With regard to the further Amendments to Clause 4 which appear upon the Paper, I would point out that we had considerable discussion on this Clause when the Bill was last under consideration. There are two main points to be considered—the proposition of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) in one direction, and the proposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in another direction. As will he seen from the Order Paper, the proposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is covered by three Amendments, and I think that a decision on the first one may be taken to cover the other two. In view of the fact that there was considerable discussion on the Clause as a whole when we last considered the Bill, I trust the House may be willing to take a decision as to these two proposals—on that of the hon. Member for Govan first, and afterwards on that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley—without going over the ground covered on the previous occasion.

I have an Amendment down to Clause 4, which is not covered by either of the two propositions to which you, Sir, have referred. I submit that my Amendment contains a different point of principle from the other two, and I sincerely hope that you will not pass it over without giving me an opportunity of moving it.

I have not decided at present to pass it over. If my suggestion he accepted by the House that there should be a short Debate and a decision on the other two propositions, I should hope to he able to call upon the hon. Member to move his Amendment.

In view of the fact that we now have the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley on the Order Paper, I wish to be clear as to the procedure. Are we to debate the whole question and take a Division on my Amendment and on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment after that Debate, or is the discussion to be limited to one particular Amendment? It will be seen that the Amendments to some extent overlap. If I make the suggestion with all deference, I would say that there should be a general discussion on the merits of both propositions followed by Divisions on the two, which would save time, and avoid going over some of the ground twice.

May I support that, suggestion When we were last dealing with this Bill we were really dealing with an Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley which the Minister of Labour intimated ho was prepared to accept. If hon. Members refer to the Official Report of the Debate which took place on that occasion, they will see that we were right in the middle of a discussion on that Amendment when the Debate was interrupted at the suggestion of the Lord Privy Seal. It seems inconvenient to have to turn now to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Govan, and I think we should have a general Debate on the whole issue.

May I call attention to the fact that one part of the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley is quite distinct from the other, and I ask that a separate Vote should be taken on his proposed Amendment in page 5, line 18, to insert the words "trade union or." [HON. MEMBERS: "Why!"] Because it is a different point from the other point.

In view of the fact that I have an Amendment down to Clause 4, may I ask what the position of that Amendment will be?

The two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member are covered by the Amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley and deal with exactly the same point. On the point as to whether we can have a discussion covering these two propositions, followed by two successive divisions, has the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley anything to say to that suggestion?

I had put down these three Amendments on the Paper in pursuance of a request which was made to me at a late hour on Wednesday night after the Minister of Labour had said he accepted my Amendment. My Amendment was then, of course, one Amendment, and the Minister of Labour, after considering the matter with those who advise, him and reading the Clause, came to the conclusion that there were separate points involved and therefore what I have put down I am bound to tell the House is a proposal which has to be split up in this way, but which represents that single Amendment which the Minister of Labour thought he could deal with and said he would accept. As far as I am concerned that was my intention, but if there is any distinction between the different parts I am not going to put any obstacle in the way of their being separately dealt with.

I am glad of the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend, because two very different issues are raised by the three parts of what was originally one Amendment—one issue being the responsibility of the individual workman, and the other the responsibility of the trade union. On those two points I think the House is entitled to have a separate vote.

There would have to be a separate Question put to the House.

I think the House should be clear as to exactly how we are to discuss this proposal. We discussed it on the last occasion as one specific proposal and the right hon. and learned gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, read out to the House the exact form in which he proposed the Clause should stand. That was treated throughout the debate as one single proposition and it was that proposition which the Minister of Labour, in terms, accepted, and which the Lord Privy Seal endorsed.

No.

I hope to have an opportunity of arguing that when the proper time comes, but if we are to divide on three points, is it your proposal, Mr. Speaker—and it seems to me, if I may say so, to he convenient—that we should discuss the whole thing upon whatever Amendment is moved first, and then that we should take the necessary divisions? At present, I am bound to say that I am very much in the dark as to what is the position taken by the Government.

It appears to be the desire of the House to follow the suggestion of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean)—that the two alternatives should be discussed on the one Amendment, and, of course, separate decisions would necessarily be taken. The Amendments standing on the Paper are not exactly the same as the words read out on the last occasion. They could not be, because the words which were then suggested were dependent on the Amendment to leave out the Clause having been withdrawn. But the withdrawal was not permitted by the House, and it is for that reason that the right hon. Gentleman put down this Amendment in a new form as being a proposition in three parts. It is not for me to say what the effect of the words is as they stand. Then I propose to call the Amendment of the hon. Member for Govan, on which the alternative proposals can be discussed, and then the House will take a decision, at any rate, as far as the first part of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley is concerned, following a Division, if there be one, on that of the hon. Member for Govan.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 16, to leave out from the word "not" to the end of Sub-section (1), and to insert instead thereof the words directly participating in the strike which caused the stoppage of work nor shall it apply in any case where the insured contributor has been locked out by his employer, or by the action of any federation or group of employers. The Debate which ended on Wednesday of last week left quite a number of Members in the House in a peculiar state of mind. They heard an Amendment read out and accepted, but they could not follow the implications of the words read out. I do not intend to go over much of the ground that I travelled on Wednesday week, because I think the issue is par- ticularly clear on this Amendment. During any trade dispute we find employers locally dismissing men who are working probably in the same establishment, belonging, it may be, to the same grade or class, and sometimes belonging to the same trade union, but who have not been directly associated or connected with the particular dispute that may have caused the strike in one of the small departments in the workshop. Immediately those men are dismissed they make applications to the employment exchange, but on the card that they receive from the employer it is stated that those men are dismissed because of a trade dispute. They are locked out, in fact, and in consequence of the strike that is going on in the workshops where they were previously employed, the exchange officials, acting according to the terms of the original Act, immediately decide that those men have lost their employment owing to a trade dispute, and are not entitled to draw unemployment benefit.

The same thing can be taken on a wider scale. You can have men who are on strike in one locality, who have been out on strike for a considerable period, and you may have employers in a federation or in a group meeting together and deciding that they are going to assist the particular employer who is having trouble with his men, and this group of employers lock out the members of that particular union or the workers in that particular grade or class, from one end of Great Britain to the other. That is what is commonly called a general lock-out. In consequence of the lock-out it comes within the term "trade dispute," and those men, like those to whom I have already referred, when they make application to the Employment Exchange are denied benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That, I am willing to admit, is the reading of the Act as it presently exists. No one can dispute that, and we are endeavouring to amend that Act and to remedy a number of anomalies and injustices that have developed since the passing of that Act owing to the use of the term "trade dispute."

I heard the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) on Wednesday week saying that none of us surely intended an unemployment insurance scheme to be used to assist men who are out on strike. Those Members on these benches who are intimately associated with trade unions will at once agree. It is the function of the trade union which brings the men out on strike to maintain those men when it brings them out, but I submit that, where an employer considers that he is going to assist a brother employer by locking out men in his particular shop, those men so locked out are victims of a trade dispute and are entitled to unemployment benefit. They are not participating in a strike, and, consequently, I submit, with all due deference to the views and intentions of those who promoted the original Act, that it has caused many hardships, and my Amendment is an attempt to remove those hardships, which we have experienced in our constituencies, when lock-outs have taken place either of a local or a national character. I do not think anyone will deny the injustice or dispute the grievance of individuals, men or women, paying into an unemployment insurance scheme having had no voice in determining a strike and no say whatever in the voting to go upon strike, and, because a group of workers in the same grade or class to which they belong, belonging, it may be, even to the same union, are out on dispute, either in one part of a town or in another part of the country altogether, being denied benefit because of the whim or caprice of the employer desiring to assist a brother employer and locking them out on the street. My Amendment is a desire to cover those cases and not to give strike benefit to men or women on strike. It is merely to safeguard and to cover cases where they have been arbitrarily locked out by employers and are, I maintain, victims of a trade dispute.

Having made that statement regarding nay own Amendment, I should like to refer to the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). When that Amendment was first moved, some of us jotted down as much of it as we could, and we thought we had the hang of the phrase which he desired to incorporate in the Minister's Bill. Even as it appeared to us then, we were greatly concerned with what its effect would be. The right hon. Member endeavoured to assure the House that he did not convey the impression which was left upon our minds. Since he has placed the words upon the Order Paper, I am even more concerned about its effect than I was when he sprang it upon us. The wording is so peculiar that it means a more rigid application of refusal to pay unemployment benefit to people when a dispute is taking place. I am not questioning the right hon. Gentleman's motives. The best intentioned Member in this House may bring forward a phrase, which he thinks is going to affect beneficially a class of people who have hitherto suffered injustice, but the moment it is incorporated in a Bill it can at once be seen, by those with experience of the operation of these Measures, how far it is going to carry the administration of the Measure, and what effect it is going to have upon those on whom the Act is administered. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would make this Subsection read: Sub-section (1) of Section Eight of the principal Act (which imposes a disqualification for the receipt of benefit during a stoppage of work) shall not apply in any case in which the insured contributor proves that he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and that he dose not belong to a trade union or a grade or class of workers members of which are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute. That means that the man who is unemployed, if he is not on strike, and applies to the employment exchange for benefit, he has to prove, first, that he is not participating in the dispute, that as an individual he is not financing or directly interested in the dispute. Further than that, he has to prove that he does not belong to a trade union members of which are participating in the dispute, and that he does not belong to a trade union or to a grade or class of workers members of which are financing the dispute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I knew those cheers would come from the other side. The trade union wreckers will be in strength in the Lobby to support this. There may be in a workshop a section of men on strike. It may be that another section of men, knowing that those individuals have no trade union, knowing they have no finances to carry them through a dispute, send round a collection sheet to aid the men on strike. A week or two later, because work has ceased to come forward to their particular part of the shop, those men are dismissed. They go to the employment exchange and ask for unemployment benefit. The exchange people say, "But you subscribed to this strike. You were members of the trade union, or a class of workers which has financed this strike, and you are not entitled to benefit." Does the right hon. Gentleman wish that to be the effect of his Amendment? I am not going to read motives into the right hon. Gentleman's mind. I am willing to give him the benefit of having the best intentions in the world in moving the Amendment. I am willing to concede that his desire is to bring within the scope of the new Bill people who were outside, because of a trade dispute. But I would submit to him, that while he has the experience his eminence as a lawyer gives him in framing language to incorporate in a Bill, he may have the experience and all the expert knowledge on laws that have been passed, but when this provision is passed, a lawyer—it may be not equally as eminent as the right hon. Gentleman, but at least an eminent lawyer—may come along and read into this Bill the exact opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman says, and we shall have the wonderful spectacle of two eminent lawyers arguing different sides of the case, which, the right hon. Gentleman has submitted, is a perfectly clear exposition of what he desires.

I am not an eminent lawyer; I have not had any legal training. That may be something I have lost; it may be something I have gained, but I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that there are men on these benches who have had many years' experience in the administration of Acts of Parliament dealing with trade unions. There are men on these Benches who have had years of experience in administering the unemployment and trade dispute section of the original Act, and I submit that, eminent lawyers as he and others may be, there are men on these Benches with the practical experience of administering the Acts, who can give him and others points as to what the effect of these words is going to be. We are not finding fault with the desire to bring in any man at present excluded, but we are finding fault with the form of words, which will not have the effect the right hon. Gentleman suggests. We object to a form of words which will make more rigid than at present the position with regard to trade unionists getting benefits when a dispute is in existence. We want to extend that, and the Minister wants to extend it. He has told us that is the purpose of the Clause. People who are unemployed when a trade dispute is going on, and who have nothing to do with it, will not get benefit if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment be carried. This to rue, and to many others on these benches, will be a complete smashing up of many of the Unions now in existence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" "That is the object!" and "Not at all!"] I have given the right hon. Gentleman credit for the best intentions in the world in bringing this forward, but I am suggesting what the effect is likely to be, and I am speaking as I am sure many others here can speak, as one who is an executive member of a very large trade union which has organized men and women in over 100 trades in this country.

What is going to happen is this. If one section of a factory is out on strike, and another section, not involved in the dispute, continues working, and later on, any members of that section which has continued working, becomes unemployed, then any individual will be refused benefit, because the union of which he or she is a member has been financing a strike. Whatever else may be the object, the effect will be as I have stated. I am sorry the Minister of Labour accepted the Amendment. I regret very much that a Labour Government, or a Labour Minister, should have accepted it. The Minister may have done so on the advice of his colleague, but I, for one, am not going to be pledged by his acceptance. I am perfectly open. I have the interests, not only of scores and hundreds of thousands of trade unionists in my organization, but I have the interests of thousand of trade unionists in my constituency to safeguard. I am determined to safeguard these so far as I can in this House. It is the duty of every Member of this House to do so, and I am determined to go as far as I can in the matter. I, for one, even though I can only find another Member to act with me, shall divide in favour, of the Amendment, and even if there should be only the two of us in favour of it.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I should like to call attention to the various Amendments and to make some general remarks upon them. I should like to remind the House that the Clause in the principal Act has perhaps led to more appeals, greater difficulty and dissatisfaction, and a larger number of different interpretations as to its meaning than any Clause in an Act of Parliament ever passed by this House—and no one knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). In 1911 the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in charge in Committee of the original Bill, and he himself, I think, was very much disturbed as to the meaning of the various phraseology used in the framing of the Clause. Right away from 1911 the matter has been aggravated, and it was still further aggravated by the inclusion of amendments in the 1920 Act, so that now we have the principal Act, with all these opinions, which had originally to do with 4 millions of people, spread over 7 or 8 millions. For the purpose of endeavouring to clear away the obvious injustice inflicted in the Clause of the principal Act the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) was able to secure the withdrawal of an Amendment, in Committee, in 1920, submitted by Members of his own party, the Liberal party, on the promise that he would set up a Committee to see if it was not possible to find some form of words that would meet the case. The fears of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley earlier have been amply justified, and the desire of his party to strengthen this Clause and make it less an injustice than it was.

When the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell was Minister of Labour he was, I say, able to secure the withdrawal of the Amendment to which I have referred in order that he might set up the promised Committee. It is now for a Labour Minister and a Labour Government to introduce into the Amending Bill a. Clause weaker than the suggested Clause of the Liberal party itself in the 1920 Committee, and now the Liberal party still further desire to weaken an already weak Clause in this Amending Bill put forward by the Labour Minister. I am certainly at a loss to understand all these changes that the whirligig of time has brought about. Indeed when the Committee was set up we had 16 meetings covering a period of one year and nine months. What is proposed to be inserted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley might well have been taken from the suggested words of the employers' section, words to which the industrial side of the Committee will not agree. Words were suggested, as has been stated before, and opinions were expressed by the employers' side during the conferences of that Departmental Committee, but their interpretation was far different to the interpretation that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has been able to give, and certainly quite different, I believe, from the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley. For indeed it was desired that the disqualification be added to meet the situation caused in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute. That means that a trade society going to the aid or assistance under a section of this Bill of another society, granting them a loan to assist them in their dispute, should be placed in a different position to that of a body of employers federated together, and who from a pool are assisting different employers during a struggle in which they may be engaged. Why we should single out the trade unions for this particular restriction I for the life of me cannot understand. It certainly will have a very adverse effect. It is no use saying that all it implies must be taken in conjunction with the wording of the Clause in the principal Act. It does restrict the action of a particular shop, or grade, or department. We could give to this House at least 50 to 60 different umpires' decisions that vary in degree in every case. There is the case where, it is said, men may be thrown out because of the moulders in a particular department and are not entitled to benefit because it is at their place of employment. There is another case of the same class and the same type who would be qualified by the umpire's decision; and it certainly does seem to me that, taking into account the attempt made by the Committee that met on 16 occasions, and their failure to find words, it ill behoves the Labour party to try to insert—though it may not be their desire—such words as would make this Clause more restricted in its operations, and certainly capable of many more interpretations. To my mind, judging from the practical experience of the administration of the Acts since 1911, it will lead to a larger number of appeals than are even at the moment made necessary by the restricted clause of the principal Act.

I would urge that whatever else may be done in respect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), for which there is much to be said because of recent developments, it should be given careful consideration. You may have an employer in dispute with a section of his men, as you had in the case of Southampton; you may have the trade organisation, far from supporting these men in dispute, urging them to return to work in order that the case may be properly gone into; and because they are unable, having done all they could to get the men back to work—as in the case of Southampton—you may have the whole of the employers, through their Federation, coming to the aid of the Southampton employers and saying; "Very well, we will help you by locking out all the other classes of workpeople in the engineering and shipbuiding industry. We will bring pressure through those people who are innocent of the trouble and are using the machinery of their, organisation in the way they are, because they have not done all that we wanted, or desired, we are going through them to inflict a hardship sufficient in character and a punishment sufficiently severe that will enable us to impress our will, through them, to compel the Southampton people to return to work." That is going to be the result of those words. I know the Minister of Labour does not agree, but would urge him to consider whether in the interests of being able to so rectify the injustices to do what we have suggested. It is true that we do expect some to be anti-trade unionists, and some are definitely in industrial antagonism too the Federation of Employers. We expect opposition from that direction to the period of time, and previous discussion open this Measure has shown that to be the ease, but we do not expect the Liberal party to do anything else than support even an enlargement of the facilities for removing the hardships of those who are the victims of other people's trouble, and who do not participate in them, except by contribution.

During the discussion on the Joint Committee, it was said that a man would be looked upon as financially suporting a strike if he, as a member of the Union giving consent to a small section in the dispute, happened to be out of work, but if he was a contributor he is going to be automatically struck off because he was a member of the trade union that was financing the dispute. I urge the House to do this one measure of justice to those who everybody agrees have been innocent victims of other people's trouble, and I do not think we ought to press further restrictions upon them.

I am obliged to my two lion. Friends for the reasonable terms in which they have spoken of my own proposal the other night, because they are perfectly right when they say that the last thing which is in my mind is a failure to see that justice is clone to the innocent victim of a trade dispute. Occasionally a distinction is drawn between lawyers and those who are not lawyers. I am afraid this is a case where a lawyer has "rushed in where angels fear to tread." Ever since 1911 the question that we are now trying to solve has been an ever present difficulty and problem in connection with organised industry, and nobody, not even among the ranks of the angels or amongst persons of an inferior order, has ever proposed a definite change other than that pot into this Bill and the proposal which I made the other night.

12 N

That being so, I would like the House to see where this matter stands, and I want to be treated as somebody who is not claiming to speak from the lawyers' point of view, because in that connection I care nothing about it, but I am trying to help the House to come to the best form of words in order to see that while this unemployment insurance fund is not called upon in circumstances which actually finance a trade dispute, on the other hand the workman thrown out through no manner of his connection with a trade dispute, and who is merely the victim of it, should not suffer a hardship. It is very important to draw the distinction between what we are trying to do and the words which various people propose to accomplish it. May I correct an impression which has been formed by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) on this point? I think my proposal, at any rate, makes things better from the point of view of the innocent victim. The hon. Member for Gorbals the other night was under the impression that this was not so, and he said he would sooner have the law as it is now than have the improvement which I suggested. The Clause we are now considering is not the Clause which defines the cases in which a person who is unemployed gets unemployment benefit, but it is a Clause which modifies, and modifies in favour of the workman, the existing law which disqualifies people who are in the same factory.

Supposing you have a great establishment which carries on, in the same factory, branches of work normally carried on in different establishments, and that you treat each branch as a separate factory. The law as it stands says, and it has said this ever since 1911, that if you are an unemployed man and lose your job in a factory owing to a trade dispute in that factory, the fact that you were working in that factory, and that you are out of work because of the trade dispute will be sufficient to disqualify you for benefit. There is no law that if you are working in another factory, and are an innocent victim of a trade dispute which has arisen somewhere else, you lose your unemployment benefit, and there is nothing in this new proposal which alters that in the least degree. If hon. Members will follow me they will see that what I have asserted is so, because Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act which provides that a disqualification for the receipt of benefit during a stoppage of work shall not apply in certain cases, and the result is that the Clause we are now discussing, however we amend it, cannot add to the list of people who are disqualified, but it reduces that number because it allows some persons who are in the factory where the trade dispute is going on to get unemployment benefit where none of them can get it now. That is really absolutely plain, and there ought not to be any distinction between the angels and the lawyers about it.

The next point is this: We have to remember, and I am sure that hon. Members above the Gangway wish to remember, that we are dealing with the use which is to be made of an unemployment fund which is the result of contributions not only from the workmen but also from the employers and from the State. We are dealing with a fund to which premiums have been paid by three parties, and while, for my part, I certainly will not take any course which either attacks or undermines trade unionism, or deals unfairly with any man, whether a trade unionist or not, I say that we are bound to bear in mind that this is a fund to which these three different elements contribute. That being so borne in mind, I venture to think that there must be a common purpose which they are all trying to serve. The purpose is this: We are not trying to provide that there is to be a compassionate allowance out of a State fund for individuals who may be unfortunate in their industrial history or opportunities; we are trying to secure under what conditions an insurance fund, which is built up by a calculation as to certain risks and which is fed by contributions from three sources, ought to be made available for individuals at work in the very factory where a trade dispute has broken out. That is the question, and I do not think that there can really be any dispute between honest people that what we desire to do is to improve the existing law—I do from the bottom of my heart—in this respect, so as to provide for the case of the innocent victim, without at the same time doing what we none of us desire to do, namely, making this land available so that one side in an industrial controversy may rely upon it in fighting its opponent. That is the point, and the sole question therefore is what is the best way to do it.

I am not myself going to turn on the Minister of Labour and rend him, because at a late hour on the previous night he, in the most explicit terms and after full consultation with those who advise him, got up and said that he was going to accept my Amendment. I had not the slightest desire to spring an Amendment on the House of Commons and still less had I the smallest desire to rush hon. Members into accepting by word of mouth something which was not on paper. It is much too important to do that. We want to do the thing fairly and squarely. It did seem to me, and it does now seem to me, that the words of the Clause, as proposed by the Government, are words which, to say the least of it, are capable, in the stress of an industrial conflict, of giving opportunities for misuse, and, if I may use the word without offence, even for manipulation, which I am sure responsible leaders of trade unions in the country, thinking of it calmly today, must realise is not a proper use to make of the fund. The sole question, therefore, comes to this. What is the modification which ought to be made in the words of the Bill in order that we may avoid that result?

The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) said that I knew something about this subject because long ago I happened to be one of the Ministers responsible for carrying the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am proud of it; I am glad to think that the people remember that it was the Government of that day which established this system. I must not, however, allow him, if he was saying it of me in the way of commendation to treat me as the author of the Bill. The author of the Bill was Mr. Sydney Buxton who was then President of the Board of Trade. He was the skilled workman, and I was merely his labourer. [An HON. MEMBER: "You were in charge!"] I do not think that was so. Sometimes I was allowed to explain something, and I scene to have brought a pretty peck of trouble on my head for doing it. At any rate, I have taken a continuous interest in this subject, and this is how I feel about it. if you leave the Clause as it stands, you raise an entirely new question for the umpire or referee: What exactly do you mean by participating? I am sure it cannot be the desire of the House that there should be this sort of logic chopping which is quite as common among laymen as it is among lawyers. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not make a living out of it!"] I am not quite sure that the trade union leader does not make a living out of it, though I am quite sure, in the one case as in the other, that he is making an honest living and doing what he thinks is right.

Let us get back to the point. I do not myself think that the House of Commons can believe it would be at all wise or safe to leave the word "participating" unqualified or unexplained, because it is obvious that in the pinch of a dispute you might have endless controversy as to whether John Jones was participating or not. [ Interruption. ] Really, the change that ought to be made in the law of England is not that the trade union leaders ought to be lawyers, but that they ought to be judges. They would then be able to decide the thing without any difficulty at all. But practical people do find a difficulty. Therefore, my object was to secure that you really did define the innocent victim fairly, and I thought he would be more fairly defined in the terms which the House will find in Col. 2,422 of the Official Report of Thursday, because it was late at night on Wednesday when it really happened, so that it shall be provided that whereas everybody retains his present rights if he is working somewhere else than in the factory where the dispute is going on a workman even in the factory where the dispute is going on may get his unemployment benefit as long as neither he nor the trade union to which he belongs is participating in, or financing, or is directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work. It is no good any section in the House sweeping aside a difficulty which may arise. It is an old difficulty pointed out ever since 1911. If you were to have certain individuals selected for the purpose of being called out with the result that you were really calling out the pivotal or key men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] What is the good of trying to prevent such a point being put by interrupting? It is perfectly obvious to fair-minded men, that, as a matter of fact, that could be done, and the result, in conceivable cases, might be that other persons who technically were not participating were none the less persons who had a direct interest in the success of the strike and were persons who, through their trade unions or otherwise, were really supporting it. Let me say, frankly, that I do not think that would be a fair use of the fund. It seems to me that is not what the fund is for, and while, therefore, I want to meet with all my heart the case of the innocent victim, I thought it was desirable to suggest those additional words. It cannot seriously be disputed by those who are following the Government Bench that those words would have effected a very great improvement. Let me read to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway the language of the Minister of Labour. He did not use it in a hurry. He went and consulted his own experts under the Gallery, and he had a considerable opportunity of considering the words before. It was not the first speech that he made on the subject in the Debate. My right hon. Friend speaking, therefore, with the greatest deliberation, said: This, at any rate, seems to me to offer this possibility. Take the moulders' dispute as an example. Every man who was refused benefit will be granted benefit if this"— and here the right hon. Gentleman is referring to my Amendment— is accepted That is the position of affairs, and as I am more interested in getting honest men who are out of work through no fault of their own paid, then I am in declaration of principle. I am going to accept the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1924; col. 2419, Vol. 175.] I think, at any rate, I am exonerated from the suspicion of having introduced a piece of lawyer's cunning for indirect purposes. I am the unfortunate man who has made an honest attempt to suggest how the case of the innocent victim can be properly dealt with in a form of words. The Minister consulted those on whom he relied for advice and so far from thinking there is a trap in that form of words—and of course there is not—he came to the conclusion that he could accept them. It is perfectly right that the House of Commons should reconsider the matter, but I am bound to point out the reasons why some such change as I now suggest should be made in the Clause. There only remains this point. It is a misfortune, because it is a pure Parliamentary technicality, that owing to the fact that the House has already carried the Clause down to the word "participating" it will be necessary to distribute my Amendment into three parts. Naturally I would prefer to see the thing stated once and for all, instead of at three different points. But that is simply due to the purely technical circumstance that the House has already passed the words of the Clause down to the word "participating," and therefore, my proposal has to be distributed. I have honestly tried to keep my mind open on this question. If anyone can show how the words can be improved I shall be glad. I ask other hon. Members also to keep an open mind on this question because we are doing something far more important than insisting on an agreement made by the Front Bench or on assurances given by Ministers. There are hundreds of thousands of men and tens of thousands of employers whose interests may be affected by the words we put in. I would be the last to say that merely because the Minister of Labour said "I accept" therefore an injustice should be committed or a mistake made by the House of Commons.

There is one conceivable point of doubt, and it is whether or not the introduction of the words "that he does not belong to a trade union or" may not lead in practice and in working out to a new set of inquiries which are really not in the interest of the fair working of the Clause. I confess I have not a very clear view on that point. At this time I would deprecate, if I may say so, the attitude so easy to be taken up on the trade union side or by the employers' side—the attitude of saying, "I am certain this is wrong" or "I am certain this is right." We have really to find out how this is going to work. The difficulty to my mind is this. I can quite see that such inquiries at the Employment Exchange as "What trade union do you belong to?" would be a new kind of inquiry. I am quite willing to admit that I do not think that is very desirable. Is the Minister able to satisfy himself that the thing which I, at least, am aiming at—and I am trying to define it in the plainest terms—will be secured by retaining the words "or financing or directly interested in" and by omitting the words "trade union or"? There is undoubtedly another kind of difficulty which these new inquiries will create. You bring in the words at the end about a man belonging to a grade or class of workers the members of which are participating. I apprehend that those words are really intended to secure that the non-unionist who may automatically be thrown out of work, because the unionist working at his side is on strike, shall not himself be able to draw unemployment benefit while his colleague the trade unionist cannot do so. I think that is quite right. I do not think a man ought to be put in a better position because he is a non-unionist; neither do I think he ought to be in a better position because he is a trade unionist, so far as the unemployment benefit is concerned. The one point is, whether the Minister of Labour can show us that these words "trade union or" can safely be omitted from my Amendment without changing the substance of the purpose which the House desires to serve. If we are to insist on the test that there is no financing, no interest and no direct participation, then I am satisfied. There is no question of this Amendment making things worse for anybody. It is simply an attempt to secure that some individuals employed in a factory where there is a trade dispute shall not automatically because of the working of the factory laws be deprived of their unemployment benefit. I am perfectly willing to co-operate in getting a form of words which will secure that result. I must make it quite plain to the Minister that in our view the substance of the thing is not secured unless words like "financing or directly interested in" are put into this Clause.

May I ask whether there is anything in this Amendment to affect the case of any worker thrown out of employment because of a dispute other than at his place of employment?

No.

Everyone is not clear about that.

I have made it as clear as I can, and I am sure the Minister will bear me out. This proposed new Clause does not take the place of the Section in the main Act, but merely reduces the cases in which there is disqualification. The only disqualification in the Section that we are altering in the original Act is the disqualification where the man is working in the same factory. Therefore, this Amendment, whatever it is for, does not touch anyone working in a factory other than the factory where a trade dispute is in progress.

I will deal, if I may, with the question which has just been asked, and will make a perfectly categorical statement on it. I held strongly that it was impossible for these words, even if they remained in the Clause, to affect the case of any worker who worked or had worked at a place where no dispute was in progress, and that there was no danger of his being refused benefit, because he belonged to a union that was financing a strike at another place. There is, in my opinion, absolutely no doubt as to the soundness of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, and, in order to make myself more certain still, I consulted the solicitors of the Ministry of Labour, who have a very wide experience of the administration of this Act. Their opinion confirmed my own. Not satisfied with that, I submitted the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown, and their opinion coincides with the opinion of the solicitors to the Department, my own opinion, and, what is more valuable than my own opinion, the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I venture to suggest, therefore, that, if a contrary opinion be held, there ought to be some substantial ground for it—there ought to be some substantial ground for disagreement with everyone who has been connected with any Bill on this subject, and with all the legal assistance that we can get. I venture to put the authorities that: I have against any authority that may be quoted in contradiction of the opinion expressed.

Now, with regard to the matter itself. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow these words "trade union or" to be deleted. There is no question, and I make no question, about the position that existed at our last discussion. There was a Motion for the deletion of the Clause, and I had to choose between what I thought was a certainty of losing my Clause or saving what I could, and I took the line of saving what I could. About that there is no question whatever. But I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that these words do not help in his desire, or at any rate do not give him any guarantee that the other words do not give, but do introduce certainly a danger that we want to avoid at the Ministry of Labour. If at the Ministry of Labour we have to take sides in any branch of our work, and to make inquiries as to trade unionism and non-trade unionism, it cannot be a good thing for us, and I myself fail to see any case of any trade unionist directly interested, participating in a dispute, who, if these words were out, could possibly get benefit in that dispute. I do see difficulties if the words remain in—difficulties of interpretation, difficulties of inquiry, and a state of things arising in our exchanges that I think would be highly undesirable from an administrative point of view. I make a strong appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that he is positively safeguarded against any case that I can see by the words he has already inserted and the words of the original Clause, to withdraw his Amendment to insert these words, which give him no further guarantee, but do give us a guarantee of certain trouble and a possibility of difference as to opinion and law, and possibly a difference of treatment of men according to whether they are trade unionists or not. That would be absolutely fatal if it arose, and I think it would be better to avoid the possibility of its arising, seeing that every safeguard is given in the other words of the Clause.

Would the right hon. Gentleman read the Clause as he proposes it, omitting the words he proposes to leave out?

It would then read: Sub-section (1) of Section Eight of the principal Act (which imposes a disqualification for the receipt of benefit during a stoppage of work) shall not apply in any case in which the insured contributor proves that he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers members of 'which a re participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute. Those would be the words if these three words were left out. I venture to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has every safeguard that he could have even if these words were in, and that we should avoid the difficulty and danger of discrimination if the words are left out.

Now may I deal with my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean)? I cannot accept his Amendment, for this simple reason, that, without any doubt, in my mind at least, the acceptance of his Amendment simply means the conditions remaining as they are, so that no man working at a place where a dispute takes place, however innocent he may be, can get benefit at all; and, believing as I do that the best thing to do is to get benefits for as many innocent people as I can, I cannot accept the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley will withdraw his three words I think we might easily come to a decision on the matter. I do not want to cripple argument but the case was argued at our last discussion, and I am making my remarks as brief as I can, not out of discourtesy to the House, but because it is vital to me that I should get this Bill to-day. At the end of this month people will be falling out of employment unless I get my Bill through another place. The desire has been expressed to me, and I think it is a perfectly reasonable desire, that at any rate a certain length of time should be left for the Third Reading in order to review the circumstances. Not only am I being brief myself, without, I hope, discourtesy to the House, but I am going to venture to make an appeal to other Members, in view of the peculiar circumstances, to follow the same example and try and let me have the Bill in order that it may go to another place, and that on the 30th July I may be able to rest satisfied that 100,000 people will not be falling out of benefit.

I readily respond to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal to put the issue as briefly as possible, but it is an issue of great importance, and it is one upon which I think the majority of the House want to do a perfectly fair and simple thing. There is no Clause upon which it is more easy to raise prejudice than this, and there is no Clause, if I may respectfully say so, which it is more easy to misunderstand. After the very clear exposition of my right hon. Friend, probably the House is fairly satisfied as to its legal import. The very simple issue which we want to decide is that in no circumstances whatever is this Insurance Fund to be used to finance or to assist any form of trade dispute. That is the simple position. It would be as outrageous to use that fund in any way to advance a strike in the interests of people who are interested in the strike as it would be to use that fund to finance employers in a lock-out. Both sides are contributing to the fund, and you would cut at the root of the whole principle of contributory insurance if you allowed it to be touched in the interests of employers or employed. The great majority of the House want that, and the issue between us is what words are necessary in order to do it. I thought last time that the words pro- posed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley were the necessary ones, and I am still of that opinion, because you have to cover two things. You have to cover the personal participation, or financing, which is unusual, and you have to cover the normal case, that the Union of which the man is a member, is participating or financing. The words read over last time by the right hon. Gentleman exactly met what I had in mind, that neither he nor the Union to which he belonged is participating in financing or directly interested in the trade dispute. It was necessary to put that in the form of three Amendments. Now we are asked really to discard the case of the Union. I believe that to be impossible. I believe if we are to do what the majority of the House want you must provide in terms both for the personal participation or financing of the man himself and for the participation or financing by means of the Union. Unless that is done in such terms as are put either by the right hon. Gentleman or by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson), you are going to permit this fund to be used for a trade dispute. I do not really follow what was said by the Minister about the difficulty of inquiry, because, if it is a case of a trade union financing a dispute, surely you have to find out whether the trade union is financing the dispute, and whether the man is a member of the trade union.

I agree.

Does not that show that the real issue is the issue of whether you are directly or indirectly to cover financing completely or whether you are going to leave the thing at large. The only case that occurred to me as possibly requiring to be met, and which would have been met by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland, and perhaps, is not completely met by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, was the case, not where the union is acting. Where the union is acting the members cannot claim the benefit, and I am quite clear that they ought not to be able to. This is the case of someone who had given some purely charitable donation to help a man who is out of work which it was thought might be covered by this. I really doubt whether the words the right hon. Gentleman has put in would really cover a, case of that sort. I do not believe they would. If there is any doubt about it it would be completely met by making the last words read, "does not belong to a grade or class of workers the members of which are participating in the dispute or to a society or union which is financing or directly interested in the dispute."

We have been asked, if possible, not to have too long a discussion on these words. The Minister has made a suggestion. I feel the force of the difficulty about the words "trade union or" but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think the real object of the Clause is secured, and I should like to say I accept the offer of the Minister of Labour. I need hardly say I regard that as agreed between the Government and ourselves.

The right hon. gentleman has accepted that without giving any explanation to the House. The whole stress of his argument last time was that the member of a trade union which was financing a dispute ought not to be permitted to come in and draw this benefit from the fund to which employers and employed are contributing. He now proposes to discard the words "trade union." The issue lies in a very narrow compass. I have heard no explanation which would satisfy me that if these words "trade union" are left out it will not be possible for a union to finance a strike and its members to take advantage of it. That seems to be going right to the root of the whole question, and to violate everything the right hon. Gentleman contended for before, and I hope it will be carried in the form in which it stands on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley.

I think it is right that the House should have an opportunity of dealing with that question. If it be

not moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley—I mean his second Amendment, "trade union or"—I propose to give the hon. Member for Sunderland an opportunity. In that case, perhaps the House might be willing to come to a decision on the first two questions.

There are some of us who think the Minister's Clause is satisfactory as it stands, and should not be altered. This is not a permanent Bill. By the Amendment we put in Clause 1 it only lasts for two years, and before the end of the two years this House has to pass another Unemployment Insurance Bill. Now the Minister puts in a Clause which will remove an undoubted grievance. It is an experiment. It is bound to be reconsidered in two years' time. If it is satisfactory, if it gets rid of the bulk of the grievance, there will be no demand for an alteration of it. If, on the other hand, the horrible things that certain hon. Members anticipate occur, it will be reconsidered and put right by the House. I strongly maintain that the Clause as it stands is a sufficient safeguard for the Insurance Fund. It does not put unnecessary obstacles in the way of the man who is thrown out of work through no fault of his own in putting his case for benefit to the umpire. The umpire has to decide the case. He will take all considerations into his view and he will give, his decision, I have no doubt, in a fair and impartial manner. The risk we are running is a very small one, because, after all, if a man is denied benefit from the insurance fund all he has to do is to walk across to the Board of Guardians and draw his benefit from them.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'the' in line 16, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 295; Noes, 44.

Amendment proposed: In page 5, line 16, after the word "in" to insert the words or financing or directly interested in."—[ Sir J. Simon. ]

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 74.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, after the word "a," to insert the words "trade union or."

I move this Amendment in as sincere a spirit as that which has characterised the whole of our proceedings, and with a desire to get a final solution of this vexed problem. I move it neither as a lawyer nor as an angel, but as a plain Member of Parliament who served his time in the shipbuilding industry, who has been associated with the movements of the workers ever since, who has taken a particular interest in this particular Clause not only for months but for years, and as one who would Wish to eliminate any possibility of a perpetuation of the hardships that exist now. Can the Minister say what he means by a grade or class as specified in the latter part of the Clause? I have stood astride and have adjusted many ships' frames. Can the Minister define whether a frame turner and a frame adjuster are in the same grade or class, whether the helpers who help the turner or adjuster are in the same class, whether the riveter or the holder-up is in the same grade or class, and whether the platers' labourers are in the same grade or class as the ordinary labourer? At present everyone in a specific factory or workshop who loses his work through a trade dispute is disqualified from benefit. Under this Clause you have to define every man in a trade dispute or factory. Every individual case will not go through the ordinary channel, that is to say, through the insurance officer, and, if need be, through the Court of Referees and finally to the Umpire.

While there has been a great deal of discussion to-day on the legal position, the difficulty is that you can get no legal definition at all in this Bill. The finality rests with the Umpire. As to the words "grade or class," if you take a dispute in any shipyard, every man in that dispute will claim the right under this Bill to have defined in which grade or class he is. In the interests not only of the workers but of all classes I want the Minister to try to find a line of clear demarcation, showing who is in a dispute and who is not. The words of the Clause as they stand will create a worse state of anomalies and hardships than that which exists to-day. We want a clear definition by the insertion of the words of the Amendment. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) up to a certain point. As a matter of fact I suppose I could claim the credit of having first put down the words "trade union" so as to raise the whole issue of this Clause. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the first part of the Clause in a certain sense defines the attitude of any worker to a dispute, but the latter part of the Clause does not do so; it does not define his position towards a grade or class, specifically or definitely. I hope the House will agree to the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I cannot accept the Amendment.[HON. MEMBERS "Why not?"] Discussion has been wide and the points have been covered, and I thought we were going to vote without further discussion. The ordinary dispute is on some specific subject and it is easy if a trade dispute exists, to know which trades are affected. It is quite easy under this Clause not to pay benefits to those directly participating in this dispute. It is quite true cases would arise which the umpire would have to decide but there are cases at present in which the umpire has to decide and it is peculiarly fitting that in such cases, involving a decision in law, an umpire should decide. The words "grade or class" are easily understood.

Will the right hon. Gentleman define them?

Yes, I will give you typical examples. Carpenters are a class and foremen are a grade.

Would the right hon Gentleman give a definition in this case? I have erected many ships' frames and would he reckon me in the same grade in the iron section of the shipyard as the man who was caulking ships' decks?

I should not take a hypothetical case at all; I should take the cases which happened and if any doubt arose I should submit it to the Umpire. Does anyone doubt that cases will have to be submitted to the Umpire? Cases are submitted now, and the principle administrative objection which we have is that, up to the present, it has been no part of the work of an Employment Exchange to inquire whether a man is a trade unionist or not and that once you begin that inquiry you are likely to go ahead on towards difficulty. In addition, there is the danger, if these words are put in, that two men working at the same place may be treated differently because one is a trade unionist and the other is not. That is a danger to be avoided and I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.

We have got the most amazing spectacle—

On a point of Order. In the earlier stages of the Debate the point was raised as to whether we should have a general discussion covering this whole question or discuss each Amendment separately and the suggestion put from the Chair was that there should he a general discussion covering the whole point raised in the first Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). I submit that the sense of the House was in favour of that procedure and that we should proceed to the Divisions on the further Amendments concerning the same point without more discussion.

I should have been perfectly prepared to proceed with the Debate in the way which was anticipated, but what has happened? Three Amendments were down in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), all of which were intended to carry out a specific proposal but without the faintest explanation the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suddenly withdrawn one of those Amendments. [HON. MEMBERS: "He spoke on it."]

The point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is not a point of Order, It may be, and often is the case, that discussion takes place on a particular Amendment, with the general understanding that such discussion covers other Amendments, but if a Member rise in his place to discuss an Amendment which is before the House, in the absence of the Closure, the Chair cannot interfere.

On a point of Order. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Thompson) has already been the subject of general discussions in this House on two occasions and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) has taken part in those discussions. In the view of the fact that an understanding and an agreement was come to when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair I ask is it carrying out an honourable undertaking for the right hon. Gentleman who has already spoken on the subject in the general Debate to intervene again?

Whether or not there is an honourable undertaking is not a matter for the Chair; that is for hon. Members themselves to decide.

When the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) was under discussion the question of whether or not these particular words should be included was debated and the right hon. Gentleman then spoke on that Amendment.

I have already said that that: is not a point of Order.

Can the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon speak again on the same question?

This is a different Amendment.

I would only instance what has happened and I am within the recollection of the House. This is a very important Amendment, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, without a word of explanation, drew in, and did not move his Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: ''No!"]

That is ridiculous.

We are entitled to give our seasons why we consider the Amendment essential. Not one word has been advanced by any speaker who opposes it to show why these words should not be inserted, and if these words are not inserted will it not be clearly possible for trade unions to finance trade disputes and enable their members who are concerned to draw benefit? Nothing has been said to explain why that should not be the case, nor has there been a word from the Minister on that point. He says it is going to create administrative difficulties but he did not tell us that on the last occasion. The whole point was put by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley in the last discussion, when he suggested the words In any ease in which an inured contributor proves that neither he nor the rade union to which he belongs is participating in or financing … the trade dispute. The undertaking which was given by the Minister, after a very long discussion then, was that it should not apply in any case in which an insured contributor proved that neither he nor the trade union to which he belonged was participating in or financing or was directly interested in the dispute, and he went on to say, "I am going to accept that Amendment." We have not had a single word from anybody to show us that, if these words, which were regarded by the hon. Members below the Gangway

opposite as essential, and were accepted by the Minister as essential last time, are deleted, the very evils which the hon. Members say they are so anxious to prevent will not take place.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 209.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, after the word "in," to insert the words "or financing or directly interested in."

I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 77.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, at the end, to insert the words or that the stoppage is due to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms or provisions of any agreement existing between a group of employers where the stoppage takes place, or of a national agreement, to either of which the employers and employés are contracting parties. This Amendment has been designed for the purpose of making agreements more sacred between employers and employés, so that where an agreement has been made by the two parties, whether by a group or a national agreement, and any employer is desirous to break through that agreement, it shall not become a trade dispute if he offers terms other than those insisted upon in the agreement. If this Amendment were left to the free vote of the House I should have, if not a majority voting with me, at least a very great measure of sympathy. The reason why this Amendment has been put down is because in the mining community we have just entered into a national agreement to which all the parties contracting at the time agreed. Now we have employers in Kent, in Somerset, and in the Bristol district seeking to break through that agreement. If an employer thus desirous puts up a notice stating that he is going to close down his works, and that he cannot continue working, his men get unemployment benefit; but if he throws the works open and offers terms other than those included in the agreement, no matter what those terms are, whether or not they are sufficient for maintenance, it is a trade dispute if the men refuse to accept, and they cannot get unemployment pay.

I think I have clearly stated the few facts, and I do not want to detain the House; but what we are asking for is no more than this; that when an agreement has been made with the employers, and some employer may think it operates to his advantage to seek to break through, then it shall not become a trade dispute if the men object. Hon. Members on all sides of the House who wish on a matter of this sort to work honestly in regard to agreements between employers and employed will, I am sure, appreciate the point I am putting forward. I ask the Minister to accept this Amendment, because I feel if he leaves it to the House the House will accept it, and protect the workman who has entered into an agreement with the employer.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I have an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the same point, but you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have passed it over in favour of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. G. Spencer). Might I suggest to the Minister that among the arguments for the passing of this Bill is one that where the workman can show that the employer is offering less than the current district rate that such a man would not have to be without unemployment benefit? Apart from the national side, I want to point out that in the county of Durham we have had many cases, particularly after the lamentable dispute of 1921 in the coal trade, where many collieries could not resume work, and men were receiving unemployment benefit. But because they refused such offers, benefit was stopped. This Amendment is the outcome of the experiences through which we have passed, and I appeal to the House to accept it, in order that the insured persons shall receive proper treatment in the future. Sonic of the owners, or the management of the collieries, sent word to the trade union officials, and asked them to arrange a meeting with a view to discussing whether they could not come to some kind of terms. When the meeting took place it was found that the management's offer was undercutting the district arrangement, as well as the national arrangement, and because the men at the colliery refused to accept anything which undercut their local or national agreements the management informed the Employment Exchange that they had offered the men work and consequently the men's unemployment benefit was stopped. We think that that cause of annoyance or irritation ought to be re- moved from the existing Act; that the matter should be made clear in this Bill, so that if men refuse to accept other than the current rates or conditions of the local or national agreements then the unemployment benefit to these men should be continued, and that the employer should not have the power, just because he is prepared to come along and offer something else, to go to the Employment Exchange and say he has offered work and get the men's unemployment benefit stopped. Two years ago at one of our collieries we were in this position: The local manager offered conditions which were less than the conditions in the district, and were contrary to the national agreement, and the colliery of men refused. These men were stopped their unemployment benefit for nine weeks. We were put to the trouble of coming up to London, appearing before the Umpire, and spending a couple of hours arguing the situation. Eventually we proved to the Umpire that the owners were wrong and that the men were entitled to benefit. Therefore, we say that this Clause needs strengthening to prevent irritation and annoyance of that kind so that these men can receive their benefit under such circumstances.

I desire to support the protest which has been made by the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment. In my own division in Kent we have this spectacle: that men have been refused unemployment benefit, and being skilled men and having been out of work for periods ranging from one to 2½ years, they are practically too poor to resist a rate of wages less than current in the district for skilled men. I have in my hand a list with names and addresses, which I could read if necessary; but we do not want a Bill passed through which is going to make conditions worse than they are. Here are cases, undoubtedly in our own divisions, where men are being absolutely victimised, not because of lack of skill, but because of political opinions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have the list, as I say, containing the names and addresses. I got it from the engineering secretary who is at the moment in the Gallery watching on behalf of the men that he represents, men from 15 to 20 years' experience, with the finest mechanics' experience in the whole of Britain, who have been turned down by Messrs. Vickers. I do submit that there is real ground behind the case that has been put forward, and I hope the Minister will see his way some way or other to meet it. If we have men who, because of the slump in the engineering industry, are denied employment, there is no reason for assuming that they should be paid the wages of semi-skilled workmen because their ability has depreciated.

We have a number of men in this industry between 55 and 60 years of age and between 63 and 65, and it is asserted that they are not seeking work when the real reason is that they are debarred on the ground that they are never likely to get work again until ordinary conditions in the industry are resumed. I sent a letter to the Minister of Labour on this point, and I got the usual departmental point of view, which was that the instruction to the local rota committee is not definite enough. All these instructions are generally involved in a plethora of words, and the result is that they come to decisions which the Minister never intended. I hope the resolution which has been sent from Croydon will be dealt with in such a way that men who are likely to secure employment in normal industrial conditions shall have a definition of what that is at a time when the engineering industry is in its present state.

In the statement which the hon. Member who has just sat down has made he has not made it clear whether he was talking about cases where the employers have been parties to some agreement.

Quite recently it used to be different in the case of a Bristol engineer from those who were employed at Sheffield and other places. Now there are agreements specifying minimum wages and the employer, because the men have been out of work a couple of years are offered wages below the minimum rate, the contention being that they are not skilled, and this is due to unemployment.

2.0 P.M.

The Mover and Seconder limited their proposal clearly to places where the employers had an agreement. As far as I understood, the hon. Member was dealing with cases of men who after a certain lapse of time found themselves being offered depreciated wages.

Below the agreement.

I want to know whether this Amendment deals with cases where there is an agreement. The Amendment applies to a case where there is a stoppage due to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms of provisions existing between a group of employers. I am suggesting that the Amendment requires some additional words to make it read.

Very often we have a national agreement covering the whole country, and then there are local agreements dealing with some other class of workman not included in the national agreement.

I regret that the phrase "group of employers" has been introduced into this Amendment, because under that wording it is possible for the large employer to have his individual agreement and prices operating at his works amongst 2,000 men who might suffer all the injustices which the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. G. Spencer) wishes to remove.

The agreement is one between a group of employers, and if one member of that group seeks to break through the agreement then the men would be penalised.

That is not the point. There are many agreements in the mining world with individual employers, and therefore I think it is inconvenient to insert the words "group of employers." I think the Amendment should read "employer or group of employers."

I wish to have cleared up a point which is not very clear at the present moment. Why does the hon. Member who moved this Amendment think that the position he has visualised is not covered under the existing law?

Because the umpires have decided against us on that point. Supposing there is an agreement between a group of men belonging, say, to six pits, and the employers have agreed to terms. Afterwards one of those employers says, "I cannot carry on under this agreement," and if he puts up a notice terminating the contract the men get unemployment pay, but if this particular employer offers them other terms and they refuse them, then they do not get unemployment pay.

I am in doubt as to whether this proposal would work. It was moved in Committee, and defeated there. Since then I have been able to give consideration to it, and I am going to try and put one or two arguments to show that it would be extremely difficult to work the Clause, and then we may be able to come to some conclusion as to which way to vote. If this Clause were accepted, it is difficult to say whether the insurance officer and the court of referees and the umpire would not have the duty of deciding whether a stoppage of work was or was not due to an employer contravening an agreement.

It seems to me that the Clause ought to be drawn so carefully as to make it perfectly plain what it means. The idea underlying the Clause is particularly illustrated by a condition of affairs which now exists or has existed quite recently. A body of employers organised in a national association make an agreement with a body of workmen also organised in a national association. At one of the places of work of one of the Members of the National Organisation of Employers, the employer puts up a notice that he cannot carry on his work owing to the agreement. If those works close then obviously every man is genuinely out of work and will be paid unemployment benefit. But the day before the notice is due to expire the employer puts up a notice equivalent to saying to the men that if they will work below the terms agreed upon he will continue his works. The men therefore have the alternative either of blacklegging both the employers and workers in the trade or of risking the loss of their unemployment pay. In a word, the men can either be dishonourable both to the other employers or their own fellow workers in the industry, or they can suffer. That is the position as it applies at the present day. I am extremely doubtful as to what the full effect of this Amendment would be. The modification in the addition I have never seen and never been consulted upon.

May I say that it was the right hon. Gentleman himself who drew my attention to this defect. He must therefore have thought about it, and it was because he approached me that I made the addition.

I repeat that I have never seen these words, have never been consulted about them, and never heard of them until they were read out. That is the position of affairs. On balance, I am going to concede the demand of my hon. Friends, and I am going to let them have a free vote of the House. I will neither put the Government Whips on nor make the Government responsible for the Amendment. It can have a free vote of the House.

The right hon. Gentleman must have some responsibility in the matter. It is his Bill. I am prepared to take his advice in the matter. What is he going to advise us to do? He has to work this Bill, and I hope he is going to continue in office a few weeks longer. I would like to know what he advises the House to do.

I shall go into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment.

It is an extraordinary position.

I take it from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he has no objection to the proposal that has been submitted, and that, as he has already told us, he is prepared to go into the Lobby in support of it.

Why does he not put the Whips on if he believes in it?

If that appeal be made to me, I will put the Whips on. I will accept the Amendment and put the Whips on for it.

I do invite the right hon. Gentleman to give us some explanation as to where we stand. I have not seen these words, and I think in regard to a Bill, which I understand cannot be amended in another place, we do want some clearer explanation than has yet been given. So far as I am concerned, I do not know whether I am or am not in favour of the Amendment, and I cannot know until I know exactly what is proposed. I think it is monstrous that words should come before us at a minute's notice, and that the Minister of Labour should come for- ward and say that he is prepared either to put the Government Whips on or not just as the House of Commons pleases.

The Amendment is on the Paper.

But certain additions have been made to that Amendment. I do not know what they are, and I object very strongly, particularly as the Bill, I understand, cannot be amended in another place and, if passed here, may mean great difficulty and litigation. The words may be loosely drawn, and we have had no legal explanation as to what they mean. I must enter my strong protest against the attitude of the Minister.

I rise for the purpose of securing a little information if the Minister of Labour will be good enough to give it me. Up to a point I should say that I have some sympathy with these cases arising out of the breaking of any contract, but I am not satisfied that this Amendment in the way in which it is drawn will meet the circumstances. The statutory conditions for the receipt of benefit are given in a proviso of Section 7 of the principal Act. The proviso says: That a person shall not be deemed to have failed to fulfil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined:— ( a ) an offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work duo to a trade dispute; or ( b ) an offer of employment in the district whore he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than these which he habitually obtained in his usual employment in that district; or which he obtained had he continued to be so employed; or ( c ) an offer of employment in any other district at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those generally observed in that district by agreement between associations of employers and of employés, or, failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in the district by good employers." It seems to me that this proviso should go the whole way.

It does not.

The question arises whether an alteration to Section 8 would be enough, or whether, if this hardship exists, there should be an alteration of the proviso in paragraph ( b ) of Section 7 of the principal Act.

I cannot understand the attitude of mind of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have had a good deal to do with making agreements, and the great complaint that I have always had has been that when an agreement has been made some employer will endeavour to break it.

That is not the point.

Surely there can be no difference between the two sides of the House that if an agreement is made it ought to be honoured. That is the claim that is made on this side of the House. Agreements are made that are dishonoured by employers, and, when the workpeople have gone to the Umpire under Section 7 of the principal Act they have been turned down. That is the whole case. Therefore, the previous Act does not cover the case, and we are asking that where agreements are definitely made they shall be carried out by the employers.

I have not the slightest conception what is going on, and in the statement I think I am voicing the opinion of 9 out of 10 in the House. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spencer) who moved the Amendment says that the Minister of Labour approached him to produce the Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman tells us in the politest terms possible that is quite untrue.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he had never seen these additional words of the Amendment. I quite agree that he has not seen them, but, when I spoke to him about the matter, he told me the defect of the Amendment, and I have put these words in to meet the difficulty.

All I know is that the Minister of Labour states that he is going to give no guidance to the House, and that this was an Amendment that was defeated in Committee, but he personally proceeds to vote for it. Under these circumstances, I personally propose to take the only rational action any Member can take, and that is not to vote at all.

I call next on the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney).

But I have another Amendment down. It is a very important Amendment dealing with the question of weekly payments, and I am very anxious to raise it.

It was understood that of the two Amendments down in the name of the hon. Member, only one should be taken, and the one which has been dealt with was deemed to he of the most importance.

But we were promised in Committee by the Minister of Labour himself that he would accept this other Amendment of mine, and I think I ought to have an opportunity of moving it. It raises quite a different question, and involves a very important point.

Very well, if the hon. Member will move it very briefly, I will call upon him.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, at the end, to insert the words: (3) Section five, Sub-section (1), of The Unemployment Act, 1923 (which defines the meaning of continuous period of unemployment), shall be deemed to mean either three full days' employment, or six part days or less, provided three days' work is not exceeded in any one week, and the said Section shall have effect accordingly. We are dealing this morning with an Unemployment Insurance Bill, and surely the first question we have to ask ourselves is, what exactly do we mean when we are speaking of unemployment. As the law now stands, if a man is on holiday for three days a week he can then get employment pay. The law has been changed independently on this Bill. He can get three days' holiday this week, he can then get three days' benefit, then he can go on working in next week for three days and get a further three days' unemployment pay. But there is another class of men who are working continually four or five half-days per week. They have to do that in the coal mining industry, and they go on doing it week after week and month after month, and yet can never quality for the unemployment benefit. Surely if a man can prove that over a period of six, eight or 10 weeks he has not been able to make more than two full days per week, and if this Bill is to provide insurance against unemployment at all that man is entitled to get some out-of-work benefit. Yet, as the law now stands, he cannot qualify for a single payment. I do not want to make a long speech It is all right for those who do not suffer under the Bill to cry out "agreed," but the mining community is suffering. In. the past a good deal of sympathy has been expressed for it, but we want now something more than sympathy; we want the real thing. In Committee a caveat was entered against the statement that while the mining industry had paid £3,000,000 into this Insurance fund it had only drawn out £500,000. It may be suggested that this is practically our own fault, but I submit that we have a right, to equal treatment with other members of the community in regard to unemployment benefit, and it must be agreed that where a man can only get three half days' work per week, he should be entitled to some unemployment benefit. There might be difficulty in working out my proposal in regard to dockers and the men engaged in the cotton industry, but, as far as the coal industry is concerned, I think it could be easily applied. We are not here dealing with individual cases. We are dealing with a whole industry, and if the Minister cannot go the whole way with us I think he should give us an assurance that he will go as far as is consistent with proper administration.

I beg to Second the Amendment.

I thoroughly agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. I particularly want to call attention to the case of the dock labourer, the transport worker and the casual ship repairer. These men are only able to get one, two or three days' work per week, but they are penalised under the administration of the law, because, although they may go on week after week, or month after month, they can never earn a full week's wage, and they can never get any assistance from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I believe the Minister of Labour has had all these cases before him and understands them. I had hoped that he was going to please the House by saying he was prepared to accept this Amendment. Without entering into the merits of the proposal or needs of the men who are being penalised, I will ask him to give us an assurance this afternoon that this anomaly is going to be removed from the Statute Book.

May I again respectfully call the attention of the Members of the House to the fact that this Bill has to go through another place, and that if it does not get through this House to-day its position will be endangered? If its position is really endangered and it suffers, 100,000 people will be out of benefit at the end of July, and we shall be responsible if we have talked so long that the Bill cannot be passed. What took place in the Committee on this Clause was this: I said that we could not at the Ministry of Labour devise any reasonable method of administration that would meet this particular case of short time. Various members of the Committee, imbued, as I was myself, with the idea that this was a case which ought to be dealt with, made an appeal, and I said to the Committee that I would take this Clause back, that I would accept the spirit of it, and that, if I found it possible administratively to work it, I would do it. I found it absolutely impossible. My skilled advisers advised me that it was practically impossible without tremendous expense and a tremendous amount of inquisition to attempt to work this Clause. I could not myself, although I tried, suggest any method at all as to how this Clause could be worked, and regretfully I came to the conclusion that the only way to deal with these cases is for the trades themselves to make an undertaking whereby a man, if he is required to go to work for a portion of the day, shall have something like a guarantee of a certain sum per day. That, I think, is the only way to settle the matter. I cannot accept the Clause, because we have not yet been able to devise a means of dealing with the general conditions. We cannot have a Clause that would deal with one factor only; we must have a Clause of general application; and we have failed to find a Clause that, at any rate with reasonable expense and certainty, will deal with these peculiar circumstances. Therefore I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 42, to leave out the word "cease," and to insert thereof the words be suspended until the expiration of one year from the termination of the deficiency period referred to in the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1921. The Amendment is put in this form so that there may be no doubt in the mind of any person that the desire of those who support the Admendment is not in any way to introduce contracting out until after the deficiency period has come to an end. The real importance of the Amendment is that it is not so much merely to keep the door open for contracting out as to ensure that the door shall be kept open for an unprejudiced discussion of contracting out on a future occasion. It is necessary, in order to understand the few points that I have to put before the House, to give a very brief account of the history of this Clause. In 1911, Unemployment Insurance was initiated in Part II of the Act. Part I, as we all know, dealt with health. A different principle was applied to each Part Health Insurance was to operate through existing organisations—approved societies; Unemployment Insurance was to operate directly through the State. The first Act was a fragmentary and tentative Measure. So matters continued until 1920, when a comprehensive Act dealing with Unemployment Insurance was carried through. It was a very elaborate Measure, and, although we have retained the basic principle that Unemployment Insurance shall be operated directly through the State, in two Sections it provides for insurance by other bodies—by joint industrial councils, by industries themselves, or otherwise.

There were two methods of doing it. One was that laid down in Section 18 of the Act—the method called contracting-out. The other was supplementary. It was an individual system that was in the nature of a supplement to the general system. When that Act came into operation—some time, I think, in November of that year—we were all in more or less of a panic at the alarming increase of unemployment. It became obvious that the Act could not be carried out in its entireity without the finance giving way. It had to be buttressed up by Treasury grants, and that necessitated the passing of two Acts in the following Spring, one in March and one in July, 1921. The effect of those two Acts, as regards this Clause, I can put in a couple of sentences. They provided for a Treasury grant, then of £10,000,000, and now largely increased. They provided, because it was desired to keep intact the principle of insurance, that that Treasury grant should be worked off by additions to the contributions that were paid, and they were to be paid into what was called a deficiency fund. Then, most important of all, they provided that, whilst this state of financial emergency, if I may use the expression, existed, while the deficiency fund lasted, nothing should be done to divert any of the rivers which fed the central pool, and that, as separate industrial or group insurance would withdraw funds from the central pool, Section 5 of the second of those Acts was passed, which it is necessary for me to read, because I have to dwell a little upon it. Section 5 of that Act states that: The power mentioned in Section eighteen of the principal Act"— that is the contracting-out Section— to make special orders approving or making special schemes shall not be exercised during the deficiency period. It is quite obvious that when the matter was before Parliament no suggestion was put forward that contracting out was not a good thing, but in the circumstances it was considered advisable that it should remain in abeyance during this period. In express words, therefore, it was stated that it should not continue during the deficiency period, and by implication it says that when the deficiency period is over it shall again be possible. That was the position, and is the position at this present moment. Now this Bill comes along, and in Clause 7 these words are used: The power of the Minister under Section eighteen of the principal Act to make special orders approving or malting special schemes shall cease. The words are absolute and comprehensive. If the Clause goes through in its present form the House of Commons commits itself to this declaration, that the principle of contracting out, whether it be done by an approved society, by a trade union, by an industry, or by a group of industries, shall cease now and shall cease for all time That is what the Clause says.

We object to that, and we object to it on several grounds. The first thing that I should like to put to the House is this: Between the time when contracting out became allowable, namely, November, 1920, and the time when contracting out was suspended, namely, March of the following year—a few months—there was but one scheme got through. It was not that other schemes were not making violent efforts to get through but there was not time. But one scheme that got through, that for insurance workers, is estimated on all hands to have been an unqualified success. The insurance people shall no longer get the three-tenths contribution that heretofore they were getting—that works out at about £11,000—because they have been so effective and so complete in their organisation that it is found thay are able to stand alone. That is the only experience. [An HON. MEMBER: "Banks."] I do not believe the banks are through.

Yes.

Am I right in saying that they also are doing well?

They have not had sufficient experience.

The one test of contracting out that has had sufficient time is the insurance worker, and that has been an unqualified success. Here is a method of carrying on insurance laid down in the Act of 1920, with an elaboration of provision covering three pages of the statute, tried once with great success and we are now told, because it has been tried with great success here and now let us give it up for ever.

The next point is this. The principle involved in contracting out is a very big question, but it has never been debated. It was not debated in the Act of 1920 because that was more or less an agreed Measure. It was not debated on the Bill of 1921 and it has not been really debated on this Bill. Only a few words were said on the Second Reading. So now you are asked to condemn at once, without trial and without hearing, a method that opens up a very broad field for guidance and for experience in reference to this wholly novel thing of unemployment insurance. It does not stop there. It would be bad enough if under the circumstances I have unfolded we were simply to say, "though it has done well in the past we can see no reason for altering the view we formed in 1920 and departing from the assurance we implied in the Act of 1921, we will stop it." But is is far worse. This Clause says it shall cease. But it has ceased. It shall continue to cease under the Act of 1921 until the deficiency fund is worked out. When will that be? When this Bill came to Committee first it was thought, from the actuary's statement, that that period would be June, 1926. Then there were these boys' and girls' contributions cut out. That made the actuary say it would go on a year further. Then what are called the "strike benefits" came in and, dealing with these, the actuary said, "That will have the effect of extending the period to a time that is insusceptible of calculation." How do we stand now? It is admitted on all hands that the deficiency period must continue for three or four years hence. Why are we asked to-day to say a thing shall cease, that is now inoperative, at the end of a period three or four years in advance, when possibly it may be operative? It is a puzzling question. Nor does it even stop there, because the Minister of Labour said in Committee—he was slightly wrong in law—that the effect of a certain Amendment which had been made in Clause 1 would bring it about that the whole Bill would go into the melting pot in June, 1926, and yet we are now solemnly asked to commit ourselves to a declaration of a contingent policy in the future where it is certain that even the very policy that in advance we are condemning can never come into operation before the whole matter of which it is a part is reconsidered and redealt with.

When one finds himself faced with such an extraordinary position as that one is forced to ask some questions. Why is it being done? Why this energy to get this contingent declaration which never can be effective? The Minister himself falls back upon very bad arguments. One was this. He says, "Why worry about getting this Amendment through when nothing will be done?" My answer is, "Why worry about putting this ridiculous Clause in?" The next argument was this. If you now carry your Amendment it will dislocate and upset the whole Bill. I do not know much about this House—I hope I shall in time—but I think the Financial Resolution upon which a Money Bill of this kind is passed is only in force for a year. But the contracting out Clause cannot possibly have any operation for three or four years. What, then, has the financial structure of the Bill to do with it? There was one other argument that greatly affected me. It was not so much used by the Minister as by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camberwell, to whom we all look up as an expert. He put it this way. There is no real hardship done in preventing contracting out under Section 18 because you can still have your double insurance. That is quite right. Though the right to have a supplemental scheme has been in existence ever since 1920, there never has been a single instance where a supplemental scheme has been adopted or even talked about. The answer is very obvious. You can get employers and employés to be willing to make contributions to one scheme, but they do not see why they should be called upon to contribute to two.

When you get a Clause like this one apparently needlessly and certainly prematurely forced upon the House, and when it is backed up by reasons that are so bad that they crumble up at the first attack—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will not and cannot attempt to justify the arguments upon which he defended this Clause in Committee—it is time for the House to beware, and to say "Your reasons do not explain your zeal. Is there a concealed reason? We have had the bad reasons. Why do you keep secret the good ones?" The real reason underlying this Clause is that hon. Members above the Gangway believe—it is their view quite honestly held—in the triumph of the State over the individual. They desire, on every possible occasion, to broaden the radiation of the forces which cover all the activities of the country towards the centre, the State, and they say, "If we now establish definitely that the only system that is recognised in this country in regard to Unemployment insurance is where it is done directly by the State, then we are doing something to lay down the lines right up, so to speak, to Government House from all industries, so that later, when we get this big comprehensive measure embracing all social services—

Have not the hon. Member's own leaders produced a scheme in reference to mines?

I hope that the hon. and learned Member will look at the clock. We have a great deal of work still to do.

I accept the hint which you have given to me, Mr. Speaker. It is a most enticing subject, and there are many things that I would like to say. But I think I have said enough to ask the House seriously to say, "Is it justifiable now, when there is no necessity, when the question will have to be reconsidered, to commit ourselves, once for all, to a declaration which will not only close the door upon contracting out but greatly prejudice us in arguing that contracting out should be considered when the whole matter comes up before Parliament again."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I have been associated with the scheme which is already in existence, and which the hon. and learned Member has said has worked very well. Insurance by industry is not an ignoble suggestion or idea. The idea that a trade should look after its own employés is a very good one. In the scheme which I had the honour some time ago to help to form it has been found that, in the first place, it has promoted a great deal of goodwill in the industry itself. The employers and the men have met together and the spirit has been excellent throughout. The scheme has worked with a minimum of expense, the expenses of management have been very low, and the scheme has also worked with great benefit to those people who are unemployed. Therefore, as far as the only scheme of which we have had any experience is concerned, it has certainly worked very well.

I am thoroughly in favour of keeping the door open. I do not see any reason why in a temporary Bill of this kind, the Minister should seek permanently to close the door against insurance by industry. When the time does come to promote further schemes, as I hope the House will agree to do, some modification will have to be made. There is a great objection to insurance by industry under particular schemes at the present time because you may be left with a number of people in the pool, and that is very unfortunate for them. In future these special trades which have schemes of their own may be in a position to make a contribution, as I think they should, to those people who are left. In any event, all that we are asking for is that the Minister of Labour should leave this matter open for a reasonable period.

The right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) was quite right in Committee when he said that it would be impossible and impracticable at the present time to suggest that special schemes should be sanctioned. We cannot do that while the Unemployment Insurance Fund is in its present state. The Amendment has been designed with a view to meeting that objection; it may not do so, but it has been designed with that worthy object in view. The idea is that no special scheme shall be sanctioned until one year after the end of the deficiency period. Anybody who wishes to give these schemes a chance, but who believes that they ought to be modified, will agree that the House will be acting reasonably to-day in keeping the door open. This is not a matter on which there is any question of party politics. A large number of Members of all parties have spoken to me on the subject and have said that while they believe in the system being maintained they think that the door should not be closed. I hope the Minister will not finally close the door on insurance by industry.

I am most anxious that the Minister should get his Bill, and therefore I have taken no part in the discussion up to the present time. The benefit period now running will be exhausted on Wednesday week. Therefore this Bill must come into operation quickly or people will get no benefit. I am glad to hear the Minister say that he thought that a Bill of this importance should have a short time for discussion on Third Reading. Therefore I intervene for a moment or two only on this question of contracting out. I listened with profound interest to the earnest and emphatic speech of my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment, and of the Seconder, but, though it grieves me to the quick, I must oppose both of them is a few words. When contracting out was put into the Bill in 1920, there was a great deal of discussion in the air as to insurance by industry. It is a very fine conception, and it did appear to all of us that, if industries were responsible for their own unemployment, they would see what they could do to keep it down to a minimum. Therefore Section 18 was put into the Bill of 1920.

Then early in 1921, finding ourselves overwhelmed with the pressure of unemployment, we had to say: "No more contracting out until the deficiency period closes." One industry got off, the insurance industry, and another has since got off, the banking, but the door was closed because we wanted the money of the low risk industries to help the high risk industries. Therefore we closed the door. That is where the matter stands at this moment and it should stay there, in default of some change being made, until the deficiency period is closed, which will be about Easter, 1927. Now this Bill says that contracting out ceases from that now on. The issue between us is, shall we leave the door open, without prejudice, until the end of the deficiency period, or shall we say that there shall not be any more contracting out? It does sound fair and reasonable to say "leave it open," but see what is going to happen.

We had a very interesting discussion in Committee on the proposal to leave the door open and it was beaten by, I think, 25 to 18, and if we now decide that we will leave it open, after having decided upstairs to close it, what is going to happen? Not industries but firm after firm will come and say, that after this discussion there was a presumption that they had a fair chance to go out at the end of the deficiency period. It will not be without prejudice. They will want to go out. They have done very well. The employers have paid 10d. and the men have paid 9d., and they have paid it cheerfully, though it bears no relation to their own unemployment risk, but they now find, looking at it not by industries but by firms, that they can cover their insurance for 3d. or 4d. a week, and I am afraid that if we leave this open now after the deficiency period closes they will come and say, "You gave us a chance to go out at the end of the deficiency period. We have been at work for two years, we have got a first class scheme, we can get the same benefit for half the contributions—"

It would require an Act of Parliament for that.

3.0 P.M.

I am sure that they will use this as evidence that it is not without prejudice. They will come and want to jump the claim, and all these low risk industries will go out of this great national scheme and all the high risk industries will be left by themselves. I am a bit of a Socialist in this. There is no Karl Marx in it. It is far superior to that. It is not national insurance, if you collar all the great industries and leave these poor people to look after themselves. I appeal to the Minister to stand firm. I am afraid that he will be beaten. I will go with him into the Lobby if there is a Division, but if the Minister feels that he must give way to this pressure he has got to make it perfectly clear that, if we leave this door open these people cannot come in two years, because they want to get off on the cheap, and leave the bottom dog to look after himself. It would be fatal to any insurance. I hope that the Minister will stick by his guns.

This, I think, is an Amendment which is not at all and cannot be of party lines. On the merits of the case we shall find supporters and opposers in all parts of the House. The question is simply, is this the better way of dealing with unemployment insurance or is insurance by industry the better way? The question is, should this scheme be a national scheme or should the Minister have power to sanction a scheme of contracting out?

That is not the question.

If that be not a fair way of putting the question I frankly agree that. I do not know what is a fair way.

I addressed myself to the question that the operation of the previous Section should now cease. The point was "now." The point was not as between national and industry insurance.

Very well. I will try to tell you why I said now. I have been considering, when drafting this Bill, the whole condition of affairs, not merely for three months or six months but for some distance ahead. I began as a convinced believer in the principle of insurance by industry, and I first addressed myself to the constituent parts of the scheme—that is the State, and the employers and the workers. So far as the employers and workers are concerned I could best ascertain their views—and the only way I have of ascertaining their views was by ascertaining them from their organisations. There can be no question, I think, that it is to the advantage of the State to have the scheme as large as possible and containing as many "good lives," so to speak, as possible in order that the claims falling on the funds may be as low as possible. Not only is the size of the scheme important from the point of view of the "good lives," but it is important from the point of view that the larger the numbers the lower is the working expense per head. From the State point of view there are no two sides as to the advantage being in favour of the larger national scheme.

Then I approached the Confederation of Employers and I asked them to be kind enough to give me their ideas on this subject. They did so extensively, and, if I may say so, with great clearness, and I found that their organisation was definitely in favour of the national scheme and opposed to industries contracting out of the schemes. That was the second side of the triangle. So far as the organised workers were concerned, I asked their opinion equally, and I found them divided roughly into two equal parts. So that, of my three-sided triangle, 2½ sides were in favour of the national scheme and half a side in favour of insurance by industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who were the organised workers?"] The Trade Union Congress. They did the same for me as the employers, and I found them divided.

Who were the employers?

The Confederation of Employers.

I have never heard of them.

The gentlemen whom I saw certainly bulked very largely in the commercial world—rather more, perhaps, than my hon. Friend. Another thing that presented itself to me was this: There are certain industries now in a very depressed state. There are other industries which have just emerged from a state of depression, but one cannot see whether in the near future they will find the depression which they are not now experiencing. I asked myself certain practical questions. What would it have meant if some of these industries had had their own schemes? Would they have been solvent? Could they have carried on, or would they have come to the national scheme in a state of bankruptcy, asking to be taken in? Let me give a few figures. There is one industry in which the workers expressed their very strong desire to have a system of insurance by industry. It has had 40 per cent. of its people unemployed. Taking the present rate of benefit, and assuming an average of 18s.—the average of 18s. would, of course, be exceeded—the contribution for every person in that trade would have been 12s. a head per week in order to pay the benefit. I ask hon. Members, can we face a contingency like that? If this industry had had its desire granted when it wished, these people would have been faced not long after with a position that would have meant for every person working 12s. a week in order to pay the benefit. That was the cotton-weaving trade.

They want insurance by industry now.

I do not know what they want. They have been considering these figures recently. Take the present state of affairs. I leave out the casual workers, the bottom dogs, those who have been worst hit. I take three staple industries, not of a casual character, which are now suffering severely—the engineers, iron and steel workers, shipbuilding and ship repairing workers, and the cotton textile trade. I find that if these industries had their own insurance organisation at the moment, the engineers would be paying, roughly, 3s. per week per person. With 6¾d. from the State, if the State gave it, they would still have 2s. 5¼d. to pay for every man. Workers in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing trade would at present be called upon to pay 6s. 6d. per head for every man working in order to pay the benefits under this Bill. The cotton textile trade would be contributing at the rate of 3s. 3d. per week per person. Those figures show what would or could take place if insurance by industries came into operation. Then I have to face the powerful argument put up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara). Who will ask for exemption? Obviously it will be those trades which are called sheltered, which are less subject to fluctuation—trades in which calculations have been made and it has been found better for them financially to be outside. You would be left with a residuum in your national scheme, small in numbers but extremely heavy in cost, and your last state would be worse than your first. Finally, a word about the financial side. At the present moment the cost of the administration of this scheme is roughly about 8 per cent. On the general basis there can be no hope of any saving on the mere cost of administration, because 8 per cent. is a pretty low cost of administration for a scheme involving such a large amount of work, care, and checking.

Eight per cent. of what?

Of the contributions; that is the cost of the whole administration. I faced this situation frankly, and in view of present conditions and of the conditions that are likely to obtain in the future and the possibility at some time of grouping together our different systems of insurance and bringing them under one head, I thought the best thing we could have was a scheme which was general in character.

I only intervene in order to say why I propose to vote for the Amendment. It is not that I disagree with the general arguments advanced by the Minister of Labour and by the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara); it is because I do not think either of them is directing attention to the real problem involved. If the only issue we had to decide was whether we were going to allow free contracting out by any firm or industry, as against a comprehensive national scheme, then I would be dead against contracting out every time, because it would break the fund, and, having broken the fund, would break the system. That really is not the issue before us now, and in supporting this Amendment I would say that if, at any time, now or in the future, any firm or industry sought to contract out without doing what is fair to the general fund I would, in every case, vote against allowing them to do so. What the Minister asks us now to say is, "Let us give no industry or no firm in the future any chance of making a proposition which may not only be attractive to itself but also fair to the fund. I do not propose at this stage to argue whether it is possible in the future for firms or industries to make a proposal which is attractive to themselves and also fair to the fund, but the point has certainly not been sufficiently examined even by the firms themselves. I quite agree they have been asking too much; they are just as much at fault as the applicants at the other extreme. They want to get out on the cheap, but they must not be allowed to do so. The Minister, however, would preclude them from reforming their ways and from coming forward with alternative propositions which would be fair to him. I do not think that is the right thing to do. If this were a final and conclusive Bill I should hesitate in regard to this matter, but it is a temporary Measure. I do not know why there is any Clause dealing with this point, after the announcement by the Minister in regard to the deficiency period. I believe that, for everybody concerned, it is academic. I, personally, shall cast my vote against free and indiscriminate contracting out, but in favour of giving a period of consideration, both to the Minister and to the industries concerned, to see whether they cannot, before we consider this matter again, devise schemes which are fair to the Fund as a whole and interesting to themselves.

As the Minister says, in regard to the trade unions which are, so far as the workers' side of the subject is concerned, the most interested in this question, one may take it for granted that if they are divided, they are divided not so much from the point of view of industries as from the point of view of political impressions and ideas. What you find is really that those old-fashioned trade unionists, who believe in the unions as voluntary institutions, believe that they could with their employers in every industry make schemes such as any Government would adopt and would be prepared to meet the liabilities connected with them, provided the workmen and the employers themselves had the management of them, and provided the expensive bureaucratic method of distributing the benefit at present employed by the Ministry of Labour was entirely done away with. On the other hand, the other element, who are in favour of a Socialistic conception of society, say: "You must not allow this insurance to go into file hands of the voluntary trade unionists or the employers, but you must make it a State question, and we will not allow any contracting out or anything of the kind." I admit that there is no majority for either side and that we are really, as the Minister said, completely divided in these two conceptions, but what I object to in the attitude of the Minister is this, that while the trade unions who represent the manual working class of this country more directly than any other institution are divided, the Socialistic element have prevailed upon the Minister to peg down their claim by an Act of Parliament.

May I say that there is not a word of substance in that statement?

Therefore, what I protest against is that the Minister should use the House of Commons for the purpose of deciding this issue, which is actually in dispute among the trade unions themselves, because, if it be once declared that there is to be no contracting out in the future, there is no doubt—and the Minister knows it very well—that to a certain extent he will damp down the efforts that are being made to draft schemes that will meet the objections of his Department for future insurance by industry. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he will damp down much of the effort that is being made now among trade unionists to evolve schemes that would meet every one of the objections that have been put forward, either by himself or by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), and I object to that. I think it unfair that an Insurance Bill that is required within the next few days should have had a con- tentious matter like this, not contentious as between different sides of this House, but among the trade unions themselves, included in it. I think it would have been infinitely better to have left the field clear, and not for the Minister to have used his authority in this way, so that if we eventually came to the conclusion that insurance by industry was not possible, we could admit it and come forward and say so. If, on the other hand, we thought that it was possible, we could come forward and say so, and ask this House to carry out. whichever we believed to be correct, after the fullest discussion given to it. This is prejudicing a question in dispute amongst trade unionists, and, as a trade unionist of pretty well as long a standing as any Member of this House, having been an official of a trade union for nearly 40 years, I say I am justified in standing here and protesting against prejudicing a discussion that is going on in our own internal organisations.

I hope the House will be willing now to come to a decision. I want to remind the House that it is

necessary to recommit the Bill, in respect of one of the Amendments which the Government are going to accept., before we take the Third Reading.

Honestly, I only want to speak for three minutes, to make a general appeal to the whole House, and I guarantee not to exceed that time, and my remarks shall not be controversial. Every statement for or against contracting oat, I submit, is entirely irrelevant to this Amendment. All we are asking for is this—and here we have all the parties, I think, prepared to agree—that there should be a suspension. Even your appeal shows it is quite impossible for us to discuss contracting out in the time allowed. Let us, therefore, suspend—which is all my hon. Friend asks—for a year after the deficiency period, until we have further knowledge, and then we can debate this.

Question put, "That the word 'cease' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 171.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendment made:

In page 7, lines 33 and 34, leave out the word "contributions" and insert instead thereof the word "contribution."—[ Mr. Shaw. ]

I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words "within two years."

This Amendment has been put down by the Minister in response to an appeal made to him that the case of the refund men of 50 years of age should not be excluded because they failed to make their application in time. The Minister met the point by making the period two years, and now I want him to make a further extension, because many of us know that in the last two years there has been a large number of claims ruled out on the ground of disability in regard to reparations and civil liabilities because the claims have not been put in within the specified time. There is a statutory right to make these claims, and simply because the people did not know they were entitled to claim they ought not to be precluded by any time limit. For these reasons I ask the right hon. Gentleman to leave out the period of two years in order to allow these people to get what is their undoubted right.

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

I think it is desirable that there should be a longer period, and I am willing to make it four years, instead of two.

In view of what the Minister has said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made to proposed Amendment: In line 5, leave out the word "two", and insert instead thereof the word "four."—[ Mr. Shaw. ]

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 14, line 7, to leave out the word "week," and to insert instead thereof the words "three days."

1 do not propose to argue this question. I understand, notwithstanding what happened in Committee, when unfortunately the Minister was unable to accept this Amendment, that he has now thought better of it and is willing to accept it. I, therefore, beg to move that in place of one week three days shall be inserted as the waiting period.

I beg to Second the Amendment.

It is really. impossible for the House to accept an Amendment which is going to add £4,500,000 a year without some word of explanation. This Amendment really is a matter of supreme and fundamental importance. Let me remind the House what the effect of it will be. This Bill is drawn upon the footing that the deficiency period will end in June, 1926. The Bill also provides that when that period of deficiency comes to an end the rate of contributions will be considerably lessened. Those of us who were on the Committee will remember that during the Committee stage, and indeed on the Floor of the House on the Second Reading, we made certain additions which fundamentally affected the financial structure of the Bill. Under these circumstances, we asked, and the right hon. Gentleman was willing, that we should have a second Report by the actuary in order that we might understand exactly where we stood and what was the financial position. The actuary has told us that in consequence of the additional charges that were made in the House and in the Committee the period of deficiency will be prolonged for something like 10 weeks, and that when it comes to an end there will be a balance of only £100,000 a year on an income of £30,000,000 a year. Therefore, it is obvious that the margin between solvency and insolvency on that very large turnover will be, very small.

It was proposed in Committee by the hon. Member (Mr. T. Thomson) that this waiting period should be reduced from six days to three. The right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with that Amendment, said that the Amendment meant de-arranging the whole financial structure of the Bill. He has not said a word today to tell us why he has changed his opinion or to show us in any way why the acceptance of this Amendment will not derange the whole financial structure. Of course, it will. The actuary has shown us that the present deficiency, which is something like £7,000,000, will be wiped off in two years or thereabouts. The effect of imposing a further charge of £4,500,000 a year will mean that you will no sooner finish one period of insolvency than you will embark upon another. You will wipe off the present period of insolvency in two years, and then, owing to what we are now doing, you will inevitably embark upon another. It is obvious that the effect will be that the period of deficiency will continue indefinitely and that this fund will be in imminent danger of being definitely insolvent.

May I remind the House what will be the permanent effect. Those who contribute to this fund at present pay a very large contribution—the employers 10d. and the employés 9d. It was held out to them that when the period of deficiency comes to an end their contributions will be reduced. The right hon. Gentleman in his Bill has held out the same hope, and the effect of what we are doing now will be that, not only will that hope be deferred, but I believe it will abolish altogether the chance of that expectation being realised. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept that position, the responsibility will be on his own head. All that I can say is that it will, without doubt, cause the greatest disappointment among those who are contributing, for, so far from reaching the expected lower rate of contribution within two years, they will be compelled indefinitely to pay at the present high rate.

I do not think that the insured persons will raise any great complaint on this point. It is not out of any discourtesy on my part that this matter has not been discussed. I thought the House was well aware of the facts. It is true that if this Amendment is accepted the end of the deficiency period will be further from sight. It is also true we are assuming that, as time goes on, there will be a decrease of unemployment, and when the end of the present deficiency period comes there will be less unemployment, so that the fund will remain sound. In view of the fact that the matter has been discussed previously and the House is in possession of all the necessary information, I hope we may be allowed to get to the next Amendment.

Is it not the fact that the £100,000 will not remain at the end of the deficiency period at the present rate of contribution?

What the actuary said was that unemployment at the end of the time would be so-and-so and the financial position would be so-and-so. The Bill has extended the deficiency period, but the probability is that with a prolongation of that period there will be a much lower number of unemployed, and therefore the fund will remain sound.

h it competent to introduce at this stage an Amendment which will very largely increase the expenditure under the Bill? I am well aware of the fact that this money does not coma directly out of the Treasury, but a very substantial part. of what goes into the Insurance Fund comes from the Treasury, and I submit it will largely increase the cost if this Amendment is carried.

Lt has been held in regard to Amendments of this kind that they do not come under the Rule, because they do not increase the charge on public funds, although their effect might be, if they were extended too much, to bankrupt the fund. For that reason they have not been ruled out.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 16, line 13, at the end, to insert Section 11 (3)… Leave out 'if so requested by the Court of Referees.' I understand that the Minister intends to accept this Amendment.

May I ask what this Amendment means?

It is with regard to powers of appeal, and gives an absolute right of appeal in certain eventualities.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 16, line 47, leave out the word "repayment," and insert instead thereof the word "return."

In page 17, line 15, at the end insert Section 5 (1) … For the words 'less than three' there shall be substituted the words not more than six'".—[ Mr. Shaw. ]

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendment standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Malcolm Macnaghten," put, and agreed to.—[ Sir Malcolm Macnaghten. ]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. ENTWISTLE in the Chair. ]

I beg to move, in page 13, line 43, to leave out the words "This Act does," and to insert instead thereof the words The provisions of this Act amending Sections forty and forty-one of the principal Act shall have effect with respect to those Sections (as amended by any subsequent enactment, including any Order in Council made under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920), as they apply to Northern Ireland, but save as aforesaid this Act shall.

The object of this Amendment is merely to correct a slip which occurred in the Bill in regard to the armed forces of the Crown. Those coming from Northern Ireland would be put in a prejudiced position as compared with those from Great Britain.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment.

Bill, as amended, on recommittal, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I should like to make four very short general observations on this Bill. If the Government had left the scheme as it was when they came into office, solvency would have been arrived at before the close of this year. I believe that then the contributions that were being paid, namely, 10d. by the employers and 9d. by the workmen, could in each case have come down to 6d., and we might have put to them, as I should have done, the desirability of using the extra 3d. and 4d., not then required for unemployment insurance, for other benefits—increased old age pensions, reduced age for old age pensions and a start with widows' pensions. I think I should have left this scheme, in the main, as it was found. I should have given 2s. to the children. I should have left it as it was in the main, and then solvency could have been arrived at before the close of this year. But in his wisdom the Minister has gone out in an entirely different direction—no gaps, continuous benefit week by week, no restriction of benefit at all against certain young persons and aliens who previously were restricted, and benefit as a legal right on a very slender contribution qualification. That is all right only that postpones the deficiency period until roughly somewhere about Easter, 1927. I hope the people who have been paying this money so loyally and ungrudgingly all this time will go on paying, but I am afraid the policy of the Government in extending, as it has done, the deficiency period, and keeping up contributions which bear no relation whatever to unemployment insurance risks, may prejudice the finance of the scheme, though we all hope that will not be the case. One thing further. I think it is a profound mistake to have given benefit as a statutory right on the very slender contribution qualification which this Bill sets up. You are taking very high contributions, especially from people on short time, to build up a fund for their insurance if they are out of work on a most slender contribution qualification. It is not to be a matter of discretion on the part of the local employment committee, but they will have a legal right to benefit week by week, according to this scheme, down to June, 1926. You are taking money out of a fund built up by heavy contributions to form an insurance fund really to relieve the local rates. That is what you are doing. You are turning it into a compassionate fund, and contributing sums as a compassionate fund, which ought not to be taken out of the fund at all, but out of the local rates. I hope, again, the right hon. Gentleman will get to the end of his journey successfully. This scheme, as we now know it, has made benefits much more charitable and on a much wider scale. It is now partly an insurance fund, but largely a fund which may be used for the purpose of making weekly allowances of a compassionate character. For good or for evil that is what you have done. But whatever you do, if you take that line you have to see that it is properly administered. People get tired of making heavy contributions when they are not sure that this money is being properly used in every case. The employment exchange staff was pretty overworked last year. This year's Estimates propose to cut it down by between 500 and 600 persons. That Estimate was prepared before this was contemplated at all. I appeal to the Minister and to the Treasury to increase that staff, otherwise you are saving '70s. a week on a local Employment Exchange clerk and you are running a risk of losing ten times that amount because of lax administration. These people have been overworked. Their numbers are now to be reduced, with enormously added responsibilities. If you are penny wise and pound foolish and save 70s. on a clerk, you stand the chance of losing 700 shillings because of poor administration.

Particularly under this scheme, with its rather generous handing out of benefit, with the slightest qualification, it is vital that you should be quite sure that the recipient is genuinely seeking work. You cannot do that, no matter how you test the man, unless you have a job to offer him. Wherever there are vacancies, and as things improve more vacancies will arise, do let employers of labour send notice of the vacancies to the Employment Exchanges, so that the Minister, confronted with a man who says, "I claim benefit as a legal right," can reply, "Can you not find work?" If the man replies, "I cannot," then the Minister at the present time has to pay. On the other hand, if the Minister can say, "Look, here is a vacancy at my disposal. There is a job suited for your capacities. It is waiting for you. Take that job. If you do net, you will not get benefit." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to find that I am in complete harmony with my hon. Friends above the Gangway. I have always been appealing to employers to assist us. In my time at the Ministry of Labour I strongly appealed to employers of labour to help me with vacancies, so that I could apply the one final test as to whether a man was genuinely seeking work. My appeal now is to employers of labour to help the Minister with his new scheme, with all its widely extended benefits, to administer the scheme properly, by placing at the disposal of the Minister vacancies which are the last and final test as to whether a man is genuinely seeking work.

The effect of what we have done to-day is to remove all control over the fund by Parliament. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour that the Actuary's report holds out hope that the fund will be solvent at the date when it comes to an end in 1927. On the other hand, I believe that the Actuary has shown conclusively that the fund is not likely to be solvent in 1927, or solvent at all. That being so, I think the Bill strikes a very serious blow at the whole system of contributory unemployment insurance. It may be a fatal blow. The best part of the Bill is that contained in the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) and carried, which limits the operation of the Bill to two years. Had it not been for that, I think the effect of the Bill would be to destroy the whole system.

I cannot in the time that remains reply to what has been said, but I thank the House for the very great courtesy which it has extended to me, in very difficult circumstances, in giving me my Bill, and I am profoundly thankful for it. I hope now that I shall get my Bill without a Division.

The remaining Order were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at one Minute after Four o'clock until Monday next (21st July).