workman. He himself would be defined as a skilled workman. Obviously, therefore, he does not come under the operation of this proposal unless he is not a machine-man, but a man who is working for a skilled workman. The man sweeping up the floor or bringing things to the machine, operated by a skilled workman, or a man "holding up" for a riveter, would, as a simple matter of fact, be included. Let me say again this matter presents no serious difficulty in everyday life, and in so far as definitions are needed, those definitions can be given off-hand by the unions covering the insured trades. That argument presents no serious difficulties to my mind.

The last point mentioned, and upon which the Solicitor-General relied, is the most extraordinary one I heard. He is a lawyer and, of course, he ought to know what the legal definition of a union is. He has given us the legal definition of a union. It is an extraordinary thing to me, but if it is so, there is no reason why you should not give a special legal definition to a union for the purposes of this Bill. Let me point out further, that this, only proposes to give the labourer the benefit of this proposal if the labourer is not a member of some union, that is of some union, as is the skilled workman. Everybody knows that even inside the Federation of Trade Unions there are a lot of separate trades. The union referred to as having 35,000 members, unskilled workers, is one union. The Boilermakers' and Shipbuilders' Union, for whom these men work, and who are not nearly so numerous by the by, is another union. All that my hon. Friend behind ma proposes to do is to give the benefit to the labourer who may or may not be a member of his union—that does not matter a fig. The Solicitor-General said that we were by this proposal going to give a benefit to non-union men. The proposal does not in any way raise the question as to whether the labourer belongs or does not belong to a union. He may belong to a union. If so, it is to a union of unskilled labourers. It gives him the benefit, whether he is a unionist or non-unionist.

2.0 P.M.

As a matter of fact he cannot be a member of a skilled workers' union, so that he has got no option in the matter, no choice, of belonging to this union. He is unconnected with the dispute. It is assumed for the purpose of this proposal that the skilled workman has a dispute with his employer, and this is a proposal only to bring in the labourer whom we have been pleading for during all this discussion last night and to-day. It only proposes to bring in the labourer to get the benefit of this Bill in the event of a dispute in which he is not personally or directly concerned, and with the bringing about of which he has had no control. I say again that now we have narrowed the point down to its narrowest possible dimensions; now when we have excluded ourselves—or, rather, we are excluded by the terms of this Amendment—we should settle the matter. This proposal would not bring in anybody else belonging to any skilled branch of work in that factory; it will only bring in the labourer. The Government therefore need not be afraid in this particular case about the effect on the funds. Seeing that is so, I think we really ought to press the Government either to accept the proposal or to put something in its place which will achieve the object which we have in view.

Do I understand this proposal to mean that all labourers who are employed direct by a firm—of course in the shipbuilding yards and other places there are great numbers—should be excluded from the benefit, and that those labourers who work for a skilled labourer should be included in this benefit? Is that it?

Oh, no; oh, no. I would not interpret it in that narrow sense. In my speech I was only dealing with the argument of the Solicitor-General that this would bring in the machine-man. You must not put more into my words than I intended to convey. In contradistinction to the machine-man I said this would apply to the labourers, and that machine-men included skilled men. It does not necessarily follow that it would only cover the man who worked for the machine-man; it would cover all labourers, and not only in an individual but in a collective sense those who are serving machine-men or serving skilled workmen in a factory.

This Debate on this point raises a doubt in one's mind as to the value of the long discussion in Committee. All these questions were fully debated, and also practically decided, and now we are having the Debate all over again as though it were the Committee stage. I again find myself a supporter of the Government. I find myself able to give an example in aid of the argument used by the Solicitor-General. It is stated—I understand that is the assumption of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway—that labourers are merely subordinate to skilled workmen in the factory or workshop in which they may be involved in a dispute. But that is not so. There is nothing that requires revision more than the definition of what is a skilled workman and what is an unskilled labourer. I can give a concrete example in connection with a new machine which has been introduced from America. That machine is worked by labourers, and the mechanics only do the trimming after the product has left the machine. That is an example which contradicts the assumption of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars. There is no such thing as this hard and fast line between skilled and unskilled labour; between even labourers in one department of a works and unskilled workmen in another department, and that is exactly the argument used by the Solicitor-General. Under circumstances so confusing it would be perilous at any rate at this stage to introduce an Amendment like this. I can only say it is a maiden effort at drafting from the way it appears on the Paper, and I cannot understand it being accepted in its present form. I do not know, therefore, whether the Government think that in another place it is possible to introduce other words. I submit that though there are cases, and hard cases, and though all one's humane feelings are in favour of something of this sort, still to enact it in this Bill would do more harm than good. It would be a great mistake from anybody's point of view; and from the point of view of organised labour as well.

All this discussion and muddle has been raised because we have not proceeded on a proper basis. The position would be easily met if the Government had gone on the principle of craft grades or trade bases, which is the rule in trades at the present. All this difficulty has arisen because that principle has been departed from. We have made a proposal which is the principle now acted upon, instead of the one in the Bill which is not the practice. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harry Lawson), he either misunderstands or is purposely twisting our contention altogether, because we have repeatedly and distinctly repudiated any intention of trying to get this for any sinister purpose. As the object of the Government is to assist these men when out of work, and to help them back to health and strength, they ought to adopt our Amendment.

The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Harry Lawson) put a case that would not be at all affected if this Amendment was carried. I am sure, with such a good reputation as he is known to have as an employer of labour, he would not desire to do any injustice whatever to that helpless class of labourers who work in association with skilled workers. His illustration of the machine from America does not apply in this case. Our Amendments, instead of being the jumble of words referred to by the Solicitor-General, is, to my mind, one of the best drafted expressions of intention that has ever appeared upon the Amendment Paper. It pursues the definite purpose of stating in plain and distinct language what is intended and aimed at. It tells you that in a trade dispute between a skilled workman and his employer the labourer shall not be disqualified from benefit. We have many different kinds of skilled workmen; we have many different kinds of bread, but we do not ask ourselves, what is bread. We know. You may take from any part of this Clause as it now stands quite a number of difficulties greater than any difficulty of interpretation which would be raised if this Amendment were carried. The Clause as it now stands speaks of work as it is "commonly carried on." What is work "commonly carried on"? What is a department? What is separate business? All these words are in the Clause, and if the Government can accept and permit language so general as that already in the Clause, I do not see how they can reasonably object to this particular Amendment. We have had all along expressions of much sympathy, and I believe genuine sympathy, from the Government. The only two broad branches of business or trade or industry covered by this portion of the Bill are the engineering and the building trades. These seem to me to be two trades specially meant to make it easy to meet such claims as those put forward in this Amendment. In the building trade you have the bricklayers, painters, plumbers, and so on. The relation of the labourer to these men is a matter that anyone can understand, and there is no difficulty of interpretation in the case of the engineering trade, or, indeed, in all skilled trades the situation is similar. Mechanics have to serve an apprenticeship; they have between 30s. and 40s. a week, and with them there are the labourers, the unskilled class, whose condition is always discovered by the wages they are paid. There is such a difference in the rate of pay between skilled men and labourers that the weekly wages themselves at once determine the labourer from the skilled workman whom we try to cover by this Amendment.

I appeal to the Government, and I say in this matter we want more than sympathy. If they really wish to meet the difficulty they can do so in language that carries with it far less harassing conditions than the language of the Clause, and they can do something for that class of labourer. The Government Clause has already been much narrowed and certain matters conceded in previous discussions have been destroyed. The Government is anxious, I gather, not to take sides in trade disputes. That is exactly the purport of this Amendment. I do not think it is too far-fetched an illustration to look at the recent action of the Government in connection with the railway troubles. They stated they would not take sides in that dispute, but they declared they would protect the rights and claims of the public. There were three parties to the railway dispute, namely, the railwaymen, the railway directors, and the public; and in that case the Government interfered and used the forces of the Crown in the interests of the public.

I am not now calling in question the rights or the wrongs of their action. I am only pointing out what they did. They interfered in a trade dispute because they thought it was in the public interest that they should do so. We ask them now to interfere for a similar purpose, and to interfere as an act of justice. Here you have three parties—the skilled worker, the employer, and the labourer. The labourer corresponds to the general public in the instance I have mentioned of the railway dispute. The skilled worker and the employer have a dispute with which the labourer has nothing to do. The interests of the labourer ought to be preserved. There are many labourers who are never unemployed unless in cases of this sort, and there is good reason why the Government should try to meet their case. The final features of the Bill would not be at all interfered with if this Amendment were carried. A man can only draw so much money, and if he draws his money from matters arising from disputes which he has not caused at all there must be a limit to the amount he draws. If he draws it then he cannot draw it at any other time. So that financially there is no gain to the man as a workman by virtue of his drawing money at a particular time and not at another time. There is only to him the certainty that if he is thrown out of work through a dispute and never from any other cause, he shall, when forced to be unemployed, have his transfer benefit under this Bill. I do not feel very strongly about the last words of the Amendment, and if any indication were given I think my hon. Friend would be willing to delete the last few words and remove the difficulties raised in the speech of the Solicitor-General. It is immaterial to say whether a labourer is in a trade union or not. We are appealing for benefits in case of unemployment, not for trade unionists, but for non-union labourers, and the Amendment would effect its purpose without those concluding words. If that raises any difficulty of interpretation, and those sitting on the Front Bench will give an indication in the direction I have mentioned, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend, rather than lose the substance of this Amendment, would not insist upon retaining those words. From the beginning this question has hinged on the condition of the labourer, and this Amendment raises his just claim. The Government should not drive us into the Lobby against them if they are disposed to try and meet the real substance of this claim. They might accept this form of words or some other form and incorporate them in the Bill rather than do a grave injustice to people not concerned in the dispute one way or the other.

This is one of the most important points that can be raised on this particular Bill. It affects a large number of men, the great bulk of whom are not in any union. We are dealing in this Amendment with a class of men who find a tremendous difficulty in joining a union. I have had twelve years' experience trying to organise these men, and I would like the House to consider the class we are dealing with very carefully. They are men probably receiving between 18s. and 20s. a week. When one realises that a man belonging to this class has a wife and family and a home to keep together, it is obvious even to those in the trade union movement why these men are not organised. They are not organised simply because they are too poverty stricken and they are never even in a position to be able to pay the infinitesimal sum of 3d. per week to protect them as organised workers. It seems to me that under these conditions the labourers are the people who are going to be punished eternally simply because they are labourers. It is a matter of very common knowledge to everybody who has had any connection with the trade union movement, and especially with the skilled section of it that a great bulk of the disputes in this country are caused by the well organised, highly skilled, and well-financed trade unions. It works out in this way. You have disputes and strikes where only skilled men are involved, and if you want to see a really good, well-managed, effective, persistent strike, you have to look to the skilled men to get it. The unskilled man cannot last out as long as the skilled man, and if he does not succeed in effecting some sort of settlement in a reasonable time, it is obvious he must fail, because he cannot last out the length of time that a highly skilled set of men can in a well-organised and a well-financed trade union. It is a matter of very common knowledge for a skilled union to last for six months in a trade dispute without even turning a hair. If the same number of unskilled men were involved for that period there is not the slightest doubt that the whole of those men would be starved into submission long before the six months expired.

Look at the matter from another point of view. I think the House should realise that the unskilled man is really between two millstones. The matter has been dealt with, but it has not been put in quite so effective a manner as it can be put. It rests, as a rule, between the employers and the skilled men in the case of the great bulk of disputes in this country. Supposing the set of skilled men have a dispute for an advance of wages and they initiate a dispute and cause a strike. It is a dispute between the men and the employer, but the unskilled labourer is affected, although he has no voice and no control over the matter, and is not even asked for his judgment. Whether he likes it or not he is thrown out of employment, and he must suffer as a consequence. That occurs where the skilled men are seeking for an advance of wages or some improvement in their conditions. Look at it from the other point of view. Supposing the employer seeks to obtain a reduction in the wages of the skilled workmen. The skilled workmen and the employer fall out a dispute takes place and a lock-out ensues. Here, again, the unfortunate labourer is between the two millstones either in the case of a strike or a lock-out, for he is bound ultimately to suffer. It does seem to me that you make his case infinitely harder in fact, ten thousand times harder, by compelling this unskilled man to pay his contributions under this Act.

Let us see what might easily happen. You might have a case similar to this. You might have these men faced with the greatest conceivable difficulty, and no man in this House knows it better than I do. These men are going to be compelled to pay 2½d. a week under this unemployment scheme, and that is bound to be a matter of very great sacrifice to those men. This type of men may go on paying into this unemployment scheme for five or ten years and never take a cent out of the unemployment fund. There may come a time when the unskilled labourers may be locked out, and although these men may have paid 2½d. a week for five or ten years they may be out of employment through a strike or a lock-out and actually starved to death. There is nothing very strange about this. There are hon. Members here who have some recollection of a great lockout in connection with the boilermakers which took place recently. I went to the big city of Glasgow during that dispute, and I saw men parading the streets. They had been out of work for ever so many months; they were in rags, helpless and poverty-stricken, and I say it is almost horrible to contemplate the position some of them might be in if, after paying their contributions into this fund for years, and then through no fault of their own a dispute of a lock-out occurs in which they have no control, and these men and their wives and children might actually be starved to death. Under any circumstances this position will have to be met by the Government. I urge the Government to consider the case of these men. We are dealing with thousands and hundreds of thousands of men who are not in any union. I am a skilled worker, and I would be prepared to say, so far as the skilled worker is concerned, keep him out of it, and let him stand his corner; but there are hundreds of thousands of these men who cannot afford to be in any union at all. Yet they are to be compelled to pay into this scheme, when, through no fault of their own, they may be out of work owing to a strike or lock-out, and starve to death.

I do not think there is any Member who does not sympathise completely and absolutely with the Views the hon. Member has expressed with regard to the hardship on labourers, who have nothing to do with a dispute. That was brought home to us very closely in a dispute in the division I represent. The very point we are now discussing was, however, debated in Committee for a considerable time, and, though I agree the result arrived at was not final, I do not think we are entitled to complain that an important Amendment such as this should have been put down only the night before its discussion. From the draftsman's point of view, it is a very bad Amendment. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to say they know perfectly well what the labourer is and what the skilled man is—so do most of us—but, when you come to interpret these words, I feel perfectly certain you will come to grief if there is no definition of them in the Bill, and, if you begin to define them, you will find it enormously difficult to make a definition which will hold water. The only definition we have is in Clause 102,

"The expression 'workman' means any person of the age of sixteen or upwards employed wholly or mainly by way of manual labour, who has entered into or works under a contract of service with an employer."

There is no distinction between the man who makes 16s. per week and the man who makes £3 per week. There is no distinction between the labourer and the skilled workman. I for my part think it would be exceedingly dangerous, having got that definition, for the Government to accept any such Amendment as is now proposed. I do not know whether there is time to consider the matter and deal with it later, but, however sympathetic we may be with the views expressed by the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, I think we should run a great risk of doing a great deal more mischief by accepting the Amendment than if we accept what the Government have given already, and which everybody admits is an improvement on the Bill as it originally stood, though I agree it does not go as far as many hon. Members want. If there is a Division on this Amendment, so far as I personally am concerned, I shall not be willing to support it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow (Mr. Charles Duncan) discussed the question with great skill and lucidity from the point of view of the hardship it would be to the general body of labourers if they, not being parties to the dispute themselves, did not come within the benefit; but that is not the point before us. That and other points were discussed and decided last night. The Amendment before us is a very much narrower one. The Mover of the Amendment proposes to confine his proviso to the labourer who is out of employment by reason of a trade dispute between his employer and the skilled workman for whom he labours. That confines it, of course, to a limited number of labourers. It would only apply to those working under skilled workmen; it would not apply to the general labourer, who is not working directly for the skilled workman. I am afraid I should find it difficult to give effect to an Amendment which brings in a certain class of labourers and excludes others. That has been very seriously considered in seeing how far this Amendment could be accepted and how far it could be properly drafted. I think the House generally recognises it is a hard case, and my hon. and learned Friend said if anyone had a practical suggestion to make we should be very glad to consider it. It must, however, be a practicable, a workable, and a watertight suggestion, and, so far as this Amendment is concerned, it is certainly neither one nor the other.

The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) spoke of the ease of saying what is a skilled workman and what is a labourer. He said any trade unionist could tell you. Yes, but these Acts of Parliament have to be interpreted in courts of law, and not unfortunately by trade unionists. I do not say it is not possible, but, so far as my information goes, and so far as we have been able to apply ourselves to it, we have not been able to arrive at any definition which in an Act of Parliament would draw a distinction between a labourer and a skilled workman. Then there is the reference in

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert the following new Sub-section,

(4) A workman shall be disqualified from receiving unemployed benefit whilst he is in receipt of any benefit other than maternity or medical benefit under the provisions of Part I. of this Act.

I feel certain that it is the intention not only of the Government, but of the great body of opinion in this House, that no man should receive a double benefit under Part I. and Part II. of the Bill. He must take one or the other. I am told that that is already provided for, but I confess I have been unable to find that particular provision. I am further told it is covered in the second part of the Bill in Clause 80, Sub-section (3), which reads,

"that he is capable of the work but unable to obtain suitable employment."

It seems to me that that Sub-section is a very small peg on which to hang this disqualification, and it would be much wiser to put in an extra Sub-section instead of making the thing hang entirely on the definition of the word "capable." Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the difficulty might not be a great one if the two parts of the Bill were being worked by the same organisation. They are not so being worked. They are being worked by different officials, who have no connection or relation with each other. You may, therefore, have a man going to the Insurance Commissioners under Part I. of the Bill and obtaining medical benefit because he was incapable of maintaining himself, and then afterwards going on to the insurance officer under Part II. of the Bill and satisfying him that his position was different to that which had seemed good to the Insurance Commissioners under Part I., and getting the other benefit under Part II. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make the matter quite clear, and will accept the Sub-section, so that it shall be obvious to any-anyone that no person can receive a double benefit.

I beg to second the Amendment. I would make one further suggestion that sanatorium benefit should be added to maternity and medical benefit.

The object which the hon. Gentleman has in view is an object which, of course, we want to secure, but, so far as I can judge the matter, it is really not desirable and not necessary to put in this Sub-section, which might lead to misunderstanding if it were put in. Perhaps the hon. Member will follow me in this: Clause 10 of the Bill, which is in Part I., as originally drafted, spoke of periodical payments for sickness benefit "whilst rendered unfit to provide their own maintenance." But last night those words were taken out and we substituted for them the words "incapable of work." I took care to have that done. "Incapable of work" is the test under Part I., and "capable of work" is the test under Part II. What hon. Members want is really covered by Clause 10 as it stands at this moment. That will exclude a man from drawing sickness benefit or medical benefit, but not the other benefits to which the hon. Member referred.

I do not wish to go into the point how far a man can be capable and incapable at the same moment, but my hon. Friend (Mr. Hoare) pointed out that a man who is considered incapable of work by the secretary of his friendly society is consequently admitted to the benefit list, and is kept there for two or three weeks, as it may be. It is conceivable—I do not suggest it will be often done, because it is obviously dishonest—that the man might, after drawing benefit from his friendly society through being incapable of work, go to the insurance officer and say that he is out of employment and try to draw unemployed benefit also. He will go to a totally different officer, who is not a friendly society man at all, but who is cither the trade-union secretary or the insurance officer. It does not follow that he is in a friendly society in the particular locality in which be is working. His friendly society may be in the north of England, and he may be out of work in the south of England. It is quite true he would be committing an offence, but there seems to be no reason why the Government should not put this Sub-section in, because it draws attention to the matter in Part II. Part I. of the Bill is a thing the Labour Exchange men will say, "We have nothing to do with it, and we hardly know the terms of Part I.," whereas Part II. will be constantly under their observation. If there is no such provision in Part II., they are apt to overlook the matter altogether. There can be no harm in saying a thing twice over.

I am thinking of the complication of additional benefits.

I agree there ought to be exemption of sanatorium benefit. I am not saying that these words are the best words, but there is a point in the matter.

I think the hon. Member (Mr. Hoare) has made out a good case to a certain extent. Perhaps the hon. Member would be inclined not to move the exact words, which may not possibly cover the case. If he would be kind enough to leave the matter for the present, we will look into it, and, if necessary, put in the words in another place to secure the object which both he and the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Amery) and the Government have at heart. The hon. Member has shown that there may be a possible loophole, and in that case we shall certainly introduce words somewhat on the lines of the hon. Member's Amendment.

I am quite satisfied with that assurance.

Sanatorium benefit has been mentioned. I think that stands on a different footing, because a person might be receiving treatment for tuberculosis and at the same time be capable of work.

I think we ought to have some explanation of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman Bays it is purely a drafting Amendment, but surely it covers the change which the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed yesterday, when in answer to a question I put to him he informed us, for the first time, that there was not going to be one umpire but two umpires, an umpire and a deputy-umpire. That seems to be covered by this verbal alteration. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me it is not covered by this, I am quite ready to accept the Amendment.

I have an Amendment down later dealing with the deputy-umpire.

What precisely is the meaning of these words? I imagine that all these appointments are ultimately made by His Majesty, but in practice they are made by the Government on the recommendation of a Minister. Is any different mode of appointment intended than in the case of an insurance officer? I understand that the insurance officers are to be appointed by the Board of Trade and the umpire by His Majesty. As to the deputy-umpire, I do not know how he is to be appointed; he is a person we know nothing about yet. I am sure we are all anxious that these appointments shall not be in any sense political jobs, but that they shall be made by the Government through the Civil Service Commission. I understand that is the intention of the Government regarding insurance officers, but apparently the umpire is to be taken out of that category, and is to Be appointed direct by the Government. Is that the intention the Board of Trade has hi inserting these words here? We are very anxious in all parts of the House that these posts should be given to people according to their qualification, and not as a reward for political services. If it is intended that they are to be political appointments, we shall protest against the insertion of these words. Our view is that they ought to be appointed in the Civil Service, and apparently these words are intended to differentiate this particular appointment from the others. At all events, we may fairly ask for some explanation.

When we were discussing this and other cognate, matters in Grand Committee I gave a very emphatic assurance that in these appointments no question of political influence would be allowed to affect the selection. The original proposal was that the umpire should be appointed, with the insurance officers, by the Board of Trade direct. I put down this particular Amendment at the desire of certain Members of the Committee, who raised the question how far this officer would be independent of the Board of Trade. In order to make it as clear as I could, and to make him as independent as we could, I said I would introduce these words on Report. They emphasise the fact that he is not a Board of Trade official, and is an independent officer, and whereas the Board of Trade would have full power of dismissal in other cases, in this case they would not. The appointment will not be in any sense a political appointment.

Does it affect the tenure of the appointment? We know he can be appointed by patent under the Great Seal, but still he will not be on a par with His Majesty's judges in respect of tenure of office. The real substance of the whole thing is, will he hold office during good behaviour, or will he be removable at the option of the President of the Board of Trade or the head of His Majesty's Government? In the view of a good many Members, it is essential that he should have security of tenure and should be in an independent position, as independent as the Comptroller and Auditor-General or one of His Majesty's judges, considering the important duties he will have to perform.

This gentleman's tenure, legally speaking, would be that of everybody who serves under the Crown unless, indeed, some special provision was made to the contrary. The object here is to make it clear that this umpire is not an official of the Board of Trade. The Committee expressed a very strong desire that he should not be an official of the Board of Trade, and should not be treated as though subordinate to the permanent officials of the Board of Trade. That is our only object. Of course, you cannot limit the power of the Crown, to dismiss a Crown servant, but, in point of fact, if you put this umpire in the position of being appointed by the Crown solemn forms have to be gone through before he can be dismissed. He cannot be dismissed as a departmental man could. He may be dismissed in exactly the same way as an admiral or a general or a soldier. He may be dismissed because the Crown does not further require his services. But before any such step could be taken it is obvious that the strongest objection could be raised in Parliament if the power was abused.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated quite accurately what happened in Committee, but not quite completely, because the President of the Board of Trade said, after quite considerable argument, it was the intention of the Board of Trade

"in some way to make it clear on the face of the Bill that it was intended that this officer should be an independent officer. At all events that is our intention, and if the Committee will allow me between now and Report to consider whether we can put in some words to that effect——"

It is quite true that the President suggested that instead of making the Board of Trade the persons to appoint they would make the Crown, and that part of their undertaking they have carried out completely by these words. But there was something to be put in on the face of the Bill which would show that this umpire, who is to have very large powers, was to be entirely independent. I do not see that there is any statement in this Clause or anywhere to that effect, and the only form, I imagine, in which you could put any such statement would be in connection with this appointment and the tenure of his office. Therefore, my hon. Friend (Mr. Harry Lawson) seemed to me to be touching exactly the point when he wanted to know what the tenure of the office of umpire was. You cannot put in the Bill the words "and the umpire shall be independent." You cannot insult him in advance, but you can provide for the same thing by making him an irremovable officer more or less as the judges of the Supreme Court are. That is what I hoped the President of the Board of Trade meant when he made that statement in Committee. He has carried out part of it by making the appointment by the Crown, but he does not seem to have met the other part of it at all. I do not know whether it is still possible to do it.

There seems to me to be a little practical difficulty in the way. I would also call attention to the fact that deputy-umpires are to be appointed, but they are not to be appointed by the Crown, but by the Board of Trade, so that the President has taken away again from his undertaking by appointing deputy-umpires. I can quite imagine they will be necessary. It will be almost impossible for one umpire to do the whole of the work which will be thrown upon him under the Bill. But the same objection which will have been taken to an umpire appointed by the Board of Trade can be taken, and properly taken, to deputy-umpires appointed by the Board of Trade. Indeed, the objection is even greater because, presumably, the standing of the deputy-umpire will not be as good as the standing of the umpire. You might get a man of very commanding position to take the post of umpire. Certainly if you are going to have five or ten deputies or even more you cannot expect to get men at the same standing to take the deputy position. So that if the President intends to carry out the spirit of his undertaking he has to meet these two positions, the position of the irremovable character of the appointment of the umpire, and also the position as regards the appointment of the deputy-umpire.

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman thought I had not carried out my undertaking. The undertaking was that this officer should, if possible, be an independent officer. The words I used in summing it up were these,

"For instance, the appointment might be by the Crown instead of by the Board of Trade, or in some way to make it clear on the face of the Bill that it was intended that this officer should be an independent officer."

That I have done, and I certainly intended, as far as possible, to make him an independent officer. With regard to the power of dismissal, the Crown will have to be consulted, but the important part of it is that we have put it on the face of it that he shall be an independent officer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the deputies? The value of the undertaking depends entirely on what he is going to do with the deputy-umpires. If they are to do the work instead of the umpire the same undertaking ought to be extended to cover their appointment as well as the appointment of the umpire.

I beg to move, after the word "chosen" ["members chosen to represent employers"], to insert the words "by such employers' associations or other bodies of employers as the Board of Trade may decide and, in default of such choice being made within such period as the Board of Trade may by regulations decide, then chosen by the Board of Trade."

The President of the Board of Trade will see that the object is that the wishes of the employers should be consulted in this matter. I have no doubt that the employers have full confidence in the Board of Trade, but they have probably more confidence in themselves, and would no doubt wish to have the nomination of their representatives on the court of nominees. I do not suppose the President of the Board of Trade will disapprove of this proposal, and I daresay he will agree to put in some words to enable the employers to have the nomination of their representatives.

I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that if he desires to introduce into the Bill provisions of this sort, of course we shall also have to introduce provisions of a corresponding character for the workmen. There is no objection to that if it can be done, conveniently on the face of the Bill, but I suggest that the right thing to do is to give the Board of Trade certain discretion, because I am sure both employers and workmen will bear me out when I say that the Board of Trade is always extremely anxious to keep in touch with employers and workmen. This Amendment covers unorganised as well as organised labour.

This is to be a permanent Statute.

It is to be a permanent Statute, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite followed what I said. If we provide, on the face of the Statute that employers are to have this right, we must also provide how other members are to be nominated. May I point out the difficulty as between organised and unorganised trades. I hope the time will come when unorganised labour will be reduced to a minimum or will disappear altogether, but in the meantime it exists in these trades, and I do not think we can put on this permanent Statue a provision which would not be equally available for all time. The Board of Trade always shows itself anxious to keep in touch with employers and workmen, and I think it is better to leave the Bill as it stands on the distinct understanding that the Board of Trade will take all proper opportunities to obtain the views of the different parties.

I hope the President of the Board of Trade will give some more attention to this Amendment. I speak with some experience and with some knowledge of the views of workmen, and I can state that they are not entirely satisfied with the selection made by the Board of Trade in other spheres in connection with questions of this kind. I am quite satisfied that if the workmen directly affected had the opportunity of selecting their own representatives under the Clause, more satisfaction would be given. The same argument applies to the employers. I am satisfied that the Board of Trade would be well advised if they directly consulted the trade unions which are directly affected by this part of the Bill.

After the assurance given by the Solicitor-General I do not wish to press the Amendment.

I wish to call the attention of the Solicitor-General to a point in connection with this Amendment. The Amendment is intended to permit of regulations being made to give the Board of Trade the opportunity of obtaining the decision of the umpire in advance. I think that is a necessary provision, and one which the Board of Trade is likely to use on many occasions. But in order to be of use the umpire must first be appointed. Therefore there ought to be in some portion of the Bill an Amendment providing for the appointment of the umpire before the Bill generally comes into operation.

I beg to propose, in Subsection (d), after the word "benefit," to add the words "and for making provision with respect to the appointment of a deputy-umpire in the case of the unavoidable absence or incapacity of the umpire."

At present some confusion, I gather, exists about this deputy-umpire. There is no intention of appointing another official, either permanently or in any way, on all fours with the umpire; but it is the intention at a particular moment, if for any reason the umpire was incapable of acting, either because he had to be away or was incapacitated, or that for any other reason an emergency arose, it should be possible to carry on the work, and that a deputy-umpire should be appointed for that particular purpose. The appoint- ment would be made under regulations of the Board of Trade. The Chief Justice, or someone of that standing, would probably be asked to make the appointment in the event of the umpire himself not being able to do so. In the ordinary course the umpire himself would appoint, but in case of some emergency it would not be done by the Board of Trade, but by someone of high standing. It must be clearly understood that there is not to be a second umpire.

After what the President of the Board of Trade has said I think everybody would be satisfied; but one does not like parting with a Clause like this without at least the statement of the intentions of the Board of Trade being on record, as otherwise we might be reverting to the old difficulties, which we pointed out in Grand Committee. I quite accept what the President has said, and, so far as I am concerned, am quite satisfied.

I beg to move to insert, after paragraph (e),

(f) for exempting from this Part of this Act, with the consent of the workmen and the employer, a workman engaged by an employer whose trade is not an insured trade, but who for the purposes thereof and subsidary thereto requires the continuous services of one or more workmen skilled in an insured trade.

There are many employers carrying on trades which are not "insured trades." They employ an engineer or a carpenter who, in the ordinary sense would be employed in one of the insured trades. These firms employ them continually, apart from their ordinary trade, because it is more convenient to have one on the premises to carry out small jobs as required. I do not suppose it is the intention of the Government that those persons should come within the Bill and be regarded as insured persons under the unemployment scheme. Those persons are employed regular hours and paid weekly wages. I know that Clause 102, Sub-section (2), says that regard is to be had to the nature of the work rather than to the business of the employer, but it would be extremely inconvenient to work this out in the cases to which I have referred, in which an employer might have only two or three of such workmen engaged.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The question raised by the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is one which was much discussed in different forms in the Committee. It really comes to this: are you going to decide whether a man comes within this Bill by considering what is the occupation of the worker or considering what is the business of the employer? That matter was in some doubt and it was difficult at first sight to say which view was right. But hon. Members will bear me out when I say, that the Committee came to a clear conclusion that considering it in many aspects, that the line of demarcation was to have regard to the occupation of the workman as distinguished from the trade of the employer. If that is not done, you produce a cross division of a very unfortunate kind. Take, for instance, the man who is an engineer in a cotton factory. I do not think it can be right to have such a man, who is doing the very work which would bring him under the Bill, excluded.

In view of what the learned Solicitor-General has said I withdraw my Amendment, though I think in practice it will be found extremely inconvenient to proceed in the way proposed in the Bill.

I beg to propose, in paragraph (e), to omit the words "and generally for carrying this Part of this Act into effect."

Paragraphs (a) to (e) of this Clause are quite wide enough. The words to which I object might give almost an unfair power to the Board of Trade. It has been suggested to me from many quarters that the words are too wide, that anything and everything that can be thought of, have been included in paragraphs (a) to (e), and there is really no need to give such very wide powers as these.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The hon. Gentleman says that every conceivable case that can be thought of is provided for. I am not quite so sanguine. I think it may possibly happen that however carefully and thoroughly this work has been done, we may find a small gap somewhere which all of us meant to cover, and do not happen to have covered, by our specific list of subject matters. This power at the end for carrying the Act into effect cannot be magnified into for one to giving the Board of Trade power to make regulations about everything in heaven or on earth. It is merely brought in at the end almost as a matter of common form, and is to be found in a great many Acts of Parliament, so that they may not be prevented from making necessary regulations which may not be technically within the list of objects that are set out. We must keep these words in because they are the common form of providing for such cases.

I beg to propose, at the end of paragraph (h), to insert,

(f) For providing that where any workmen are employed in or for the purposes of the business of any person, but are not actually employed by that person, that person may be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as their employer instead of their actual employer, and for allowing that person to deduct from any payments made by him to the actual employer any sums paid by him as contributions on behalf of the workmen, and for allowing the actual employer to recover the like sums from the workmen.

I would like to have some explanation of this Clause, which is rather complicated and inaugurates several innovations.

The hon. Gentleman will see that this Clause is intended to provide for a case which is not very common, but which may not be dealt with if we do not take some special power. The general scheme of the Act is that the employer should pay the employer's contribution and the workman should pay the workman's contribution. Those two persons are discovered by asking between whom is the contract, but you do have cases where a man who is really a workman is himself left to engage as part of his gang two or three, or it may be half a dozen, people who will work with him and are in a sense under him. Sometimes he makes his own engagement, and pays the wages; sometimes the employer pays the wages, and the intermediate workman merely regulates some details. All we have done is to take power to decide who is to keep the cards, and to fix the stamps. If the Committee look at the provision they will see that it is for

"providing that where any workmen are employed in or for the purposes of the business of any person, but are not actually employed by that person, that person may be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as their employer instead of their actual employer, and for allowing that person to deduct from any payments made by him to the actual employer any sums paid by him as contributions on behalf of the workmen, and for allowing the actual employer to recover the like sums from the workmen."

The hon. Gentleman will see that we are merely taking power to do it in cases where it is convenient. You may have cases where it is not very convenient to leave it to the workman to keep the cards, affix the stamps, and make other arrangements. It may be more convenient for the head employer to keep the cards, put on the stamps, and keep the accounts.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "His Majesty in Council may, if it seem fit, annul the regulation," and to insert instead thereof the words "which therefore shall be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder."

The House will observe that these regulations have all to be laid on the Table of either Houses of Parliament and remain there for a considerable time. Either House of Parliament may petition His Majesty not to carry them into effect. But even after that has been done, and after a vote has been taken in this House protesting against one of these regulations, it is still open to the Government to advise His Majesty under this Clause to carry them into effect notwithstanding. There is a discretion given. The discretion says that His Majesty in Council may, if he sees fit, allow the regulations. I do not think that that is what is it tended, certainly not what we want. Surely if a Resolution is passed either in this House or the other House praying that a particular regulation should not be carried into effect, that ought to be absolute. There ought not to be this discretion on the part of the Government to carry out the decision of the House or not. This particular provision is inconsistent with similar provisions which are made in respect of what are called "special orders" under this Bill in Clause 99. If the Government look at Clause 99, Sub-section (2), they will see that it provides,

Before a special order comes into force it shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during which the House is sitting, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those thirty days presents an address to His Majesty against the order or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new order.

I cannot understand why an address in either House should be absolutely effective in the case of special orders, and that in the case now under consideration it should be left to the discretion of the Government. All I want to do is to make the two provisions identical, in order to make the procedure the same in both cases, and that in either House there should be power to stop a regulation from proceeding further.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think the giving of this discretion to His Majesty in Council is contrary to precedents in similar cases. In the Finance Act of 1910 a regulation has to be laid before the House, and the House has an absolute veto upon it.

I accept the Amendment.

I think the form of the Amendment is not quite correct, and that it should be to leave out certain words.

And to insert the words, Sir?

The words proposed by the hon. Member are unnecessary; they are already in the Clause.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "paid over to the National Debt Commissioners and by them."

I have a series of Amendments to the Clause on the Paper. Under the Bill as drawn any moneys forming part of the unemployment fund may be paid over to the National Debt Commissioners and invested by them in securities which are authorised by Parliament for savings banks moneys—Consols, or, at any rate, similar low interest-bearing securities. The effect of the three or four Amendments which stand in my name will make the Sub-section read, "Any moneys forming part of the unemployment fund may from time to time be invested by the Board of Trade in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury in any securities which are for the time being authorised by Parliament, trust funds or in any other securities for the time being authorised by the Treasury."

In the Sub-section (4), instead of "National Debt Commissioners," I shall move the consequential Amendment to insert instead thereof the words "the Board of Trade," which shall present the accounts. The object of the Amendment is that the unemployment fund should be allowed to earn a greater rate of interest, which would be possible if the investment powers were widened. I would point out to the Committee and to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there would be a difficulty in any National Debt Commissioners investing in anything except the funds mentioned in Sub-section (2) as originally drawn. Therefore, I have left out the National Debt Commissioners as the body which is to be responsible for the investments, and I have inserted instead the Board of Trade, because they are under no such disenabling ordinance. The object is to get a higher rate of interest, very likely ½ to 1 per cent. or ¾ to 1 per cent. more per annum upon the funds. That would have an immediate effect, of course, upon all those who are likely to come upon the fund. It is an advantage that the fund should be kept at its highest possible amount, because if any deficiency occurs either extra contributions have to be levied or the benefits have to be reduced. It is to the interest of workmen and employers alike that these funds should be invested so that they may earn with due safety the highest possible rate of interest. The safety Clause which I am providing is that the investments shall only be trust securities, or such as are authorised by the Treasury, so that the Treasury will have fairly full control over the fund. When this was before the Committee upstairs we had a debate, and a rather comic debate upon it. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury objected to the suggested alteration for many reasons, none of which appeared to be very relevant except the one reason that there would not be any large fund definitely retained in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, that that fund was likely to be a fluctuating fund, sometimes large, and sometimes small, and that at any rate it ought to be kept in a liquid condition, easily realisable. The Financial Secretary apparently contemplated that it would be invested in Consols, and that there would be less risk of any loss on realisation owing to the chances of the market, as he described it, if the investments were kept in Consols. When it was pointed out to him that there had been great changes in Consols, and that if the Bill had been in force for the past ten years there would have been likely to have been considerable loss, in that particular form of investment, he replied that we need not be so contemptuous of the argument, because the Government as owners of the Consols, while it made a loss in one way might gain in another. We have been wondering ever since what the Secretary of the Treasury meant when he advanced that argument, and he will now have the opportunity of telling us what he really did mean then. The matter was pressed on the President of the Board of Trade, who made a promise which I do not think he has redeemed. He said,

"This is a Treasury matter, and I have to be very careful in what I may propose in regard to it."

Continuing, he said,

"Let us see what is eventually decided in regard to this point under Part I. of the Bill—"

Unfortunately nothing has been decided under Part I., because of the closure tactics—

"and what the Treasury agree to, and then I, in consultation with the Treasury, will see how far we are able to meet the desires expressed in various quarters of the Committee to bring it into form with Part I."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee B, 9th November, 1911, col. 192.]

That still did not satisfy the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who was present then, further pressed the matter. The President of the Board of Trade replied,

"I venture to say to the Committee if they would be good enough to give me the opportunity of considering this proposal in consultation with the Treasury I will endeavour to meet the point. The real difficulty in connection with my hon. Friend's Amendment is that it does alter the framework of the Bill. If the Committee will allow it to stand in that way I will undertake, with the Treasury, to see how far we can adopt the principle which is in Part I. and extend the powers of investment of the fund."

The Leader of the Opposition then asked, "Why not do it now," and the President of the Board of Trade said:—

"I am afraid I cannot go further than that. That is an undertaking which I really think the Committee might be satisfied with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 9th November, 1911, col. 198.]

The Committee were not satisfied with that. It was pressed to a Division, and the Government had a majority of one. I only quote that to show the House, not how narrowly the Government escaped annihilation, but to show that it was a point which interested both sides of the House, and that it was not a proposition which came from this side at all. It came from the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), and it was supported, I think, by a very able economist, the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond), and from many other parts of the House, including, I believe, the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward). An Amendment that has had that history should, I think, have been very seriously considered by the Government. The Government may have considered it, but, if so, the result is not reflected on the Paper, because they have put down no Amendments to meet the point. This may mean many, many thousands per year to the employers and workpeople of this country, and, therefore, is something that certainly ought to have the most serious consideration of the Government. I hope now that the President of the Board of Trade has had the opportunity of consulting in private the Financial Secretary that, in their joint wisdom they will be able to accept the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The hon. Member has told us of a promise, and he stated with perfect accuracy that the President of the Board of Trade said that he would consider the matter if the Committee left it to him, but, as the hon. Member has pointed out, the Committee decided to vote on it, and therefore there was no promise from the President of the Board of Trade. Of course this is a matter which has been very carefully considered, and, in fact, it is a matter which has been considered by previous Governments, and in principle it has been the subject of inquiry by a Select Committee of Parliament. I noticed that the only argument which the hon. Member is able to bring forward in support of his proposition, a very good argument in itself, and I am not saying it is not a good argument, but the only argument which he can bring forward in support of his proposal is that it would mean a higher rate of interest. Of course it is always desirable to have a high rate of interest, other things being equal. Any business man will know when he makes an investment he has to consider the nature of the investment and the kind of object he has in view, while the rate of interest is but one consideration, and in many cases not the most important consideration. That is a very obvious matter, but the hon. Member has dwelt on that one point, and he has said it might make a difference of ½ per cent. or even more. My own opinion is that ½ per cent. is the outside of the difference. That could never mean many thousands per year on this fund. The hon. Member has not taken the trouble to make his calculations or he would never have put that statement before the House. The hon. Gentleman asked what I meant and I will tell him what I did mean. This is an entirely different question from that which was raised under Part I. In Part I. the friendly societies are allowed to invest the money of their own members in a wider range of security, and that is right. That is the old power they have had, and they are investing the money of their own members who control the society and who are investing their own money. Where other money is invested under Part I. that wide range of security is not provided for, and the thing is dealt with as it is dealt with in Part II. I merely mention that not on the merits, but to show that the argument which was used in Committee as to Part I. was an erroneous argument.

What is the position? The Government is managing this fund, and it has a very considerable responsibility in so doing. What it asks is that it should be allowed to keep the money in securities which it guarantees itself. Supposing it provided that it might invest the money in outside securities, would it not be a reasonable thing for the Government to say, "If we do that, we must insert the provision, which exists in Acts such as the Colonial Stock Act of 1870, that the Consolidated Fund is not liable"? Would it not be a reasonable thing that we should have a depreciation fund? If you do either of these things, where is your ½ per cent.? But this really is not a business proposition. It is not to the advantage of the fund, or to the advantage of those who are interested in the fund, that this wider range of securities should be provided. Before I come to that point, I should like to point out the general objection to allowing a Government Department to go into the stock market and buy, say, railway stocks, debentures or preference, Colonial stock, or any of these trustee securities. You immediately get pressure on the Government Department to buy particular stocks. It is said, "You have bought such and such a railway stock, why not buy this other railway stock" It is not a desirable thing. It is a thing which no Government Department has done before, and I do not think it is a desirable thing to introduce. It would give rise to a great deal of difficulty and criticism. This very subject was considered so recently as 1902 by a Select Committee. There was a very strong reason at that time why the Select Committee should consider favourably the proposal for extending the range of invest- ments, because there had been great depreciation in the price of Consols due to the scheme of Lord Goschen reducing the interest by so large a proportion as one-sixth. The question of trustee savings bank securities was considered by that Committee. They had more reason to deal with the matter than we have under this Bill, as I shall presently show. But they came to the conclusion that it was undesirable to do it. Among other reasons they gave this; they said—

"The State holds this Fund as a banker in return for the guarantee of absolute security which this implies."

They were speaking of savings bank funds.

"The State is entitled to deal with the money entrusted to its care by investing it only in securities which are guaranteed by the State."

I do not think the State guarantees this money in the same absolute sense. Still, it is obvious, if you look at the Bill, especially Clause 87, that the State is taking a very considerable and real responsibility in regard to this fund. The second reason of the Committee was that investment in securities less readily convertible into gold might lead to much greater loss than was likely to be compensated by any increase in interest. That is the general objection. It is undesirable to give a Government Department the right to, or to provide that a Government Department should go into the market and buy a great variety of securities. It is much better that the Government Department, unless there is strong reason to the contrary, should confine itself to dealing with securities guaranteed by the Government. But in this case there is no business reason why you should extend the power. In the interests of the fund it is not desirable. What is this fund? I will now try to explain to the hon. Member what I failed to make clear to him in Committee. He thinks that all that the National Debt Commissioners can do is to put the money in Consols, and take the risk of the market. Of course, that is not the case; they are not confined to Consols.

I did not say so.

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman gave me to understand that it was a question of Consols, even if he did not say so definitely in his speech. At all events, let us go on to the merits of the question. They are not confined to Consols. When you consider the nature of this fund there are other investments open to the National Debt Commissioners much more suitable than Consols for the greater part of the fund. We have to consider what this fund is. It is not a fund which you build up from year to year, like providing a sinking fund, for example. It is a fund which you collect in the year and which, broadly speaking, you spend in the year. It is a fund which it is contemplated may be reduced to nothing. In Clause 87 the Government is given power to make advances to it. In time of very serious unemployment there will be no money in the fund; it will always be a varying fund. It will fluctuate between one year and another; not only that, but between one season of the year and another. Although that appears to the hon. Member for Colchester to be a contemptible point, I do not think that any business man will refuse to admit that it is a very important point. The question of an extra ½ per cent. in interest to this fund is not the most important question. I say that it is more than counter-balanced by the advantage of dealing in this matter with the National Debt Commissioners. What do the National Debt Commissioners do? They are dealing with a variety of securities—Consols, Local Loans, Irish Land stock, Transvaal stock, Treasury Bills, Exchequer Bonds, and securities of that sort. Suppose they have a short investment to make for this fund. In Exchequer Bonds or Treasury Bills they have an investment which they know will give them their capital back in a short time, and in regard to which there can be no important fluctuation in price.

You have a very different state of affairs if you invest in Colonial or Indian stocks. You cannot always realise the money without a large market margin. You cannot realise it always very quickly if it is a large sum of money. They have the great advantage that they can deal with this fund at the cheapest possible rate, and in this case the easy and cheap realisability of the fund is more important than the rate of interest. Suppose money is wanted for this fund, and that money is available from the Savings Bank Fund. The money can be obtained. They can sell Consols to that fund without losing the turn of the market, without paying a penny brokerage, by simply exchanging between one Department and the other at the mean price. They cannot do that with outside securities. Therefore, there is not the slightest doubt that the most economical way of dealing with fluctuating securities for investment and realisation is to deal with the securities which at present are dealt with by the National Debt Commissioners. They have a great many facilities for investing or for realising investments without costing the fund considerable sums. Everybody knows that when you are dealing with these stocks in the market you have to run the risk of the market. I am not talking about depreciation of the stock. When there is no depreciation of the stock you have to buy at a higher price and sell at a lower. You can avoid that in a large majority of cases, or in a great many cases at any rate, by the plan proposed in the Bill. I ask the House to maintain the provision for two reasons: The first is that, generally speaking, it is undesirable that a Government Department should be dealing in the market, raising some funds and depressing others, and subject to the Stock Exchange influence which that necessarily implies. I do not suggest anything wrong by that, but still you would always have pressure put on the Department to secure that certain stocks not on the list should be put on the list. That is very undesirable. The other consideration is that the fund has no interest in this proposal, but will be better off under the plan proposed by the Government than under the plan proposed by the hon. Member for Colchester.

The Secretary to the Treasury has made an interesting speech, and he has laid down a new rule of political conduct. He has also set up a new standard of Ministerial deportment. Ministers now are to be allowed to give pledges upstairs or here, and if a Division is taken in order to enforce——

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I do not know that he was present at the Committee.

Yes, I was.

It is a most extraordinary statement that the hon. Gentleman makes. What my hon. Friend said was that if this matter was not pressed to a Division he would consider it with the Treasury. The matter was pressed to a Division. It was a purely conditional promise. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I beg hon. Members' pardon. There was a conditional promise. If I may be allowed to say so, I was sitting by my right hon. Friend and I know exactly what he said. The matter has been considered by the Treasury since then, and we have not seen reason to change our minds.

I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman—and I will give a quotation in a minute—that if on its merits the question was worthy of consideration, the fact that a Division was taken upstairs does not in the least alter its merits. It was an unconditional promise that was given. Here is an extract from the report:—

"Mr. Buxton: If the Committee will allow the matter to stand in that way, I will undertake with the Treasury to see how far we can adopt the principle in Part I. of extending the powers of the investment of the fund.

"Mr. Bonar Law: Why not do it now?

"Mr. Buxton: I am afraid I cannot go further than that. That is an undertaking with which, really, I think the Committee ought to be satisfied."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 9th November, 1911, col. 198.]

The Secretary for the Treasury will see that what he said was not strictly accurate. Of course he meant it to be. He has forgotten the incident, but the pledge was not conditional as he said it was.

My hon. Friend has just read the words, "I think the Committee ought to be satisfied." The Committee were not satisfied. We have considered the matter again. There was no promise to alter the Clause.

Objections came from all parts of the Committee, and hon. Members voted with the Government who would not have done so but for that understanding. A Division was taken, as my right hon. Friend has said, and a majority of one was recorded for the Government. Does the Secretary to the Treasury seriously contend that that absolves the Minister in charge from his pledge, and from the effect of that pledge, and that the Clause ought not to be restored? Remember the Division in a way strengthened his hand, and enabled the President of the Board of Trade to go to the Treasury and say that he must have wider powers. The Secretary to the Treasury argued the whole of this case very elaborately on a false basis. This is not a compulsory Clause; it is an enabling Clause. The Treasury is asked, or rather the President of the Board of Trade is asked, to give sufficient latitude in the investment of funds as to enable those who have charge of them to earn a higher rate of interest; something approaching that which is done now by the friendly societies and the trade unions. It will be perfectly open for the Treasury to make such rules as will meet the very point which the Secretary to the Treasury makes. Of course, it is not intended to have a big lock. The Government is in such a position that it can always draw upon unappropriated balances when it is in a tight place. Let me point out to the Secretary to the Treasury that he himself made a most extra ordinary statement in regard to the possibilities of investment. He spoke as if the ordinary stocks of railway and other companies were not a suitable subject for trustee investment——

Really, my hon. Friend should recollect that I expressly spoke of preference stocks.

I apologise for that. In any case nobody contends that the whole of this fund should be locked up in this way, although the Government has the advantage of unappropriated balances with which it can deal. But if it is found—and this is the whole point—by the light of experience that there is a floating fund which can earn a higher rate of interest than we are earning, are powers to be denied for it to be done? Surely the Treasury is preserved. They are able to make rules. The only object is not to limit it strictly to Treasury investment, to Consols and to Exchequer Bills. After all, we know there is no investment as unsatisfactory as Consols. People talk as if Consols were a fluctuating security. That is not so. They are what is called in the City a "sagging" security. You have got this difference, the Government for its own purpose—it may be a perfectly legitimate one—may want to bolster up these. Therefore, in any fund it has got at its disposal, if it has an excuse, the fund could be spent in bolstering up the Consol market. Is it desirable that the money subscribed by the workmen and their employers should be used for this purpose?

What about depreciation?

Nobody thinks that the depreciation has reached bottom yet. All that is asked is that a latitude, an option, should be given under Treasury rules. I recollect the Solicitor-General, with all his immense ingenuity, found it very hard to make out a good case in Grand Committee for the retention of this Treasury red-tape. I do submit to the House that now it should have the opportunity of reconsidering the matter here in view of the pledge given by the Government. In view of the obvious advantage to be gained by adopting this Amendment there should not be obstruction merely by Treasury tactics on this occasion. The House should allow now what was denied by only a majority of one upstairs, and adopt a course manifestly dictated by commonsense and the ordinary principles of business.

The right hon. Gentleman's last sentence on this subject really touched one point which does concern the House. The real question is whether the fund can get any advantage out of an Amendment such as this. The right hon. Gentleman says, "No," and he says "No" on three grounds. In the first place, because Consols and Exchequer Bills are a more convenient form of security. In the second place, because investment in trust funds will not be so safe. In the third place, if you have investments of this kind, whatever they may bring in, this will be very little more—put it at ½ per cent. I will deal with these three points. In the first place, the Consols and Exchequer Bills are more readily realisable. Surely there is nothing in the Amendment to prevent the Board of Trade, on the advice of the Treasury, investing in Consols and Exchequer Bills if they want to do so. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Exchequer Bills on their merits. He seems to think that there is something in this Amendment which would prevent investment in these securities.

All that the Amendment says is that if by chance a better investment, under equally good conditions, of other stock comes along it is not to be barred out as it would be under the Bill as it stands. The second point I think was that other stocks are not so safe. Who is going to make the investment? Not some Stock Exchange gamblers, as the right hon. Gentleman said, but the Board of Trade acting on the advice of the Treasury. Really, when the right hon. Gentleman goes on to talk about ½ per cent. being not worth doing it for, and of the necessity of providing a depreciation fund—well, if you are going to have strictly pure finance and provide a depreciation fund to meet every possible contingency, well and good. I have no doubt there are a great many financial purists who would say that we should have a depreciation fund for Consols. [An HON. MEMBER: "Certainly."] I think that is a perfectly sound way of doing business, but I would rather like to know whether the Financial Secretary suggests that even under present conditions there should be a depreciation fund. Personally, I think there ought to be.

I think certainly there are many good reasons which might be given for the existence of such fund. But I only want to say that it is no use saying that ½ per cent. is not worth having. In two or three years of good trade this fund may very easily amount to £4,000,000. A ½ per cent. on £4,000,000 is £20,000, a very valuable and a very large increment to place at the disposal of the Government. Really, I cannot understand why, as the investment is to be controlled by one Government Department with a supervision of the Treasury—if we have our way—why the Government should not reconsider their decision, and accede to the desire of a very large portion of the Committee upstairs.

I beg the House in the first place not to rest under the impression which it might easily derive from some of the speeches made that what is now being proposed is the same as what was some time ago proposed in the Grand Committee. What was proposed in the Grand Committee was that the National Debt Commissioners should have the power to invest outside Government securities, and that in the choice of their investments they were to be guided by the Insurance Commissioners. There were several objections to that, one of which was that the National Debt Commissioners never have invested outside Government funds, and secondly that the National Insurance Commissioners have nothing to do with Part II. of the Bill. That was the proposal in the Committee. Far be it from me to say that that is not a proper matter to receive consideration. It has received consideration. What is now proposed by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) is not what was proposed in the Committee, but something quite different. Let us bear in mind what the proposal now is. It is that the National Debt Commissioners should not invest this money at all, but that it should be invested by the Board of Trade, not in Government security, but in wider funds.

With the consent of the Treasury.

Certainly. But how does that stand? On behalf of the Board of Trade I wish to say the view they take is that they have quite enough to do without taking upon their shoulders unnecessarily what is really Treasury business. I desire to be perfectly candid with the House. I made inquiries, and I find there are one or two cases where the Board of Trade have funds to invest, but in these cases their only power is to invest in Government securities. May I call attention to the analogy between Part I. and Part II. of the Bill. In Part I. there is the question of investment, and how that investment is to be made? In this way: You have there much larger accumulated funds, and far more important, but subject to one exception which I will point out in a moment the House will find, if they turn to Clause 50 of the amended Bill, that the funds there to be invested by the National Debt Commissioners, are to be invested under terms exactly corresponding to the terms of the Clause now under discussion.

The exception is with regard to that part of the fund which arises from the workman's or the contributor's contribution if he belongs to an approved society; that is to say, if a man or a woman belongs to an approved society the money is of course paid over to the approved society as the House well knows, and the approved society is then responsible for meeting its own obligations, and is given the power to invest its funds. Which of these analogies is the proper analogy to follow in the present ease? I submit inasmuch as we are dealing with funds the deficiency of which is not made up by a new levy or contribution from approved societies, we should keep the two-parts of the Bill alike, and we ought to deal with the funds in the same way. It is from that standpoint that the Board of Trade presses the view upon the House that they do not at all desire to have cast upon them in addition to all the other duties they have to perform, the duty of investing money which never at any time is likely to be a large sum, and they suggest that the true analogy is to be found in Clause 50 of the Bill. I hope now we may come to a conclsuion upon this matter. There is another point we should like to deal with before half-past four. Having regard to the provisions in the other part of the Bill, we are really asking nothing unreasonable with regard to this matter in this Clause.

I hope the House will follow the lines which have been laid down by the Solicitor-General. Here are funds which it is absolutely essential should be invested in the best possible manner. The Board of Trade may be an excellent body, but it knows nothing about investments, and to take this matter out of the power of the Department which should know all about investments, and put it in the hands of the Department that knows nothing about them, seems to me absolutely absurd. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Treasury have to be consulted."] This proposal is a contradiction of terms. Why not leave out the Board of Trade altogether and leave the matter in the hands of the Treasury. With regard to investments in the savings bank, that has been chosen with regard to the utmost safety. I see that when this matter was before the Committee the hon. Member for Swansea said,

"The National Debt Commissioners, I understand, can only invest in Consols, and no prudent business man of to-day would look upon that as any great security. The only thing that my firm ever lost any money in was an investment in Consols."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 9th November, 1911, col. 196.]

Hon. Members below the Gangway are deeply interested in this matter and they ought to see that the premier security of this country is kept in its proper position. I shall support the Government if this proposal goes to a Division.

I suggest that this is a very modest Amendment, and I cannot understand why it is not accepted. If you look at its terms it is only to enlarge the discretion of the Treasury, and it provides that investments are to be made in trust funds or in any other security for the time being approved by the Treasury. Somebody has to make the investments, and as to what the investments are to be the Treasury have to approve of them.

The Treasury will have no control whatever over the trust funds, and only over the other securities.

I am pointing out that the result of this Amendment if accepted will be to leave the Treasury the power of making those investments.

They do not make the investments.

The investments are to be in any trust funds or any other securities for the time being approved by the Treasury.

But the Treasury have not to approve the trust funds.

The person who makes the investment, I do not care whether it is A, B, or C, will make it on the terms of the Amendment. He can make it either in trust funds or in any other securities for the time being approved by the Treasury. All this Amendment is going to do is to enlarge the discretion without confining it in any way. Surely it would be a retrograde movement to confine the powers of investments to savings bank moneys. It was supposed in the days of our ancestors that the only safe security was Consols. We have got very much beyond that, and, when an additional ½ per cent. would make all the difference in a fund of this kind, surely it is only reasonable you should give at least the same powers which a trustee making an investment of trust funds would have. No one can say, for instance, that an investment in London and North-Western Railway stock would imperil the fund. The Amendment is one which cannot do harm, and may do a great deal of good.

I want to say, as one of the Liberal Members who voted against the Government in Committee, that I have been entirely convinced by the statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I think the arguments he adduced were quite convincing. We have to remember the Amendment is in a somewhat altered form. In Committee we dealt with a suggestion that this should be done by the Insurance Commissioners, but now we are asking the Board of Trade to make these investments. Personally I think it would be disastrous if the Board of Trade were placed in the invidious position of making investments in ordinary trustee securities. They would be subject to pressure to invest in this or that particular security, and would be open to the charge that they had passed over the better stock. I think the comparatively small advantage in any possible increased interest would not outweigh that very great disadvantage.

The hon. Member opposite said we were putting the Board of Trade in an unfortunate position, but I venture to suggest we are not placing any great difficulty or any very unusual burden upon the Board in this matter. After all, though the Board of Trade are charged with the duty of investing those funds, they will, as a matter of fact, be invested through the Government brokers with the advice and under the approval of the Treasury. The great point is to remove the investments from out of the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, because their operations are very confined; in fact, they are confined to certain Government stocks. If you leave it in their hands you are excluding from the purview of this fund certain investments equally secure, very important investments indeed which yield a larger rate of interest, even if it is only the ½ per cent. extra which the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury appears to regard with so much contempt. The Solicitor-General has pleaded that we should come to a decision on this point because there is another matter he wishes to be dealt with. I quite sympathise with his desire to discuss further Amendments. It is not our fault we shall have no opportunity of doing so, or of considering some very important points. But there is a further matter in this connection to which I desire to call the attention of the House. If you accept the Government proposal to keep this in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, you will not be placing this Part of the Bill on the same basis as Part I. There is a radical difference between Clause 86 and Clause 50, which the Solicitor-General has quoted, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the end of Sub-section (3), Clause 50, he will see that the Commissioners have the power in making investments to give preference to stocks or bonds issued under the provisions of the Acts relating to borrowing for raising capital for the purposes of the local loans fund. At the present moment you cannot draw an analogy between Part I. and Part II. of the Bill. I do urge on the Treasury to take into consideration the possibility of extending the operation of this fund—of extending for it the field of investment, so as to include the large class of securities which the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night included under Clause 53, without any discussion whatsoever. This is probably one of the most important financial changes that has taken place this Session, inasmuch as the area of investment was extended to include any stocks, mortgages, or other securities issued by any local authority within the meaning of the Local Loans Act, 1875, and charged on any rates levied by or under the order or precept of such authority. I do not quarrel with that provision. I should indeed like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having given us that extension: it is an extension for which we have been contending for several years past, and for which the great municipalities have been clamouring without success for a very long time. I hope that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen fit to concede us this point in regard to investments under Part I., he will, while the analogy may not be in a strict sense an analogy at all, extend the same privilege to investments under Clause 86.

On the whole I agree with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am not sure the House really recognises the very peculiar nature of this fund. We are accustomed to think an insurance fund is a comfortable, solid fund, which substantially provides great blocks of money to be permanently invested. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has pointed out, this fund is quite unique in this respect. It starts with six months' premiums in hand. That is something like £1,250,000. Thereafter, according to the actuaries' report, there is a sum, which I will roughly call £2,500,000, payable in benefits, and a slightly larger sum retained in premiums after you have deducted from the total amount received the cost of administration. You start with a million and a quarter, and have a margin of something over £100,000 every year. We know that these unemployment percentages vary very much from year to year. It is perfectly possible that the percentage in one year may be twice as great as the average. Take, for instance, the years 1908–9, when you had an unemployment percentage of nearly twice the normal size. I do not want to imply that with twice the unemployed percentage you would get twice the amount of unemployment benefit, but you might easily have an excess of claims on one year by, say, a million and a-half. When you have this great liability to variation with a very small margin, you surely must have a fund invested in very easily liquidated securities. No one interested in trustee funds in general or in Colonial stocks would wish that the Government should have any large investment in these securities. If the Government had a big block of them it would be very annoying to other holders of those particular funds to find the prices going down. I think that Consols will be the only form of investment available for this fund. I had the opportunity, some years ago, of examining, on a committee of which I was a member, the Comptroller of the National Debt as to the investment of the Life Insurance Fund of the Savings Bank. He admitted that, even for the purposes of that fund, he was practically confined to Consols. He was allowed by Act of Parliament to arrange for other investments, but it was not possible for him to do it. For these reasons I, with regret, think that the President of the Board of Trade