I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out from the word "whom," in line 40, to the end of the clause.

The title of this Clause is "Amendment as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit." In our opinion, it would be better entitled "Increase of disqualifications for receipt of benefit." The position, as it now stands, is that, under the principal Act, certain disqualifications were laid down as to the receipt of benefits and, under the Act of 1924, modifications were made in relation to those disqualifications. These modifications safeguarded a man from losing his benefit, if he could prove that he was not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute. There was another provision to the effect that the worker should not be disqualified if the stoppage of work was due to an employer of labour acting in such a manner as to contravene the terms of any agreement existing among a group of employers in the district where the stoppage took place or of a national agreement, to either of which employers or employés were contracting parties. The Government now propose to eliminate that provision. It is disconcerting to us that the Government should take this action of encouraging employers to break their agreements.

Under the existing law if an employer or employers are engaged in an industrial dispute, the workers concerned are not entitled to unemployment benefit, but if the employer or employers break an agreement with each other, or with their workers, and if the workers are not parties to the breaking of the agreement, and are not directly concerned with or have not contributed to the breaking of the agreement, then, if unemployment results, the workers are entitled to bene- fit. In other words, if the employer or employers are solely responsible for the breaking of the agreement, and unemployment ensues, the workers are entitled to benefit. I think I have fairly and, I trust, clearly stated the present position. The Government now propose to penalise the workers if they lose their employment through the action of an employer breaking his agreement. The reason given is that, if the employer breaks his agreement, the worker, at the present time, can get unemployment benefit, but if the worker breaks his agreement the employer may not be able to fill the position of the worker. It seems, then, that the Government, in approving of the deletion of this provision, think they are creating equity as between employer and employed. That is very far from being the case. Not only am I concerned with the industrial and economic matters that will arise out of this proposal, but I am very disturbed about the questionable morality underlying the elimination of this provision.

Take the position as it stands. If a worker breaks his agreement he loses his wages and his unemployment benefit. If an employer breaks his agreement, the worker loses his wages but gets unemployment benefit and the employer is not entitled to have the places of the workers filled by the Exchanges. But under the new arrangement, not only will the worker lose wages and benefit if he breaks his own agreement, but he will also lose his wages and benefit if the agreement is broken by the employer. Furthermore, the Government will endorse and justify the breaking of the agreement by the employer by enabling him to fill from the Exchanges such vacancies as may arise. That, in our estimation, is wrong. I have heard the Minister and other hon. Members opposite on more than one occasion utter the old axiom, that two blacks will not make a white. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do in this case, but with all his ability he will not be able to accomplish that remarkable and miraculous feat. Why should the employers have it made easy for them to fill the places of men who are resisting the breaking of an agreement and who are out of work because of an agreement having been broken by the employer? Surely if the employer breaks his agreement the worker is justified in withhold- ing his labour and, if so, is he not also justified in claiming and receiving unemployment benefit? Why should the Minister—though I do not think it is true of him—why should the Government, always show themselves ready and willing to help bad employers against the workers? Why should the Government, as they seem to be doing in this instance, make the profound mistake of helping the bad employer against the good and fair employer?

What does this mean? Broken agreements under this condition will probably extend disputes. At present, if the worker breaks his agreement, he receives no benefit, and 99 trade unions out of 100 will not encourage him by paying him trade union benefits. As a result of that, the dispute is kept within narrow limits. If the employer breaks his agreement and the worker gets unemployment benefit, again the dispute is kept within narrow limits, because it will be recognised that this is merely a matter between the employer and the workers concerned; but if now the worker is to be out of work through the broken agreement of his employer and he is not to receive unemployment benefit, the result will be that other people must interest themselves in the man's position. His trade union must take cognisance of the fact that the man is out of work through a broken agreement by the employer, and consequently there is a great possibility that the dispute will be widened considerably and that other employers will be brought into the field of conflict. When an employer breaks an agreement binding on other employers of labour or binding not only on national and local employers but on national and local organisations of employers and employed, it is not really a dispute between workers and employers; it is in reality a dispute between employers on the one hand and employers on the other hand, and, therefore, the workers should not suffer by the filling of their places or by the withdrawing of their benefits for an infraction of an agreement for which they are in no wise responsible.

I notice that in the Blanesburgh Report we are told that such breaches of agreement by employers are of such a character that discrimination—I suppose, between the rightness and the wrongness of the case—must be based on the merits of the dispute. I would like to ask, Why not? It is far better that right should be done than that wrong by a broken agreement should go unchallenged. We are also told that it is not the duty of the court of referees or the umpire to interpret such industrial agreements of this nature. Again I ask, Why not? Who should interpret them? who does interpret them at the moment? If it is not the court of referees' job or the umpire's job, it should be the job of some person or persons to determine where a worker is out of employment through the wrong action of his employer, and, if so, whether he is in those circumstances entitled to unemployment benefit. If employers of labour are to be allowed to break agreements, thereby penalising their workers, and if they are also to be allowed to fill the places of those workers from the employment exchanges, what is going to happen? That is going to be an encouragement to other employers to follow suit. Bad and untrustworthy employers of labour are a danger to good and trustworthy employers of labour. If agreements are to be terminated, there should be only one way of terminating them, and if they are to be altered, or the provisions of an agreement are to be altered, there should be only one way of doing it, and that is by giving the requisite notice in the properly constituted form to the parties concerned before any agreement is broken or altered.

The right hon. Gentleman comes down to the House in relation to this matter as in relation to others and, under the guise of the Blanesburgh Report, puts forward this recommendation, but the Blanesburgh Committee were not very strenuous in their recommendation insofar as this matter is concerned. They merely said that the balance of advantages lay in the alteration. I have not the least hesitation in saying that every opinion expressed in favour of that view could be easily refuted. I do not believe that the omission of this provision will encourage employers to make long-term agreements. Why should it? Why should the workers be prepared to make long-term agreements after the encouragement given by the Government to the employers to break their agreements? Neither do I believe that the retention of this provision will disturb industrial stability. Rather does it make for industrial stability. It is in the direction of creating confidence between employers and employed to know that, if an employer has done wrong, the Government are not behind him, and I do not believe that the discrimination that now exists is unjust and on the side of the worker, but even if it be, that is no justification for the right hon. Gentleman to come down and more heavily weight the dice against the worker by creating a greater discrimination on the other side. I do not believe that the balance of advantages lies in the omission of the provision. On the contrary, I believe that the balance of advantages will be more on the employers' side when this alteration is made than the balance, if there be any, is on the side of the workers at the present moment.

As I have said, it is rather disconcerting at the present time, when we hear a great deal about the necessity of peace in industry, that the Government by this proposition should come down and let the workers know that they are prepared, in the days that are to come, at least to exonerate, if not to justify, employers of labour in breaking their agreements. The workers suffer if they break their agreements; they lose their wages and the unemployment benefit. The employers merely lose the services of the workers, but withhold their wages if they themselves have broken the agreement. We can only assume that this provision, like so many others in this Bill, is an attempt, not to improve the position of the unemployed, but still further to take advantage of the recommendations of the Blanesburgh Committee to secure that larger and larger numbers of people will be removed from the unemployed list. It is the more hard in this case when we recollect that those who are going to be removed from receiving unemployment benefit are those who are going to be thrown out of work for resisting an agreement being broken by their employer. It should be the duty of the Government to see that, if there is going to be any sacrifice, it shall be in the direction of securing that there shall not be more discontent in connection with this great question of unemployment. I, therefore, have much pleasure in moving the omission of these words.

I happened to be a Member of the Committee of this House in 1924 which considered the Unemployment Insurance Bill of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), and it is because I was a member and because my information is reinforced by personal recollection that I interpose at this moment. Really, the view expressed by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. R. Young), who has just sat down, was one which was very freely debated three years ago, and it was a view with regard to which various Members of the Committee held different opinions. The view of the right hon. Gentleman then in charge of the Bill was frankly one of scepticism. He was doubtful whether this Amendment which was ultimately moved by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer), would in practice work, and whether it would give advantage to those whom it was designed to help. If I might recall to the Committee what happened in 1924, the hon. Member for Broxtowe moved an Amendment upstairs inserting this provision. The right hon. Member for Preston upstairs announced his intention of voting against the Amendment, and on a Division, five voted for its insertion and 18, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, voted against it.

On the Report stage, on the Floor of the House, this matter was raised again, and the hon. Member for Broxtowe moved an Amendment to re-insert these words which had been defeated upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill expressed his doubt whether the proposal would be workable. He first of all announced that he would not put on the Government Whips at all, the Government Whips at that time being of course the Labour Whips. At the same time, he said that he would personally vote in favour of the Clause. I think it only fair to state that the right hon. Gentleman in the discussion upstairs did say that he thought the insertion of the Amendment might prejudice the whole Bill, and it is only fair to him to say that he opposed the Amendment upstairs. However, in the last stage of the proceedings, on Report, the right hon. Gentleman again changed his mind, the Government Whips were put on, and the Amendment was passed without a division. That shows, I think, quite clearly that there was a very grave doubt in the mind of hon. Members in the Committee and those who took part in the discussion on the Report stage as to whether this proposal would or would not be an advantage. The Blanesburgh Committee considered this matter, and received evidence upon it with great care, and they made the recommendation to which the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment has referred.

Really, what it comes down to is—I can put it quite shortly—whether it is a good thing, and to the advantage of all concerned, that the court of referees and the umpire should be put in the position of arbitrator in industrial disputes. Now the view of the Blanesburgh Committee and of the Government is that, in the interests of all concerned, it is most desirable that the umpire and the court of referees should not be put in that position at all, but that industrial agreements should, in the words of the Blanesburgh report, "carry their own sanction," and, in their view, as the result of the experience which has been gained between 1924 and the present day, the provision has been, on the whole, detrimental to the interests of the keeping of agreements, because they find that "the tendency of the Clause is to discourage employers from making long-term agreements, an unfortunate result, inasmuch as such agreements are frequently of great value",

which is of common knowledge. They go on to say— Again, from the point of view of the State, it is urged that anything which tends to disturb industrial stability, is to be avoided. Moreover, Courts of Referees and the Umpire are not set up to interpret industrial agreements of this kind. I can assure the hon. Member who moved this Amendment that it really is not to the advantage of anybody that an authority like the Umpire and the Court of Referees, which is set up for one purpose only, namely, to consider claims to benefit, should be put in the position of arbitrators in disputes that may arise. Therefore, the Blanesburgh Committee came to this very deliberate conclusion in their unanimous Report: After careful consideration of the whole matter we are of opinion that the balance of advantage lies in the omission of the provision altogether. Although at first sight it may appear to be a hardship that benefit should be refused in such a case, we are convinced that, on a larger view, collective bargaining and the authority and usefulness of associations both of employers and workers will be strengthened thereby. In the light of the experience of the last three years, the Government think that the conclusion to which the Committee came was right, and it is in the interest, therefore, of agreements entered into between employers and employed that they have inserted this Clause in the Bill.

I am sorry I have to rise, and that the clock will not allow me to refer to personal matters regarding the Clause in the 1924 Bill. I could show, if I had the time, that the hon. Gentleman omitted to mention certain details of importance, but I am going to devote the few words I have to say to his contention that the provision puts the Umpire and the Court of Referees in the position of an arbitrator. It is not so. Let me put a typical case, which actually occurred. There is an agreement in Lancashire as to the hours of labour between the employers and the employed. Obviously, any employer who breaks that agreement is a traitor to his own body. If an employer breaks that agreement, and the workers refuse to work, they are penalised for refusing to work under the agreement. Could madness go further than that? That is the proposition.

It is a pity that the value which the Parliamentary Secretary places upon the recommendation of the Blanesburgh Report has not been applied to certain other provisions of this Bill. It may be very convenient for him to quote the Report against this Amendment, but, nevertheless, it may be just possible that, even as he has been obliged to admit that the Blanesburgh Committee has not been wise in making certain other recommendations, we may claim that the Committee is certainly wrong in recommending that this particular part of the Section should be omitted. The Mover of the Amendment has already pointed out the effect that this omission will have upon those who are personally interested in the Peace-in-Industry movement. If we are to be told that agreements between employers' associations and trade unions are not to be regarded as sacred—and certainly the deliberate omission of this provision implicates that—then, I am afraid, you are making it much more difficult for those of us who are trying to secure the sanctity of those agreements to succeed in our efforts.

One could understand that if this particular provision were proposed to-day for the first time, it might receive the opposition of the Minister of Labour, but, having once been incorporated in an Act of Parliament, I submit that the approach should be altogether different from that adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary on this occasion. He has not given us any actual instances of this particular part of the Clause acting detrimentally either to the employers, to the men, or to the Courts of Referees and the Umpire. The point that the Umpire is not a fit and proper person—for that is, really, the accusation made by the Parliamentary Secretary—does not seem to me to hold good. Who are the men appointed as umpires? Are they so ignorant of every other aspect of industry that they are not capable of determining whether or not an employer has committed a breach of an existing agreement? These umpires have been trained in a school that enables them to distinguish with the utmost nicety the difference between one position and another in its relation to trade agreements, and I should be prepared to say that that class of umpire is the best possible kind that you could choose to decide whether or not an agreement has been broken, and whether the men are displaced in consequence of a contravention by a particular employer. Where the men are so displaced, it seems to me it is nothing short of a crime to impose a penalty upon them, and to say that those who are affected by that breaking of the agreement by the employer shall not have benefit conferred upon them.

Reference has been made to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) took the privilege of changing his mind on evidence submitted, and it is quite possible for the Parliamentary Secretary himself, during this Debate, to alter his mind for the same reason. I think he will hear, during the discussion, good reason why this part of the original Clause should be preserved. After all, what are we considering? It is as to whether or not benefit shall be paid to men who are thrown out of work in certain circumstances, and those circumstances are covered by a condition of affairs which provides for the observance of trade agreements. It is quite true that in the first part of the Clause the Minister has been good enough to eliminate a certain disqualification, but the slight benefit conferred by that particular Amendment is more than wiped out by the limitations of the qualification provided in the original Section of the 1924 Act. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will think twice before he refuses to accept this Amendment, which is designed just as much in the interest of industrial agreements, as it is in the interest of the men whose position is affected by the omission of this part of the Clause. I hope, before he commits himself, that he will review the reasons given for the passing of this Amendment and accept it.

I think probably all of us who heard the very able and excellent speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, would agree that, from the point of view of the Committee as a whole, the speech was extraordinarily moderate in tone and showed a depth of knowledge of the whole subject which was a welcome change from the average speech which has been produced from the front Opposition bench. I feel that there is a very great deal in the point of view which he put forward. He is well known as one of those men who exercise a very sane and very moderating influence, not only in the country at large, but also in the councils of his own party. I think the Minister would be well advised, if I may be allowed to say so, to give the most careful consideration to, and to weigh very carefully the whole of the details of that speech. I do not wish in any way to criticise the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I think there are one or two points which might fairly be considered at this time. Probably the whole Committee, particularly on this side, would not wish to do anything at the present time which might seem to create a balance either one way or the other in the event of industrial disputes. It is quite obvious, from this point of view, that in the event of an industrial dispute, many of us would, fundamentally, think that, if the employers had deliberately broken an agreement in such a way that it was obvious that they were in the wrong, that in itself should not, primarily, disqualify men who had contributed towards the unemployment fund. I say that primarily it should not disqualify them from obtaining benefit; but there is another point of view.

After all has been said and done, this is a contributory system, and, from the quotations which we have heard to-day, it is clear that in 1924 other people, not so well qualified as the present Minister in charge of the Bill, admitted that there was a doubt as to whether in these cases it was not better on the whole that benefit should not be paid. They had a doubt in their own minds then. May we not fairly assume that this Amendment, in spite of the way in which it is put forward, is really an Amendment which is very nice for an Opposition to put up, but would not be very practicable when you were a Government and had to work it. It has been claimed that if you have an industrial dispute of this kind, the persons who decide whether benefit is to be paid or not are the umpires. These men, if I understand their position, should be kept clearly out of all industrial disputes. They are civil servants whose duty is to decide in individual cases whether a man is out of work and is qualified for drawing benefit. If you have a whole group of men out of work one after the other claiming benefit, and one after the other claiming quite clearly that they are out of work through no fault of their own, it is a most invidious position that that civil servant should have to give a ruling that must have some direct effect on the dispute itself, that these men are actually out of work through the fault of the employer in the industrial dispute. That is the position that would arise. I am not prepared to see in this Bill, or in any other Bill, a man who is dealing with the unemployed put in a position where he may have to deal with industrial disputes in this way.

I think many of us realise there are two sides to this case. I think the Minister is right in his new Clause, and that as matters stand it is inevitable to rule out this provision, but I would like him to say in his reply whether it might not be possible, in a case where there is clear evidence that an industrial dispute has arisen because of the employers having broken their agreement, for some responsible person to have the power to say that the men shall draw benefit—that is, where it is absolutely obvious that the men are in the right and the employers are in the wrong. I think he might be able to alleviate the position of men in circumstances like that, and if he could help in that respect he would be doing something of value. I do not wish to intervene in this Debate for any length of time and I have not, so far, taken any part in this Bill, but I believe this to be a thoroughly sound Bill in the main. If there is the slightest doubt in this matter I hope the Minister will endeavour to meet it, because then he will be removing the only minute doubt which has arisen in my mind as to the inevitable benefits of the Bill to the community as a whole and the industrial workers in particular.

It is not my intention to attempt to follow the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams). It would be practically impossible for me to do so even if I had the desire, as I think I am safe in saying that he changed his mind about six times in the course of that short speech. I can understand his being in a very difficult position, and not knowing exactly how to vote on this Bill, but I think I am right in saying that every time he has voted so far it has been in support of the Government.

I fully know how to vote on the Bill, and I am fully convinced that the Government are right. I was simply saying that as far as this Amendment is concerned I had a slight doubt.

I know that the hon. and gallant Member knows exactly how to vote, though probably his own mind does not lead him in the direction he votes. He told us he had no practical or direct experience in regard to the issue raised in this Clause. I am probably in a unique position. There have been five specific cases where I have had the privilege of applying the latter part of Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1924. In other words, employers have on five occasions made attempts to break agreements which have been entered into with them. On all five occasions that these men have been thrown out of work because the employers broke the agreement I have been successful in inducing the umpire to come to a decision in favour of the workmen concerned. I have in my hand a decision affecting 1,500 men given by the umpire this week. The decision was not given hurriedly. The dispute took place so far back as August, and the men were out of work from the 12th August to the 25th September, The employers gave notice of a reduction in wages which, as we allege, was a breach of an agreement which was to last for three years. We immediately put into operation the latter part of Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1924. The question has gone through various courts, and every investigation has been made by the departmental officers in order to assist the umpire to come to a decision. I am not complaining that the period has been long, because I feel the umpire was justified in getting all the information he could before attempting to come to a decision. I suggest to the hon. Member opposite that the umpire is not put in the position of an arbitrator. He is asked to decide whether certain agreements have been broken by the employers or by the workmen, and if he is satisfied that an agreement has been broken by the employers he is entitled, according to the present Act, to award the workmen unemployed benefit. In this instance the umpire says: Any other interpretation of the agreement would enable the parties to destroy the foundations upon which it was based, and to render illusory the security obtained by the Clause which made the agreement operate over a definite period of three years. The stoppage of work by which the applicants lost their employment was due to the employers giving notice to reduce the base rates by 12 ½ per cent., which, in my view, is a contravention of the terms of the agreement to which both applicants and employers were parties, and the applicants are therefore entitled, to benefit by the terms of Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the No. 2 Act of 1924. The Parliamentary Secretary said that according to the Blanesburgh Report there was no encouragement for employers to enter into long-term agreements. I suggest to him that workmen as well as employers ought to have some safeguard in entering into agreements. If the security is taken away, what is the position when a trade union leader tells a body of his men "We can get a certain agreement, with certain conditions, for a given number of years"? The men say at once "What is the use of that? The employers can break it at any time they like. It is only on paper that it will last two, three, four or five years. If at any time the employer thinks he can gain an advantage by giving notice to break the agreement, he will do so." With Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1924 in operation we can say to the men "No, if the employer does break this agreement you will be entitled to claim unemployment benefit, because the stoppage will not be of your seeking; it will have been the fault of the employer." That will give the men an idea that they have some security in making agreements. It seems to me that all through this Bill the Government have put everything in the way of the workers, making it impossible for men to be able to qualify for unemployment benefit, and now they are giving the employers a further weapon with which to make attacks on the workmen if they wish to reduce wages. I may be wrong in this, but it is my frank opinion that this is a supplementary Act to the Trade Disputes Act.

Under these conditions, we find the Prime Minister advocating peace in industry, and asking trade union leaders to help him to secure peace in industry with a view to putting the nation into a better position from a commercial point of view. Hon. Members opposite who support the Government cry out "Let us have peace in industry," but how can we have peace when the Government do nothing but create war. How can you have peace when you find that men who enter into an agreement for three or four years do not get a shadow of security, and at the same time you are providing more security for employers, giving them the right to bludgeon the workers into any position they like, notwithstanding agreements to the contrary? I ask the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider their position in regard to this Clause.

I have had personal experience of a number of these cases as an agent for the miners, and a good many of these disputes have passed through my hands. In the case of the first dispute, immediately it was known that the men were going to receive unemployment benefit the employers opened the pits on the same day. The owners did this because they knew that they would have to stand to their agreement. The other case I gave is practically the same.

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he takes away from the Act that particular security he will be saying to the men, or at any rate he will be putting into their minds the idea that they must avoid making long term agreements. By adopting the course laid down in this Clause you are simply telling these men that they have no security in any agreements into which they may enter. For these reasons I ask the Minister of Labour to reconsider his position, and I am sure if he makes further inquiries he will not only be able to find cases like those to which I have referred, but dozens of other similar cases which have been an advantage to industry and to the country generally. If the Government are sincere in their desire for peace in industry they should make an honest attempt to achieve that object by taking out Clause 6 and allowing the old Clause to remain as it is in the present Act. By doing that the Government would be giving some assurance to the workmen in the industry.

The hon. Member means the latter part of the Clause:

Yes.

I only desire to intervene on a technical point. It has been said that those on my side of the House have little practical knowledge of unemployment; but as one of the first Chairmen of Courts of Referees I think I may claim to speak on this matter. The point has been raised as to whether an agreement which has been made and broken by an employer could be taken for interpretation before the Court of Referees. I ask the Committee carefully to consider this point. The Court of Referees consists of an impartial Chairman with assessors who frankly take sides. Surely it is asking a good deal too much to put upon such a Court the onus to decide what is in fact a question for arbitration between two sides to a dispute rather than for it to discuss facts which may later on have to be interpreted by the Umpire. What the Court of Referees is required to do is not to interpret the law or decide whether the employer or the men have broken an agreement, but to find out all the facts and apply these in accordance with the Act. In those circumstances, if there is any difficulty in regard to the interpretation on which they make a decision they know that that decision will probably be taken to the Umpire. Whatever the Minister does, I hope he will not place upon the Court of Referees a duty which belongs entirely to some other body.

12 n.

Whilst the Minister of Labour was making his case against this Amendment and whilst one of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters was taking up practically the same attitude, I noticed the Solicitor-General standing at the Bar and he was smiling and he smiled again. I think he had good reasons to smile because the very arguments which were being put from the Treasury Bench were exactly the opposite from those used by the Solicitor-General when he was dealing with the Trade Disputes Act. What is the argument which has been put forward by the Government against the Amendment? It is that the Court of Referees will be prejudiced, or rather the arbitration award will be prejudiced, by anything that the Court of Referees may do, as far as allowing benefits to the men who are unemployed through a breach of an agreement. What did the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General say in this House when they were dealing with the same question in the discussions on the Trade Disputes Act. I remember an application for an interlocutory judgment to restrain trade unions from expending their funds for certain purposes. Under the Law an injunction may be obtained to hold up the Funds, and in asking this House to give the Government the power it was argued that if it were granted it would not prejudice the merits of a particular case.

I do not deny that when a Court of Referees is deciding a claim of this sort they must have regard to the fact that what they do will be considered as a relevant factor in the case when the particular merits come to be tried before an arbitration court. But although that may be so, it does not follow from the fact that a Court of Referees has given benefits to the men on the merits of the case that the Court of Arbitration will follow suit and say the men are bound to be right because the Court of Referees said they were entitled to benefit. That no more follows than it would follow to say that in a case sent from the County Court to the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords for final arbitration those tribunals would follow suit one after another. We know that the decisions of a county court are sometimes reversed in the Court of Appeal or when the case comes to another place here, although we cannot deny that when the case thus goes to appeal it will be considered.

With regard to arbitration itself, arbitration does not necessarily follow on a decision by the court of referees. The society of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, my own society, and about 45 other societies, are in this position to-day, that we have an appeal for an advance of wages, but the employers are refusing to go to arbitration. It does not necessarily follow that, after the Court of Referees have given their decision, there will be an arbitration at all It is a most serious matter for a Minister of the Crown in the House of Commons to put before us, who have spent our lives in industrial negotiations, a proposal of this kind. As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) has said, it is one of the inducements that we hold out to our men, when entering into an agreement, that the law of the country will protect them, and that at least they will get unemployment benefit if they are clearly in the right. Up and down the country we have schedules of prices which are solemnly entered into, with a signed covenant that they shall not be broken without due notice, and, if an employer of labour defies his own association or federation and breaks through such an agreement, throwing his men automatically out on to the street, are those men to be deprived of benefit? If that be out on to the street, are those men to be deprived of benefit? If that be the intention of the Minister, it is a most serious proposition.

I want to emphasise what has been said by two or three hon. Members regarding the endeavours that have been made for peace in industry. Every sane man wants peace in industry, but we do not want peace at any price, and we are not going to have peace under these conditions. The position is most serious, and I note that even Members on the opposite side have said that the rejection of this Amendment will make things infinitely worse in the country. We are working to a time schedule, and I understand that we have to divide in a few minutes, but much more could be said on this Amendment. I would earnestly impress upon the Minister that what he is doing is not going to be conducive to good relationships between employers and labour in this country.

I do not want to take up time unduly, and I will answer the points that have been raised as, briefly as I can. I have very great sympathy with what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Commander Williams). This is a case of the balance of advantage one way or the other. It is perfectly right and justifiable for hon. Members to give the reasons on both sides, and that is what I have endeavoured to think of myself. I am not going to shelter my self behind the Blanesburgh Report. It seems to be thought by some that we are willing to pick and choose from that Report, taking those points which suit us and ignoring those which do not—

That is what you have been doing all through this Bill.

I have been following the Report with one main exception. I am not going to argue again how far this is a proper set of subjects to bring before either a Court of Referees or an Umpire. This type of subject, namely, the keeping of agreements, would be perfectly appropriate for the Chairman of the Industrial Court to consider, but I am not at all sure that it is the kind of subject which an umpire—who under this system is in an entirely different position—ought necessarily to be called upon to consider, or which it is of advantage to call upon him to consider. I am not certain whether hon. Members opposite will believe me, but I am saying exactly what I think myself. I am very anxious to have agreements kept, and I am not in the least degree moved by trying to give an advantage to one side or the other in industry. I think that on the whole this is a right Clause and a right provision, and I will give my reasons.

The hon. Member who moved this Amendment did so, I think, under a misunderstanding of the actual results of the Clause. Let me try to explain it. If I am not quite as clear as I would hope to be, it is the result, perhaps, of my having a good deal of explanation to make and a good deal of worry during the past week. With regard to trade disputes, the existing state of the law, as apart from this question of agreement is this: Workers engaged in a trade dispute do not get benefit; that is a point against them. On the other hand, the places that are vacant by reason of a trade dispute cannot be offered to other workers, or at any rate the refusal of places vacant by reason of a trade dispute is no cause of disqualifying other workers from themselves getting benefit. That is a proviso of Section 7 of the Act of 1920. The hon. Member will see that one of these conditions acts against the workmen who are unemployed, and the other acts as a protection for the workmen who are unemployed by reason of a trade dispute.

Practically it amounts to this, that it prevents the insurance system from being brought in to try and bias the scales on one side or the other so far as a trade dispute is concerned. That is the object of both of the conditions together. From what the hon. Member said, he appears to think that the result of this Clause would be to take away the second part, which is a protection to the workers, and that it would allow their places to be offered to other workmen who, if they did not accept them, would be disqualified for benefit. That would not follow from this Clause at all. Whether an employer be guilty of a breach of a national agreement or not, if a trade dispute occurs it will be perfectly open, if this Clause be passed, for other workers who are not employed to refuse to take the vacant places, without that refusal acting to disqualify them for receiving benefit. I think the hon. Member who moved this Amendment was afraid that it would act as a disqualification, and that that was one of his reasons—

I want to be assured that, in the event of men being thrown out of work through the employer breaking an agreement, the vacant places will not be taken by people sent from the employment exchange.

That is certainly the case; the Clause does not remove the second of these conditions, which, as I have said, acts to the advantage of the workmen. They will be able to take full advantage of it if this Clause be passed just as they were before, and I would not wish to take it away in those circumstances.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? What redress has a workman if an employer breaks an agreement and the workman loses his benefit? What legal redress has the workman then under this Section of British law?

I wish the Attorney-General were here. [ Interruption. ] I can answer most of the legal questions with regard to my own Bill, but that is quite a general question. I think that any lawyer would give the hon. Member the answer for which he wishes, which is that in case of a breach of agreement the person who is damaged by the breach of agreement has ground for an action at law against the other. That interruption was not in point as regards this matter, and the apprehension of the hon. Member is perfectly ground less. As was the case before this Clause was introduced, a workman who is thrown out of work by reason of a trade dispute can be satisfied that he has this right, that his place cannot be offered to some other person who is induced to take it because otherwise he would be disqualified. The workman will be safe if this Clause is passed, precisely to the same extent as before. That takes away the first great apprehension that he expressed. My first reason for supporting this Clause is not that it creates inequality between the two parties to a dispute, but that it really puts them on an equality, and I would ask hon. Members opposite to note what otherwise would be the result if the present state of the law were continued. At present, that provision that slipped through in the previous Bill at a fairly late stage, with a good many misgivings—

We had a capacity for slipping things through.

Certainly, we did not obstruct. That which was slipped through was accepted with misgivings. It gives an advantage to one side only. There would be a perfectly necessary logical corollary, and it would be this, that, if on the other side, work- men were guilty and went out in a dispute in breach of an agreement themselves, they ought to suffer some sort of penalty of the same kind.

They do not only suffer from the legal standpoint, but from the standpoint of the trade unions as well. We have had some 30 years' experience of this matter.

I am talking now of the same kind of penalty. A disqualification which would balance this if it were continued, and which ought logically and necessarily to be introduced, would be that if workmen broke an agreement and went out their places should be offered to others. What is sauce for the goose is really sauce for the gander. If a workman is to get benefit when an employer breaks a general agreement, the necessary and perfectly logical counterpart, which could not in justice be refused, is that if the workmen broke their agreement their places should be offered, which they cannot be now, to other people and a refusal would be a disqualification for benefit. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a stretch of the imagination!"] It is not a stretch of the imagination at all. It is a perfectly natural counterpart,

and no one really can claim that what is sauce for the goose should not be sauce for the gander. Id o not want that to happen either. It is a necessary and logical counterpart, but, of course, it is not one that hon. Members opposite would accept, and that is why I say, perfectly genuinely and honestly, that to try to twist an Insurance Act into an instrument which it was not intended to be, is to make a misuse of it. If you do it for one side, you have to do it for the other. I do not believe the present provision is a great protection. You do not really promote the cause of industrial peace in this way at all, and every one knows I have tried to do so to the best of my ability. What I am urging is that a provision of this kind is put forward under an utterly mistaken idea of the consequences to which it will lead. The Clause does not have the effect the hon. Member apprehended, and to proceed on other lines would be to lead to developments which, if not disastrous, would be very regrettable, and I think regretted by hon. Members opposite as much as by anyone on this side of the House.

Question put, "That the words 'and as if' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 86.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 40, to leave out the word "all," and to insert instead thereof the words "there were substituted for."

The effect of this Amendment and the following Amendment, if carried, will be that the Act will read: 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 him and a trade union. Our desire is, that the present conditions of things, dealing, as it does, with a group of employers and with national agreements, should give place to the individual employer and his agreement with a trade union. If I wanted to call evidence in support of the Amendment, I should need only to quote the remarks made earlier this morning by the Parliamentary Secretary, and by the Minister in his last statement. Indeed, both those statements went to prove that if there are any difficulties under the present wording they would absolutely disappear if you narrow the Clause down to the definite agreement entered into between the employer and the trade union, although I am not convinced that the present condition in the existing Act has done other than prove very useful. No difficulties have arisen. its application has worked fairly smoothly. There has been no question of taking sides. There has been no question of an employer being unfairly dealt with, but the employé has had some degree of safeguard, except in the case where a national group of employers have had a local breakaway from their own association. There, difficulties have accrued in consequence. I was somewhat taken aback by the Minister's sudden acceptance of an Amendment of mine yesterday, but I shall be ready on this occasion if he will now get up and say, "I accept the Amendment that you are now proposing."

I feel that the Amendment will make one of the greatest contributions towards stability and understanding in industry generally. If he does not accept it, this is the position he will create. If Clause 6 of the Bill goes through as at present worded, he will get a position in which employers will break from their own associations, and will break the agreement that they have made with the trade union. They will know full well that the penalty will fall on the members of the trade union in being refused benefit at the Employment Exchange, although they paid for that benefit and have committed no crime or error that would justify their exclusion from a right to it. All the balance of advantage will go to the employer who is desirous of breaking the agreement, and of upsetting the terms and conditions within a section of his industry. He will use the disqualification of the men as an extra pressure to compel acceptance of a breach of contract that the employers and the trade union have entered into.

If you consider the balance of advantage to the nation and the Fund and you hold the balance evenly between the various contributors, you will find that the balance will fall positively on the side of peace in industry, on the side of the honouring and the continued honouring of agreements; but, if on the other hand, you allow agreements to be broken, you at once begin to give opportunities for those who are antagonistic to the Whitley Councils and the Joint Industrial Councils, the machinery of which we desire to be made more effective, more useful and more salutary. We are always urging the national body of employers to keep a tight check upon some of the worst types in their organisations who are constantly attempting to break the area agreements entered into between the employers' associations and the trade unions.

If you allow this Clause to go without the proviso which I seek to insert, you will leave the field open for action of the kind I have indicated. I know of five or six principal industries where you will have sections of employers in certain parts of the country, where the distress is keen and where unemployment is rampant, seizing the opportunity to commit a breach of agreement by endeavouring to impose conditions worse than those covered in the agreement. They will break up the possibility of the stabilisation of agreements such as are now going on for one or two years as an earnest of continued peace. They will take advantage of the men isolated from the Exchange. They will go to the Exchange and the Exchange manager will only be able to say that there is a dispute at a certain place by reason of the employer committing a breach of agreement, and that same agent of the employer—what I am about to say is absolutely true—if he cannot get his labour supplied properly through the machinery of the Employment Exchange he will be outside the Employment Exchange amongst the groups of men outside, and will offer to take them direct from the street into his works, under circumstances of the new imposition which represents a breach of his agreement. If that be so, surely we are justified in asking that as there have been no adverse consequences, no outcry or at any rate no cry of any magnitude against the present provisions, then if there be any doubt of the effect in the future let us alter slightly the wording of the Bill and make it clear that any employer who breaks his national agreement or breaks an agreement with a trade union will not be in a position to add to those acts a penalising act with respect to men securing unemployment benefit.

A great part of the remarks of the hon. Member in moving the Amendment would have been as relevant to the Amendment which we have just decided as the present one, and I do not want to repeat the arguments used by my right hon. Friend in saying that we cannot accept the Amendment. In one respect this Amendment goes further than the other. If I understand it rightly, it will limit the relief claimed to cases where there is an agreement between the employers and the trade union. The hon. Member will see at once that that would be limiting the relief, on which we set such great store, to those who are members of a trade union. That is a sample of class legislation to which I am sure none of us would like to give countenance. We cannot legislate against groups of persons who do not happen to belong to trade associations.

The only thing I desired to emphasise was that the agreements properly established indicated and understandable, are only those agreements which exist as between groups of employers and respective trade unions. There are no other agreements that I know of.

I am not sure that I can accept that as a complete statement of the situation. In any case, to accept an Amendment which would give relief to those who may belong to a trade union and to deny it to others would, I think, be accepting a principle which would be unacceptable to the House in general.

The point of view taken by the average trade unionist in connection with a Bill of this kind would be that they are contributing for the day of adversity when they may become unemployed, and unless the Government accept the Amendment those people will natur-

ally say that as the result of an injustice on the part of the employer who has broken from the association they are being penalised. They will go further and in ordinary parlance say that they are being twisted out of something to which they are legitimately entitled, seeing that they will not be in any way responsible for the breaking of the agreement. They will say that they are being penalised for the bad conduct of the employer or a body of employers. It is not a question of class legislation and it is not a matter of putting the bias one way or another. We are simply asking that the men or women concerned should be given that to which they are legitimately entitled, seeing that they have contributed towards it, when a dispute arises as a result of the conduct of an employer or a body of employers. On strictly moral grounds they are entitled to benefit. That is the point of view taken by the average member of a trade union.

I do not think hon. Members opposite desire to prolong this discussion, but the short answer to the point that has been raised is that it illustrates the danger of Amendments which bring in the umpire and court of referees, involving them in the construction of agreements and, therefore, in trade disputes.

Question put, "That the word 'all' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 91.

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

If we allow this Clause to go to a Division without discussion it must not be understood that we have not profound objection to it and that we do not think the law is not in need of strengthening instead of weakening.

I want to say one word. I want it to be on record so that the employers in the steel and tin plate industries will know that I have expressed in the House of Commons what I have said outside for the last 30 years. In the steel trade we have had a conciliation board and have developed it into a Whitley Council during the last 40 years, and we have never had a single general strike during that period. But we have had guerilla warfare with some unscrupulous employers. The employers have tried to impress upon the trade union leaders in these trades the advisability of bringing the unscrupulous into the conciliation board so that influence might be brought to bear on them. This Clause is the most reactionary thing that has been done in relation to a conciliation board or a Whitley Council during the past 30 or 40 years, because it is giving an opening for unscrupulous employers to break away from agreements, and, first, to deprive the men of their benefit and then to force down wages and conditions.

Secondly, the Clause is the biggest swindle possible. If a workman breaks an agreement he is not entitled to benefit, and we are agreeable. The trade union will back any employer where a man breaks an agreement. Under this Clause the employers can break agreements, and the men are then to be deprived of their benefit. I protest against the Clause, and I always will protest against it, not only in this House, but on every platform in the country.

After listening to the speech of the Minister of Labour I am quite satisfied that any applicant for the position of secretary of an employers' federation will have only to make that speech to secure the job.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 93.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 2, after the word "the" to insert the word "fraudulent."

This Amendment is to be taken in conjunction with the Amendment standing next on the Paper, which proposes to leave out from the word "fact" in line 3 to the word "has" in line 4, and to insert instead thereof the words: and not by reason of the failure of the responsible authority for determining the claim to elicit all the material facts. The Amendment is one to which, I hope, the Minister will give his attention. I give the Committee one case which seems to put in a nutshell the injustice caused by the present state of affairs. The Miners' Federation run a weekly paper called "The Miner." For some weeks they ran a short story competition in order to encourage miners to write stories about their own lives and their conditions. One week the competition was won by an unemployed miner in South Wales, and the prize, which was one guinea, was sent to him. The fact that he had won the prize was published in the paper with his name and address. When he next went to the Employment Exchange he was accused of having received his unemployment pay for the previous week under false pretences, because he had, in fact, earned a guinea, and he was threatened with prosecution. It is easy to argue that he had actually earned a guinea in that week, but he is quite a youngster, and the idea of regarding his prize as "earnings" never occurred to him. It was to him a bolt from the blue, a perfectly gorgeous extra, and he was even more pleased at winning the competition than at getting the guinea. It never crossed his mind that he ought to have said that he had got this guinea. It was surely a little hard on a young man, who had been unemployed for weeks and who was receiving the miserable pittance of unemployment pay, that his prize should have been regarded as earnings; but that would not have been so bad had he not been threatened with prosecution and the disgrace of being accused of receiving money under false pretences. I think the prosecution was actually stopped by representations from influential persons, but the man had to pay back the money. I am not complaining about his having had to pay back the money, though I think it was very hard lines on him. What I feel is that in these cases we ought to consider whether a man is fraudulently refraining from disclosing certain important facts. If he is not acting fraudulently he ought not to be penalised.

I come to a second point, namely, that the worker ought not to be penalised by having to repay the money received, if the non-disclosure of relevant facts was due to the fault of the responsible authority in not taking the trouble to find out those facts. The workers do not know all the intricacies of the law. They do not know what has to be disclosed and what has not to be disclosed, and, quite naturally, they tend to assume that the thing which they have to disclose is the amount of any wages which they may have earned. The Exchange official ought to be the person to elicit the facts by asking the necessary questions. It seems extraordinarily unfair that, weeks after a case has been tried, when some other facts come to light, the man or woman concerned should be penalised not for their own fault at all but for the fault of the responsible authority. It is difficult for people who are on the verge of starvation, as these people are when trying to live on unemployment pay, to meet a demand for repayment of that kind. They have to spend, immediately, every farthing they receive on necessities, and it is a terrible thing to them if they are faced with a demand for the repayment of a lump sum weeks after they have received the money. I have a case in point where a girl had received six weeks payments. It was discovered that, on some technical point, she should not have received those payments and she was faced with the demand for the repayment of the whole amount.

The only thing a worker can do in such circumstances is to get into debt and I have had cases brought to my notice where workers have incurred debts at high rates of interest in order to meet demands of this kind. Where it is a question of fraud and of workers deliberately withholding relevant information, I am not defending them, though, Heaven knows, they have sufficient excuse. I am dealing with cases where there has been a real mistake, and, sometimes, not a mistake on the part of the unemployed person but on the part of the authority. As we have gone through this Bill, piling up Clause after Clause to make it more difficult for people to receive benefit, I have come to the conclusion that a museum of the next century ought to preserve somewhere a specimen of a worker who managed to achieve his benefit in the year 1928 and that specimen should be marked "Rare Exhibit". In connection with a Bill which is doing so much to make it difficult for people to get benefit, I would appeal to the Minister to consider an Amendment of this kind, and by accepting it, to make a generous gesture to people who are in such difficulties. The repayments to the Exchequer in the cases covered by the Amendment, if added up, are paltry in the extreme. A few pounds or perhaps a few hundred pounds would mean nothing to the Exchequer but to the individual homes faced with the payment of these amounts, and with the prospect of debt, for no fault of their own it means real calamity. The Minister will get his Bill. It is being steam-rollered through Parliament by his vast majority. Cannot he in this one case make a concession by accepting the Amendment which I have moved?

I must ask to have this Clause, but I do not think there is really much involved in it. There are two kinds of over-payment at the present moment. The first is payment through a clerk's error, that is a payment in excess of an authorisation, when a clerk pays over the wrong money. As it has been and as it is at the present moment the person who receives money under those conditions is liable to repayment. There is another kind of over-payment, and that is what is called payment under an incorrect authorisation, where, for example, in ignorance of material facts, benefit is paid which is not really deserved or merited. It was thought that the recipient was liable to repay a sum of that kind just as much as a sum received through the error of the clerk, and it is only because doubt has been cast on whether that was the case that we want to bring the actual law for certainty into conformity with practice. What we are proposing to do in this Clause follows the law with regard to health contributions. We are only making quite certain that what has been considered to be the law shall be the law. In that case, it is only in conformity with the law with regard to health insurance. It is nothing more than that, and it does not affect the question of prosecutions. If a person received money in good faith, it could not be a question of prosecution. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is!"] No, there could never be any prosecution.

Do I understand, therefore, that in those cases where they have terrorised people into paying money back they have had no legal right to do so, and it is only this Clause that gives that legal right?

No, but I should say distinctly that if a person has received money in perfectly good faith and is then asked to pay it back and refuses to do so, then, of course, once the fact is known that he or she is not entitled to it, but yet refuses to pay it back, that is a different state of affairs. But if the receiving of it and the keeping of it are in good faith, so long as they are in good faith, that could not be a subject for prosecution. Our practice has been that, while we thought this was actually the law—and this Clause is only intended to remove a doubt—if money has to be repaid it is never asked for in a lump sum in any case where there is any hardship, but is spread over a length of time till the repayment is made.

I would say one thing more with regard to the point put by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and who said that the insurance officer ought to know. The facts of the case are that questions are put by the proper person, that is, by the insurance officer or at the present time by the rota committee sometimes, to try to elicit all the material facts, but those facts differ in each case, and while as a rule the questions that are put by people accustomed to put them do elicit the material facts, it may quite well be that in the infinite variations of individual cases a material fact may not be elicited. It may be no fault of the questioner, but in the great majority of cases the applicant really knows whether the fact is material or not. That is the actual state of the case at the present time, and for the most part there is a readiness to repay any sum which is received in error. If this is not the law, I, as the Minister of Labour, have no right to receive such a sum from a person who is anxious to repay it, and it should go into the Treasury, but not to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Neither the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) nor I would, I am sure, want the Treasury to benefit at the expense of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I hope, with this explanation, the objections to this Clause may have been removed.

I have experienced the usual disappointment at the reply of the Minister. We were only asking for a little human touch in this matter, and it is obvious that we are going to be refused even that much. The Minister rightly said that this Clause does not deal with prosecutions, but I submit that if a man has been drawing benefit for several weeks in the belief that he was entitled to it, when he is down and out, and then he is called upon by the Ministry to repay what he has already received, if that is not a prosecution, I would like to know what is. An hon. Friend suggests that it would be persecution under these circumstances, and I quite agree. I submit that we are not seeking in any way to relieve anyone who has been making a fraudulent claim, nor are we seeking to withhold material facts from being submitted. We still believe that all material facts ought to be submitted, but I am sure that the Minister's experience will be that there will have been hundreds of cases where, through not submitting some little information which has afterwards been seized upon by the officials, men have been called upon to repay sums of money when they are not in a position to repay them and when they had received them genuinely believing they were entitled to them. I trust that, despite the difficulty with which people who have to get unemployment benefit are faced and despite what the Minister has already said, he will reconsider this matter and accept the Amendment, not to weaken the administration nor to make more easy the claims which have to be made, but at least to satisfy those who have made honest claims and submitted material facts, but who may not have said something which afterwards may be construed as justifying the repayment of the sum. I trust the Minister will accept the Amendment, which safeguards the Fund, but at the same time seeks to do justice by any unfortunate individual who may have made his appeal in good faith.

They say that an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory, and I would like to submit to the Minister in support of the Amendment an experience that happened in my borough to prove that the application of these details is serious. As a friendly act to ex-service men in that town, it was arranged between the officials of the Stratford Employment Exchange and the British Legion that a dozen ex-service men who were recipients of unemployment pay should be given jobs as polling clerks at the municipal election. That is to say, it was officially arranged, and it must not be thought that it was something which the officials did not know. The men were regular recipients of unemployment pay and had been for some time, but they got 30s. each for the day's work at the municipal election. They drew their unemployment pay for that particular week in the ordinary course, and though they were committing a technical error, they thought we had done them a good turn as ex-service men. Six weeks later they received summonses to appear at the local police-court for taking unemployment pay under false pretences. I know that this is so, because I intervened and went to the legal department of the Ministry of Labour in Whitehall, and, but for the friendly assistance of outsiders with some influence, those men would have been subjected to fines imposed upon them in the local court. As a matter of fact, they were compelled to attend at the Stratford Police Court, and they expressed their regret, which I believe they honestly felt, but the point is that those men honestly did what they did under the impression that that day's pay was not necessarily wages, coming, as it did, just once in a year. But they were subjected to treatment which, obviously, was persecution, and would have been prosecution.

Therefore, although I aim not approving what they did, and am only saying that what they did was under the best of intentions, I am sure the Clause as it is is harsh in its incidence, and the Amendment we are submitting will be beneficial and helpful. We do not want help for people who are deliberately endeavouring to be fraudulent in their intentions, but, in the circumstances indicated, which are actual facts, the incidence of this Clause will inflict hardship upon many people, and, in the light of the actual experience I have put to him, I do hope the Minister will reconsider the position.

It must be plain, I think, that one has to lay down the rule that only persons who are properly qualified shall receive benefit, and it follows that if anybody who is not properly qualified receives it, he must, as a rule, be liable to repay. I am bound to say I do not think that the insertion of the word "fraudulent" is a good Amendment. It is quite true that hard cases arise, and it has been said, I think with some wisdom, that hard cases make bad law, and if you are going to put in the word "fraudulent," it will be necessary in all cases to prove fraudulent intention. I am afraid that would be, in many cases, a practical impossibility, and it would almost cut away the foundation of what must be a rule, that people have prima facie liability to repay what they have drawn in error. But I just throw forward the respectful suggestion to the Minister that it might be possible—I do not know whether it is—for turn to give consideration to some of those cases of which we have heard, by putting in some proviso to the effect that the committee shall have a discretion in certain circumstances to disregard the liability, and deal with the case upon its merits. I do not know whether such a proviso is a possibility, but I respectfully suggest it for the Minister's consideration.

Providing it is not understood as any undertaking on my part, before the Report stage I will see if what has been suggested can be done. I do not want hon. Members to think afterwards that I have not carried out an undertaking if I do not think it possible. The problem in my mind is this. This is really a matter of administrative machinery as apart from principle that I must really get careful advice upon it. I would like if I could to meet the admitted cases of hardship, because I realise that it is hard upon a person who, six or seven weeks afterwards, is asked to repay, even although by instalments. That is what I feel. As hon. Members know, I go under the Gallery very often to make quite sure that what I say is correct. On this difficult matter I would like to be quite sure. One has to consider how far it can really be done and what the effect would really be.

There is admittedly hardship in some cases. When there is a mistake of this kind, we have to ascertain the circumstances, and, humanly speaking, we do not quite know what has happened for two or three weeks. Of course, if it were made a rule that we should let people off, hon. Members opposite will realise that the temptation would be very great indeed not to disclose the facts. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough

(Miss Wilkinson) will agree with me that, of course, one does not want to give inducement to people not to disclose the facts. The pressure upon people is great, and it is quite natural—I am not putting it too high—that they might not search their memories so successfully as they otherwise would if they thought they might get away with it. I have that real difficulty, and, if I may be quite candid, I think it would be hard to devise any method of meeting a certain number of hard cases which exist without opening the door too much to people who might otherwise, as I say, lose control over their memory under pressure of circumstances. I do not want to hold out too much expectation, but, if I can, I shall be only too glad to meet the suggestion, though I am not sure that it will be possible.

I think we shall have to go into the Lobby to record our opinion as to the word "fraudulent," but, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I would ask my hon. Friends to drop discussion on this Amendment, and satisfy themselves by taking a vote. If I may, I would quote against him the words of Danton which the right hon. Gentleman used against me the other day:

De l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace.

Question put, "That the word 'fraudulent' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 96: Noes, 192.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, to leave out the words "one hundred and twenty," and to insert instead thereof the word "seventy-five."

This is the first of a series of Amendments by which my right hon. Friend is prepared to substitute 75s. for 120s.; 60s. for 100s.; 37s. 6d. for 60s., and 30s. for 50s. in the paragraphs to be substituted for paragraph ( a ) of the proviso to Subsection (1) of Section 17 of the Principal Act. I need not detain the Committee for more than a minute. The main object of the present Clause is to ensure that the association retains some financial interest in the payment of State benefit and add some benefit from its own funds. The Clause states, in effect, that on each occasion when the association pays out State benefit it shall pay a small sum out of its own pocket. If for any reason the association discontinues paying its own benefit then the claimant or the recipient must be referred for his State benefit to the Exchange. I do not think that I am putting it unfairly when I say that this matter has been the subject of discussion with hon. Members opposite, and we have come to what I think we are justified in saying is a fair compromise as to the amounts to be inserted in this Bill.

On behalf of the trade unions especially concerned, I want to express their appreciation for the way that they have been met on this particular Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 6, line 41, leave out the words "one hundred," and insert instead thereof the word "sixty."

In page 7, line 2, leave out the words "sixty shillings," and insert instead thereof the words "thirty-seven shillings and sixpence."

In page 7, line 3, leave out the word "fifty," and insert instead thereof the word "thirty."—[ Mr. Betterton. ]

I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out the words from the word "year," in line 6, to the end of Sub-section (1).

This Amendment raises an important question from the point of view of those trade unions which under Section 17 of the principal Act are administering unemployment insurance. It is clear, of course, and one admits the case made by the Government, that a union which is administering unemployment insurance on behalf of the State ought to have a financial standing, and that has been provided for in the first part of the Clause and in the Amendment which we have just adopted. At the same time, difficulties may conceivably arise under the latter part of the Sub-section, the deletion of which I am now moving.

Is the Amendment to leave out Paragraph ( a, iv)?

Yes.

That is not the Amendment on the Paper.

As I understand it, a union when it pays out State benefit will be required to pay out some sum from its own funds. When it happens, as will frequently be the case, that trade union payments are exhausted, then it will not be possible for the trade union to continue to administer the fund in respect of those particular applicants whose rights to trade union out-of-work pay are exhausted, and those persons will then become direct claimants on the Exchequer. One can conceive that the effect will be to give rise to a situation in which you have a number of people who are direct claimants and then, after a period, become indirect claimants, and that, I submit, is likely to cause confusion to the Ministry itself, and certainly to the unions. I see no evidence that there have been cases of mal-administration by trade unions, and the fact that the man is a member of a union and that the union has certain financial responsibilities for the man ought to be sufficient protection. It may be said that these words are qualified by the words Subject to the prescribed exceptions and so on; but we are very much in the dark as to how this provision is going to affect the unions in practice, and our feeling is that while the Government have met us with regard to the aggregate payments to be made by reducing the figures to those which, in fact, operate at the present time, they may be undoing the advantage they have given us unless they can meet us in some way on a later portion of the Sub-section. Personally, I am anxious that trade unions should continue to administer this insurance, feeling that it is a good thing for the unions and for the State. Every encouragement ought to be given to trade unions to exercise their powers under Section 17 of the principal Act, but I am afraid that, as the Bill now stands, the effect will be to discourage rather than to encourage trade unions to come into partnership with the State in the administration of the Act. I move the deletion of these words in order to make our position perfectly clear, that is that we say that the conditions which are to be imposed upon the trade unions will inevitably discourage them from carrying on their work and will lead them and the Ministry into administrative complications, because of the alterations as between direct claims made to the Ministry of Labour and claims in respect of the same person made through the trade unions. I hope that now that the Government find themselves in a mood for concessions they will give us a little more on this Clause for the satisfaction of the trade unions.

If there is any impression in the mind of the hon. Gentleman that there is any charge of mal-administration against the trade unions, I will say at once that nothing is further from my intention than to make such a charge. We are just as anxious as hon. Members opposite that the present arrangements for the administration of these funds should remain. The effect of paragraph (iv) which the hon. Member seeks to leave out is shortly this: It is to ensure that an arrangement made or continued with an association for the payment of State benefit will be such as to ensure that in general, subject to the maximum period of duration, some private benefit will be payable on each occasion on which State benefit is payable. The provision is necessary for this reason, that it has been our experience that associations having arrangements have sometimes continued payment of State benefit long after the private benefit had ceased, doubtless owing to the exceptionally long periods of unemployment which have occurred in recent years. The hon. Member asked about the words "subject to the prescribed exceptions" referred to in the Clause.

I am not quite sure where we stand. The words "subject to the prescribed exceptions" occur in both paragraph ( a, iv) and (1A). I understood the hon. Member only intended to leave out paragraph ( a, iv), although of course the actual words of the Amendment as on the Paper carry us to the end of the Sub-section.

I have moved this Amendment in the absence of an hon. Member. My mind was a little rusty about it, but I was under the impression that the Amendment as I moved it went down to the words "this section," that is to say, included paragraph (ii) as well as paragraph ( a ), (iv).

I also understand that the hon. Gentleman was limiting himself to the deletion of paragraph ( a ) (iv), and, if so, I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

I understand that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Duncan) should go down to the words "not been made" at the end of paragraph ( a ) (iv).

I am willing to allow a discussion to be taken on both points if it be the wish of the Committee.

Then I will deal with the second point. It is absolutely necessary in our view that some reasonable degree of elasticity should be allowed in requiring an association to pay benefits because the rules of the association governing the eligibility for benefit may differ slightly from the rules of the State scheme. For this reason it is not desirable to insist on anything like fixed or rigid forms. We desire to have that degree of elasticity which is absolutely essential to the smooth working of any arrangement which is made. That is why we insert the words Subject to the prescribed exceptions. It is contemplated that the effect of those words will be to say that an association may pay State benefit for a period not exceeding four weeks although the man for the time being is not receiving his association benefit. A case might arise in which a man is temporarily not receiving association benefits because he has not paid his contributions. Therefore we think that in the interests of everyone it is desirable that we should insert the words named in the paragraph.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 95.

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

Mr. Benjamin Smith.

On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Hope, if there is any other means of raising the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney)—in page 7, line 34, at the beginning, to insert the words: Except where the Minister is satisfied that the terms of employment in any undertaking or associated undertakings are such as to secure to the persons so employed benefits on the whole more favourable than the benefits conferred by this Act, the Minister may give a certificate to that effect, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, the employment shall be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as if it were an accepted employment mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule to The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. This Amendment raises a most important point, and my hon. and learned Friend was most anxious that it should be moved.

I think it should come as a new Clause. It cannot come here, as it deals with different matter and also it would not read with the wording of the Clause.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 41, at the end, to add the words Provided also that if it appears to the Minister that the conditions of casual or partial employment in any industry are such that the provisions of the Unemploy- ment Insurance Acts with respect to continuous periods of unemployment and the qualifications for receipt of and the rates of unemployment benefit ought to be varied as regards insured contributors in that industry, he shall have power, after consultation with persons representing the employers and employés in the industry, to approve or make a special scheme making such provisions with respect to continuous periods of unemployment and the qualifications for the receipt of and the rates of unemployment benefit as he may think fit, but such special scheme shall not affect the payment into the Unemployment Fund of the statutory contributions, and the aggregate amount of unemployment benefits payable in any benefit year to insured contributors in the industry shall not exceed the aggregate amount of unemployment benefits which would have been payable to such insured contributors if no such special scheme had been made. Such special schemes may contain provisions for an arrangement being made between the Minister and a joint committee representing the employers and employés in the industry for the administratiion of the special scheme, and all the provisions of such a special scheme shall have effect as if enacted in this Act and shall continue in force until determined in accordance with the provisions thereof. I want to say to the Minister that this would cost him nothing in the way of funds, but that its acceptance would have a very great effect upon a body of men who for years have suffered the horrible conditions of casual labour. The purpose of the Amendment is to give the Minister power to create special schemes in regard to, shall I say, permanent casual labour—a term which, perhaps, is rather a contradiction, though I think it fits the case. Under the present Act, there are certain special schemes applying to men who are in regular employment, and, if Clause 9 of this Bill is carried, those schemes will remain, but no additional schemes will be permitted. The purpose of my Amendment is to provide for the establishment of proper arrangements in respect of industries which are subject to special conditions of a chronic nature. In 1924, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston was Minister of Labour, he introduced a Bill which decreased the six days' waiting period to three days; but in 1925 the Minister of Labour increased that period again from three days to six days, the effect of which, speaking for my own constituency, was to increase the rates in Bermondsey by 10d. in the £. I have not the figures for other areas, but of that figure I am sure. The Minister, in reply to a request of mine, gave me some figures as an estimate of what these men took out of the present fund. Roughly speaking, £900,000 was paid in from the three sources, while in 1926 £3,275,000 was taken out of the Fund. That may appear to be in favour of the men for whom I am speaking, but I want the Minister of Labour to observe that the change that will be made by this Measure, with the fixing of 30 stamps as a minimum, will mean that practically the whole of that money, at the end of the period of extended benefit, will go away from the men who are at present receiving it. That is as we see it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, when he was Minister of Labour, was asked by me on the 20th May, 1924, what his intentions were, and he said: I have not touched on most of the special details of the Bill. I take it for granted that hon. Members know as well as I do what the condition has been up to now. I will not inflict upon them a mass of detail of the history of insurance because I think that it would be a waste of their time, and would certainly not be treating them with the respect they deserve. But there is one reservation I have to make on special schemes. At present there is a Committee sitting "— that is the Maclean Committee— dealing with the very difficult and involved subject of the decasualisation of labour at the docks. I want it to be definitely understood that what I have said on the question of special schemes must not be taken to pre-judge issues which may be raised by the Report of the Maclean Committee on decasualisation at the docks, and I hold myself, and I hope the House will hold itself free to come to a decision on that special problem after the Report has been presented."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1924; Cols. 2048–9; Vol. 173.] Shortly, that is the claim I am submitting to the Minister at this moment, namely, that there was, shall I say, a sort of tentative agreement in the House—since no objection was taken to that statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston—to deal at some future date with the position of casual labour at the docks. The Minister, if he could see his way to accept this Amendment, has the Maclean Committee still in being. They have issued several interim Reports, but their final Report is not yet forthcoming, the reason being that they have had to follow along the lines of registration in the ports, so as to get the pool of labour definitely fixed as applicable to dock labour, and, as it were, weed out the men who come and go one day here and there. That Committee will ultimately report, but, if Clause 9 as it now stands be carried, and if this Amendment be not accepted, the Minister will be tied hand and foot, and will be prevented from dealing with any Report that that Committee may issue. In 1920, Lord Shaw's Committee, after their inquiry which lasted some 20 odd days, in their Report said this with reference to casualisation: The system of casualisation must, if possible, be torn up by the roots. It is wrong, and the one issue is as to what practical means can he adopted of readily providing labour whilst avoiding cruel and unsocial conditions. That, I think is a short summing up of the position at the docks. The Minister must know, of course, that, with the exception of London—that is to say, the Port of London Authority, which has a permanent body of men—there is no permanent labour in the whole of this industry in the whole of this country. The total number of people in the industry is 125,000, and the average work for these men over the whole country is three days a week. They have, of course, their seasonal trades, where additional labour is required, but that is set off with the close of the season, when they have long spells of unemployment. The absence of any adequate insurance arrangements is, as I have said, a drain on the rates of the country. The Minister of Health is continually pressing the local authorities in the dock areas to reduce their rate of relief. In my own constituency the Minister has threatened us with a committee because of the conditions of casual labour there, and if this continues and the Amendment is not accepted it is inevitable that so far as Bermondsey is concerned, so far as the great ports of the country are concerned, the rates in the localities are being used to subsidise the dock industry. The right hon. Gentleman on many occasions has stated that he is meeting the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee. In paragraph 109 of that Report a special reference is made to that. It says: The Minister should consider varying within the general scheme the rules governing distribution of benefits, in particular the rules as to the recognition of unemployment and partial employment in relation to particular industries of other classes of insured persons. That in itself gives the Minister the power to accept this Amendment, and if he accepts it it will undoubtedly, when the MacLean Committee ultimately reports, as I hope they will, in favour of the de-casualisation of dock labour, rid the country of one of its social sores and the Minister will then be empowered to bring into force such a scheme in association with the employers and employés as will rid us of casualisation altogether.

The hon. Gentleman has put his case with very great knowledge of dock labour conditions, as we all know, and with great force and sincerity. I cannot accept his Amendment, and I am exceedingly sorry I cannot. Let me clear one point away. Of course, this is not one of the special schemes that are barred out under the Bill. A special scheme as such is a scheme where those who are under it rely on their own resources and there is no contribution from the Exchequer. It is not proposed that this should be a special scheme of that kind. If the hon. Gentleman will believe me, I could have taken that as a point of Order under the case of special schemes, but I did not wish to prevent him from raising it, and I wish to reply to his Amendment on its merits. Many of us know the difficulty of dock labour and the troubles with regard to the casual worker. Obviously, the object of us all ought to be to reduce casual labour as far as possible.

The great difficulty is really this. It is difficult at present to realise how you could get complete complete registration, and unless you get complete registration a scheme of this kind will not work. I am not talking for the moment of the London Docks, but I made a special study of the Liverpool Docks, and I think I was one of the first to suggest that if you could get complete registration you would get more regular employment for a much greater proportion of the men, but I could never myself see how you could get what I call one complete body of registered labour without having a certain amount of fringe at the bottom. The object was to reduce that fringe of the more casual employés actually to the minimum. Unless and until you can do so it is not possible to work a scheme of this kind. It has to be proved to be actually possible. If we were to accept in principle a scheme of this kind it would tie our hands if some alteration is needed after the experience of the Maclean Committee has been received. That, I think, would be one result. The other result would be that honestly it would not be an advantage to the men at this moment. I do not think they will suffer any disadvantage from the 30 contributions rule. It is the casual labourers who, I imagine, will get an advantage and I think they will be able to get their stamps. The intention of the scheme is to try to equalise the advantages between two cases of this kind. You may get one man with three days' work at pretty high pay and another man may get half a day's work for five days, and his earnings may be very much lower than the first.

It is not an unknown thing in the Docks at present that if a man fails to get a half-day shift on Monday he is practically barred from work on Tuesday because he has not a stamp on his card. He can never get within the scheme at all.

That is one of the troubles at this moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a big problem."] It is a big problem, but there are other big problems in the Dock world. I am not minimising it because I am speaking briefly. At this moment, the situation, as I said in an answer to the hon. Gentleman, is that dock workers derive very great advantages from the Fund. If we were to try to adopt a scheme of this kind you could not get effective registration to start with at any rate, and at the same time your benefits would be limited by your contributions. At present, they are not. They are very much in excess of the contributions. That would be a change for the worse. I think we have got to go on to see whether we can get a proper registration system. If it is possible, no one will rejoice more than I. To have a proposal of this kind made part of the Act would tie our hands and be more of a disadvantage than an advantage.

I have a feeling that the Minister is unduly timid and that his refusal is based rather on a timidity to face the issue than on reason. I remember, in 1924, the House seemed to be quite in accord that if any method could be found of dealing specially with a case that stands absolutely by itself—and this question of dock labour is such a case—special treatment should be meted out. This Amendment does not bind the Minister to anything. It asks him, on the contrary, not to bind himself in such a way that if the Maclean Committee finds a solution he is unable to accept it. It does not say the Minister must. It says the Minister may, when he is absolutely satisfied, do these things under the Law. I appeal to him, however insuperable the difficulty seems, not to tie himself down in such a way that if someone finds a solution of what up to now has been considered to be an insoluble problem he is helpless. The whole history of unemployment insurance is a history of things being done which technical men over and over again have told the House could not be done. We discussed this morning, very early, a question that had exercised the minds of experts for years, and all the experts were thoroughly agreed that nothing could be done, but we did it. We did the impossible.

This Amendment says, to the Minister: "Do not tie your hands, so that you cannot apply the solution if it be found" Everybody is agreed that if a solution could be found for the benefit of casual labour in this respect it should be applied. Do not bind yourself so that you cannot apply it, if it be found. You can take this Amendment and put it in your Bill. It does not interfere with you in the slightest degree. It does not lay down what you must do in the slightest degree. It simply gives you the power, if a solution has been found as a result of the work of the Maclean Committee, to do a thing which is eminently desirable in the opinion of all members of the Committee. For once, I will really make an appeal to the Minister. The appeal is that he shall not be so harsh and cast-iron in considering this question, and not too timid because it appears to be a question full of difficulty, but to leave himself free and with initiative enough to seize the solution when it is found. This Amendment will give him that privilege. It will leave him open to deal with the question if he finds a solution, while his own Bill will tie his hands in such a way that even, if the solution be found, he cannot put it into operation. Surely the Minister might accept this Amendment. It binds him to nothing. It simply gives him a liberty—which his own Bill does not give him—if a solution be found to this very difficult problem, of doing what every member of the Committee would wish to see done.

May I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I know, has taken a very deep interest in this question of special schemes, to reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage. During the Labour Government a Clause containing this principle was embodied in the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and it was resisted on the same grounds on which it is being resisted this afternoon, and the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) obtained a concession which was embodied ultimately in the Act to give power to the Ministry of Labour, when the deficiency period was at an end, to approve of special schemes. For the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields the Parliamentary Secretary himself voted, and it is for that reason and because of the interest which he has previously evinced in this question that I make a special appeal to him. Industry is moving in an entirely new direction. It has changed from small ownership into large corporations, and it may well be that it will be to the advantage of employed persons that they shall come under the special schemes which these large corporations are able to devise rather than under the general unemployment insurance scheme.

In support of that, I want to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to a very important declaration made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), whose opinion should have some weight with the Government. The words to which I wish to call attention are these: I would like to point out, said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen, the numerous advantages to the workmen which could be given by way of health and unemployment benefit if large and well organised concerns were allowed to administer and handle the health and unemployment contribution. Far greater benefits could be secured for the men. That is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen in relation to special schemes. He is of opinion that there are industrial organisations which can provide very much better benefits for their employés and which can give them greater security thereby against unemployment and raise the whole dignity of their calling from one of casual labour into a kind of civil service. This Clause is going definitely to close the door and bar the way to anything of this kind. Industry is in a state of flux, and we do not know yet what the best method is for providing against unemployment. It may be that this State scheme, universally applied, is the ideal method, but, on the other hand, it is impossible to say definitely and finally that it is. It may well be that in the course of time with the advance of trustification great trusts will be able to give greater advantages than are given under this scheme by which we are at present governed.

The Bradford Dyers' Association have written a letter to the hon. and learned Member for South Shields. They are one of the firms who have drawn up a special scheme, hoping to put it into operation at the end of the deficiency period. They say that if they are compelled to abandon this scheme they will be forced to dispense with the services of, approximately, a thousand men hitherto retained in excess of actual requirements, and it is only because of the prospect that they have under the law as it at present stands of putting their scheme into operation that they are able to give partial employment or whole-time employment to a thousand persons who would otherwise have been discharged. In those circumstances, I do plead with the Parliamentary Secretary, who, as I say, has previously voted for the principle which I am now advocating, to consider between now and the Report stage, when I hope that a better Amendment than that drafted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Shields, who was unfortunately out of order, may be devised. I plead with him to consider between now and the Report stage whether it would not be in the national interest and in the interest of the workers of the country as a whole not definitely to bolt and bar the door.

With the best will in the world, I have some difficulty in finding any relevance between the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) and the Amendment. The Amendment we are discussing does not relate to special schemes at all. What he has done is to raise the general question of the power to contract out which was first given by Section 18 of the Act of 1920. I do not desire to take up the time of the Committee at this stage by going fully into the merits and demerits of special schemes although I should be perfectly ready to do so. I think it is sufficient for this purpose if I say that I believe that everybody who has been connected with the Ministry of Labour has started with the idea that special schemes should be encouraged and that they were in themselves good, because we were told that you got the same benefit for a less rate or greater benefit for the same rate. But everybody, without exception, who has had any experience of administration, whether at the Ministry of Labour or in connection with the working of these things, has come to the conclusion to which I have come, and that is, that in a universal contributory insurance scheme you must make the stronger industries carry the weaker industries, and that it is impossible to accept the principle of contracting out if you maintain anything like a compulsory contributory scheme. That is, shortly, the answer to the hon. Gentleman, who says that he is going to raise the point—and I hope he will—either on the Report stage or in the form of a new Clause. I shall be quite ready to discuss it with him much more fully and in a manner much more adequately, having regard to the importance of this subject if and when he has an opportunity of so doing.

The only point I want to put to the Minister of Labour is whether he is not, perhaps unconsciously, rather letting us down as an industry. We are working, and we shall continue to work, for the purpose of trying to bring about legislation in the direction which my hon. Friend has been advocating, and we have believed, and the men have believed, that we had the co-operation of the Minister of Labour. We believed that you were ready to help us and were waiting to see what we and the employers could do. The present attitude of the Ministry is in the direction of cutting yourself away from that, and it will mean not only that you will not help us, but that you will considerably hinder us in helping ourselves. For these reasons I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider whether, if not at this moment at any rate before the Bill passes through Parliament, this Amendment, or something of its kind, of the same protective character cannot be accepted.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that this is only permissive and not compulsory. That is not quite true. You give a person power to do a particular thing in a particular way and it really ties him down to doing it in that particular way. I want to see whether the attempts that have been made to solve this problem have as yet proved that it is possible to do it in this particular way. I have tried to look at the machinery of the Amendment and I think it would be very difficult to work it. If I am given the power to do it in this particular way, it will at once be said that I have accepted a particular principle and it might quite well be that it would be an embarrassment later on and drive me to do something which would not be the best course and prevent me from doing something which might be the best. I should like very much to see the problem solved, and I shall watch the experiments that are being made, and although I am not pledging myself to bring in a particular Bill for this purpose I will do my best to try to help forward the solution in any way that I can.

Does not the present Clause purport to deal with this question?

The Clause as it stands at present does not touch these schemes at all. The actual Clause deals with special schemes. The hon. Member's clause is not, strictly speaking, a special scheme. A special scheme is one which is taken away from the main system and where there is no contribution from the Exchequer, and the whole burden is borne out of contributions paid by the employers and the workmen in the scheme. Yours is not one of that kind. The Clause which I am proposing puts no additional disadvantage in the way.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether he will do anything on behalf of our people, or not? Up to now he has been dealing with the matter in a sort of friendly way, but behind it all the time there is nothing doing. It is almost a case of antagonism to doing anything. If he says that this is the wrong way of doing it, why does he not suggest the right way? The Bill when it becomes an Act will be a permanent thing, and it will need special legislation to do anything in the event of a special report being submitted with any sense of unanimity. If this is the wrong way and it is a question of the right way to do it which stands in the right hon. Gentleman's path, why does he not suggest that on the Report stage he will bring up an Amendment which will do the thing in his way?

Does not the Bill mean the repeal or modification of certain provisions? If the Maclean Committee brought in recommendations dealing with casual labour and this Clause has been passed in its present form, does it not mean that if the Maclean Committee recommended the scheme outlined by the hon. Member, it would mean the repeal of this part of the Act which stands as the stumbling block?

No, it would not. I think some Members of the Committee are under a misapprehension that this is a special scheme. It is a particular scheme of a particular industry. A special scheme for the purpose of this Act has a particular meaning, and the particular meaning is that it is set up by an industry who decide that they will deal with themselves outside the Act, like the banking profession or the insurance industry who have insurance schemes of their own, without any help from Exchequer contributions. That is what is meant by a special scheme. We are repealing the power to set up special schemes like these, but that repeal does not militate against a scheme of this kind. It puts no additional obstacle in the way of a scheme of this kind. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Smith) asks why do I not suggest something else. This is one of the most difficult problems that ever was. That is the reason why the Maclean Committee is recommending making these experiments pending legislation. Quite obviously if it is as difficult to deal with as must be admitted, I cannot put forward here and now a watertight scheme, because there is not one in existence. We have to watch what is being done. I do not want to prejudice the way in which the investigation may go on, but I will help it forward as much as I can. If one's hands are tied one way or the other now I am afraid that the position may be prejudiced for the future.

Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that between now and the Report stage he will take such powers as will allow him to deal with the question when

he is satisfied that a method has been found? That is all that is being asked. I do not think that anyone wants to tie the right hon. Gentleman down to a definite line. What we want him to do is to take powers so that in the event of a scheme coming forward with which he is satisfied, he can act upon it. That can be done on the Report stage.

It is very necessary that we should have our hands free in connection with any legislation which this House passes to deal with schemes, particularly as regards the great sea ports. It is true that the Maclean Committee are in favour of the trial of various systems for improvements, but we do not know how they will work out. As far as I can gather, the riverside and wharfside workers feel and the employers feel that we shall have to go very much further than we have done already. It is a very great pity that we should tie our hands in any way at all. I do wish the right hon. Gentleman would realise how strong is the necessity of making special provision for the future of the workers at the docks. I do not think he is as yet fully alive to that necessity.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 214.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSES 10 ( Taking of evidence on oath at statutory inquiries ), and 11 ( Amendment of Section 41 of principal Act ) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 8, to leave out from the word "benefit" in line 25 to the word "be" in line 29, and to insert instead thereof the words "shall continue to."

In the first place, I desire to enter my protest that the fall of the guillotine will prevent a full discussion of this important Clause, and I do so in order to preserve my rights on Report stage and on Third Reading. Hon. Members will have noticed that several important Amendments have been speedily passed over in order that we might have just a few moments for the consideration of this Clause. The Amendment will have the effect of continuing the present state of affairs, so far as the Minister's discretion is concerned. Sub-section (1), with the Amendment made, would then read: In the case of a person who immediately before the commencement of this Act satisfied the requirements for the receipt of benefit under Section one of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924, as amended by Section one of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925, benefit shall continue to be paid to him as if this Act had not been passed. What are the points with which this Clause deals? It is known as the transitional period Clause. At the moment there are thousands of unemployed persons who were admitted to benefit under the 1924 (No. 2) Act, as amended by the 1925 Act, notwithstanding the fact that they may not have been able to prove the statutory stamps condition. At the moment there are many drawing benefits who have no stamps to their credit. My concern is that we should have debated what is the meaning of it all. With the retention of the words that I seek to delete, I fear it means that from 19th April next there will at once take place an examination of the qualifications of all persons at present signing the register or in receipt of unemployment benefit, and that if it is found, as it is found, that these recipients cannot prove any stamps qualification such as would carry them over a fuller transitional period, they will gradually be weeded out as the examination reveals the facts within the period of six months. It only shows the importance of our being able to discuss more fully the implication of this Clause. We have had no explanation so far. All that we can imagine is that, notwithstanding any qualification under which a person may at present be in receipt of benefit, that shall continue until the examination takes place. But why the limit of six months?

3.0 p.m.

I know that under the 1924 Act there was, but not altogether in this connection, a paragraph which laid down a period of six weeks for the examination of qualifications, but then whatever those qualifications revealed themselves to be, the Minister's discretion could always follow them up; but in this case there will be no Minister's discretion to follow up whatever may be the revealed facts. But it also brings in a larger class that will come under the transitional stage. During one stage of our discussion the Minister said that it was possible for an insured person at present getting benefit, within his discretion, to carry on and draw benefit until the early part of 1930. That is, within the 12 months from the passing of this Act, they can establish a claim under the present conditions and then be admitted to benefit to the end of their benefit period. He suggested that under the 30 stamps qualification there would be the possibility of a person drawing benefit for 70-odd weeks. My right hon. Friend took an extreme case. Assume that at the end of the transitional period with which this deals it is found that a person may have 30 stamps, but that four of those stamps are in relation to the first quarter of the two years immediately preceding his application. Then with his first quarter of benefit be wipes out four stamps, leaving him 26. That in itself will put him out of benefit. So that while a person may have a 30 stamps qualification, represented by stamps part of which cover the first period of the two years immediately preceding his application, he can draw benefit only for a period of three months, because the three months period entered into the review of the two years immediately preceding.

It is very difficult for one to compress all that one would like to say in the very short time available. We have had varied estimates as to the numbers that will be affected under this Clause. The Minister in his White Paper mentioned 56,000, and then by certain deductions it can be reduced to 30,000 by the end of 1929 or the early part of 1930. An hon. Member opposite said that according to his calculations it would be more than 100,000. I have said that according to my calculations, based on the method pursued by the Minister in his White Paper, it would be more like 138,000. On page 3 of the White Paper the Minister says that an analysis was taken of 7,703 males and 1,193 females, which showed that 13.8 per cent. of males would not be able to prove the 30 stamps qualification since April, 1925, in relation to April, 1927, the two years period that it is assumed was got out. It will be noted that there were at that time 840,000 males on the live register, and if we apply the percentage of 13.8 to them a figure of about 116,000 is reached. In regard to the females, there were 5 per cent. who would not have satisfied the 30 contributions test. At that time there were 134,000 females signing the live register, and if we apply the 5 per cent. figure to them we get a number somewhere within the range of 7,000.

I think it would have been quite proper, at the time when these figures were ascertained, to have taken account of the fact that there must have been from 115,000 to 120,00 cards on the two months file that had never been lifted. The same rate of percentage should have been applied to the two months file as it then existed, representing somewhere about 115,000 to 120,000. [ Interruption. ] I agree that is an estimate but it only shows how uncertain all these calculations are. There is always an element of uncertainty which must be allowed for. The nearest figures that I could get indicate that there were 115,000 on the two months file at that time. An hon. Member has said that some of these may be dead. True, and some may have left their cards there and gone into some form of uninsured occupation, but, even if you eliminate all these cases, I do not think you could take out many more than 10,000. Then you would have to count against that the number you are constantly removing from the two months file. If you apply the same proportion you will get a figure of 138,000 persons who on the 5th April, 1927, could not satisfy the 30 stamps qualification as be- tween April, 1925, and April, 1927, that being the two years period covered by the ascertainment test of my right hon. Friend. I know he gets deductions from the figures which he originally gave, by saying there would be some 8,000 who would come under the old age pension scheme in the early part of next year, and he makes other deductions as well. But to counter that statement he also says that these figures represent an equal average of unemployment for the general industry of the country. That is not true. He would have to add a considerable number to his estimate in respect of the disproportionate percentage of miners unemployed as compared with the other industries in the country.

It would require much cross-reference to other Clauses and to Sections of previous Acts to bring up to date the various stages through which the Minister's discretion has been exercised, up to the point of estimating the number of unfortunates who are to be sacrificed under the present Bill and showing the hardship that it will entail. It is this Clause which is causing tremendous anxiety to the boards of guardians in the country. This Clause alone ought to have occupied a whole day and even then we would not have exhausted legitimate criticism of its terms as it stands. If, notwithstanding the handicap we are under as to time, we can preserve to ourselves the right to pursue this matter on Report stage and, if need be, make it a subject of discussion on the Third Reading, I shall feel that I have done sufficient in introducing the subject this afternoon even under our limitations as to time.

First of all, let me deal with the precise effect of the Amendment, and then very briefly speak a little more generally, if I may do so within the rules of order, but following what the hon. Member has said. The precise effect of the Amendment would be to allow benefit to go on under the same conditions as now for ever; in other words, it amounts to a Second Pleading rejection of the Bill, and I am sure the hon. Member will not himself expect us to agree to that. Now let me deal with some of the other points about which he asked. In regard to the lack of time, I do not want to take up time in controversy, but I am bound to say that hon. Members opposite, if they had wished, could have had the equivalent of a half-day yesterday and a half-day on Monday in which to discuss this Clause. They themselves did not take the opportunity, but they might have had practically a whole day for the purpose had they wanted it, so that at any rate the responsibility for that, if it be a fault, lies with them and not with us. As to the estimates of the effects of the Clause, which the hon. Member said have varied, I agree that there are many people who have given varying estimates, but there are two estimates that have not varied, and they are the estimate that I have given and the estimate of the actuary, which is based on rather a different degree of unemployment but corresponds with my estimate. Those two estimates are in correspondence one with the other, and they have not varied.

As to the transitional arrangements, I will just say a few words to make the situation clear, because I do not think the hon. Member has got some of these points quite clear. There are, as he said, two stages in the transitional arrangements. The object of the first is not to cut anybody off because they have not got the particular stamp qualification; it is simply an administrative matter, so to speak, to enable the Department to turn round. When you go from one system to another, then obviously, when there are throughout a year from three to four millions of people making claims, the change is bound to affect a large number of people and a large number of claims, and the first transitional provision merely means that before people get on to the transitional period proper, their claims need not be examined at once. It gives us the opportunity of not examining their claims all on one day or in one week. It would be impossible to do that, but spreading then] over six months and allowing them during that period to go on as before gives the Department and the officials time in which to go through the claims. During that period, those in receipt of benefit go on exactly as before. The only object of that examination is to see whether they satisfy the conditions of the transitional period.

During that transitional period the conditions are those which are noted in the Bill, and they are very analogous to the present system under which benefit is given. The transitional period makes very slight alterations. They have to satisfy, as now, what we know as the eight and thirty rule, and they have to continue to satisfy some of the extended benefit conditions. They have to satisfy, as for the present extended benefit, the condition that they are normally employed persons within the meaning of the Act. Similarly, about the reasonable period of employment, the Clause continues these two conditions as now. They do not have to satisfy the two other conditions, first that they are likely to continue in an insured trade—that is omitted, because it is not in harmony with the other provisions of the Bill—and, secondly, that they are making a reasonable effort to obtain work. As the much discussed Clause "genuinely seeking work" applies throughout, we consider there is no reason to keep up the other parallel extended benefit condition in addition. Therefore, it simply means that during the transitional period they will be asked to satisfy conditions very analogous to the present extended benefit provisions until the end of the transitional period.

What about paragraph ( c ) in Sub-section (2) with reference to the two years?

That paragraph says: That he has, during the two years immediately preceding the date of the application for benefit, been employed in an insurable employment to such an extent as was reasonable. That means that during the currency of his claim, if at any period he comes to the end of two years without a reasonable amount of work he is liable to be disqualified. The Clause continues the present extended benefit conditions in that respect. Lastly, as regards the period to which the transitional conditions attach, it means that in a case in which, say, anyone starts a benefit year, within the calendar year 19th April 1928, to 19th April, 1929, he can get the advantage of the whole of that benefit year. This is a departure from the Blanesburgh Report. It extends-the transitional period for more months than would otherwise be the case, because an extreme case would be that of a person who began the benefit year shortly before April, 1929, and he gets the benefit of the whole currency of the benefit year.

I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is about the best argument that could have been given against the limitation of debate on this particular Clause, because it does seem that the right hon. Gentleman himself is not quite clear about the interpretation of the Clause. Time and time again I have found it very difficult as one who has to vote on this Clause, and certainly people outside who are intensely interested in this matter cannot understand it. What it means is this. There are thousands of men, particularly in mining areas, who are going very soon to be cut out of benefit as a result of the operation of this Clause. I know that may seem to be hardly a proper interpretation. The right hon. Gentleman says, for instance, that what this means is that it is for administration purposes—

Only the first six months. The transitional period is the main thing. What I call the bridge of the first six months is merely giving an extended time to certain people in order to let the cases be reviewed in as quick succession as possible. It does not affect benefit rates at all.

What this Clause says is this: During such period as may be necessary for the examination of the qualifications of that person for the receipt of benefit under this Act, but not in any case after the expiration of six months from the commencement of this Act. Then it goes on to lay down quite a number of conditions, one of which is: That he has, during the two years immediately preceding the date of the application for benefit, been employed in insurable employment to such an extent as was reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and, in particular, to the opportunities for obtaining insurable employment during that period. I submit that great masses of men who have not been employed for two years are going to be put into the hands of the officials of the administration for the interpretation of this Clause. We know-that men who are as good as the Minister or any Member of the House—intelligent, strong, young and virile men who have served their country—are going to be cut out in a very short time after this Clause goes through. I heard an hon. Member say the other night that he could hardly understand how a disabled man could fail to get his 10 stamps. There are thousands of men in the county from which I come—and I am speaking for the mining areas—of the finest type, who have not worked for the past two years or even longer—men who want work—and it is certain that this transitional Clause is going to give them the alternative of going on the rates. That is the plain blunt fact.

I hear that industry is moving to the south, and it will be a good thing, because it will make this House understand what it has to face. I and my friends will go home to-day to our mining villages, and we shall see men with whom we went to school, men of the finest type, who want to give their children a chance of education, and yet to-day they can scarcely get bread because of the position in which they find themselves. In an area like mine, no able-bodied man can get relief. What is going to become of the great mass of these men? The Government take no steps to deal with the unemployment problem; the only step they do take is to rob them of the little which they have to depend on, and then they come along with this Bill on the plea that this Clause practically makes sure that nothing is going to begin to operate for two years.

The hon. Gentleman must have completely misunderstood me. What I endeavoured to point out to him was that the condition to which he refers is precisely the same condition without alteration as in the existing law.

With certain exceptions, of course, it is precisely the same, but the difference is this, that there are rota committees operating and all kinds of means whereby one can bring pressure to bear in favour of these men getting special consideration. In Bill after Bill which the Government have passed they have found it impossible to operate the Clauses as they stood, and stage by stage they have been compelled to let their sympathy go beyond the law. That is how things have operated in the past, but now that we are on the 30 stamps' contribution system we are to have the strict law. The suggestion that it will be two years before these transitional Clauses begin to operate is not true. What will happen very soon, that is to say, when our people get into the hands of these administrators, will be that people away in remote villages, forgotten by the people, forgotten by this House, will be left to starve and to eat grass, as they did in the old days of the French régime, before the Revolution. I sometimes say to myself that if it had not been for the kind of pantomime Bolshevism we have had in this country, for the sentiment abroad which has killed any fear of a physical uprising, the things which strong, serious men are saying at the present time would make this House think differently from what it is thinking at present.

This Clause is the crux of the whole Bill and has given an opportunity for almost a Second Reading Debate, and as I have sat here listening to the speeches which have been made I have thought that if we could have appealed individually to hon. Members opposite—men with good hearts, intelligent men, and most of them here because of some service they have rendered in their particular districts—and taken them up to some of these areas, particularly the mining areas, and shown them what is happening, they would not have let the Government do what was done yesterday nor let them pass this Clause. I feel the House is entitled to a fuller description of this Clause. I do not believe the Minister fully understands it. I do not believe anybody understands it, except the gentlemen sitting in the Box over there, and if they could tell the whole truth they would say they are carrying out what is the Government policy of starving men into accepting conditions which they otherwise would not accept. We have heard Debates to-day upon Clauses which will, in their effect, give employers the right to extend hours, to reduce wages, to starve men into submission, and this Clause, in spite of its

camouflage, in spite of all its provisions for transitional delay, will mean in the long run that the full operation of this Bill will come about much more quickly than most people think. The people, who will feel it will be those who in this very week-end cannot meet their ordinary grocery bills and butchers' bills. Butchers' bills! They do not have any butchers' bills, because they can scarcely go that far at the present time.

In view of the situation in which we find ourselves, in view of the absolute starvation ahead, can we not appeal to the intelligence and the good will of the mass of Conservative Members to persuade the Minister to accept this Amendment? It is true that it holds up the full operation of the Bill, but in the long run it will certainly have a good effect on the mass of the people. I will say I think there will be one good thing about this Bill—if the General Election comes in two years' time. The full operation of the Bill and the full weight of it will be known by that time, and I am certain—

The hon. Member has just said it would be beginning at once.

I did not say anything of the kind. I said the full weight of the Bill would be known by that time, and if all the people in different parts of the country were in the same position as the people are in the mining areas, and felt as do those in the mining areas, the Government would certainly experience the full effects of this legislation at the next election.

It being Half-past Three of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proposed, pursuant to the Order of the House of 1st December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 105.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, successively, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at Half-past Three of the Clock at this day's Sitting, and on an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

There is only one minute and a half in which to deal with the new Clause giving power to make grants out of the unemployment fund towards the cost of approved courses of instruction, and I am sure it will be more convenient if we start this fresh subject on another day.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 5th December.

The remaining Government Orders 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, 5th December.