Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 232: debated on Thursday 5 December 1929

House of Commons

Thursday, December 5, 1929

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions

Unemployment

Borough Exchange (Overtime)

asked the Minister of Labour the number of hours overtime worked at the Walworth Road (Borough) Exchange during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

The total number of hours overtime worked at the Borough Exchange during the 12 months ended the 25th October, 1929, was 677—an average of approximately 13 hours a week over the whole staff, which averaged 59 for that period. About one-third of this overtime was worked during the four weeks ended the 19th July on account of the work involved by the Exchange of unemployment books, to help in which 10 additional temporary clerks were employed at the Exchange.

Would the Minister say whether any overtime is worked on the hon. Member's questions?

Exchange Facilities, Grangetown

asked the Minister of Labour if she will consider holding an inquiry into the conditions created at Grangetown owing to the closing of the branch office with a view to this office being reopened, seeing that in addition to the number of unemployed resident in Grangetown there is also a number of short-time workers and other persons who reside in the villages adjacent to Grangetown who are compelled to travel to South Bank to sign on and to receive benefit, and who are suffering hardship in consequence of this Exchange being closed?

Training (F. W. Tomkins)

asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that Mr. F. W. Tomkins, of 4, Prospect Place, Cwmbran, is at present at Abersychan secondary schools for six months teaching practice in handicrafts, that he is an unemployed steel worker, and that his unemployment benefit has been stopped because he is not genuinely seeking work while receiving this instruction; and whether she will investigate the case?

I understand that Mr. Tomkins at some time prior to entering upon this course of training inquired at the Employment Exchange whether benefit would be payable while he was taking the course, and was told that it was doubtful whether the statutory authorities would regard the conditions for the receipt of benefit as satisfied. He ceased to attend at the Exchange on 23rd October, without pursuing any further the question of his entitlement to benefit, and payment of benefit ceased from that date. There was, in fact, no disallowance of benefit.

Is the Minister aware that when the Department sends some of the unemployed away to train, there is a stoppage of the allowance? Under what statutory authority does the "not genuinely seeking work" condition apply?

It is not a question of "not genuinely seeking work." This is a whole-time course at the college. Probably, if benefit was disallowed, it was on the ground of the man not being available for employment, because it was a whole-time course.

Is it not a very laudable desire on the part of a man to wish to get employment, and why should he be penalised?

On a point of Order. It will save a lot of writing if the Minister will just reply now. This is very important.

Exchanges and Courts of Referees

asked the Minister of Labour how many Employment Exchanges there are under her control and how many courts of referees?

There are 417 Employment Exchanges and 741 branch employment offices. For court of referee purposes Great Britain is divided into 143 areas.

Is the Minister satisfied that the courts of referees are situated in the most convenient place for an appellant?

Macclesfield Exchange

asked the Minister of Labour if she is now in a position to make any statement with reference to the Macclesfield Employment Exchange?

Exchange Attendance (Rules)

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the advice given by assessors and referees to appellants to seek employment over a wider area, she will consider the reduction of the signing days from five to three to enable the unemployed to comply with the suggestion?

The ordinary rules for attendance at a local office are appropriate in normal circumstances. If an applicant wishes to go further afield to look for work, arrangements are made to obtain alternative proof of unemployment.

Will the Minister say what power and authority the assessors and referees have to advise applicants to search over a wider area when the umpire has already laid down a ruling upon that matter?

Juveniles

asked the Minister of Labour in how many of the Employment Exchanges under her control there are separate departments with separate entrances and exits for juveniles?

Apart from the juvenile employment bureaux, which are in separate premises provided by the education authority, there are 253 Employment Exchanges which deal with juveniles. Of these 65 are either in separate buildings or are in separate departments with separate entrances and exits. In 60 other cases separate accommodation is provided, but owing to the structure of the building it is not possible to provide separate entrances. Where separate rooms are not available juveniles are usually dealt with by means of a timing system separately from adults.

Does the Minister propose to give any new facilities to young persons who may 'be drawing unemployment benefit as a result of the present Bill?

I shall do anything I can to improve separate juvenile centres and separate facilities for dealing with juveniles.

Insurance Fund (Pensions)

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who are drawing pensions from the unemployment fund and the amount of such pensions per year?

I assume my hon. Friend is referring to Section (6) of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924, under which a charge is made against the fund annually in respect of the accruing liability under the Superannuation Acts for civil servants who before retirement were engaged in the administration of unemployment insurance. The estimated charge for the current financial year is about £280,000. As this represents the accruing liability calculated on an actuarial basis over a number of years, I am unable to state the number of individuals concerned.

Statistics

asked the Minister of Labour if she will state how many more persons are in employment to-day than there were in 1914?

I regret that there are no statistics available regarding the numbers of persons employed in industry in 1914 comparable with those derived from the working of the Unemployment Insurance Acts at the present time.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Lord Privy Seal has given the number as being something like 800,000; and does she confirm that figure?

Will the right hon. Lady inquire from the Lord Privy Seal as to where he got his figures?

asked the Minister of Labour how the present numbers of unemployed compare with those at the time when the Government took office?

The number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain on 25th November was 172,666 more than on 10th June. The corresponding increase last year between 11th June and 26th November was 245,562.

In view of the fact that this figure is some 26,000 more than the figure given to me a fortnight ago, may I ask her if this is not a sad commentary on the attitude taken up by the right hon. Lady when she was on this side?

Is it not the case that the figures have gone up in consequence of the fact that it has been made easier for a man to sign and get unemployment pay?

Will the right hon. Lady give the corresponding figures in 1927?

On a point of Order. Is it in order for a Minister to add to her answer to a perfectly simple question information for which she was not asked, designed to soften the effect of her reply?

A Minister who gives an answer covering points other than those contained in the question, cannot be surprised if there are supplementary questions.

Employment Exchange Buildings

asked the Minister of Labour how many Employment Exchanges are housed in temporary buildings; and what steps are being taken to replace them by permanent offices?

42 Employment Exchanges are housed in temporary buildings at the present time. Arrangements are in hand for permanent buildings to be erected in 25 cases, and the remaining 17 will be dealt with in due course, having regard to the relative urgency of the needs of other Employment Exchanges.

Women Fishworkers

asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that women fish workers who have returned to Scotland after the East Anglian herring fishing and are unemployed are refused unemployment benefit; and whether she can arrange that these women should either receive unemployment benefit or be exempted as a class from the scope of the unemployment insurance scheme?

The Unemployment Insurance Acts enable seasonal fish-workers to obtain exemption from unemployment insurance if they so desire. I am not aware that any of the workers referred to in the question who have not obtained exemption have been refused benefit while unemployed, and if the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars. I will make inquiry.

Does the right hon. Lady not understand that it is quite impossible for these women to go through the formality of getting exemption, and will she look into the whole question to see how unfair it is that a class of this kind should have to pay contributions while never in any circumstances getting benefit?

May I point out that large numbers are actually getting benefit, and it is not a very difficult thing to get exemption.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is a very strong feeling on this point in all the fishing districts of Scotland?

Government Departments

Ministry of Labour

asked the Minister of Labour if she will state the number of insurance officers engaged in her Department and the total sum paid in salaries?

The only staff engaged wholly on work as insurance officers consists of 56 officers at the Claims and Record Office, Kew, with a total annual salary of £20,882 exclusive of bonus. There are in addition 1,758 officers at the various local offices with authority to act as insurance officers, but this function is only a small part of their work.

asked the Minister of Labour whether officers of the Employment Exchanges who deal with juvenile employment have special qualifications for that work; and, if so, whether she can state what is the nature of those qualifications?

Certain personal qualities and standards of education are desirable for juvenile employment work, and this consideration is taken carefully into account in selecting officers from the Employment Exchange service for employment in juvenile branches. The staff of juvenile employment bureaux is appointed by the local education authority.

I have said that certain personal qualities and standards of education are taken into account in choosing the officers of the Exchanges.

asked the Minister of Labour whether she will state the nature of the usual rules observed in recruiting additional staff for the Employment Exchanges; and whether a preference is given to ex-service men?

In the engagement of male temporary staff preference is given to ex-service men, recourse being had in the first place to the lists of such men maintained by the Joint Substitution Board. Direct entry into established posts is by open competitive examinations, subject to the assurance in regard to the position of "P" class clerks and ex-service temporary clerks given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his reply to the hon. Member for Ealing on 31st October. Temporary clerks are eligible in certain circumstances for appointment to permanent posts in the "P" class and "P" class clerks for appointment to established clerical posts.

Is the right hon. Lady in favour of the transfer of men of the "P" class to the established class, if they do their work in a satisfactory manner?

Ministry of Health (Inspectors of Dairy Farms)

asked the Minister of Health how many inspectors are employed by his Department in inspection of dairy farms; and how many of the inspectors are qualified veterinary surgeons?

Two inspectors are employed by my Department in the inspection of dairy farms, and neither of them is a qualified veterinary surgeon. I may add that the only farms inspected by officers of my Department are those producing certified and Grade A (Tuberculin Tested) milk, and that the examination and testing of cattle on these farms are carried out by qualified veterinary surgeons approved by the Department.

Is it not the main object of this inspection to help farmers to eliminate tuberculosis from herds, and would it not be a greater help to them if these were qualified veterinary inspectors, whatever other experience they may have had?

They have other duties to perform, but, if the hon. and gallant Member likes to discuss the question with me, I shall be very glad to meet him.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House without inconvenience and in a general way whether the quantity of Grade A and T.T. milk is growing?

Conscientious Objectors

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the reasons that have induced the Government to adopt Treasury Circular E, restoring all the privileges to conscientious objectors in the Civil Service; and, seeing that preference is given to ex-service men as against conscientious objectors by other Departments in such matters as the provision of employment, what is the reason for this differential treatment in the two cases?

In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Tuesday last to a similar question from the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir G. Bowyer), a copy of which I am sending him. As regards the second part, the hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The circular applies to all Departments, but it does not affect the preference given to ex-service men. It allows conscientious objectors to be included among other non-service men for consideration for appointment to posts in the Civil Service.

Does the Minister consider this matter fair to the ex-service men, of whom there are thousands out of work to-day?

As I have repeatedly said in this House in answer to similar questions, I do not consider that the position of the ex-service men is appreciably altered by this regulation.

Then the rest of the country does not hold the same opinion as the Minister.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government, in view of the pledge given in this House on 9th July, 1918, and confirmed by a Treasury letter, that conscientious objectors who are employed in the Civil Service, and who have refused to serve in the Army shall not be pro- moted over the heads of civil servants who have served, will withdraw Circular E of 10th September?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply of Tuesday to the hon. and gallant Member for Southport (Sir G. Dalrymple-White).

Is this another instance of the Government repudiating—[ Interruption. ]

Did not the hon. Gentleman say in his reply that no harm had been done to the ex-service men, and how does he reconcile that with the fact that the Government have broken a pledge which they made to these ex-service men, and are even going to supersede them by men who did not come to the rescue of their country?

I do not think there is any question of repudiation of a pledge at all. After a number of years, the matter has been reviewed in the light—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The matter had to be reviewed after a time; obviously, it could not go on for ever.

On a point of Order. May I ask, is it in alignment with the best traditions of this House—[ Interruption. ]

Juvenile EmployéS

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any Government Departments and, if so, which employ boys or girls under 16; and the numbers of such employés in each case?

I regret that information in the form desired by the hon. Member is not available. It is estimated, however, that there are approximately 3,500 employés under the age of 16 in the Government service as a whole, of whom approximately 90 per cent. are employed under the Post Office.

Wages (Purchasing Power)

asked the Minister of Labour if she can inform the House on the measures taken by the International Labour Office to carry out the proposal for an inquiry regarding the purchasing power of wages in certain centres in Europe; and if the amount subscribed is adequate for the purposes of this inquiry?

I have no information as to the scheme proposed for the conduct of this inquiry, but the Director of the International Labour Office has stated that the money available should prove sufficient for the purpose.

Does the Minister not know that a proposition was put to the International Bureau at the last meeting of the League of Nations that certain inquiries should be made throughout Europe as to the cost of production of certain manufactured products, and that certain returns were to be made in order to enable a great American firm to enter European competition? Has any step been taken in the matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] May I respectfully ask for an answer?

It is common knowledge that this inquiry has been asked for, but I have no knowledge of the scheme on which the International Labour Office proposes to work.

Will the right hon. Lady make inquiries at the International Labour Office as to what steps are being taken?

If the figures are available, will the Minister publish them as a White Paper?

King's National Roll (Government Contractors)

asked the Minister of Labour if there are in the Birmingham area any firms contracting to the Ministry of Labour who are not in compliance with the King's National Roll scheme for disabled ex-service men?

Is it not a fact that more manufacturers have complied with the conditions of the King's Roll in Birmingham than in any other centre in the country?

Grocery Trade Boards

asked the Minister of Labour when the Grocery Trade Board last met; when the next meeting is expected; and when the Board will be functioning normally in accordance with the Act?

The Grocery Trade Board for England and Wales last met on 31st July, 1924, and the corresponding Board for Scotland on 19th November of the same year. Both Boards were dissolved in April, 1926, by formal orders made under the Regulations by which they were constituted. The Boards are, therefore, no longer in existence and the last two parts of the question do not arise.

Will the Minister set up the board again, or is it thought that the grocery trade is so satisfactory that a board is not necessary?

I propose to pay close attention to any evidence that is brought to my notice as to the desirability of such a board.

Washington Hours Convention

asked the Minister of Labour whether she has received any representations from the National Union of Railwaymen respecting the effect of the Washington Hours Convention on the railway agreement; whether she proposes to take any action in the matter; and, if so, whether she can state the suggestions she intends to make?

I have discussed the position with representatives of the railway companies and the Unions and further discussions will take place. In the meantime, I am not in a position to make any statement on the matter.

Has the right hon. Lady had any consultation with the Lord Privy Seal on this matter?

The Lord Privy Seal was with me when I received this very important deputation.

Joint Industrial Councils

asked the Minister of Labour whether she is considering the question of making the findings of joint industrial councils binding on all employers in the industry concerned; and whether she intends to introduce legislation on this subject?

Representations have been made to me on this subject by the Association of Joint Industrial Councils. I am not aware, however, that there is such a degree of agreement on this subject either among the joint industrial councils or among employers' organisations or trade unions as would justify me in introducing legislation.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives and the representatives of employers in the boot and shoe trade are in favour of the findings of the joint industrial council being made binding on the industry?

Prisoners (Flogging)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of cases in which the cat has been inflicted in British prisons during each of the past 10 years as part of the original sentence and/or for offences against prison discipline, respectively.

As the answer contains a number of figures I shall circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPOET.

Following is the answer:

NUMBER OF PRISONERS FLOGGED WITH "CATO'-NINE-TAILS."

Year.

Sentenced by Court.

For prison offences

1920

18

1

1921

12

3

1922

26

2

1923

11

2

1924

6

3

1925

12

3

1926

14

4

1927

11

6

1928

17

10

1929 (to date)

8

5

Compensation Law (Accident, Tyldesley)

asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to a motor fatality at Parr Brow, Tyldesley, near Manchester, on 22nd June, when two children, aged seven and two years, were killed; that the case was taken to Court to recover damages for the loss of the children and the defendants admitted negligence, but the Judge held there was no liability for damages because of the present state of the law; and will he consider amending the law so that in similar cases damages can be recovered?

The facts are as stated. I will see that my hon. Friend's suggestion is considered in the right quarters, but he will appreciate that what is involved is an alteration in the existing principle of the law by which the right to compensation is confined to cases in which pecuniary loss can be shown.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to listen to representations as to why some alteration should be made in the law in this respect?

Criminal Trials (Prisoners' Records)

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a recent case at the Middlesex Sessions and the remarks of the presiding Judge when, on the prisoner being charged before the jury and the indictment read to them, previous convictions were thereby disclosed against him before his trial was proceeded with; and whether he proposes to take any action to amend the law?

I have seen Press reports of this case, in which the proceedings were taken under Section 7 of the Prevention of Crimes Act. To comply with the terms of that Section it was necessary to prove that the defendant was a person who had within the previous seven years been convicted of a crime and that upon that occasion a previous conviction had been proved against him I am advised that a previous conviction is not proved within the meaning of this Section unless it is alleged in the indictment, and, further, is either admitted by the defendant or is found by the jury. I do not propose to suggest any alteration of the law relating to this special class of offences.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the observations of the Judge who tried this case; and does not he think that it is really unfair that a man's trial should begin with a long list of previous convictions?

The procedure followed was substantially in accordance with the law, and I can offer no comment on the observations of the Judge.

May I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the last part of my question and ask if he will not look into this matter; and does he not think it time that the law was altered in this respect?

Is it not the fact that there are certain offences of which a substantial part is a previous conviction?

Newspapers (Football Competitions)

asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to initiate legislation which will permit newspapers to run football competitions?

There would be serious difficulties in the way of the Government proposing preferential legislation for newspaper proprietors authorising them, and them only, to carry on competitions of a kind which Courts have declared to be illegal. If, however, the responsible representatives of the newspaper interests of this country were to put forward reasoned representations in favour of such legislation, I would certainly give them my most careful attention.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a public demand—not a newspaper demand—that these competitions should be allowed under restricted conditions?

The terms of the question asked me what I can do in respect of the newspapers, and not the public?

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when these representations are being made to him, that it has been considered by this House to be against the public interest that people should receive large sums of money for which they have never laboured?

I have announced no decision. I have expressed no opinion. I have simply said that I would consider these representations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that newspapers of character and repute want nothing whatever to do with football competitions?

Children Act

asked the Home Secretary whether he intends introducing legislation to extend the principle of the Children Act to offenders up to the age of 21, in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Young Offenders of 1927?

As I have already stated, the Government intends to introduce a, Bill to amend the Children Act, 1908, as soon as opportunity offers, and the recommendations of the Young Offenders Committee will then be borne in mind. I would point out, however, that although this Committee considered questions relating to offenders up to the age of 21, it did not suggest that all its proposals could be brought within the scope of the Children Act.

Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a Bill in the course of the present Session?

Hyde Park (Road Accidents)

asked the Home Secretary how many road accidents have taken place in Hyde Park during the years ended 31st October, 1928 and 1929; the nature of such accidents; how many, if any, were fatal; and how many of these accidents took place after dark?

A return has been prepared giving such particulars as are available. The return will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the return:

"A" OR WHITEHALL DIVISION.

Return showing the Number of Road Accidents in Hyde Park for years ending 31st October, 1928, and 31st October, 1929.

Horse drawn vehicles.

Mechanically propelled vehicles.

Pedal Cycles.

Horses led or ridden.

Total.

Brougham.

Uncovered.

Cabs.

Private Motors.

Motor Cycles.

Trade Covered.

2 wh.

4 wh.

Day

Night

D.

N.

D.

N.

D.

N.

D.

N.

D.

N.

D.

N.

D.

N.

D.

N.

D.

N.

November, 1927, to October, 1928.

Total of all accidents

2

1

46

18

289

148

27

17

1

17

8

15

398

191

Accidents involving personal injury

1

1

7

8

44

56

18

11

13

6

13

97

81

Number of persons injured

3

1

8

8

45

62

21

14

14

7

14

110

94

Number of fatal accidents and persons fatally injured.

5

3

November, 1928, to October, 1929.

Total of all accidents

1

31

17

308

144

28

10

14

6

24

406

177

Accidents involving personal injury

7

9

59

73

18

10

12

5

23

119

97

Number of persons injured

7

11

66

78

21

12

12

5

23

133

109

Number of fatal accidents and persons fatally injured.

1

1

3

1

1

Prosecution, Marlborough Street Police Court (Withdrawal)

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the comments of the magistrate at Marlborough Street Police Court, on 27th November, in permitting the withdrawal of a charge against Mrs. Margaret Frances Chamberlayne who had been charged with obtaining goods under false pretences; and whether it is proposed to hold an inquiry into the circumstances under which this lady was charged?

I am given to understand that Mrs. Chamberlayne has taken, or is about to take, certain proceedings, and in these circumstances I do not wish to say more than is necessary. I have received a full report, and after considering it, I am of opinion that the police did no more than it was their duty to do when called upon to assist in preparing material for a private prosecution.

Police

Chief Constable, Nottingham (Appointment)

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the watch committee of the city of Nottingham in appointing as chief constable Captain A. N. Popkess, Assistant Provost Marshal of the Aldershot Command, in view of the fact that the appointment appears to be in contravention of the Secretary of State's Statutory Police Regulation No. 9, which requires that a candidate shall have had previous police experience unless he has some exceptional qualification specially fitting him for the post; and whether, seeing that there were three selected candidates from the police service, he will withhold his approval of the appointment?

The watch committee's application for my approval to Captain Popkess' appointment is at present under consideration, and as the particulars furnished regarding his qualifications and experience are inadequate, I have asked for further information.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this question is not intended to cast any reflection whatever on the qualities of Captain Popkess, and can he give a declaration of the policy of the Government with regard to promotions in the Police Force?

On a point of Order. Is not the whole point of this question whether I can have a declaration with regard to the statutory rule, and whether it is the policy of the Government to approve appointments out-side the Police Force?

The whole point of the question seems to refer to one particular individual.

No, to a statutory regulation. The whole point of this question is to ask for the view of the Government with regard to a statutory regulation. The right hon. Gentleman is quite willing to give an answer, and may I have it?

I seem to have misunderstood it in the same way as the Home Secretary has.

Women Police

asked the Home Secretary the authorised increase in the number of women police in the Metropolitan Police Area; whether it is proposed to extend the scope of the duties performed by the women police; and, if so, in what way?

Yes, Sir. The increase in immediate contemplation is from 50 to 100. The scope of the functions of a police woman as an attested constable is in law the same as in the case of a man, but in practice the police women will conform to a special scheme of duties which will be subject to variation in detail in the light of experience. Certain questions of organisation are still under consideration.

Industrial Diseases (Quarrymen, Devon)

asked the Home Secretary why the Home Office require rural district councils in Devon to insure their employés engaged in quarry- ing and breaking stones with the sandstone industry compensation fund; and whether, as the risk of silicosis in such an open-air industry is infinitesimal, such insurance may be covered through the ordinary companies with which the councils' employés are insured?

The scheme made for this industry is based on the principle, which is expressly sanctioned by the Act, of a general compensation fund to which all employers in the industry are required to contribute. Although the industry is an open air one, the cases of silicosis found among quarrymen and others engaged in it show that the risk is by no means slight, and I see no reason at present why the local authorities in question should be allowed to contract out. Provision is made in the scheme for differential rates of levy and if experience shows that the risk in their case is exceptionally low, they may be entitled to a special rate.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give a single case of silicosis among the quarry workers of North Devon?

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will see that these men are insured wherever necessary in their own protection?

Women Pbobation Officers

asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that there are 468 courts of summary jurisdiction where no women probation officers have been appointed; and if he can say how many women and girls have appeared before those courts and how many of those have been placed upon probation?

I am informed that the number quoted by my hon. Friend is approximately correct. I cannot give the particulars asked for in the second part of the question, but I am well aware that women and girls are placed on probation by Courts having no women probation officers. The matter was recently considered by the Probation Advisory Committee, and it is hoped shortly to issue to Magistrates a circular letter drawing their attention to the need for women probation officers.

In cases where local authorities have made excellent arrangements outside the appointment of probation officers, will the right hon. Gentleman not interfere with the local arrangements?

Education

Milk Service

asked the President of the Board of Education the number of schools having milk clubs, together with the number of schoolchildren receiving milk under the National Milk Publicity Council's scheme for milk service in schools?

I regret that I am unable to give the Noble Lord the particulars for which he asks, but I understand that, partly as a result of the activities of the National Milk Publicity Council, there has, in the past few yeans, been a considerable extension of these arrangements for supplying milk to children in the schools. Among other places, comprehensive arrangements are in operation at Birmingham and Leeds.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of its importance to health, the collaboration of the Empire Marketing Board with the propaganda of the Milk Publicity Council?

Certificated Teachers

asked the President of the Board of Education how many teachers in elementary schools in England and Wales are recognised as certificated by virtue of having a university degree and the diploma in education of a university?

Figures are not available as to the number of teachers who hold university diplomas in education. The number of graduates recog- nised as certificated teachers in the elementary schools on 31st March, 1928, was 4,731.

Land Acquisition

asked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been drawn to the difficulties of local education authorities who desire to acquire land for educational purposes but who cannot trace the owner of the land; and, inasmuch as the Board hold that in such cases they have no power to confirm a compulsory Order of which notice has been served by affixing it to the land, he will consider promoting legislation whereby the practice of serving the notice on the land may be sufficient notice in such circumstances?

Only two instances of this difficulty have been brought to the notice of my Department since 1918, when local education authorities obtained their present powers of compulsory purchase, and I hardly think that the facts would justify me in proposing a revision of the law.

Secondary Education, Eston

asked the President of the Board of Education if He has yet received a report from the North Riding Education Committee respecting the provision of a secondary school at Eston; and if he is now in a position to give a decision respecting this matter?

For reasons which I have explained to the authority, I should prefer not to express an opinion upon this proposal before I have had an opportunity of considering the authority's programme for the next three years, which has not yet been received.

Corporal Punishment

asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the case of Richard Arthur Colman, aged 13, of Swansea, who was caned so severely that several weals were left on his back, in many oases with the skin broken; will he state what inquiry was made prior to the infliction of the punishment; and whether he will institute a public inquiry with a view to the abolition of corporal punishment in schools?

I have seen the report of the proceedings in court in this case. Corporal punishment in the schools is a matter which has always been left to the discretion of the school authorities, and I am not satisfied that there is need for any general inquiry into the subject.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it desirable that a child should be denied the ordinary procedure of justice that there should be an inquiry before punishment is inflicted?

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that you can spare the rod and spoil the child?

I asked if it is fair and reasonable that a child should be denied the ordinary common procedure of justice that an impartial inquiry should precede any punishment?

I am afraid that that would mean an entirely different system in the schools.

Is it not the fact that in this case it was quashed on appeal, and is it not also advisable that we should have much smaller classes—[ Interruption. ]

School-Leaving Age (Building Programmes)

asked the President of the Board of Education the percentage of educational districts in this country which will not be able to meet the requirements entailed by the raising of the school-leaving age without an extensive building programme?

As I have previously explained, I must wait for the local education authorities' programmes before I can form an estimate of the additional building entailed by the raising of the school-leaving age.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can now say when he expects to receive these programmes?

Poor Law

Test Work

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received representations from the Norwich Corporation or the Board of Guardians as to the usefulness of the work imposed on test-workers on the test grounds?

I have received no representations from either authority criticising the particular types of test work in operation in Norwich.

asked the Minister of Health the nature of the proposed inquiry into the conditions of test work; and when it will be started?

asked the Minister of Health what is the nature of the special inquiry he has constituted into the various forms of test work and the conditions in which they are carried out in different parts of the country; how the inquiry is composed; what are its terms of reference; and when it is expected that it will report?

The inquiry will be made by the officers of my Department, and will extend to all unions in which the performance of work is required as a condition of the grant of out-relief. The officers will survey the various forms of test work and the conditions under which they are carried out. The inquiry is being started forthwith and will, I hope, be completed early in the New Year.

I thank the Minister of Health for the consideration that he has shown on this point; and may I ask him whether he will make this inquiry as informal as possible, so that, when the inspectors go down there, they can ascertain not only the opinions of the guardians but of the men who are suffering?

Institution, Newington (Accommodation)

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the overcrowded conditions and inadequate accommodation that exist at the Newington institution; whether he can state what action his Department has taken with reference to the shortage of hospital beds; if his attention has been drawn to the overcrowding that has taken place at that institution for several years past; and can he state what suggestions are being made to meet the immediate needs of the institution during this coming winter?

I am aware of the circumstances existing at the institution in question and the needs of the area in regard to accommodation have not been lost sight of. The institution is not at the moment overcrowded, but consultations are taking place between my officers and the officers of the guardians on the subject of meeting the needs of the coming winter.

Is it not a fact that this matter has been under consideration by the Ministry for several years, and that it has been proved in the past that there have been at least 50 beds short for the poor people every winter? Will he not consider the scheme put forward by the authorities?

As I have said, the institution is not at the moment over-crowded; but I am hoping that we shall be able to make provision for more accommodation.

Appointed Guardians, Chester-Le-Street, (Remuneration)

asked the Minister of Health whether he has now sanctioned the remuneration of the recently-appointed guardians at Chester-le-Street; what has been the reason for the delay in fixing such remuneration; and what amount has been suggested by the guardians themselves for payment for their services?

The guardians applied to me on the 2nd instant for approval to the remuneration of the Chairman being fixed at the rate of £500 per annum, and of the other two members of the board at (the rate of £364 per annum, in both cases inclusive of travelling expenses. I am proposing to sanction a payment at the rate of £364 per annum inclusive of travelling allowances for each of the three guardians as in the case of the Bedwellty Guardians.

Is the right hon. Gentleman going to pay arrears, or is he going to pay from the date of settlement?

The salary will, of course, be paid from the date of their appointment.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how those figures compare with the salaries paid to the previous Commissioners?

In the case of Chester-le-Street, the salaries were at the rate of £500 a year.

Public Assistance Committees (Medical Officers of Health)

asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to prevent members of town councils who are also district medical officers under boards of guardians allowing their names to be included on the health committees of boroughs for 1930, when such health committees will be the public assistance committees of the boroughs in which these persons act as district medical officers; and whether such persons will be prevented from taking part in the arrangements for the setting up of public assistance committees when they are actually paid servants of the Ministry of Health?

As the law stands, district medical officers under the Poor Law who will be transferred to county councils and the councils of county boroughs under the Local Government Act, 1929, will be automatically disqualified from membership of the council or a committee of the council to whom they are transferred. District medical officers are employed and paid by the boards of guardians and not by my Department.

Local Government Employes (Superannuation)

asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the future position of men employed on highways by the rural district councils of England and Wales in areas where the rural district council has included such men in a scheme under the Local Government Officers Superannuation Act, 1922, in counties where the county council has not a scheme under the Act for men employed on highways; and what action he proposes to take in the matter, in view of the transfer of all highway powers from rural district councils to county councils as from 1st April, 1930?

I may refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of Section 125 of the Local Government Act, 1929, which are applicable to the employés to whom he refers.

Hugh Lane Bequest

asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any statement relating to contemplated legislation to give effect to the intention of the codicil to the will of the late Sir Hugh Lane for the restoration of the paintings comprised in the Hugh Lane bequest to the city of Dublin?

I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which was given to the hon. Member on the 20th November.

If I put down a question again at the opening of Parliament after the Recess, will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to answer it?

I wonder whether, in reply to that question, I might be permitted to give the hon. Member the advice to leave the matter where it is at present?

Has the right hon. Gentleman received representations from anybody since he last replied to this question?

Is it not a fact that a committee was specially appointed to deal with this matter and that a decision was arrived at? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be, better to leave the matter where it is?

Is not the Prime Minister aware that these pictures are running a serious risk at the present time from the fumes of the Battersea Power Station, and that the climate of Dublin is much more salubrious and likely to preserve them?

Cockington Forge, Torquay

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the famous Cockington Forge, Torquay, may shortly be purchased for exportation to America; and whether he is prepared to take steps for the purpose of retaining it in this country?

I have been asked to reply. Much as I would regret the disappearance of this well-known forge, I fear that it is not a case in which I would feel called upon to intervene under the Ancient Monuments Act.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he contemplates introducing legislation, or whether he has formulated any scheme, to prevent the exportation of such national works of art?

There is a small committee in the Department investigating this matter with a view to putting a Report before the Prime Minister.

Would it not be better if the money were spent on the unemployed instead of on works of art?

Housing

Slum Clearance

asked the Minister of Health what steps the Government proposes to take to correct any effect the judgment in the case of Rex v. Minister of Health, ex parts Davis, may have in discouraging local authorities from undertaking schemes of reconditioning of slums?

I would ask the hon. Member to await the proposals for legislation which I hope shortly to be in a position to submit.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he thinks he will be able to submit those recommendations about slum clearance?

Caravans

asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to a resolution by the Welwyn Garden City and Barnet Urban Rural District Councils with regard to the difficulties being experienced by local authorities with respect to caravans and other similar dwellings in their districts; and if he is prepared to introduce legislation discouraging the occupation of caravans as permanent dwellings and granting local authorities power to deal with them in a more satisfactory manner than at present?

My attention has been drawn to these resolutions and I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to a similar question on this subject on the 28th November.

British Materials

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a copy of the resolution recently passed by the London County Council that in the construction of dwellings preference will be given wherever practicable to materials wholly or in part obtained from sources within the British Empire; and whether he will in his next communication to local authorities advise the adoption by them of a similar policy and course of action?

I understand that a resolution on the lines suggested in the question has recently been passed by the London County Council, but I have not received a copy of it. The right hon. Member is aware that Section 10 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, provides that, in approving proposals for the construction of houses, the Minister of Health shall not impose any conditions which would prevent the materials required from being purchased in the cheapest market at home or abroad. Local authorities have, however, been urged to arrange that all contracts for or incidental to works carried out by them should, in the absence of special circumstances, be placed in this country, and that where this is for some reason impracticable British Empire products should, if possible, be used. The issue of a further communication to local authorities is under consideration.

Will the Minister note the change of heart in the right hon. Gentleman who asked this question since he left office?

Insanitary Dwellings (Inspection)

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the insanitary condition of large numbers of working-class houses, he will take steps to cause local authorities to expedite the inspection of such properties with the object of having the defects remedied under the powers they possess?

From the information available in my Department, local authorities appear to be fully alive to the urgency of this matter, and having regard to the magnitude of the work which they are already doing, I am not prepared to suggest to them generally that they are not making good use of the powers which they possess. Some figures indicating the extent of their activities will be found on page 68 of the Report of the Ministry of Health for the year 1928–29, and similar details for earlier periods are contained in previous Reports.

If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with information showing that some of these authorities are so perfunctory in the discharge of their duties that it will take 30 years before they make a complete inspection of the houses, will he take steps to expedite that inspection?

Thames Floods (Greenwich)

asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the unsafe and insanitary condition of 14 houses in Blackheath Road, Greenwich, which suffered in the recent Thames flood which caused the River Ravensbourne to overflow; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the houses are made safe and sanitary?

I am informed that conferences have taken place with a view to determining what steps should be taken to prevent future flooding and that it has been agreed that the London County Council shall execute the necessary works.

I would like to know if the Minister of Health is taking cognisance of the present rise of the Thames, and whether any extraordinary measures can be taken to prevent disasters occurring just now?

The matter is under continuous consideration, but it is difficult to promise to prevent floods.

Contract Prices

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the price for parlour houses erected by local authorities has risen from £377 in July last to £423 in September and for non-parlour houses from £337 in July to £347 in September; what were the respective prices of these houses in October and November; and to what reason or reasons he attributes the rise?

I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to questions on the subject by the hon. Members for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power) and Leeds,. North-East (Sir J. D. Birchall), respectively, on the 28th ultimo and 3rd instant. Comparable figures for November are not yet available.

Council Houses, Maidstone (Rents)

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that a sum of money of nearly £5,000 was overcharged in rents by the Maid-stone Town Council with the intention of returning it to the tenants when the accounts were adjusted and that this was done with the full knowledge of the official district auditor, and seeing that this sum of money has been appropriated by the Ministry of Health, he will be willing to see a small deputation from the town council in order that the case for the tenants may be stated?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to him in reply to a question on 10th July last. The whole subject has been discussed with representatives of the council and most carefully and exhaustively reviewed, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by reopening it.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered this matter himself, and would he receive a deputation if it were confined to the Socialist members of the town council?

Rural Housing

asked the Minister of Health if he will introduce a Measure for the better provision of rural houses?

The position as regards rural housing is engaging my attention in connection with the legislation I have under consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Gloucestershire County Council to the necessity of putting into operation Acts which are already on the Statute Book?

National Insurance (Voluntary Contributors)

asked the Minister of Health if he will ascertain the estimated net cost to the Exchequer if uninsured persons with total earnings of less than £250 per annum became insured as voluntary contributors under the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Acts?

I regret that there are no available statistics on which an estimate such as is desired by my hon. Friend could be based.

Would not the information asked for in this question be necessary for a comprehensive scheme?

Yes, but what I say is that we have not at present the information on which such an estimate could be based.

What I want to know is whether it is intended to obtain it from the Government Actuary?

Gas Boilers and Geysers (Poisoning)

asked the Minister of Health whether he has seen a Report of an inquest on the late Mr. and Mrs. Bottomley, who met with their death by misadventure from carbon monoxide, due to inhaling carbon monoxide; whether he has had brought under his notice the strong rider of the jury that gas boilers should be fitted with a vent through the external wall; and, in view of the fact that in evidence Dr. Roche Lynch, senior Home Office analyst, pointed out that there was danger from poisoning by carbon monoxide from gas boilers and geysers, will he communicate with all the local authorities and urge upon them the desirability of passing by-laws insisting upon proper external ventilation being provided in every case where gas boilers or geysers are fitted, in order to minimise the danger of poisoning to the public from this source in the future?

The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. A Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade is considering what measures may be taken with a view to diminishing the number of deaths from such accidents, and when the Committee have reported I will consider the question of communicating with local authorities.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opinion is widely held that the majority of these accidents are due to shoddy fittings, and will he recommend the extension of the by-law now existing in Bristol city and its adoption by other authorities?

I am afraid that I am not familiar with the by-law in question, but, if my hon. Friend will acquaint me with it, I will see what can be done.

Public Health

Cripples

asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to introduce legislation making provision for cripples analogous to that now made for the blind?

Is the Minister of Health prepared to meet a deputation and hear their representations on this subject?

Refuse Disposal

asked the Minister of Health how many municipalities possess modern methods for disposing of refuse; whether he has any figures showing the annual profits made by this sanitary method of disposing of rubbish; and whether he has brought these facts to the notice of the government of Greater London?

There are a number of efficient methods for the disposal of refuse, and it depends upon local circumstances which is the best in any particular case. I regret that I have not available the information asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am sending him a copy of the last annual return of public cleansing costs which will give him a good deal of information. As for London, a comprehensive report has been made by one of my inspectors and it is now being considered by a Departmental Committee.

Can the right hon. Gentleman get information as to the profits made by provincial municipalities, and show them to the local authorities that dumped their refuse in the fields of Essex and Kent?

When my hon. and gallant Friend has seen the report, I think he will find in it the information that he needs.

Will the Minister of Health undertake to bring some pressure to bear to stop this scandal?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Parliamentary Committee is expected to report?

I may say for the information of the House that I met the Committee myself this week, and they hope to report fairly early in the new year.

Sanitary Surveyor and Inspector, St. Austell (Salary)

asked the Minister of Health if the advertisement issued by the St. Austell Rural District Council for a fully qualified whole-time sanitary surveyor and inspector at a salary of £180 per annum, rising by £10 per annum to £230, was first submitted to him for his approval in accordance with Article 8 of the Sanitary Officers Order, 1926; whether the proposed salary is approved as adequate; and, if not, what action he proposes to take with the authority concerned?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I must not be taken to hold that the salary offered would normally suffice to attract and retain; the services of a fully competent officer, but in view of the local circumstances, I did not feel justified in refusing to acquiesce in the terms of the council's offer.

Ultra-Violet Light Treatment

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the differences of opinion among responsible medical authorities as to the value for tonic purposes of ultra-violet light, he will institute a full and impartial inquiry into the whole question of the value of this treatment?

The value for tonic and therapeutic purposes of ultraviolet light has formed part of the routine inquiries which have been made during recent years by medical officers of my Department and recorded in the annual reports of the chief medical officer. These observations are being continued, and I do not see any necessity for a fuller inquiry.

Is the Minister of Health aware that a good many municipalities have spent money upon installing this method of treatment for poor people, and now they are much distressed by the decision of the Medical Research Council, and can he give the municipalities any information?

The report of the Medical Research Council did not condemn the use of this method, and surely it is open to the local authorities to consult that body.

Animals (Slaughter)

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that more than 200 local authorities have made the use of a mechanical instrument compulsory for the slaughter of cattle, sheep and pigs, he will introduce legislation making this humane form of slaughtering compulsory throughout the country?

I cannot promise Government legislation. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that notice has been given of a Private Member's Bill to secure the object he desires.

Floods, Carmarthen

asked the Minister of Health if he has received a report on the damage caused to property in Carmarthen by the recent floods; and if he will inquire as to the causes of the flooding of Pensarn and make recommendations for the prevention of the floods in the future?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. It is for the local authorities affected to consider what measures can be taken for the prevention of future floods.

National Health Insurance (Share Fishermen)

asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied with the progress that has been made in the effective insurance of share fishermen; and whether the nature of the benefits which they lose through not becoming insured under the National Health Insurance Act has been made clear to the fishermen?

No exact figures of the number of share fishermen who have become effectively insured are available, although it has been ascertained from certain of the approved societies principally concerned that some thousands of men in this class have been enrolled since they became insurable in January of this year. I am aware that at some ports the standard of compliance with the new provisions is not altogether satisfactory, but steps are being taken, through my inspectors and otherwise, to secure an improvement. Information as to the benefits available has been widely circulated amongst fishermen by means of leaflets and the verbal explanations of inspectors and approved society officials.

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange with the President of the Board of Trade to have notices posted up in the Board of Trade offices, because many of these men have to go there to sign on their ships?

Agriculture

Home-Grown Foodstuffs

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider granting from the Exchequer a sum equivalent to that saved by the reduction of the naval programme, to be used for the encouragement of the production of home-grown foodstuffs?

To allocate reductions on one Vote to increases on another and altogether unrelated Vote is not, in my opinion, a practicable or desirable way of dealing with questions of expenditure.

Would it be possible for the Chancellor to estimate how many millions that sum would be?

I am afraid that I must give the usual answer. The hon. Member must await the Budget statement.

Contagious Abortion

asked the Minister of Agriculture if his Department issue and recommend the use of a live vaccine as the best preventive against contagious abortion in cattle; how long this has been in use; whether it has increased or reduced the incidence of the disease in cattle; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure the adoption of every possible measure for the reduction of this pest?

In herds in which the percentage of infection of contagious abortion is not high, the Ministry recommends that the disease should be con- trolled by hygienic measures and the agglutination test for the detection of infected animals. In herds in which infection is heavy, the Ministry advises the immunisation of all non-pregnant animals with the live vaccine. This vaccine has been issued from the Ministry's Laboratory since 1912, and the demand for it indicates that it is serving a useful purpose. The disease does not lend itself to legislative control, and, therefore, my right hon. Friend intends to encourage and assist research workers to concentrate on the discovery of better methods of immunising cattle against the disease.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that part of my question in which I ask whether this method, which has been continued for 17 years, has increased or reduced the incidence of this extremely grave pest?

That was not included in the question on the Paper. If the hon. and gallant Member will put down that question, I will do my best to give him a reply.

May I read the words:

"whether it has increased or reduced the incidence of the disease in cattle."

May I have an answer to that question?

Is there any means, Mr. Speaker, by which Ministers can be made to answer questions that are on the Paper?

There seems to be a tendency to try to make Ministers go very far beyond what is contained in the questions.

Employment

77 and 78.

asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether, in view of the acreage of waterlogged and uncultivated land in England, he will take steps to tackle this problem as an aid to providing employment and increasing food production;

(2) whether any provisions are included in the unemployment grant conditions under his control which will provide employment for agricultural workers or will assist in bringing land in England back to the plough?

A drastic amendment of the existing law is an essential preliminary to any comprehensive treatment of the problem of land drainage, and the Government have in preparation a Bill on the subject which will be submitted to the House at the earliest possible date. Meanwhile grants are available from the funds at the disposal of the Ministry for drainage schemes. In certain circumstances grants for arterial drainage schemes are obtainable through the Unemployment Grants Committee. All the above schemes are for the benefit of agriculture, and, although the conditions do not specifically require the employment of agricultural workers, the schemes undoubtedly assist in relieving unemployment among those workers.

Having regard to the urgency of this problem, would the right hon. Gentleman kindly state the approximate date when the Bill will be introduced?

The answer to that question is, as soon as the business of the House will permit us to do so.

Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's original answer, is he aware that there are millions of acres of arable land in this country which are not waterlogged and are not being cultivated at the present time, and will he say what is going to be done to bring that land into cultivation?

That does not affect the fact that drainage would include a great deal of very valuable land.

Conference (Producers)

asked the Minister of Agriculture having regard to the decision of the Government to set up a Consumers' Council in order to prevent profiteering in food, whether he will consider the question of also establishing a producers' council for British agriculture in order to lift the position of the farm Workers and the working farmers above the existing standard of wages?

My right hon. Friend is hoping to be able to arrange a conference with representatives of the three interests concerned in agricultural production, to be opened by the Prime Minister. It is obvious that the improvement in the position of producers—including, of course, farm workers— which my hon. Friend has in mind, would fall for consideration by that Conference.

Questions to Ministers

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. FREEMAN.

"79. To ask the Minister of Agriculture whether his inquiries as to cruelty suffered by cattle imported from Ireland have been completed; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence?"

On a point of Order. May I have a reply to my Question No. 79? I understood you to call upon my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. W. B. Taylor).

It is already past 3.45, so I cannot call on any hon. Members for further questions.

Business of the House

Will the Prime Minister be good enough to announce the business for next week, and is he in a position to say on what date the House will adjourn for the Christmas Recess?

The programme for next week will be:

Monday and Tuesday: Unemployment Insurance Bill, Committee, finishing the Committee stage.

Thursday: Unemployment Insurance Bill, Report and Third Reading.

I am advised that it is essential, if funds are to be available for the payment of unemployment benefit, to pass the Unemployment Insurance Bill into law before the Adjournment. The Bill must go to another place next Thursday, 12th December.

It is also hoped to complete next week all remaining stages of the Highlands and Islands (Medical Services) Additional Grant Bill, and, if time permits, to take other Orders—they will be very small.

With reference to the date of Adjournment, what we are trying to work to is Friday, the 20th instant. That, however, will depend upon two things. It will necessitate the Government asking the House to give it the private Members' time for that day. Nothing has been put down for that day by private Members, and I should like to remind the House that, if that Friday is taken, its equivalent will have to be given between the New Year and Easter, so that private Members will not lose a day. The other thing on which the programme depends is our being able to get a certain programme of business done which we consider to be essential. If the right hon. Gentleman would put a question on Monday as to what that programme is likely to be I should be very glad to answer it. Before announcing it, it would be desirable to exchange views between the three parties.

At the moment we are working upon a sort of trial date, but the House would be well advised if they assumed that the date of reassembly would be 21st January.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman really think it very unfair to ask the House to take Report and Third Reading of the Unemployment Bill on one day?

I should be very glad if that was the subject of an exchange of views. The question is how to get the Bill to the other place in time, and also how to get through the programme.

Will the Prime Minister prevent some of his supporters taking up the whole of the time?

Is the House not going to be given an opportunity next week of discussing the coal policy of the Government?

I have indicated the time that must be taken up by the Unemployment Insurance Bill. We will ask for a Second Reading for the Coal Bill before the Adjournment.

I wish to make one observation about the programme. I understand consultation is to take place through the usual channels, but, of course, the Leader of the House is trying to do a great deal too much. There is a great deal more business to be got through before Christmas than can be got through if adequate discussion is to be given. There has been very little in the way of obstruction. [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members who cheer ironically either have not sat in the previous House or have entirely forgotten what passed in the last Parliament. There has not been a single day given for the discussion of any subject yet for which the Opposition have asked. The Opposition have agreed with the Government as to the time with regard to certain Bills. They have not at all gone back on that, and the business has gone through. We have done all we can to facilitate it, but there are limits. I hope very much that that will be borne in mind when consultations take place. I have only one other observation to make. The Leader of the House spoke of certain legislation, of the nature of which we are not aware, with regard to coal. Whatever views we may hold on coal, that must be legislation of primary importance on which this House will desire to make a full expression of opinion. It is perfectly impossible that any Measure of that kind can be forced through in a very short time.

Ordered,

"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ The Prime Minister. ]

Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Bill

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

Chairmen's Panel

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had appointed Sir Hugh O'Neill to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Workmen's Compensation (No. 2) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Selection (Standing Committees)

Standing Committee B

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Workmen's Compensation (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Compton, Major Dudgeon, Sir Walter Greaves-Lord, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Wardlaw-Milne, Mr. Short, the Solicitor-General, Sir William Way-laud, and Mr. T. Williams.

Scottish Standing Committee

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That the following Member, representing a Scottish constituency, is appointed to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee: the Lord Advocate.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Message from the Lords

The Lords communicate that they have come to the following Resolution:

"That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider, with a view to reporting, if necessary, thereon, any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India."

Orders of the Day

Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[ Progress, 3 rd December. ]

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit.)

Before I call on the hon. Member for Nottingham West (Mr. Hayday), I wish to make a suggestion to the Committee. The first Amendment on the Paper raises, generally, the question of genuinely seeking work, and the suggestion I wish to make is that a general discussion covering all the Amendments relating to the method to be adopted in determining the onus of proof whether a person has sought or been offered suitable employment, and whether under one condition or another disqualification should or should not be imposed, should take place on the first Amendment. Then the third Amendment—in page 3, line 24, after the word "benefit" insert the words

"made between the commencement of this Act and the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-one."

on which I understand hon. Members on my left wish to put their case will be called after the disposal of the first. I suggest that, if we are to keep to that voluntary arrangement, the first Amendment should be disposed of, say, not later than six o'clock, and the second not later than half-past seven o'clock. If that is done, we shall be able to take a larger number of the Amendments on the Paper, but I am completely in the hands of the Committee. If we exceed those limits, of course, the number of Amendments likely to be taken will have to be somewhat more strictly selected.

Speaking for myself and my hon. Friends, that proposal would suit us completely, save that, of course, we desire to be able to make our points on our own Amendment and not to be entirely ruled out on certain points which may arise because they may have been discussed in another aspect by Members on the other side of the House.

Speaking for myself, I think the arrangement a very unfortunate one.

I have made no arrangement. I am completely in the hands of the Committee.

I think the suggestion a very unfortunate one because, obviously, what the Committee will want to do is to ascertain the views of the Ministry, not merely with regard to the Amendment first on the Paper, but on a number of other Amendments, and surely the question is of such supreme importance that two hours is altogether too small to allow a half of the Members of the Committee who really want to put the case for the unfortunate men, especially seeing that three times this House has tried to find a form of words and three times it has failed.

I understand that hon. Members on this side wish to put their main arguments on their own Amendment. I am not fixing any time. I am only making a suggestion.

The Amendment of the hon. Members above the Gangway raises a specific and definite issue as to time, which is a much smaller issue in scope than is raised by the first Amendment. Surely we ought to have longer for the first Amendment. We do not want to obstruct business, but there are Members on all sides who do not want to part with the Clause until we have the form of words as clear as Parliament can make it, and the most important discussion we can have is on the first Amendment.

If we can have a general discussion on the first Amendment, I think it could be very easily limited if we could be told what attitude was going to be adopted by the Minister of Labour with regard to the form of words dealing with the genuinely seeking work penalty. If we had that fairly early, the other Amendment would be a matter of working in according to the expression of policy made by the Minister and the words she is prepared to accept.

I desire to support what has been said by my hon. Friend. Practically all the Amendments deal with this Clause, which is the vital Clause of the Bill. The form of words is all important. If the words of the hon. Member for West Nottingham were accepted, some of us would not feel inclined to take any further part in the discussion. The whole thing is concentrated in this Clause. I hope there will be no attempt unduly to cut down discussion, because our main point is here. There are only one or two other small points.

4.0 p.m.

My hon. Friends and I thought we might take the Amendments on the Order Paper and a further discussion, if desired, would take place more properly when the Minister came down to the precise words she intended to insert, because although there are, no doubt, general considerations to be borne in mind in considering the Clause, the detailed discussion will take place when the Minister proposes to put in actual words, because the actual words are important here. I understand that the Minister desired to have the general principle cleared out of the way fairly early, so that she could get down to what, I agree, is important—the discussion of the draft of the words which govern the conditions of this Clause. That is why I and my hon. Friends suggested we might consider the principles on the two Amendments of the Opposition and Back Benches, and then discussion be allowed to take place on the words the Minister herself proposes.

May I point out that, before the Minister's Amendment arises, there is a most important Amendment as to the word "neglected" in Sub-section (1), and, if the right hon. Lady is not proposing to discuss that, some of us would have to take a very serious view as to the implications of the Subsection as now drafted.

May I put it in this way? I am in the hands of the Committee. I was only bearing in mind what I understood was the wish of all sections of the Committee. If we are to get a large number of Amendments proposed, discussed or divided upon, as the Committee may require, it is necessary that we should not take up too much time. I am only suggesting now that the two Amendments to which I have referred should be dis- posed of, say, by eight o'clock. If that is not agreeable to the Committee, I had better call on the hon. Member to move, as we are now wasting time.

Might I suggest that it would be better, if, following the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hay-day), we had an expression of view from the Minister, whose Amendment comes after that of my hon. Friend?

I feel that it is impossible for anyone to say whether a discussion of two hours is adequate or not, and I would be quite satisfied if we had an understanding from the Chair that if it were obvious at the end of two hours that the Debate had not reached its conclusion, the Closure would not be harshly accepted.

I do not think that is a question the hon. Member ought to put to me. In the second place, I can only consider the Closure when it is put to me. I cannot at this stage say whether I will or will not accept the Closure.

Perhaps I have directed my question to the wrong quarter. May I put it to the Minister, that if there should be a general desire in this Committee that the discussion should be prolonged beyond the time suggested, she would not take the view that the Closure must be moved, as it would be if this were the guillotine.

I am in the hands of the Committee. I have no desire whatever to do anything contrary to the general desire of the Committee. In my Second Reading speech I said very definitely that I wanted the united wisdom of the House, and I said I should be only too glad to get general agreement.

If I may be allowed, I should like to say we are wasting time. I think the best thing to do is to let the discussion go on and, therefore, I call upon the hon. Member for West Nottingham.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert instead thereof the words: This Amendment, standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, is one that will bring us very sharply up against the question of principles to apply as far as unemployed workmen are concerned. We have had a considerable experience in past Acts of attempts to apply words which, when they were originally proposed, we were assured had no intention of bearing harshly upon unemployed workmen, or that the interpretation of such words could possibly impose a system of interrogation that would be harsh and wicked in its application. During the first three or four years of the operation of this particular provision, commonly called the "genuinely seeking" or "statutory condition No. 4," there was, perhaps, a reasonable interpretation placed upon those words. We then reached a period following the economy campaign where there grew up a tendency for a more harsh application of the words, for the sole purpose, as many of us felt, of disqualifying legitimate claimants in order to save expenditure from the Insurance Fund. That method grew so intense and cruel in its application, that no inquisitorial methods of centuries ago could have inflicted greater torture than the implement of interrogation brought into play in this connection. Visits to workmen's homes, inquiries as to their family arrangements, persecution, a method of interview and development of simple phrases into the most terrible implications, were brought into play, so much so that many were disqualified under the transitional period, which was followed with a second disqualification, that they had not their 30 stamps, or they had not been employed in an insurable occupation to a reasonable extent during the past two years. It carried a second disqualification, and many of those have never been able to get restored to benefit.

The Bill in another direction will give a review to that particular class of case. And so small wonder that many of us feel so strongly in the matter. I think that it is more general than is understood in some quarters, and that every Member of this House representing an industrial constituency, whether he or she be Conservative, Liberal or Labour, must have felt within his or her heart sorely depressed by many of the cases presented to them arising out of the application of that Statutory condition No. 4. Therefore, I need not take up time in quoting cases that have passed through that inquisitorial instrument. What I do feel now is that the Government of the day will secure the support of hon. Members opposite. I almost feel that such an Amendment as I am proposing, if not in words, in principle, might well be accepted by every Member in the Committee, because we shall only be quarrelling about words. We shall all, I hope, be desiring to obtaining the same object, which is the freeing of the unemployed person from any of this unnecessary inquisition.

If I were to quote one or two incidents that make me and others very firm in our opinion upon this matter, I would remind the Committee that the Trade Union Congress and the Labour party in the country have from time to time had this matter presented to them, perhaps in its more aggravated form by reason of the applicant's association with his industrial trade union. Consequently we see it, perhaps, in its more ghastly aspect than any casual observer or any individual coming into touch with an isolated case here and there. And so these two great movements have given expression to the opinion that nothing short of the definite refusal of an offer of employment should be the disqualification from benefit. When the Blanesburgh Committee were making their inquiry into this matter, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health and myself were colleagues in presenting the case to that committee and, in doing so, we made mention of this matter. We urged that it was the duty of the Exchange to find work for unemployed persons. bodies responsible for the promotion of the candidatures, and therefore responsible for the election of the present Government. Many Members of the present Government were active participants in moulding that policy, which two of us were asked to argue before the Blanesburgh Committee. In December of last year, when the right hon. Lady the present Minister of Labour and myself went to a small deputation that waited upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the then Minister of Labour, upon matters connected with the transitional period, we repeated that paragraph that was part of our evidence before the Blanesburgh Committee—a deputation with the full sympathy and support of, and with pleadings made by, our present Minister of Labour, by myself, and by a small number of others who had been chosen from the joint industrial and Labour party of this country.

Then it was followed by the Morris Committee inquiry. I said on the Second Heading that if Members of this House would read through the evidence and the answers to questions upon this subject of the fourth statutory condition, they would, like me, make up their minds, although it may be looked upon as a prejudiced point of view, that never again would they support any condition, no matter how simple and reassuring the words may have been, or how alluring they may appear to have been, that would permit of the commencement of a further period of cross-examination which would be bound to develop as the not genuinely seeking work section had developed, and that the only possible way to do that was to say definitely, "You, the Labour Minister, through your machinery, through your Exchange, cannot deprive an unemployed person of his benefit when he has first established his right to that benefit." Because it is not open to anybody and everybody. You have interrogations to go through before you are admitted. You must pass a questioning and a certain condition, but, having been admitted, and so long as the other terms of the contract are fulfilled, you have no right to deprive a person of his benefit until you bring definite proof that there has been a job offered and a definite refusal on the part of the applicant to take on that work.

Now the words of my Amendment are just the words of the plain layman. They are the words that, I think, are understood by the average British man and woman. I can never understand why we must, in our laws, use 500 or 600 words to convey a meaning that could well be conveyed by very many fewer words. If we here have a difficulty in following all the delicacies and technicalities involved in words, what must be the position of the unemployed person, who can either benefit or suffer the withdrawal of benefit under the terms that we do not understand always to the full extent and that he cannot be expected to understand? Surely, therefore, it is best to put it in that way. It may be said, "Yes, but we cannot offer work to every unemployed applicant. We only fill, through our machine, at the outside 18 vacancies out of every 100, and therefore we cannot offer the jobs, and there must be, even though it be ever so slight, some responsibility placed on the applicant."

Well, the slight responsibility soon develops under an unsympathetic Administration, but the very fact that you can only offer 18 vacancies out of 100 jobs filled is the great reason for my words because you have no right, in consequence of your only controlling 18 per cent. of the vacancies, to refuse benefit to anybody at all. What becomes of the other 82 per cent. of vacancies that are filled? Are they filled? Of course they are. By whom? By the very people whom the law suspects as being malingerers. As many as 82 per cent. of the unemployed persons find their own work, either by direct contact with the employers, through the machinery of their trade unions, or by the constant search, the ceaseless haunting of factory gates that your laws will never take away from the average workman in this country. He will go on doing it, he always has done it, and those who say he has not speak with their tongue in their cheek, and with a mock expression of assumed sympathy with the man and woman who are then in distress. The very fact, therefore, that you can only fill 18 per cent. of the vacancies going takes away your right to deprive a person of his benefit.

Then you might say, "Let us fill all the vacancies; let us have an Act of Parliament whereby all employers will be compelled to notify vacancies." There again you cannot do it. The employers would say, "No. We are in direct touch with the trade unions that supply us with the expert man when we want him, and your machinery of vacancy-filling is simply a casual ward clearing-house. You cannot guarantee anything, and why should we break our contact with the association and with the men who come out in winter and come back again in summer; why should we break the order of seniority arrangement which we have with the union, that as the men come out, so they go back, in the order of service and seniority?" No Labour Exchange machine can ever replace such an understanding as that.

My last test on vacancies would be this: Can you prove to us that there is a vacancy unfilled that might have been filled? If you could say, "Now there are vacancies not filled, and because those vacancies are not filled, that is proof that somebody has not been looking for that work," you would have some semblance of a case, but all the vacancies going are filled, either, as a last resort, through the machinery of the Labour Exchange, or through the existing arrangements as between employers and their workpeople, or as between employers and the trade unions. Every vacancy going in the country is rapidly filled.

We are asked in one part of this Clause to say, "or expected to become vacant." I am not going to begin to equivocate, and to try and be clever, or anything of that sort, but I am dealing at the moment with vacancies that are known. All those vacancies are filled, and as to the expected vacancies, John passes the word on to Jerry, "Somebody was ill to-day and may be too ill to come to morrow," and somebody is on the job. Expected vacancies! Why, there is always a body of unemployed persons looking out and inquiring for the expected vacancies, many times weeks ahead, especially in seasonal occupations. If we, therefore, get to that point, what can be the argument of the Department? This is not an argument of finance, unless it be in this sense, that you must have some safeguard that would enable you to put people out of benefit; but if you can only save your Fund by having resort to that sort of argument, then the sooner you admit that it is no use talking of this scheme as an insurance scheme the better, because it is not an insurance scheme.

I hope hon. Members will not talk in the strain of making the income and the debit sides exactly balance, because, if that were so, I would have to remind them that they never did intend it to be so. When they passed their 1920 Act, they know they flooded it, early in 1921, with people who had never paid a half-penny or a penny towards it, and they know they took £22,500,000 of savings for another fund, and eased the Exchequer, about whom we hear so much now, by passing over the men on the out of work donations scheme, for which the Government itself was directly responsible, and a direct Exchequer charge for the ex-service men and munition workers who were thrown out of work at the end of the war. It may be a vulgarism, but I was going to say it is all bunkum—if it is Parliamentary to say it, it gives expression to a thought in my mind—to talk now of either increasing the load on industry, of increasing the contributions, or of inflicting further hardship, although it makes your heart bleed to do it, to reduce the outgoings of the Fund by having some measure that will enable you to equalise the incomings and outgoings of the balance-sheet of this insurance scheme.

No, we have to face for some time what we have faced since 1921, difficult periods, and after the carry-over of the last eight years, and after the impositions we have all witnessed in the harsh application of these terms, so far as the unfortunate applicant is concerned, we have to carry over still further. There sometimes comes that period when the longer drawn out period gives a greater degree of exhaustion and calls for a greater degree of assistance before that exhaustion is felt to too great an extent and destroys the value of the human units with whom we are dealing. We cannot deal with them in a light-hearted manner, and say, as in an epidemic of disease, "We can only go on hoping for the best." We must deal more drastically with it than we have done up to the present. Therefore, we found that when the Morris report had this, everyone of us agreed that those conditions never ought to be. The fourth statutory condition must go. We were all agreed upon that. But there were five members who signed that Re- port. I must repeat this in order to put the matter in its proper light. Two said "statutory out" but that there must be words halving the responsibility as between the Exchange and the person. Two other members said, "There can be no halving of responsibility; complete responsibility must be shifted from the applicant on to the Exchange." Another member felt that neither of these opinions properly represented his point of view, namely, that while the fourth statutory condition should go there should be some responsibility in the Measure—I hope I am doing him justice—slightly in excess of the 50 per cent. of responsibility embodied in the report of two of the members. If this Clause is based on that Report the Committee have to bear in mind the terms of my Amendment. I want to be as consistent as I can. They are the terms of the reservation which I signed, for having gone through the matter—I hope with an unprejudiced mind—in order to find out all about it, the result of the evidence convinced me that if you had the slightest semblance of responsibility placed upon the applicant you would have the development of the inquisition again. I came to the conclusion, as did the lady representative, that nothing short of putting the whole responsibility upon the Exchange could "meet the case in the circumstances after the evidence we had heard. I place as much value upon my opinion and upon the opinion of the good lady Mrs. Adams as I do upon the opinion of any other two members of that Committee. Therefore, mine is not a minority report; it is equal in value to the report of the other two members to whom I have referred. If these reports are equal the balance ought to come down on the side of justice and in keeping with the principles of the movement with which the Government are associated. That is a point which I honestly want to make.

This matter was further discussed by our Trade Union Congress and by the executive of the Labour party. They appointed a full deputation to wait upon the Labour Minister. They submitted its memoranda in the form of a report and I was honoured by being asked to present this report to the Labour Minister, which I did. It says:

That is the sum result of all his wicked viciousness. What becomes of the other vicious "unemployed" person of society in the great business world? He becomes demoralised and vicious and engages in some great swindle and he can secure hundreds of thousands of pounds as a result of his viciousness. Why, then, should we always be asked— [ Interruption. ] I only give this as a comparison. I have no heated feeling in the matter. Why then should we be asked to become heresy hunters of the poor "down-and-outs" who have never had a real chance in life? Why should all our efforts be concentrated on the man, if he does exist, whose viciousness has been created by the system which has ground him down to the level of getting 24s. a week? Why should we want to bring into being an Act of Parliament to tackle him so that all our efforts might be put forward in order to destroy people in our own class, while the vicious elements created by the same system at the other extreme are lauded and feted because they are clever men and can get away with hundreds of thousands of pounds? I am not going to lend myself to that in any circumstances. I hope that the Minister will see that our expressions are couched in reasonable language. If our difficulties are recognised she will not misjudge the value of the position we take up.

I hope that the right hon. Lady will not make a miscalculation and think that we say: "We hope you can do it; and we trust you can do it, but we will forgive you if you do not do it." I hope that she will not think anything like that or that there is less determination upon our part. I appeal, I urge, I plead, not for myself—I do not want personal popularity—that you may relieve— [ Interruption. ] An hon. Member who is not within the precincts of the House laughs. These are circumstances which, I think, might cause him to laugh on the other side of his cheek, because no one can deny that I am conscientiously making an effort in order to relieve the burden upon my people. I do not mind being classed with my own people, because in common with them I and many other hon. Members have suffered. I ask that the utmost limit of the powers of the Government may be extended in this direction to ease the yoke of oppression and the possibility of further interrogations.

On a point of Order. For the guidance of the Members of the Committee, Mr. Young, would you be good enough to tell us which Amendments you intend to call?

Apparently the hon. Member was not present when I stated what was to be the procedure.

I and several of my hon. Friends have placed upon the Order Paper a series of Amendments, but we feel that they are covered, to a very large extent, at any rate, in principle, by the Amendment which has already been moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). We feel that it is a privilege that he should have the task of moving this particular Amendment on what many of us regard as possibly the most important point of the Bill, because he, in the Morris Report, in my view at any rate, laid the foundations of the root principles upon which this matter ought to be discussed. I venture to call attention to the extraordinary danger of unnecessary or careless words in a Clause of this kind. There is not a word we are putting into this Clause which may not, at some future time, be used as an instrument of torture to thousands of people in this country. That has been exemplified in the form of words which was previously used. No one imagines that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw), or whoever was responsible for the original words of the old Clause, envisaged or could envisage the use subsequently made of them. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and until we have had experience no one knows how these things are going to work out. As an instance of the extraordinary ease with which words of this kind may be misunderstood I want to call the attention of the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour to words which she herself used on a previous occasion. I am not talking about Election pledges or anything of that kind. They were words used on the Second Reading of this Bill. I will read from the OFFICIAL REPORT: have opened the door wide to what has previously been called, not by me, but by the present Home Secretary, with regard to a previous Bill, "administrative persecution." As long as those words are there, they can be used in that form, and you are giving a kind of to be applied by those who have to decide these matters, which, I venture humbly to suggest, will actually be a greater instrument of oppression than the present words.

I am not a champion of what is called the psychological test. You have only to look in the majority Report of the Morris Committee at the perfectly extraordinary judgment of the umpire, which represents the guiding principle upon which, under the existing system, the authorities have had to decide whether the man had the genuinely-seeking-work mind. That, at least, did give the authorities some kind of discretion. They might say: "It has been shown to us that this man on a particular occasion neglected to apply for a job that we think he ought to have applied for. Still, we think that he is a fairly good fellow, and he has, on the whole, got the "genuinely-seeking-work mind." On that they could keep him in benefit; but when there is laid down a rule-of-thumb that if he neglects to apply for a given and specific situation he can be disqualified on that alone, we all know how a rule of that kind, although it may be intended merely to be permissive, does tend, as time goes on, to become the definite rule. Therefore, we have to be very careful. If we look once again at the majority Report of the Morris Committee—I am reading from the bottom of page 20—we see the kind of thing that they had in mind and which, therefore, it may be presumed that those who apply this test will have in mind. They say: against it to the last. It means that perhaps in Middlesbrough there were six vacancies last week, say, at Dorman Long's, and there were 600 people who applied. "Were you one of them?" The man may say that he was. He may be disbelieved; very often they are disbelieved, or he may admit that he heard of it rather late, or that he did not know, or that there were so many stronger men than he applying, and that there was no chance of his being selected and, consequently, he did not go. He may be turned down on that. I submit for the consideration of the Committee that the diligence test—I am borrowing the phrase from the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), which he used in the Second Reading Debate—is even more impossible to apply than the psychological test. What is diligence? It varies with the individual. Take several energetic people. Let me take the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove, the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). As ingenious and energetic people—I hope they will not mind being connected for this purpose—they would probably show greater activity and greater ingenuity in seeking work than the average man who waits outside an Employment Exchange. It is only natural that they should, but how long would they keep it up? That is the question.

We have to realise that many of these unemployed people have been out of work year after year until they have become hopeless, as we should have become hopeless in the same circumstances, and it is neither right nor reasonable to apply to them the same test of diligence that you would apply to the man who has perhaps fallen out of work for the first time. Therefore, you have to start the whole psychological test over again. You have to have the diligence test, and then you have to have the psychological examination to discover whether it is reasonable to apply a certain test of diligence to a particular man. I would call 'attention to one of the oldest judicial pronouncements recorded in the annals of English law, the pronouncement of an old Judge, I think it was Mr. Justice Bracton, who said, many hundreds of years ago: This test which the devil himself knoweth not is expected to be applied under this Measure. Therefore, we have to go back to something far simpler, and it is because I believe that it would secure simplicity that I support the Amendment. I do not say that the Minister may not discover that it is necessary to supplement it in certain respects by subsequent Clauses. For instance, "suitable work" may require further definition. There is a certain amount of definition already given in Sub-section (5), but we have to provide somewhere for the circumstances when it becomes necessary to ask a man to look rather wider than his own particular trade. I do not think that any Member of the Committee imagines that a man is fixed for ever in one occupation and that there can never come a time when it is unreasonable to ask him to look further. But that can be dealt with.

We want to safeguard the man in various ways, and I and my hon. Friends have put down several suggestions as to safeguards with respect to the man who may be offered work which is called suitable but which may not be suitable, and which ought not to be offered to him: work which is dangerous to health, or work which, if he undertakes it, may render him unsuitable for his old occupation, if he is fortunate enough to get back to it. These are matters of detail. The main central principle is set down in the Amendment. As I am anxious that other hon. Members who wish to speak on this most vital matter should not be deprived of their opportunity, I will merely ask the Committee to go for simplicity all the time. I think they have simplicity in this Amendment, and if in these few words they can find justice, why should they go further and fare worse?

I should like to clear up what is, in my opinion, a very grave misunderstanding of the wording of the Clause. The position, broadly, is, that it is impossible even to consider words until you have in your mind a picture of the process which takes place, and for which the words are intended to provide. The Employment Exchange, in fact, does not offer work. That is the first point. I am now dealing only with the words in the Clause. So far as the intention of the Sub-section goes, it is intended completely to abolish the old "genuinely seeking work" condition, and to substitute the offer of a job.

May I put a specific question to the right hon Lady? Some of us want this thing to be treated on its merits, apart from any Departmental thesis. The vital word is the word "neglect." It says that the onus is on the Employment Exchange. I would ask the right hon. Lady to put herself in the place of the insurance officer who has to ask an applicant a question, What does neglect mean? If he asks the applicant: "Did you apply for a definite job?" that is acceptable proof. If he asks the applicant: "Did you refuse a definite job?" that is acceptable proof. If he asks the applicant, "Did you neglect?" then we are back again in the old position as to whether he knew or he did not know whether there was a job.

If the hon. Member had allowed me to continue he would have found that I intended to answer that point. The point is, that the Exchange does not, in fact, offer a job. The Exchange notifies the man that a job is available at a certain place and that he must go to that place in order to get an offer of the job through the employer, or the employer's agent. It is the employer or his agent who offers the job. That is the position. I am advised that the Exchange cannot offer the job and, therefore, legally that phrase cannot be used in any sense in relation to this particular operation. The next point is what happens at the Exchange? Let us bear in mind the machinery. The employer either rings up or writes that there is a vacancy, and says: "Will you send along men in accordance with my requirements?" The Exchange fills up a form and hands the form to those persons who are regarded as suitable to apply for the vacancy. The Clause limits that operation to the one person to whom the particular vacancy is offered. A person is told to apply for a specific place, and that person is given the form. He goes to the employer, but he may not get the vacancy. That, however, does not affect his claim to benefit. His benefit goes on. He may neglect to call upon the employer, although he has received notification that he is requested to call and to apply for the vacancy. That is the way in which the word "neglect" is used in this instance. [ Interruption. ] I am giving the legal interpretation of the words. We need not waste further time upon that point, because I will ask the Attorney-General to intervene.

I would beg the Committee to accept from me the assurance that whatever may be the form of words in Clause 4 (1) the object is to ensure that in that category of cases where the Employment Exchange, as we describe it, fills the vacancies, the onus of directing a specific man to a specific job by the aid of a card with the particulars upon it is the duty of the Exchange. I do not believe that it is possible to find words which can be more specific and more precise than are the words in the Clause, but if hon. Members can find such words we shall be only too glad to consider them.

This is the intention of the Sub-section and that, I am advised, is the legal interpretation of it. I hope the Committee will bend its mind to an analysis of the words,, knowing that that is the intention and that that is what I want to do.

Will the right hon. Lady be good enough to explain another part of the Sub-section, which she has omitted to explain? She has quoted from her speech on the Second Reading, which she says gives an explanation of this particular Sub-section, but there is no explanation in her Second Reading speech of that part of the Sub-section where refusal of benefit is to be made in the case of anyone who has refused or neglected to apply for a situation which

"was, or was about to become vacant."

It is the words

"or was about to become vacant"

that require explanation.

The position is, that an employer rings up the Exchange and says: "I shall want ten men next week. Can you let me have them along, so that I can interview them and get them fixed up? "Therefore, the vacancy is not in fact in being at the time when the applicant is sent along, but it is about to become vacant. That is the sense in which the words are used.

5.0 p.m.

That is just the part of the Sub-section to which I take strong objection. The rest of the Sub-section can be amended in order to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), but the part of the Clause which the right hon. Lady desires to retain is the most objectionable feature of the whole of Sub-section (1). No one knows better than the right hon. Lady how words have been explained by Cabinet Ministers in this House to mean a particular thing and the House has accepted the spirit in which those particular words have been interpreted, but once a Bill has become an Act of Parliament we know that the intention of Parliament has been lost sight of entirely and the administration has become a farce as far as the intention of Parliament was concerned. That is the reason why so many objections and complaints have been made against the interpretation placed upon "not genuinely seeking work" by courts of referees and Exchange officials, and I suggest that the right hon. Lady might accept the deletion of certain words of Sub-section (1) which would then read as follows:

"If on a claim for benefit—"

There is an Amendment before the Committee, and although we are having a general discussion I cannot allow hon. Members to argue their own particular Amendments.

May I point out, with all respect, that I am referring to the statement made by the Minister herself in explanation as to why she wishes to retain this particular Subsection? I am expressing my objection to it, and I am showing how it can be altered and the objection, which seems to be general in all parts of the House, can be met by the deletion of certain words. Surely that is in order? I am not moving an Amendment. Surely I am entitled to show how the objectionable part of the Sub-section can be altered in order to meet the wishes of hon. Members?

I am in agreement with the hon. Member on that point, but I must object to the hon. Member arguing on his own particular Amendment in a general discussion.

I want to show only how this can be altered in order to meet the wishes of the Committee. The alteration I would suggest is as follows:

I suggest to the Minister of Labour and the Attorney-General that they ought not to despise any words put forward and reject in a perfunctory manner suggestions from any part of the Committee. Everyone is keenly desirous to protect the unemployed man and take out of the control of assessors, Courts of Referees and Exchange officials the right of turning down a man or woman on the ground of not genuinely seeking work. I have known cases in my own district where men have tramped miles to find employment, and then came back to the Employment Exchange in order to sign the book. They were told that they should have been there at the time for signing. They have walked to Dumbarton, 15 miles from my constituency, not because they knew there was a job to be had, but because they had been told there was a possibility of vacancies in the shipyard at Dumbarton; yet in spite of this they were refused benefit because they were not genuinely seeking work. I wish some of the Exchange officials had to genuinely seek work. They would understand something about the psychology of a man who is looking for a job.

Now that we are framing this new Bill we must consider how we can protect these people from what they consider to be persecution on the part of officials, and so word this particular provision, which is the essential part of the Clause, so that there can be no opportunity for any Exchange official, no matter whether it is the man behind the counter or the manager, or the insurance officers, or the court of referees, or the assessors, from twisting—I do not say they do so intentionally—the words of an Act of Parliament so that they mean something quite different from what Parliament intended. Being officials they look upon themselves as being there to safeguard the fund; they get a legal definition of a particular phrase, and apply it. We want to see that there can be only one legal interpretation given to the wording of this Sub-section, and that it is going to be the interpretation that a man is genuinely seeking work and entitled to benefit unless he has definitely and deliberately refused a job to him.

I am sorry that I interrupted the right hon. Lady just now, but really I cannot see that her explanation covers the facts. I have not the slightest doubt about her reading of the Departmental situation or the legal ability of the Attorney-General, but what I want to know is, what is there in this Subsection to apply to what she says of the Employment Exchange or to the job offered to the Employment Exchange. Her problem is this. I agree with her that if every job in a district were offered through the Employment Exchange it is a simple task. In that case they have only to ask a man to go to the job, and if he does not accept it to refuse him benefit. But the situation is not as simple as that. There is a double process at the Employment Exchanges with regard to specific jobs. One is an up-to-date process, and the other a post-dated process. There is the case of the Exchange being told of a definite job by a definite employer. It is quite simple in this case for the officer to notify the men and to test whether they have applied for it or not. Surely, the right hon. Lady is not going to argue that these words cover those cases where the jobs are not notified to the Employment Exchange? What happens? If a man gets a job by his own efforts outside the Employment Exchange, he returns his card U.1.40 to the Employment Exchange, and there is a special official who builds up knowledge out of a series of U.140 cards of every week's work.

Suppose there were a hundred warehouse jobs going in Leith or Glasgow, and there were 4,000 men out of work who were suitable for these 100 jobs. Suppose 100 U.140 cards came back proving that 100 men had found these jobs, not through the Employment Exchange, but through their own initiative and outside the machinery of the Employment Exchange. What happens? Under the present system and under this form of words, because there is nothing to relate every job outside the Employment Exchange to the Employment Exchange—and the right hon. Lady will have to say a great deal more than she has said to convince me that the Department has taken us into consultation—they look through these U.140 cards and find that 100 men have found work outside the Employment Exchange, and they say, "We will call up the others and ask, 'Did you know this specified job was going?'" That is exactly what happens now. A fortnight ago I put a question to the right hon. Lady regarding Leith, asking how many claims were made and disallowed in the 10 months up to September last; and the answer I received was that 18,000 claims were made and that 1,357 were disallowed in this one small spot on this particular process. The Minister has to go further than the offer of a job by the Exchange. We are not worried about the job that the Exchange knows of; what we are worried about is the process, not of the large scale job known to the Exchange, but of the thousands of individual jobs offered by individual employers to unemployed men, which may come to the knowledge of a handful of men and not to the knowledge of others. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) in his criticism of insurance officers. I have nothing to say against the officers. There are two sides to the counter in every Exchange, and perhaps the more difficult side of the two is the inner side.

Opinions differ, and I can only say that the hon. Member's experience has been different from mine and that of other hon. Members.

Anyway I am entitled to my opinion. I did not say that the hon. Member was not right, only that I did not agree with him, We have to frame words to-day to give an objective and not a subjective test to the official at the Exchange. That is the whole problem, as it was in 1921 in the case of un-covenanted benefit, in 1924 under the extension of standard benefit, and in 1927 under the Bill of the right hon. Member for Stamford (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), whom we are glad to see back in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate I am glad to see him back, though I dissent entirely from his political opinions. The right hon. Gentleman will now admit that some of the arguments that we brought forward two years ago, when he was Minister of Labour, have been borne out by the facts in the working of his own proposition of two years ago, although the officials behind him then gave him a brief denying everything that we said, the facts have proved that what we said was right.

I am anxious that we should not part with any form of words that will cause honest men to appear to be criminals. What we are doing is this: We judge millions of claims in a year. We must guard against putting into this Bill one unnecessary word or one subjective test which puts on an insurance officer a problem that he should not be called upon to solve regarding the three words "genuinely seeking work." They are honest British words, but we have never found a suitable form of legal words that can be put into operation so as to cover the millions of cases that have to be decided up and down the country. I suggest to the Minister that her officials are wrong and that the drafting of this first Sub-section is wrong. I beg her not to smile. She may smile at my vehemence if she likes, but not at my earnestness in the matter. I would like this question to be left to a free vote of the Committee to-day. Members who have not any unemployed in their constituencies must forgive us. We have to meet our constituents. We have to send to Exchange managers case after case of the utmost difficulty, and sometimes cases of tragedy. As Hamlet said: "Words, words, words." So thousands of men have been trapped by "words, words, words" about the law and the regulations based on these ambiguous terms.

There is a lot more that I could say. I suggest that before we part with this first Sub-section the Minister has to prove to me, if I am to vote for it, that these words apply only to specific and definite jobs known to and offered by an Exchange. If they do not apply in that way, if she intends them to cover all the jobs, whether the Exchange knows about them at the time or not, she is seeking to perform a most difficult operation. Everyone knows that a most difficult operation in military life is a change of front in face of the enemy. What she is doing in this Clause is attempting to put the onus on the Exchange. Directly she comes down to the word "knowing" and allies it to "refused or neglected," she is changing the front of the drafting of the Clause, and she will find herself where her two predecessors found themselves quite innocently—committed to a form of words which will result in the turning down of thousands of honest men.

I protest against the whole attitude of mind of the Department. It is true that there are some people who are not "genuinely seeking work," but they are a handful and everyone knows it. The present system has turned the Exchange from being a friend of the man into being the supposed enemy of the man. What we have to do to-day is not to penalise 995 honest men because of the shirking of the five. We have to try to put the shirker up against a practical test, and to give the insurance officer a fair chance with a definite and simple objective test.

I cannot understand the reason for all the ambiguity of language contained in this Clause. Either we have to make up our minds that the onus of proof is to be put on the Exchange or we have to make it an obligation on the man to prove his genuineness in seeking work. I suggest, from some experience, that there is not an evil existing under the present Act that will not be repeated if Sub-section (2) remains as it is. I have in my hand evidence of what is going on at the present time, and I would like to read to the Committee some of that evidence, which is as recent as 3rd December. It is the case of a workman who had been employed in Kent and whose job had ended. He returned to his native town of St. Helens. I shall read from the man's actual statement and show what officials in Employment Exchanges read into the language that is still embodied in this Sub-section. The man says: Exchanges being brought into being. If Exchanges are to become merely benefit paying organisations, then quite frankly it is time that the country as a whole reviewed their functions. I sincerely hope that we are going to make an effort to develop these institutions, but unless we can get them into the frame of mind that they realise that no man is to be written down as dishonest unless he has passed through that form of inquisition, I am inclined to think that the Exchanges are not going to find favour in the minds of men for a very much longer period.

Let me turn to another aspect of the question. This is what I call the trade union mind. Here is a question which was forwarded to the Manchester Employment Committee. The engineering unions were very much concerned as to what was the mind of the Government, and this is the language which they embodied in a letter forwarded to that Committee. The secretary, writing on behalf of the A.E.U., said: That is the question that I put to the Minister to-day. If it is the intention of the Government to say that in future the test shall be the offer of employment, then there is no need for the ambiguity of language which we now find in the Clause. I suggest that any two Members Of this Committee could redraft this Clause so that it would be understood from Lands End to John o'Groats and leave none of the existing loopholes whereby thousands of genuine workmen as anxious as anybody here or outside to get work, have been unjustly deprived of benefit and tyrannised over in the way I have indicated.

This is one of the cases in which ail the Committee are really of one mind, but in which there is considerable difficulty about reaching a definite solution. With regard to the phrase "genuinely seeking work" it has I think been completely established, even if many of us were not already aware of the fact, that the term in the Act of Parliament—no blame to particular Employment Exchanges—has necessarily been used, seeing how the Acts of Parliament and the regulations have been drafted, in such a way as to result in hardship to numbers of quite respectable and honest working people who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed. If we merely take the phrase in itself a man "not genuinely seeking work" in the ordinary acceptance of the term, is not a man with whom one can have much sympathy, but in the purely technical meaning which in the course of practice has become attached to the phrase, it is used in such a way as to cause hardship. The Committee are of one mind that it ought to be changed.

Now comes the Sub-section proposed by the Government which has met with a great deal of hostile criticism, and I think on very good grounds. The word "knowing" is the principal reason for the difficulty which has arisen in connection with this Sub-section. A working man or woman may know that there is a vacancy, or a possible vacancy, and may not have applied for it, and nevertheless may not be in any way to blame. There are a good many cases such as the illustrations given by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) in which there might be, let us say, five vacancies in a particular trade, and 500 people in that trade out of work in the district. In my own constituency, in the town of Darwen, there are many hundreds of cotton operatives unemployed, and if in one particular mill there happens to be a handful of vacancies on a particular day, are all these hundreds of operatives whose names are on the list at the Employment Exchange to be disqualified from benefit if they do not all straightway apply for this small number of vacancies in one particular mill? Surely that is not intended. Yet the words of the Clause as drafted might require the Employment Exchange to declare that these people were disqualified because they did not fulfil the requirements of the Clause. They knew that there were vacancies, and that the vacancies were suitable for them, and they did not apply. They "neglected to apply," and therefore, according to the strict letter of the Clause, they are disqualified. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Government.

There are also the words "refused or neglected." These words have been the subject of much animadversion. I am not sure that there is great objection to be taken to them, but they are unnecessary. What the Government has in view is simply this—that if a working man or woman is notified, in the first instance by the Employment Exchange, that there is a suitable vacancy and does not apply for it, then no one would suggest that that person should continue in benefit. If a suitable vacancy is there, if the Employment Exchange notifies the person of it, and he does not apply, or if, having applied for it and having been offered it, he nevertheless unreasonably refuses it, everyone is of the one mind that such a person ought not to continue to receive unemployment benefit at the expense of the community at large. Very well, then. Do we want these words "refused or neglected"? Are not the words which we require "did not apply" or "did not without reasonable excuse apply"? If hon. Members take objection to the words "refused or neglected," and consider that these words may cause inconvenience, why is it necessary to have them at all? You simply want to know the fact, did he or did he not apply? If it is established that a person did not, without reasonable excuse, apply for a situation which was notified to him, that ought to be adequate to meet the case, and at all events I submit the suggestion to the consideration of the Attorney-General.

Then comes the question—and here perhaps I am not quite at one with some of the observations made by hon. Members who have spoken—whether a vacancy must in all cases be notified by the Employment Exchange itself. Supposing the Exchange knows that an employer has notified an individual directly and definitely that there is a vacancy, and that that individual has refused to apply for it, such a person ought to be in exactly the same position as if the Exchange had notified him of the situation. If we insert the limiting words "notified by the Exchange," we may be limiting it too much. Now we come to the Amendment. To that Amendment the Minister has raised an objection. She has pointed out that the words "has been offered suitable employment" are not the proper words, because it is not for the Exchange official to offer employment. He merely notifies the workman that an employer is willing to offer employment but he cannot himself offer that employment. He cannot say to the man, "I offer you work in such-and-such a mill, at such-and-such a rate of wages." He can only say, "Go to such-and-such a mill, and the employer there has notified us that he is ready to offer work at such-and-such a wage."

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the transference scheme, a man is offered work at the Exchange? That is so at the present time.

Yes, but that is not the kind of employment which we have in view at the moment. We mean the ordinary case where the employer notifies the Employment Exchange that he has vacancies for certain men at certain wages. The Exchange then notifies the man that the work is on offer, but the Exchange official does not, himself, offer that particular work to that particular man. Therefore from a verbal point of view—and it is only a drafting point—this Amendment is not right as it stands. Similarly, the right hon. Lady raised another drafting point in her objection to the word "refused." A man cannot be proved to have "refused" an offer if he does not go to the place where the offer is available. That is a purely verbal point also, because I am sure the hon. Members who put forward the Amendment have in mind men who have not taken advantage of the offer and apparently the word "refused" is not quite the right word. All of us have to do our best to find words if we can to meet the object which we have in view, and I suggest for the consideration of the Attorney-General that the Sub-section should be made to read as follows:

"If on a claim for benefit it is shown that the claimant, having been notified that a specific situation"—

These are important words. I propose to leave out "knowing," and to insert "having been notified," and it will be seen that I do not say by whom notified. It has to be proved that the person has been notified; and he may have been notified by the Employment Exchange or in any other way—

"in any employment, being employment which is suitable in his case, was or was about to become vacant"—

That is an important point. I think we ought to keep in those words, and then leave out the words "refused or neglected," and insert:

"did not without reasonable excuse apply for that situation, or refused to accept it when offered to him, he shall be disqualified for receiving benefit."

That is my suggestion. I think we ought to keep in those words "about to become vacant" for the reason that the vacancy might have been notified in advance, and might only become available in the following week, or after an even longer interval. I suggest those words to the Attorney-General.

The discussion on this Sub-section has wandered over a very wide area, and I cannot help thinking that there appears to have been, throughout the discussion, a great deal of misapprehension. The intention of the draftsman of this Subsection was to reproduce—I say "reproduce" quite advisedly—in appropriate language, the principle of the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). If the Committee consider for a moment this Clause as a whole, I think they will come to the conclusion that the real controversy arises not on this Sub-section, but on Sub-sections (2) and (3). As far as this Sub-section is concerned, the question at issue is, I venture to think, a mere matter of words. I believe it has been not infrequently said that words are given to us to conceal our thoughts; and I have sometimes thought that that sentence certainly applies to Parliamentary draftsmen more particularly. For the reasons just given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) I think the Committee will realise, on looking at the terms of the Amendment, that we could not accept the Amendment in its present form.

I must repeat the two reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman because they are important. If the Employment Exchange notifies a man that there is a precise, a particular and a specific situation vacant in some works and suggests that the man shall go to those works and get that vacancy, and the man says, "I will not go," it cannot be said that that man has been "offered" the job. He has been notified that there is a job, but the offer can only come from the employer who is going to enter into contractual relationship with the man, if the man accepts the job. "Obviously" the word "offered" is too narrow, and equally so, the word "refused" is too narrow, because we must deal with the case of the man who, knowing that there is a precise and specific situation on offer, says nothing and does nothing and does not try to get it. Therefore, the words of the Amendment, as I think the Mover himself will realise, need some reconsideration. I do not make the smallest complaint about Members of the Committee criticising the words of a Sub-section in an Act of Parliament. Indeed they would be grossly failing in their duty if they did not criticise these words very carefully. I have many times myself succeeded in inducing judges to say that words in an Act of Parliament meant something which was miles away from what the legislature intended. Therefore it is very important that we should try to express, by appropriate words, what I believe we all want to do as far as this Clause is concerned.

I think both my hon. Friends here in their Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in the words which he has suggested, really desire to cut out Sub-section (2) altogether, and I would like the Attorney-General to deal with that point. What we are anxious to secure is that this shall be the one and only test and that Sub-section (2) should go altogether. I take it that is what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has in mind also.

I quite appreciate the hon. Member's point, but for the moment I am discussing the appropriate phraseology of Sub-section (1), and when we have got the right phraseology for Sub-section (1) it will be entirely without prejudice, as the lawyers would say, to the question of whether we are to have Sub-section (2) at all or not. If the hon. Member so desires he can move to strike out Sub-sections (2) and (3) and leave it at Subsection (1), but, for the moment, I am trying to get the right and appropriate words for Sub-section (1). I have already given reasons for stating that the words of the Amendment will not do. I have pointed out that I am anxious to have the words considered, because I do not by any means say that they cannot be improved. It seems to me that the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has just made has a great deal in it, and I think that the Committee will be satisfied with some such words as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. I will read to the Committee what, I think, will meet the criticisms which have been raised. I will point out, before I do so, that where I think that some of the critics of this language have gone wrong is that they have failed to understand that Sub-section (1) deals with specific circumstances. It is really nothing to the point to refer to extracts from the Morris Committee as the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) did, and to say that work can be shown to be available in many ways, among others by showing that other claimants have got it. That is a criticism most germane to Subsection (2), but has nothing to do with Sub-section (1), which quite plainly deals with a specific case. The Committee might be prepared to accept some such words as these:

"If on a claim for benefit it is shown that the claimant, after a specific situation in any employment, being employment which is suitable in his case, has been notified to him by the Employment Exchange or otherwise as vacant or about to become vacant …."

I would advise the Minister of Labour that there is not the slightest objection to accepting the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in place of "refused or neglected." He used the words "did not," but we must have something about "without reasonable cause," or we might penalise a man who, on the way to a job, might be run down by a taxi-cab or stopped through illness. I do not see any objection to striking out the words "refused or neglected," and to making them" did not without reasonable excuse," or words to that effect.

I do not think that we had better have "did not or could not," but I am sure that we can easily get the proper words. If the Committee would allow us to leave it in this way, I am authorised to say that we are perfectly prepared to accept a re-drafting of the Sub-section on those lines. I think that that would entirely meet the sense of the Committee. I would very much rather, however, that the Committee allowed me not to pledge myself to the precise wording at the moment. I should also like to be allowed to consult the various hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate to see if we can, as I am sure that we can, get the Sub-section polished up between now and the Report stage, and to present the Subsection in the new form on the Report stage.

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman accepts the principle of the Amendment?

Certainly. The intention of the Sub-section throughout has been to carry out the Amendment, but in view of the suggestions that have been made, I realise that the language may be criticised.

I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand that the principle underlying the Amendment is accepted, and that it is only a question of words. I rather think that the words which he read out will suit the situation. In those circumstances, and with the assurance given by my right right hon. Friend, I would like to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

We object to the Amendment being withdrawn for the moment, because there are one or two further points to be raised.

I wish, for the sake of obtaining information, to put one point to the Attorney-General in regard to the words which have been suggested, "notified to him toy the Employment Exchange or otherwise." Would that include that very large field of trade union practice which consists of the notification of jobs to their own members? If the right hon. Gentleman has not that in mind, will he consider it when he is giving the matter further consideration?

There is one other point to which I should like to draw the attention of the Attorney-General. The words "suitable in his case" are used. They are extremely pregnant words, because you might have a man engaged in a skilled trade who might have been out of work for only a few weeks. A specific situation might be vacant in an unskilled trade, and it is one which he could fill perfectly well, being a skilled man. It would be quite unfair, however, to require that skilled man, having been out of work for only a short time, to go and take an unskilled job. There ought to be some protection.

The question of suitability is dealt with by Sub-section (5), and there is not the slightest danger of what the hon. Member suggests.

There is a point which I do not think has been sufficiently clarified. My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) said that he took it that the Government have accepted the principle underlying the Amendment. Am I right in supposing that the Government, in accepting the principle underlying the Amendment, are going to propose the new form of words for Sub-sections (1) and (2), or whether the idea is that Sub-section (2) is to remain? If Sub-section (2) is to remain, all this talk about Sub-section (1) is of comparatively little importance. Am I right in supposing that the Government are accepting the suggested form of words as the one condition for refusing benefit?

On that point, which is very important, are we to understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts the principle of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) so far as it applies to Sub-sections (1) and (2)?

It is perfectly clear that the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) has moved an Amendment to Sub-section (1), and we have been discussing this matter in relation to Sub-section (1). We are about to proceed to Sub-section (2), and we shall no doubt have strong arguments on that, and obviously we must dispose of the Amendment to Sub-section (1) before proceeding with Sub-section (2).

If the Attorney-General accepts the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) to Sub-section (1), that must involve doing away entirely with Sub-section (2).

If this principle is to be accepted by the Government as the governing principle of Clause 4 in relation to wiping out the condition of not genuinely seeking work—because that is the idea of the Government—I want to ask whether, in the opinion of the Attorney-General or of the right hon. Lady, if Sub-section (1) be accepted, there is any need for any other Subsection?

The right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour is right in saying that we are now discussing Subsection (1), and that when we come to Sub-section (2) we shall discuss the Amendments to that. We cannot now discuss those Amendments, and it is unfair to Ministers to ask them to consider Sub-section (2) before we come to it.

It is quite clear that we cannot enter on the consideration of Sub-section (2) or of Sub-section (3) just now, but the Attorney-General accepted on behalf of the Government, as I understand it, the principle underlying the Amendment. That principle, according to the hon. Member for West Nottingham, and according to hon. Members opposite, is that there should be only one test, and I am asking if the Attorney-General, in accepting the principle, agrees that the one test is that in Sub-section (1)?

6.0 p.m.

May I explain the position to hon. Members, because it is desirable to have this quite clear in order that it may not be said that by any phrase I used I led to a misunderstanding. I want to make it perfectly plain that all I intended to do by saying I accepted the principle of the Amendment was this. Sub-section (1) was intended to reproduce the disqualification which the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) assented to in the Morris Report. It is a matter of words so far as Sub-section (1) is concerned. I have accepted that Amendment, but I think I explained that that was—I think I used the words—without prejudice to Subsection (2). We have assented to this provision with regard to Sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) still remains to be discussed, and so does Sub-section (3). I do not want any hon. Member to be under the impression that because we have taken this course in regard to Sub-section (1) we have, therefore, in any way weakened the position which we take up with regard to Sub-sections (2) and (3). If I allowed the Committee to believe that I should be in danger of misleading it.

I want to ask this. How is this to be dealt with in view of what has been accepted—"that the claimant could reasonably have been expected to know that such employment was available?" That is contained in Sub-section (2). If we accept the language which has been accepted as Sub-section (1), it will wipe that out.

It seems to me that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) is not entirely covered by the wording given by the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the qualification of Sub-section (1). The Amendment of the hon. Member for West Nottingham asks that an insured contributor should be disqualified for receiving benefit when it has been proved that he has been offered and refused suitable employment. That is the one point of the Amendment. In the modification as given by the Attorney-General there are two points. The first is this, that if on a claim for benefit it is shown that the claimant,

"after a specific situation in any employment, being employment which is suitable in his case, has been notified to him by the Employment Exchange or otherwise"

has without reasonable excuse neglected to apply for that situation or refused to apply for it. In the Amendment it is only a question of his having refused to accept employment. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his statement to the House, as amended, deals with two questions. First, there is not only the question of refusing employment if it is offered, but he must also apply for the situation. I would like to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman which we are to accept. Are the Committee to accept simply the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nottingham, which was limited to the question of refusing employment, or are we to accept the modified Sub-section as given by the Attorney-General, in which the man must not only have refused the employment, but also failed to make application for employment?

May I point out that we have not before us any particular form of words from the learned Attorney-General, but only a suggestion which he made, and that we are not likely to clear up the situation until we see those words in print. I understand that the Attorney-General is going to produce those words in print before the Report stage, and, if that be so, why should not hon. Members wait till the Report stage on this matter and now pass on to the next Amendment?

I quite appreciate the difficulty, but I do not clearly understand the Attorney-General when he said that on behalf of the Government he accepted the principle of the Amendment without prejudice to subsequent Sub-sections. He said he would consult with those who had taken part in the Debate to-day on the question of the definite form of the words. I appreciate that all this ques- tioning cannot elucidate the matter much more. I am not concerned with the Attorney-General's difficulty over Subsections (2) and (3), which must be readjusted in accordance with the principle underlying Sub-section (1). In the circumstances I would ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

As I indicated a few minutes ago, I am in full agreement with your suggestion that until these words are in print it is idle for us to discuss this Amendment further. I say on behalf of myself and the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen behind me that we desire to see these words in print before we in any way commit ourselves to any opinion upon them. Is it not clear to every section of the Committee how impossible it is to suppose that one day will suffice to conclude the whole of the Report stage? If we are to discuss this enormously intricate question, which at this stage has required manuscript Amendments drafted by the Attorney-General, it is clear that we shall require time to consider—

Order, order! We cannot discuss now how many days are to be devoted to the Report stage.

Let me finish, Sir. I am not going to pursue that point further. I understand quite clearly from the explanation given by the Attorney-General that his concession applies to Sub-section (1), and Sub-section (1) alone, to the offer of a specific situation in a given employment, but that he has made no concession whatever with regard to Sub-sections (2) and (3), and that the Government intend to reserve their position and the possibility of withstanding pressure from below and above the Gangway. That being clear, we do not desire to discuss this question further now.

Would it not be desirable in the circumstances that the discussion of Clause 4 should be adjourned until it has been redrafted, and that we should in the meantime proceed to the other Clauses of the Bill?

I would like to support the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane). There is a presumption that the Attorney-General has made some concession to the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) and the opinion on the other side of the House. That is something of very great importance, and we ought to get that into relationship with the rest of the Clause and what the hon. Member for West Nottingham has said in his interpretation of what the right hon. Gentleman had accepted. It is quite obvious that the form of words that may be agreed upon may be absolutely altered. I would suggest that we should postpone further consideration of this Clause until the next day on which the Committee sits. I understand that on former occasions a Clause has been held over, and we have got on with the rest of the Bill. If the Government will agree to go on with the other Clauses, postponing further consideration of Clause 4, wo shall get out of our difficulty.

We must dispose of the Amendment before us before we can do anything else. Then I would put the Question, "That the Clause stand part" down to the first three or four words only. We must get that Question out of the way before we can raise any other question as to postponement or anything else.

The Government could quite easily indicate that after those words have been put in they would be willing to adjourn further consideration of the rest of the Clause until the next meeting of the Committee. We only ask the Government to give us that indication. I recognise that it is not your function as Chairman to make any suggestion to deal with the difficulty, but surely the Government could indicate to us their views in face of the unanimous feeling in the Committee, both among hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite, that the new form of words should be before us. It will not lead to any delay in getting on with the Bill, because Clauses 5, 6 and 7 can be dealt with, and we have two other Committee days. I would ask the right hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman whether they would not be willing to accept the proposal which has been made.

May I ask the Attorney-General, in view of the statement he has made to deal with this difficult matter, whether he would not now consider also the other sections?

May I answer the questions which have been put to me? I venture to think that this Sub-section (1) deals with the matter from a wholly different point of view from the other two Sub-sections, in that Sub-section (1) is dealing with a specific offer of a specific job. As we are all in a happy and reasonable frame of mind, do not the Committee think that the present is a very good opportunity for getting on with Sub-sections (2) and (3)? I frankly concede that we have profited enormously by the collective wisdom of the Committee in dealing with Sub-section (1); let us see whether we cannot profit in a similar way when dealing with Sub-sections (2) and (3). I think that, on principle, Sub-section (1) is quite different from the other two Sub-sections, and, for my own part, I think it would be much better for us to go on with them now.

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

I would remind the Committee that we are dealing now with fundamental issues. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) carried out his recommendation to the Morris Committee. That recommendation was definite and specific. As the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) put it, it made an objective test. The hon. Member for West Nottingham said there ought to be only one ground for disqualification, and that is that a person should refuse an offer of a job that was definitely offered to him. The Government now say "We accept that." The Attorney-General may say what he likes, but there is no room for compromise for some of us in Sections (2) and (3), because if we accept the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Nottingham we do not need Sub-sections (2) and (3). It ends it. Therefore, the sweet reasonableness which the Attorney-General speaks of in reference to Subsections (2) and (3) do not enter into the question at all. It should enter into Clause 1, provided he accepted in spirit and in principle the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Nottingham.

This has some bearing on the subject, and one of my reasons for moving to report Progress is that I wish to raise another point. The Attorney-General has said in reply to the hon. Member for West Nottingham that he accepts the spirit of the Amendment. I remember that in 1924, when this subject was raised, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) said he would accept the spirit of the Amendment. We want to combine both the spirit and the words, and it is no use proceeding to discuss Sub-section (1) because Sub-sections (2) and (3) go with it. What is the value of Sub-section (1) if Sub-section (2) remains. The reason we desire the postponement of the Clause is that you cannot accept Sub-section (1) without knowing that you are going to reject Subsection (2), and that is the basis of our contention. I agree that the best way to proceed is to postpone the discussion of this Clause, and come back on Monday to consider a Clause with new words which will get us out of this difficulty. I think the hon. Member for West Nottingham will admit that Sub-section (1) depends upon Sub-section (2), and you cannot say that they are separate units. For these reasons, I think our best course is to postpone further consideration of this Clause.

It is perfectly impossible for me to accept a Motion to report Progress at this stage. If I accept this Motion, we should all come back again on Monday without having made any progress, and we must dispose of the question now in order that we may know the mind of the Committee.

This is a matter of the utmost importance. There has been an indication shown to-night by the right hon. Gentleman who acts for the Liberal party in this House that his party take up the position that on this question there should be one test and one test only. There has been a similar indication by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), and I know that it is the opinion of other hon. Members on this side of the House that there should be one objective test. We have now got to a stage in which the Attorney-General says, "I agree with the principle," but when you ask for. action from the Government on the basis of the acceptance of the principle, you do not get anything of the kind. The Minister of Labour makes a statement in which she says that she accepts the principle of this Amendment, and then she proceeds to tell us that it is a different matter altogether from that which is contained in Sub-section (2). The principle is that there should be one test, and why should there be this hesitancy to proceed to the consideration of Sub-sections (2) and (3). In the Parliament of 1924 I was the hon. Member who was responsible for moving an Amendment for the abolition of the "Not genuinely seeking work" Clause.

On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. I submit that the hon. Member is discussing the merits of the Clause, and that is not the question before the Committee.

A Motion to report Progress has been moved, and the hon. Member must confine his remarks to that question.

The Motion to report Progress has been moved, because this is a matter of tremendous importance. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) always takes exception to anything I say, although I may inform him that I am receiving letters from his constituents—

I must remind the hon. Member that we are discussing a motion to report Progress.

We are considering a matter of very great importance. The Minister of Labour has said that she desires to get the collective mind of the House. We are moving to report Progress in order that the Minister of Labour may have time to indicate her mind on this matter, and we wish to know if she is prepared to accept the one principle contained in our Amendment. If the right hon. Lady is not prepared to accept that principle, then some of us may feel it necessary to press our Amendment to a Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I am speaking for many hon. Members and I think I am entitled to say that if we cannot get a statement from the Minister of Labour to the affect that she accepts the prin- ciple of the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for West Nottingham, then we shall feel bound to challenge a Division.

I am reluctant to intervene in what appears to me to be a domestic squabble, but perhaps I may be allowed to make a suggestion as to the course which we ought to pursue. I think those sitting on the Conservative Benches should take no part in the Division, because we might be accused of supporting a dilatory motion. If we took the other course, then we might be accused of supporting the Government against their own followers. I think we should be given sufficient time on the Report stage to discuss this question, and I hope the Government will now see that the time they have allotted for the Report and Third Reading of this Measure is ridiculously inadequate.

I hope hon. Members opposite will not press this Amendment to a Division. We have been told that it is essential that the Minister of Labour should speak her mind as to the effect on the remaining Sub-section of accepting the principle of this Amendment. I think the Government should have an opportunity of expressing their mind on that point, and we might proceed to the discussion of Sub-sections (2) and (3). Some hon. Members think that the omission of those Sub-sections necessarily follows from this Amendment to be made in Sub-section (1), but apparently, the Government are not prepared to accept that view. That is a matter which ought to be discussed, and hon. Members in different parts of the House should have an opportunity of saying why they think that the acceptance of this Amendment should lead to the withdrawal of Sub-sections (2) and (3), or the other way about. I think the Committee ought not to accept the motion to report Progress.

I only wish to say that my hon. Friend did not move this Motion with any intention of delaying the progress of this Measure. We recollect very clearly that it was in a precisely similar situation in 1924 that all the trouble started, and that, owing to a too easy acquiescence on the part of my hon. Friends here, the present situation has been maintained for five solid years. We are not going to proceed to a Division, but we want to be quite sure that, in facilitating the progress of the Committee, we shall not be landed in a similar difficulty.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'it,' in line 24, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

On a point of Order. May I not move the Amendment to Subsection (1) which stands in my name and those of several of my hon. Friends— in page 3, line 24, after the word "benefit," to insert the words:

"made between the commencement of this Act and the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-one."

I was under the impression that it was not the desire of hon. Members to discuss Sub-section (1), but, if that be not so, I must go back again.

We do not want to discuss Sub-section (1), but the Amendment deals with the date of the whole Clause.

I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to suggest that he did not want to discuss Subsection (1). Major Glyn.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, after the word "benefit," to insert the words: ment, it is surely clear that we and the country would like to see a limit fixed during which the Act, or this Clause of the Act, at any rate, shall function. We also believe that the Minister herself, during her Second Reading speech indicated quite clearly that this Bill was not intended to be a permanent solution of the difficulty, but was very much a temporary stop-gap which had to be brought in by the Government. The right hon. Lady mentioned at the outset that the Government had appointed a Committee charged with the task of going into the whole question of insurance, and especially unemployment insurance, and she went on to say: we cannot solve to Government officials up and down the country? It seems to me to be grossly unfair, and, therefore, I submit that one of the most important things for us and the country to get into our minds is that action which is governed by desire is one of the most impossible things to put into an Act of Parliament.

What we have to aim at, surely, is to see that we do not make the task of the officials at the Employment Exchanges quite impossible to carry out. What is their task? They are not relieving officers, but they are rapidly becoming such. They are men who were appointed when the Labour Exchanges, as they were first called, were set up to be a link between those who wanted work and those who had work to give. I have always felt, and I have never refrained from saying so, that the future of this question lies very largely in the hands of the trade unions, and I should like to see the trade unions and the Employment Exchanges in much closer contact. I know that that involves, and must involve, that employers up and down the country should look upon the trade unions, not as their enemies, but as their friends, as the more enlightened employers do to-day. We have already heard, in the most excellent speech—the first part of it any way—of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), that only 18 cases out of every 100 were settled through the medium of the Employment Exchange, and that the great mass of the work of finding employment is already done, and very properly done, by the trade unions themselves. What a howl there would be, and rightly too, if employers who had agreements with the trade unions departed from those agreements, and did not work through the medium of the trade unions in filling their jobs, but went to the Employment Exchanges. If, on the other hand, the trade unions, the Employment Exchanges, and the employers could find some system of getting down together, we might have a chance of getting something done which would really be worth while. I have the greatest confidence myself in the trade union movement, when it is working on an economic, and not, may I say, on a political basis, nor with a political bias, and I believe that no great industry can carry on in this country unless it works with the trade unions on these lines—

I understand that it is the desire that a little latitude shall be allowed in discussing this subject, but I must point out that the Amendment before the Committee is one to insert a time limit, and the hon. and gallant Member is not entitled, upon it, to discuss the merits of trade unions.

I am afraid I was rather carried away, partly by the excitement of the discussion which has just taken place. To return more strictly to the terms of the Amendment, I am asking that this limit should be placed on the operation of the Clause for the reasons which—perhaps rather beyond the bounds of order—I have described. I think I shall be in order in saying that one of the most valuable things about the insurance scheme has been the public opinion that has been created among the insured themselves in the direction of protecting the fund. I believe it to be the duty of everybody who is insured, and certainly of Parliament, to protect that fund, and I believe that the wording of Clause 4 might afford a loophole for the fund to be improperly applied in cases which are not really deserving. I am quite convinced that we have made a terrible mistake in the past by talking too loosely about people being "on the dole"; far fewer people were on the dole than were described as being on the dole; but I, for one, believe that this Clause as it is now drawn would afford more justification for saying that people are on the dole than exists today. That is one of the reasons why I am anxious that the Clause should be defined and terminated by a certain date. We on this side believe that this Bill is a bad Bill. We believe that the situation outside is bad, and we also believe that the only way in which it can be made sound is by trying to fix on a definite point sufficiently far ahead, but not too far ahead, so that we can all concentrate to improve the machinery under which insurance is paid and under which relief is given.

The position with regard to the date in this Clause is very materially different from the position when a date was discussed in 1924, and I am not at all sure that, if hon. Members opposite had realised that they would have to carry out the provisions of that Clause, they would have been so anxious to get it inserted at that moment. But it is a very difficult matter to work to a specific date on this question of disqualification. That belongs to the permanent part of the Act, to that part of the Act which is growing up as the result of experience, and has not any special relation to the transition Clause. I have put in a date for the transition Clause. It is designed for the very reason outlined in the speech of the hon. Member, with which I heartily agree. It is because of the necessity for the immediate consideration of that category which is outside insurance that the date is important and is in the Bill. I ask hon. Members to make a distinction between one importance of re-consideration of that part of what I may call the finances of the Bill and the permanent machinery which is involved in connection with Clause 4. I am quite convinced that this is not the last Insurance Bill, and this will be a most unfavourable moment to insist upon a re-consideration of the whole of the working arrangements in such a narrow space of time as June. 1931, and for that reason I ask that the Amendment should not be pressed.

I agree that the Amendment is unnecessary. Some very kindly and deserved reference has been made to a Member whom we greatly honoured in earlier days and who took a prominent part in the Debates at that time. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be the first to admit that this specific point was not being dealt with then. Mr. Masterman was directing his attention to the general question of extended benefit and not to the point that is being covered in this Clause. What he had in mind was that the new system altering the insurance scheme to a general relief scheme had only operated for three years and hopes were entertained that that system would soon come to an end. But those hopes have not been realised and the situation is now entirely different. Five years have passed and there has been the passing of another Insurance Act, as well as subsidiary Insurance Acts, and I think the argument that has been used invoking the name of Mr. Master- man hardly applies to the present situation. I should be the first to recognise the authority of Mr. Masterman upon these industrial questions, but in this matter we shall be imposing an obligation upon the House to bring up this Measure for review. We do not think that is essential and, for that reason, some of us will vote against the Amendment.

I am very sorry that the Minister has turned down the Amendment so very curtly. She says that she has turned it down because she desires this machinery to be a permanent-part of the Act. The real trouble under this Clause, and under the provision which this Bill seeks to repeal as to genuinely seeking work, is that we have gone away altogether from the principle of insurance, and we are making an effort to find some means of making provision for people who have been out of work for a very long time in areas where trade is bad and employment is scarce and preventing them being thrown out of the scheme altogether, when they have completely exhausted their rights in respect of their contributions. The difficulty which I see in this Bill is the same difficulty that occurred under the Act of 1924. No one knows how it is going to work. Obviously, this is purely experimental, and, to judge by the vast number of Amendments put down by the party below the Gangway and the party opposite, it is also obvious that a very large number of Members have very great doubt in their minds as to the exact meaning of the words in the Clause. We have been assured by hon. Members opposite that the expression "genuinely seeking work" which, after all, is the product of the Labour Government of 1924, has not operated in the way which the then Government intended it to operate. He would be a very bold man who would undertake to say how the Clause may operate when it actually comes into force. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has expressed great doubt about Sub-section (1), and we do not even know whether the suggested Amendment of the Attorney-General will meet those doubts. I have looked at the Amendment, rather hastily I admit, but I am still doubtful whether it effects any great alteration in the Clause, and, although I would not dream of suggesting that I could find better words than the Government draftsmen have found, I feel that the whole Clause is purely experimental and that it is extremely desirable that Parliament should have an opportunity of reviewing the experiment after it has been working for six or eight months. By then, we shall have some sort of idea. If it works, it will be easy to continue it. If it does not, it is desirable that Parliament should reconsider its decision.

Many on these benches have objections to the whole principle of the Clause. We think that it goes too far, because we believe that in no system of insurance can you remove the onus of proof from the claimant. Hon. Members opposite think that it does not go far enough and that it leaves the burden of proof far too heavily on the claimant. We do not know who is right. It is a most unsatisfactory thing to leave the Clause in the obvious state of doubt in which this Clause is and to state that you hope to make it a permanent part of your machinery. We all thought the words "genuinely seeking work" were at least simple and intelligent. If the Amendment is accepted, we shall propose to apply it, not only to this Sub-section, but to Sub-sections (2) and (3) as well. No person living can say how it will be interpreted and where it will place the burden of proof, and, in a Clause which is so obviously difficult to understand, and on which Members have such very legitimate divergences of opinion, we should at least ask that Parliament should reconsider it within a certain space of time.

I should not have intervened, but I saw in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment that a grave injustice would be done and that he seemed altogether to miss the great point of the difference between a Bill which is conferring an extension of benefit and an Act which was robbing people of benefit. There is all the difference in the world between them. The quotation that he gave had reference to an extension of un-covenanted benefit where there might be some point in putting a limitation of time. Under this Bill, and by this Clause, we are proposing to remove a very vicious method which has in fact been robbing people of benefit. I cannot imagine how anyone could give any support to an Amendment which is going to perpetuate this iniquity.

I do not think so. This Bill seeks to amend the harsh conditions that obtain under the 1927 Act. The last speaker urged that the onus of proof should be on the applicant for benefit. Under the 1927 Act the presumption was that every applicant was a fraud. When he came up for benefit he was told to prove that he was unemployed. I do not know any insurance that operates in that way and, if it does, the sooner we can correct that method the better.

I am sure the hon. Member does not want to misunderstand the purpose of the Amendment. It is that we think this very experimental and we are very doubtful whether it will work Satisfactorily. Therefore, we want to put a limit to the period during which it will be operative.

I know. It is to delay bringing in the operation of the improvement on the 1927 Act.

No. At the end of that period the whole question will come up for review again.

As I understand the Amendment, the provisions of the Clause are not to come into operation—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The point of the Opposition is surely that the Act needs revision. It put the claimant for benefit into altogether a false position and made the work of the insurance officers more difficult than it need be.

The Amendment is to set a definite period when the decision that we arrive at shall be reviewed. It is restricting the duration of the period in which this shall operate.

I am sure the hon. Member has misunderstood the purport of the Amendment. Will he allow me to re-state what it is? There is no idea of postponing the operation of the Clause. It is simply to put a time limit upon its operation for review by the House. We have moved it because we take up the attitude that this is a thoroughly bad Clause, and we look forward to sitting here listening to it being discussed to-night, and probably again on Report, without any real expectation that it is going to be made a better Clause. We do not blame hon. Gentlemen opposite for that. The Minister has done her best. The hon. Gentlemen opposite is going to do his best. The Attorney-General has done his best, hon. Members who come from the Clydeside have done their best, and even Members below the Gangway have done their best. All of us seem to be doing our best at the same time. The fault with this Clause does not lie with the draftsmen. It is not a fault of words or definition. It lies with the underlying principle. You are trying to administer an entirely new principle on old lines. There is the old practicable and workable insurance system and the new and wider system of national relief. It raises immediately the question whether a test which is perfectly adequate for one is adequate for another, and the question which is the corrollary of that is whether the test which is adequate in the one case is not oppressive in another case.

If this was dealing with the insurance system, and we had never departed from that old principle, I should have found myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), who said that the only test was that of an actual job offered to the man. I make no comment as to whether it falls under the principles of insurance or not. I should have thought it was essential that the onus on an insured man, when coming forward to claim insurance, was simply to prove that he was unemployed, and the onus would then be on the insurance company just as it would be if I went to an insurance company and said that my house was burnt down. They would want to know whether I had set it alight myself, or whether, in fact, I had ever had a house. We believe that, alter this Clause as you will, you will never be able to get over that difficulty. We have moved this Amendment in the hope that it will be accepted by the right hon. Lady, and that it will enable, not only herself, but succeeding Ministers of Labour to bring this matter up in the House for revision in the light thrown on it by actual working of whatever Clause is going to some into operation, because at the moment the only bit of the Clause which we have dealt with so far has been withdrawn.

The right hon. Lady seems to me, in her perfectly charming manner, to agree entirely with all the hon. Members who have spoken, and then to say that she must appeal to us to accept her refusal. That refusal was based on rather strange grounds. It was that as one part of the Act had to come up for revision, she could not accept the fact that another part had to come up as well. As a matter of fact, that strengthens our contention. The fact that under the Bill the whole question of the transitional period must come up for review in 12 months strengthens our insistence on the corollary that the test of not genuinely seeking work, or whatever terms are adopted, should come up for revision at the same time. To start with, it adds to the liability of the Minister really to tackle the problem, and not simply to push it off as has twice been done by prolonging the transitional period for another year. The fact that the two things are coming up for revision, and have to be dealt with in the House, will mean that before that period ends some Minister of Labour or other, in some Government or other, will make what is overdue now—a really genuine effort to solve a problem which we admit is one of very great difficulty, and which cannot be solved on party lines, but only with a certain amount of co-operation among the parties. I say frankly we do not in the least blame the right hon. Lady or the hon. Gentleman opposite for not coming down here and consulting us, but we do say that it has to be done. The problem has to be faced, and it has, quite naturally perhaps, been postponed long enough. Therefore, we move this Amendment, and we shall support it in the hope that it will at least bring the horse to the water which it has up to now shown some reluctance to drink.

Hon. Members opposite have explained with great ability the purpose of this Amendment, but I do not think they will show as much enthusiasm when they realise its one and only effect. The simple effect of the Amendment is that after the 30th of January, 1931, this disqualification under Sub-section (1) will cease to be, and from the 1st of July onwards anyone will be at full liberty to decline jobs offered and then to receive benefits.

I am assuming, on the basis of the Amendment coming into force when hon. Gentlemen opposite are still in office, that they will be sufficiently strong not to allow that to arise.

I should like to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friends in pressing this Amendment on the Government. After all, there is one thing which we all in all parts of the House hold in common and that is that the test that has hitherto been enforced, or which it has been attempted to enforce, has, as a matter of fact, worked out exceedingly badly and ineffectively. I know perfectly well that with the best will in the world in far too many cases the interpretation of this genuinely seeking work test has been that the corrupt oily-tongued scrimshanker has been able to get away with it and to give the impression that he was genuinely seeking work, while thousands of people who were not so smooth-tongued but who were rather ordinary common-sense persons have found themselves turned down. There has been a tremendous unfairness, and on Second Reading the right hon. Lady herself said that this had served actually to degrade the moral outlook of certain people, because of the great temptations put in their way, so that they could use unfair methods to get these benefits. In such a Measure as this, the discussion come up in the same way as with the Widows' Pensions Bill that was before us a little while ago. We all feel that you have to put in a test. There must be a test, but then you immediately get into difficulties. The simpler your test the simpler the difficulties. It may be any kind of test. For example, if there is to be an old age pension for people of 60, then you ask the date of birth and whether the claimant is over. 60 years of age. If, in addition, we put in a means limit, we immediately find all the difficulty of the old age pension attached to that.

Is all this in accordance with the Ruling of the Chair a little time ago that this was a discussion on a time limit?

I have been following the hon. Gentleman rather closely and wondering what might be the connection between what he was saying and this part of the Bill.

I was merely using this as an illustration of the practical difficulty of tests, whether the test is of age or means or psychology and whether the claimant is anxious to get a job or not. The difficulty is the same in principle, though different in degree. We all admit that we want, with the best will in the world, to deal fairly and properly with this problem, but we have failed. Hon. Members opposite were the authors of this test of genuinely seeking work which all admit has worked out badly. Though the Government and the draftsmen and the Attorney-General have had opportunities of thinking it over and producing a thought-out solution, when it is faced with the fire of discussion in this House from every quarter, including the authors of it, we find that it is only what was produced before. That surely shows what an extremely difficult thing this is.

I am not going into the speech of the hon. Member who preceded me and who pointed out that this was inevitable, because we were trying to combine in one Measure two things that will not combine, namely, insurance and relief. We have to face that fact. It seems to me a common-sense thing for us to realise that if this problem is to be satisfactorily dealt with there must be some test. Even in the Amendment as originally moved, there was a test. There must be some test, and we are trying to evolve yet another in the long sequence. Who knows how that test is going to work? It is their business to try to find a proper legal interpretation of the words that we find in the Clause. It seems to me that we should learn from experience and take this opportunity to put in a definite time limit, from the point of view of seeing how this is going to be interpreted, and how it will work out in the interests of those for whom it is being devised. I cannot help thinking, if hon. Members will think over that point of view, they will realise our effort on this Amendment is not quite as foolish as the hon. Member opposite had apparently thought. There is a good common-sense reason for it, because it is the outcome of experience. We have been attempting a solution, but we have not got a solution yet. It seems, therefore, that we ought to put in this Measure a time limit to test how this is going to work in order that it may come forward for revision and give an opportunity to whoever is then responsible to get a fair solution—one which is fair to the workers and to the taxpayers of this country.

I hope hon. Members opposite will not press the Amendment. One hon. Member sought to reinforce his case by quoting the late Mr. Masterman. Suppose that when Mr. Masterman made that proviso it had been reimposed in some later Clause, what would have been our view to-night and what would have been our language? In the light of this Clause, we should have had to admit that circumstances had defeated our object, and that we were just where we are now. If you put in another limiting Clause, I can prophesy, as Mr. Masterman did, that, despite your limitation, you will remain where you are, unless something else happens. Let me offer a bit of advice to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They say that the limiting Clause should be reviewed in June, 1931. Why extend it to 1931? Unemployment may be solved long before then. It may be that by the combined and collective wisdom of this House something may be done to solve that problem. In the event of it being solved, are we going to hold it up in order that we may reach your limitation Clause in 1931? There is a possible emergency to take into account. But if you do not solve the problem—and I have a shrewd suspicion that you will not—[An HON. MEMBER: "You will not!"] I have a shrewd suspicion that politicians will not—when you reach this period of 1931 you are not going to effect anything by putting in this limitation at all.

There has been another sort of innunendo or a criticism that "not genuinely seeking work" has come upon evil days and is unworkable, and that it was the wisdom of the Labour party that instituted that formula. I remember, when it was introduced, that as a matter of fact the Labour party on that account were made the victims of discharged lawyers with nothing else to do but push this scheme on the Labour party, who put it into an Act of Parliament. When one listens to the lawyers arguing and trying to work out formulas that will make this a real insurance Bill, one cannot help smiling. Let hon. and right hon. Members opposite face the facts frankly. We have gone beyond insurance altogether and have come to a question of State relief. I am not objecting to that, but I have reasons for thinking that when we come to 1931 we shall be in the same predicament.

If there is apprehension that, if you do not put in this limiting Clause, future Governments will become over-liberal, will go beyond the means even of the Treasury, and land the State on to the verge of bankruptcy by being over-kind to the unemployed, I do not think that has been the experience in this matter in the past. Indeed, there has been the constant apprehension of this House that the operation of these Acts has become a menace to the Treasury, and that they have run beyond the bounds of mere insurance. We have not altogether forgotten what are the economic and financial effects of these Acts, but they have been ever present as a menace to the minds of hon. Members. I can assure hon. and right hon. Members opposite that with the liberal extensions allowed under this Bill we are not likely to forget it, and I suspect that it will be up for review long before 1931, so that they need not press this limitation Clause. I think the working of the Bill, and its draft upon the Exchequer of this country, with the money required to run it and with the increasing load of unemployment in this country, will keep the Bill ever present in your minds, without instituting any limitation Clause of this sort. Therefore, it is a waste of time, and apprehension without foundation; and, if you listen to the words of a prophet, do not argue the case any more, but withdraw your Amendment, because the working of this Bill will keep it before you and the House in an even more menacing form than it has to-night.

We are only advocating that this particular Clause should be brought up again for reconsideration in the course of the next 18 months. Having been for four and a-half years closely associated with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), when he was Minister of Labour, I have probably seen more of the working of the Clause which is to be replaced on the Report stage than most hon. Members of this House. I quite admit that the words "genuinely seeking work" are thought by some to cause considerable hardship, but having had dozens, if not hundreds, of cases sent to me by various hon. Members of this House, and it having been my business, after a fortnight or three weeks, to go through the replies from the Department and see what the Departmental point of view was, and then to confer with hon. Members in regard to the Department's reply, I must say that I think the words "genuinely seeking work" are probably more perfect than any other form of words which we can find.

I want, if I may, to refer to the views of the Secretary of State for War, who put these words into his Bill in 1924. Winding up the Debate 10 days ago for the Government, the right hon. Gentleman spoke rather bitterly of the way in which these words "genuinely seeking work" had been twisted. He did not say by whom they had been twisted, but if words so simple as these can be regarded as twisted by their parent, if he regards his offspring as being twisted, ought we not to prevent the right hon. Lady being in the position, in 18 months' time, of looking back on the words she, with the Attorney-General, has put in to-day, and regretting that their legislative children, if I may put it in that way, should also be twisted, it may be in the course of administration? It seems to me to be very much in the interests of the right hon. Lady to stop her feeling the bitterness that apparently the late Minister of Labour feels with regard to the words he inserted, and it is up to us to see that the Minister of Labour, even if she does not occupy her present position in 18 months' time, shall not have the responsibility of feeling that these words are going on indefinitely, as they will if this Amendment is not passed.

It would be a very great pity if the Government did not agree to this Amend- ment. So far as I am personally concerned, I am prepared to agree to two years and a half instead of a year and a half, and to give a longer period for consideration of these words, but I do not think the House ought to give a blank cheque to the Attorney-General and the Minister of Labour, as it is apparently suggested we should do on the Report stage. Therefore, whatever words we have on the Report stage, I urge that they should be limited by a time limit of either a year and a half or two years and a half.

Our attitude on this side is perfectly clear. We do not like the Clause as it stands, but if we must have it, we feel that there ought to be some time limit imposed, in order that the whole thing shall be reviewed in about 15 months' time. If the wording "genuinely seeking work" was bad—and I do not admit that it was —then, in our opinion, this is even worse, and it seems to me that one thing is obvious, and that is that if you have an insurance scheme, unless it is a true insurance scheme and nothing else, and you simply draw benefit for the amount you put in, you must have some kind of test. That difficulty has been pointed out by several speakers, including some from the other side, the difficulty of trying to combine a relief scheme and an insurance scheme.

We have an experiment here which is entirely original. In three paragraphs we are trying to alter the "genuinely seeking work" formula to another one altogether. In the first paragraph, we have the man having to know that work was available and refusing it; in the second one, he ought to have known, if he did not know, that work was available; and the third one is that suitable work was available, but not the ordinary work in which he was normally engaged. These are three complete and, I think, very big departures from the spirit of the old Act, and, therefore, some kind of time limit should be imposed. Another reason is that the wording of the Bill is terribly complicated. For instance, there are in the party opposite complete differences of opinion about it. We have the Minister of Labour saying that this completely alters the whole of the old condition, that all the bad parts of the "genuinely seeking work" plan will disappear—in fact, this, she says, is what she was asked for by the trade unions—and that it will remedy all the defects which have come to light. On the other hand, you have other hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who said on the Second Reading:

One more reason is that this is a complete departure, so far as I understand it, or it is meant to be a complete departure, in that the onus of proof as to whether a man is genuinely seeking work is to be put on the Exchange and not on the man. That is an experiment to be tried for the first time since the Act was passed in 1911. We think it is impossible to do this, that it will so clog the administrative machine that they cannot possibly administer the Act at all. The Employment Exchanges have only a very small percentage of these vacancies notified there. Only about three-quarters of the vacancies in the industrial field generally come to the Employment Exchanges at all, and that is, of course, an argument to increase the placing side of the Exchanges, but if you have this idea that the onus of proof must be on the Employment Exchange and not on the man, it seems utterly impossible to carry it out if the Exchanges do not deal with more than a quarter of the total vacancies.

One other point is this: We have been told again and again that this Bill is merely an instalment and that the real ideas of the Government have yet to be shown. Under those circumstances, I cannot think why the Minister cannot accept this Amendment, which definitely sets it down that in 15 months' time the whole of this Clause and its working must be reconsidered to see whether these very big departures in the old practice are workable. I, therefore, hope the Government will reconsider their decision on this Amendment.

I propose to vote against this Amendment. I have listened to the arguments of those who have spoken in favour of it, and I cannot say that any one of them had any real weight and force. If this Clause works well, there is not the slightest necessity to take up the time of this House in 15 months to pass a fresh Bill to continue it. If it works badly, it may not be possible for the Department in 15 months, but it may be possible for them in a comparatively short time, to introduce a Bill to improve it. [An HON. MEMBER: "It may not!"] There is the simple issue. The time of this House and the work of this House are sufficiently congested already to mean that we do not want to pass Bills merely for the fun of doing it, and I see no necessity to force the Minister to introduce a Bill in this House if the working of this Clause is satisfactory. If it is not satisfactory, the burden of it will fall upon the Department which has to administer it, and it will obviously be in the interest of the Department to introduce amending legislation even, it may be, before that time. But suppose it is working either badly or well, and the time of this House is so occupied that the Minister says, "I will not be bothered about it," and does not introduce a Bill, or if time elapses and a Bill is not introduced, all that hon. Members on this side will have succeeded in doing is to have removed the disqualification entirely. That may be what they want, but I do not think it is. If you take the simple issues, that if the Clause works well, there is no need to waste time in passing another Bill, and, if the Clause works badly, it will anyhow be amended sooner or later, and it may be a bit later than sooner, because I confess, quite frankly, 15 months is not a very long time to test the actual working of an insurance Clause dealing with disqualification. On those simple broad issues, it is very much simpler to let this Amendment drop.

I want to put one or two short points in favour of this Amendment. One point has been made clear from all sides of the House, namely, the general dissatisfaction with the definition of "genuinely seeking work" put in the Act of 1924. I have always been dissatisfied with it, because, serving on a committee having to decide whether a man was genuinely seeking work or not, I know some of the difficulties. I also realise that when we asked the then Minister of Labour to give a definition of "genuinely seeking work," he gave us a definition of "continuously seeking work," and it caused a good deal of trouble. If there had been a time limit in the Act of 1924, it would of necessity have had to come before this House for review. I am certain that if it had come before this House for review, we should have put in a far different condition in view of the experience which we had had of that definition. I am in favour of this Amendment, because I am not satisfied with the Clause that the Government have inserted in the Bill, and I am speaking with practical experience and as one bitterly opposed to the definition of seeking work in the old Act. I know that it does not work well at all.

I am not satisfied that the Amendment which has been suggested by the Attorney-General is going to be any good. No one knows better than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour the great difficulty with which you are faced when you come up against the question as to whether a man is entitled to benefit or not unless you make it a straight issue as to whether he has refused work or not. I am satisfied that if you put in this time limit it will give us, at any rate, some experience of the working of this Clause, and we can, if we find—as I feel certain we shall find—that there are still many difficulties to overcome, bring in something better.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has said that this Insurance Fund is becoming State relief. I suppose he was referring to the fact that it is £38,000,000 in debt and that some day we shall have to face it in the House of Commons and the Exchequer will have to wipe out the debt. There is another reason why we should have this time limit, because there are coming into existence public assistance committees in connection with all municipalities in this country. We are not going to work under the old system of boards of guardians. The whole object of the Act which was passed by the late Government was to deal with this very question of relief, particularly in the case of able-bodied men and their dependants. Before many months have passed after these committees have begun to operate, if they do their work as they ought to do, you will have to have some co-operation between the working of the Employment Exchanges and these particular committees. Therefore, there are many

reasons why we should put in a time limit, and if there is a Division taken, I shall certainly vote for the Amendment.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 299.

Division No. 77.]

AYES.

[7.36 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

Albery, Irving James

Ferguson, Sir John

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Fermoy, Lord

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

Ford, Sir P. J.

O'Neill, Sir H.

Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Penny, Sir George

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Grace, John

Power, Sir John Cecil

Balniel, Lord

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Purbrick, R.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Ramsbotham, H.

Berry, Sir George

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Remer, John R.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Bird, Ernest Roy

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Hanbury, C.

Salmon, Major I.

Boyce, H. L.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bracken, B.

Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Briscoe, Richard George

Haslam, Henry C.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Henderson, Capt. R. R (Oxf'd, Henley)

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)

Butler, R. A.

Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Smithers, Waldron

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hurd, Percy A.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Iveagh, Countess of

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Chapman, Sir S.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Christie, J. A.

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Thomson, Sir F.

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Colfox, Major William Philip

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Colville, Major D. J.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Cranbourne, Viscount

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Lymington, Viscount

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Macquisten, F. A.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Wayland, Sir William A.

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Wells, Sydney R.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Withers, Sir John James

Dawson, Sir Philip

Mond, Hon. Henry

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

Womersley, W. J.

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Muirhead, A. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

Everard, W. Lindsay

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Captain Margesson and The

Marquess of Titchfield.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Bowen, J. W.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Barnes, Alfred John

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Batey, Joseph

Broad, Francis Alfred

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Pecknam)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Bellamy, Albert

Bromfield, William

Alpass, J. H.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Bromley, J.

Ammon, Charles George

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Brooke, W.

Angell, Norman

Benson, G.

Brothers, M.

Arnott, John

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Aske, Sir Robert

Birkett, W. Norman

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Ayles, Walter

Blindell, James

Buchanan, G.

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Burgess, F. G.

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Isaacs, George

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Caine, Derwent Hall-

Jones, F. Llewellyn-(Flint)

Pole, Major D. G.

Cameron, A. G.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Potts, John S.

Cape, Thomas

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Price, M. P.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Pybus, Percy John

Charleton, H. C.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Chater, Daniel

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Church, Major A. G.

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Raynes, W. R.

Clarke, J. S.

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Richards, R.

Cluse, W. S.

Kelly, W. T.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kennedy, Thomas

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Kinley, J.

Ritson, J.

Compton, Joseph

Kirkwood, D.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Cove, William G.

Knight, Holford

Romeril, H. G.

Cowan, D. M.

Lang, Gordon

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Daggar, George

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Rowson, Guy

Dallas, George

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawrence, Susan

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Day, Harry

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lawson, John James

Sanders, W. S.

Dickson, T.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Sandham, E.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Leach, W.

Sawyer, G. F.

Dukes, C.

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Scrymgeour, E.

Duncan, Charles

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Scurr, John

Ede, James Chuter

Lees, J.

Sexton, James

Edmunds, J. E.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lindley, Fred W.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Egan, W. H.

Longbottom, A. W.

Sherwood, G. H.

Elmley, Viscount

Longden, F.

Shield, George William

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Shillaker, J. F.

Foot, Isaac

Lowth, Thomas

Shinwell, E.

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Simmons, C. J.

Freeman, Peter

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Simon. E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

McElwee, A.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

McEntee, V. L.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mackinder, W.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

McKinlay, A.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Gibbins, Joseph

MacLaren. Andrew

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Gill, T. H.

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Gillett, George M.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Glassey, A. E.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Gosling, Harry

McShane, John James

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Gossling, A. G.

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Gould, F.

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Sorensen, R.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Mansfield, W.

Spero, Dr. G. E.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

March, S.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Granville, E.

Marcus, M.

Stephen, Campbell

Gray, Milner

Markham, S. F.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).

Marley, J.

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Mathers, George

Strauss, G. R.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Matters, L. W.

Sullivan, J.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Maxton, James

Sutton, J. E

Grundy, Thomas W.

Messer, Fred

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Middleton, G.

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Millar, J. D.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Mills, J. E.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Milner, J.

Thurtie, Ernest

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Tinker, John Joseph

Harbord, A.

Morley, Ralph

Toole, Joseph

Hardie, George D.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Tout, W. J.

Harris, Percy A.

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Townend, A. E.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Mort, D. L.

Turner, B.

Haycock, A. W.

Moses, J. J. H.

Vaughan, D. J.

Hayday, Arthur

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Walker, J.

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Muggeridge, H. T.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Murnin, Hugh

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Watkins, F. C.

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Naylor, T. E.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Herriotts, J.

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Oldfield, J. R.

Wellock, Wilfred

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Hoffman, P. C.

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Hopkin, Daniel

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Westwood, Joseph

Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

Owen. H. F. (Hereford)

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Horrabin, J. F.

Palin, John Henry

White, H. G.

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Paling, Wilfrid

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Palmer, E. T.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Perry, S. F.

Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Wise, E. F.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Whiteley.

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

In view of the Government's announcement that it is their intention to bring in a revised Sub-section (1), am I interpreting the wish of the Committee in passing over the Amendments upon the Order Paper in connection with Sub-section (1), and proceeding to Sub-section (2)?

Yes, on the understanding that we shall have an opportunity of moving our Amendments later. It is impossible to discuss them with the Sub-section in its present form.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, to leave out Sub-section (2).

I am glad that the Committee will have an opportunity of discussing this Sub-section to-night. I do not think that we can discuss this question too often. Every additional opportunity that we have of discussing the question gives us an additional chance of removing the hardships under which these unemployed men and women suffer. Sub-section (2) is a mischievous and dangerous Sub-section. If this Subsection remains in the Bill it will nullify all the good that will be done by the new Sub-section which was read out this afternoon. In Clause 5 the provisions relating to "not genuinely seeking work" are being deleted. These provisions are being replaced by the provisions contained in Clause 4 (1), (2), (3). There are two alternatives which have to be legislated for. There is the offer of a definite job in the man's own trade, and there is the offer of a definite job in some trade other than his normal employment. That can be covered by Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3), which we shall discuss later. When we come to discuss Sub-section (3) and its provisos relating to the offer of work in a trade in which a man is not normally engaged, there will have to be consequential Amendments to bring it into line with Subsection (1) as altered by the Attorney-General; but when we come to Subsection (2), that is not necessary.

Sub-section (2) is vague, nebulous and undefined hoch-poch, and I defy anyone to understand it. The offer of jobs divides itself into those that are offered through the Exchanges and those that are not. Those that are offered through the Exchanges are 17½ per cent., while 82½ per cent. are outside the purview of the Exchanges. If you are considering a definite job, and the majority of jobs are outside the purview of the Exchanges, because they are among the 82½ per cent., you have to bear in mind that under this Sub-section it must be shown that suitable employment was available and that the unemployed man or woman could reasonably have been expected to know that such employment was available. How can they show that the unemployed person "has not taken all such steps as he could reasonably be expected to take for the purposes of obtaining such employment"? If the court of referees are going to do their work properly, if they are going to judge fairly, they ought to know about all jobs. If they do not know about all jobs they cannot judge fairly and they cannot give a decision which will be fair to the unemployed man or woman. They will not necessarily know about all the jobs. What will happen will be exactly what happens under the iniquitous provision regarding "not genuinely seeking work." The court of referees are going to be reduced to saying to an unemployed man or woman who comes before them: "Surely there is plenty of work for a person of your sort. Where did you go yesterday? Where did you go the day before yesterday? Where did you go last Friday week?" and so on. We shall get exactly the same thing happening as we get to-day under the "genuinely seeking work" provision. We shall have men and women tramping round day after day, week after week, to places where they know there is no work, or where people are being turned off work, in order that they may prove to the court of referees, in the words of this Sub-section, that they have conforming with the Act. Under the "genuinely seeking work" provision, I had some forms printed to enable the unemployed men in my constituency to obtain proofs more easily from the foreman of the factories, or works, as they went round. I hoped that when this Government came into office any proof of that sort would not be necessary. What is going to happen? You will get again what happens under the "genuinely seeking work" provision. You will have men going from factory to factory, from gate to gate, filling up their forms with the signatures of foremen and trying to prove that they have been to 20 or 30 places. Even then, they may be disqualified. Or you will get them going before the Court of Referees with their long lists of names, and you may have on that Court an employer who may know that one of the factories is not taking on men, or that one of the factories is dismissing men, and he may say: "Look here, my good man, you are simply going round not with the intention of finding work but trying to prove that you have conformed with the Act, and that you have taken all such steps as you could reasonably have been expected to take. The worker is hit both ways. If he goes round looking for work, he is told that he is trying to fill his list in order to conform with the Act. If he does not go round, he is told that he is not taking all the steps he could reasonably be expected to take to find work.

The form of words contained in Subsection (2) is no improvement on the provision as to not genuinely seeking work. I have been assured by Members of this party and of other parties and of no party who sit on Courts of Referees, and who have considered the new form of words, and they assure me that under Sub-section (2) they will have to make exactly the same inquisition into the unemployed worker's attempt to find work, and exactly the same consideration will have to be applied in deciding whether unemployed men and unemployed women have taken all such steps as they could reasonably be expected to take, that they have done under the "not genuinely seeking work" provision. It is just such a psychological test as the "not genuinely seeking work" test. Hitherto, you have laid stress not so much on what the man did to get work but as to whether he was in a genuinely-seeking-work frame of mind. The Minister of Labour has told us that we must get away from the psychological test. Sub-section (2) is still a psychological test. It is going back to the formula which operated before the "genuinely seeking work" formula was brought in. Cases are marked under the not genuinely seeking work provision "N.G.S.W." Formerly cases were marked "N.M.R.E.," which means "not making reasonable effort." Under Sub-section (2) we are going back to that formula. The difference between that formula and the formula which is now proposed, I cannot see, because once you get outside the realm of definite offers of jobs of which the Exchanges have knowledge, you are bound to be unfair to the unemployed man or woman whose case is being tried, because you are dealing with jobs of which neither the Exchange, the Court of Referees nor the Umpire have any knowledge. You cannot judge a man whose livelihood depends upon it or whose family depends upon it, on evidence of that sort.

I do not say that it is necessary to have all jobs registered. A man must not necessarily have been offered a job by the Exchange, but the Exchange must have some proof that somebody else, some employer or some organisation has offered him a job. I feel very strongly about this Clause. When the question of the rates have been decided, it is the most important Clause, and Sub-section (2) is the most important Sub-section in the Bill. I have not read all the evidence in the Morris Report, but I have read most of the pages dealing with the question of not genuinely seeking work. The Glauses in this Bill have been largely drawn up on the majority Report of the Morris Committee. We of the Labour party ought to be under no obligation to accept the majority recommendations of that Report, because if you read the evidence, as I have read it, you will see that two members of the Committee who are supposed to be independent and are supposed to be unbiassed threw the whole weight of their influence against the unemployed men and the unemployed people.

8.0 p.m.

It would be far better for a few people, call them wasters, or call them what you like, to slip through the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, than for thousands of men and women to be unjustly excluded. The unemployed man to-day has less rights than a criminal. If I read the mind of the Attorney-General what he thinks is this. He thinks it sufficient for the Employment Exchange to make a prima facie case against the unemployed worker and to throw on the unemployed worker the onus of proving that he or she is innocent. That is the opposite, the reversal, of every tenet of justice in this country. An unemployed man ought to be innocent until somebody else is in a position to produce evidence of his guilt, and I urge the Minister of Labour to take this opportunity of cutting out all vagueness in the Bill and making the law absolutely definite and specific, to humanise the administration, to the benefit of millions of those who are now the victims of unemployment.

I propose to put the Question in this way: "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word ' that,' in line 34, stand part of the Clause."

I think, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that you have gone beyond my Amendment in line 31?

We on these benches do not question for a moment the good intentions and the perfect honesty of the attempt made not only in Sub-section (1) but in Sub-section (2) to deal with this extraordinarily difficult problem. We have been filled with the gravest apprehensions as regards the possible effect of Sub-section (2). In line 37, there appear words which seem to us exceedingly dangerous. From the words "unless he shows" the onus shifts entirely from the Minister and falls solely on the applicant for benefit. There are other words in this Sub-section to which we take the most serious objection. Indeed, I think the whole Sub-section as it stands is quite unworkable and administratively impossible. Let me illustrate my contention by one or two practical points. Let hon. Members imagine a condition of affairs, which is really not at all imaginative but actually arises from time to time in those areas where there are a number of shipyards or engineering works, where there is a rumour that a work is likely to arise in a shipyard owing to the fact that an oil tanker is likely to come in for repair. As soon as that rumour is handed round there is immediately a large congregation at the works, as on work of that kind the rate of pay is higher than for ordinary shipyard work.

The congregation remains there, and after a time expectation becomes a reality and the oil tanker comes into the yard. The men still remain in attendance, looking for work at that one point only. In the meantime the number of men who are to be engaged is not known, and the type of men to be engaged is not known. These facts are not known until a survey has taken place, and then it may be a matter of 20, 30, or 50 men being engaged. What is the position of the men who are not engaged? While they have been waiting there, with full honesty of purpose, because it is the best job in the district so far as rates of pay are concerned, it may happen that another boat may have come in in another yard, another ship may come into a shipyard close at hand. What an extraordinary dilemma is placed on the administration, on the insurance officer, and on the court of referees? What an extraordinary dilemma the man himself would be in? He is one of the disappointed men on the oil tanker. Did he know, or had he a reasonable chance of knowing, that work was obtainable at the other yard? And is the insurance officer to disqualify him? He may say that he did not know, and there is a tremendous amount of deafness amongst men who work in shipbuilding yards. It is well known and unfortunately it is a fact. If he tells the truth that he thought he wanted to get work at the best rate of pay, will he be disqualified? Supposing the job in the other yard was for two or three days only, is he to be disqualified, and if so, for how long? These are all points which make the Sub-section absolutely unworkable.

Take another class of workmen, the class which I believe is called the amphibious class, a considerable number of people who render a form of household service and because they are employed in hotels or hospitals or restaurants, they are insurable. If a man or woman loses her occupation in work of that class, and comes upon the market, there is always work obtainable in domestic service, an uninsurable occupation. Is this large class of people to be disqualified because that work is available? This Sub-section as it stands, and with any amendment we can make, must lead to great confusion in administration and must tell against the interests of the men. There must be a rewriting of this Sub-section, or a reconsideration of it. We shall have to apply to it some kind of condition as was suggested by the Attorney-General in the case of Sub-section (1). But I doubt whether it is possible to devise any satisfactory words which could meet the case at all. As far as my judgment goes I should prefer to see the Sub-section deleted altogether.

I wish to add my support to the Amendment which I hope the Minister of Labour will accept. This Sub-section renders the whole of the amended Sub-section (1) which the Attorney-General kindly submitted to the Committee absolutely nugatory as far as being of any benefit to the unemployed man. It is easy indeed to say that if you refuse a job that has been specifically offered you shall lose your benefit. It does not require Sub-section (1) to do that. The case of a man who has refused a specific job can be dealt with under Sub-section (2) and, therefore, to go to the extent we have this afternoon to amend Sub-section (1) and leave Subsection (2) as it now stands allows all the worst elements of "not genuinely seeking work" to remain and would subject the unemployed man to those hardships which are a well-known feature of the administration of this fund. Many years ago I was employed in the engineering industry, and there used to be posted on the works gate the familiar notice, "No hands wanted," although it was well known inside the industry that hands were wanted. The management were not prepared to accept them when they went to the works gate for a job. The onus of proof, as the Sub-section now stands, will not rest on the Employment Exchange or its officials but on the man to show that he has taken all reasonable steps to obtain employment at a job open for him. Hundreds of engineers, highly skilled men, will not go to the works because they know that if they go to the works where the familiar notice, "No hands wanted," is posted there is no chance of interviewing the foreman or the manager. They get their labour through totally different channels.

The point I think the Committee has to consider is this, that it is on these abstruse questions that the greatest difficulty arises. To leave Sub-section (2) and (3) as they now stand will lead to the greatest difficulty. There can be no change whatever in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act as it now exists, because every test to which the unemployed man is submitted to-day can be applied again under Sub-sections (2) and (3). The responsibility still rests with the applicant and not with the Employment Exchange. In my view this Sub-section should come out. I hope the right hon. Lady will tell us exactly how far this Sub-section differs from the existing administration, and I want her to show clearly that no man can reasonably be ruled out from receiving benefit if it is passed. I am afraid that while Subsections (2) and (3) of this Clause exist there will be no marked improvement. There will be no step forward until we have either radically modified the Clause or totally excluded these two Subsections.

I am very glad to have an opportunity of discussing Subsection (2), and just as on Sub-section (1), I shall gladly welcome the combined wisdom of the Committee to get the Clause properly arranged. But I want to put the problem from the practical and administrative point of view. I want to speak for one moment not as a Minister but as a trade unionist of 35 years' standing. I say emphatically that if all the insured persons were members of trade unions the Clause would be unnecessary. I have in my hand here an extract from the rules of trade unions. I could trust to the disciplinary rules of the trade unions to secure that men made the necessary exertion to get employment. I have here three pages of foolscap containing extracts from the rules. There is not a single union in this list paying benefit that does not have a Clause very much stronger than that in the Bill, in regard to the necessity for a member making exertion on his own account, apart from anything that the union may do, in the matter of work finding.

But I am not dealing with 11,000,000 trade unionists; I am dealing with a large uncharted area of labour that moves about, in and out of occupations. Many of these people are in casual labour. They may have heard of jobs. No one knows how. There are a certain number of jobs filled through the trade union machinery, but there is also a large proportion filled by the direct invitation of employers to workmen to go back to work. That is especially so, I understand, in the textile industry, and the vacancies are automatically filled. There are so many people attached to a certain group of employers and those employers would not dream of going anywhere else. There is a third group—the 18 out of 100 who are employed through the exchanges. That does not account for the total filling of vacancies. I beg the Committee to realise that my administrative problem is due to the fact that we have in the three areas covered by Sub-section (1) other forms of inducement, in order that there shall be no delay in filling up the vacancies. That still leaves me with a residuum in which the only possible assistance that can be given in regard to the necessary supervision is under some such Sub-section as this.

It has been repeated again to-night that this is merely a re-introduction of all the evils of "not genuinely seeking work." Quite frankly I cannot understand how anyone can read this Clause and compare it with the old condition of affairs without realising the substantial change that has taken place in connection with the working of the Clause. The fact that I have put an Amendment on the Paper is an admission that I have already received criticisms of the framing of the words which, when I first saw them, I never thought could have such an interpretation put upon them. It is quite possible that the words I shall suggest will be so criticised that they also will bear an interpretation that we cannot now regard as possible. I shall read the Sub-section as it will be with the incorporation of my Amendment on the Paper.

I ask the Committee seriously to realise that from the standpoint of administration I do regard this as an important part of the machinery for administering claims. I regard it as essential in the present state of affairs. I believe that we shall emerge to a better state of organisation of employment and to a more scientific basis, but we have not reached that stage yet and we have not got a complete machine; we have a machine that works in a very creaky way and covers only certain areas. I think the Committee would be making a very grave mistake if it did not give us this power of further examination.

I certainly hope that that is not the last word of the Government. I think it was M. Clemenceau who asked that if the good God wanted 10 points why should President Wilson want 14. Why should the Minister of Labour want four points when the only point that we want is to see that if a job is offered to a man and he refuses it, he is disqualified? The Minister knows that that is the only genuine, sincere and simple test which you can present to any Exchange as workable. I frankly am a "Morris Minor." From our point of view everything that we gained under Sub-section (1) is lost if Sub-section (2) is retained. I cannot speak with 33 years of trade union experience; I have had only four years of such experience. I have been profoundly shocked, going through an industrial constituency with a mind rather in favour of the "genuinely seeking work" condition, to find the way in which it has operated. It is not fair to the referees or to the men. It is a very unequal struggle for the man. Think of a man having to go up to prove these four points, to show that he "took all such steps" and so forth. I object to the proof of "taking all such steps." It is just this taking of steps, in an endless tramp round looking for work, to which we object.

The effect of this Sub-section is to shift the whole of the onus back on to the man, and I do not see that the Amendment of the right hon. Lady makes it any better. Again, the man has to show that he has called at factories and workshops; that he has visited shops A, B, C and D; that, day in and day out, he has been insulted. No employer will keep a clerk to interview all the men who call looking for work. I was called out of this Debate by an unemployed man who has just been turned down and disqualified from benefit. He went to the referees on two occasions and he gave 20 names and I know that he called on two employers, but he was disbelieved and he said to me, "I am not a sufficiently plausible liar." The plausible liar can always get through, but if a man, however honest, is excited and awkward he is certain to be disqualified. That is why I say that it is a very unequal struggle.

It is all very well for us, in the calm quiet of this Chamber, to consider the legal interpretations of this difficult provision. We are all employed—for the moment at any rate—but think of a man who has been tramping about week after week, month after month, perhaps year after year, looking for work. He comes ' in hungry, feeling that on every word he utters depends not only his own benefit but the maintenance of his wife and children. That is a different situation altogether. The battle is not equal, and the slightest mistake, the slightest pause in answering a question may disqualify him from benefit and deprive his wife and children of support. We should endeavour to deal with this matter in the simplest and most straightforward terms. I do not believe that two Courts of Referees. sitting to interpret this Sub-section would give the same interpretation of it; and I beg the Attorney-General seriously to consider the views which have been expressed in all parts of the Committee. There is only one point in the Sub-section which I should be prepared to consider. Sub-section (1), which has been amended to our satisfaction, deals with a specific job. Sub-section (2) deals with an unspecified job; and it may be necessary, when Sub-section (1) is re-drafted, to see that the unspecified job is covered with the specified job. To that extent Sub-sections (1) and (2) could be lumped together, so that, whether it is a case of a specific job or an unspecified job, there is only one test—that the man has been notified by the Exchange or otherwise, and has definitely refused it or has refused to avail himself of it. To that extent, Sub-sections (1) and (2) might be linked together, but I am not prepared to accept the spirit of the Amendment, and if the right hon. Lady persists in it, then, as far as I am concerned, she is genuinely seeking trouble.

I must express my surprise and a little disappointment at the attempt in Sub-section (2) to carry on the principle deleted from Sub-section (1). I certainly thought when the Government accepted the principle of the previous Amendment that they also accepted the spirit, and that they would carry out the same principle in regard to all applicants for benefit at all stages. It will be a Gilbertian position if, on the Report stage, we find Sub-section (1) accepting a definite principle, Sub-section (2) dealing with another stage on a different principle, and Sub-section (3) dealing with a further stage but with quite a new set of governing principles. The most astonishing proposition, I think, that the Committee has been confronted with is the right hon. Lady's attempt to justify this proposal by reference to the trade unions. They must have restrictive rules because of the very nature of the voluntary membership, because of the non-compulsory character of the benefit arrangements, because of the very fact that only their own funds are concerned, without any State or employers' assistance, and because their case is confined to a very small number by comparison with the whole. In addition they do set up their own machinery for this purpose and they do offer work—the refusal of which, of course, carries disqualification. All that we are asking here is that there must be a proved offer, and, whether it is specific or not, whether it is in the particular or in the general, the same principle ought to prevail, and Sub-section (2) might well go out were it not for this fact—that it deals with the person's usual employment. Sub-section (3) deals with some other suitable employment, and to that extent they deal with different phases of the question.

How can you have a different Sub-section dealing with each phase of the question, and in each one of these have a different set of principles governing the conduct of the matter in relation to all these varying classes of cases? I shall be very much surprised if the Attorney-General does not agree that the Government indicates that they accepted, in all good faith, the principles underlying my Amendment and undertook to import words into Sub-section (1) to carry it out. They told us that, if those words were not satisfactory, we had not given up our right to raise the matter on the Report stage. In my innocence and trustfulness, I suppose, I said I accepted that statement, and I was very thankful for it, believing that the principle would be applied all the way through. Indeed I said that the Government would find that the principle accepted in Sub-section (1) clashed with the wording of Sub-section (2) and that Sub-section (2) would have to toe either drastically revised or cut out altogether and one general principle made to apply in one general paragraph. You can separate them into sections within the one general paragraph, but let it be a comprehensive whole.

I can assure the Attorney-General that the acceptance of the principle, if it is to apply to the specific case and not to the general case, has not taken away the opposition to the other Sub-sections to which I and most Members of the Committee take serious objection. The four headings which I heard read did not come fresh to my mind; I could not say in what relation I have heard them before, but I believe it was in relation to some umpire's award, almost identically. If Sub-section (2) is to be moulded on an umpire's award, that is bad. We want, and I am certain the Attorney-General wants, to carry out to the full the spirit of the acceptance of the principle in the Amendment which was originally proposed. It was not intended solely to apply to the unemployed applicant under Sub-section (1), but to apply generally to all applicants coming under unemployment insurance.

All who are deeply interested in this question are concerned about having the right Sub-section. This Sub-section has given me some concern, because I have had considerable experience on a local committee dealing with men who have to prove that they are genuinely seeking work, and I know the difficulties of these men. If you could have a committee consisting of trade union officials only, I should be satisfied to wipe away any conditions whatever, and to leave it to their judgment. We are all anxious to protect the man who genuinely wants work, and not to protect the man who is work-shy; no one will pretend that there are not some here and there who can really be described as work-shy. If as the Minister said, the onus of proving the four points which she mentioned is to be upon the officer at the Employment Exchange, I should be satisfied, but if the onus of proof is on the applicant, I am bound to say that I agree with the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) that we shall be in as bad a position as under the old conditions.

I have here a packet of note headings of different firms which were obtained by a man in search of work. He did not walk round with a paper and simply ask the foreman to stamp it; he was so persistent in his efforts to get employment, that somehow or other he got right into the offices of the firms where he called, and nearly every note heading in this packet was signed by either the master of the firm or, in the case of a limited company, by the managing director. This man was determined that he would get something which the committee would accept, because they would not accept his statement or the ordinary form which he had taken round for the foreman to stamp. He went before the court of referees this week, and he told me that he had submitted this packet of note headings as evidence that he was genuinely seeking work. In spite of that evidence, his claim was disallowed on the ground that he was not genuinely seeking work. With all my experience, I have never known of a worse case, and if it is likely to perpetuate that sort of thing, do not let us have this Sub-section at all. I will not, however, condemn it until I have heard what the Attorney-General has to say about it.

I have another case of a man who was so anxious to get work, that he took a job at a less figure than he could have received from unemployment pay, and he took it before he was out of benefit. He was not suitable for the work, for he was a skilled man. He took on a labourer's job and he could not do it, because there is a certain amount of skill even in labouring. The people were dissatisfied with him and dismissed him, and he is concerned because he is told that he is not genuinely seeking work. The firm reported that he was not a suitable man for the job, and hon. Members know what that means when the man goes before a committee. I do not want to see this sort of thing go on, and if this Sub-section will perpetuate it, let us have something different. I hope that the Attorney-General will make the position quite clear, because I am certain that we are up against very great difficulties one way or another. Hon. Members have talked about making the offer of a job the one test. I have heard it stated in this House, and it has come before me in my experience, that a job has been offered to a man, not because they expected him to take it, but because they wanted him to refuse it so that his benefit would be stopped. There ought to be some form of words which would be a guide to those who have to administer the Bill. The trouble with which we have been faced is the way in which the words which we put in to this legislation is interpreted by those who have to carry it out, and whatever words are put into a Bill, they should be carefully drafted so that there cannot be a wrong interpretation. I say with all the earnestness that I possess that if this Sub-section is going to perpetuate the system which we have been operating during the last few years, I shall not vote for it.

This is the danger point of the whole Bill. There are many hon. Members who wish the Bill well as a whole, but we cannot possibly allow to be embodied at this point what to our mind will be a source of future persecution. The Attorney-General was good enough to say that when I was speaking on Sub-section (1), I was advancing an argument which might have been powerful on Sub-section (2), but was irrelevant to Sub-section (1). I would, therefore, repeat what I said without going all over it again, and ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to apply to this Sub-section what I then said. I would recall to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the statement of the Morris Committee on page 20 where it says that the condition of availability of suitable work could be satisfied

The ill-feeling which exists between the people outside the Employment Exchanges and the officials inside—and that there is ill-feeling no one can deny—is not to be attributed as a fault to the men outside or to the officials inside, but to the system which puts the one and the other in a false position from the start. The unemployed men go in there against their accusers, and the officials inside take up that position as a duty; it is not their inclination, they only follow the rules of thumb that are laid down for them from time to time, and then one gets scenes such as I have described, and a poor man is indignant because he has been recommended to get a shave. That is a trivial instance, but it is one of the kind which leads to an enormous amount of ill-feeling, and that is what we have to get rid of. It exists in the present system, and under Sub-section (2), as far as I can see, it will continue in the same way. As has been said already, the real "scrounger," the man who is going to get away with it, will know all about the "means usually taken for such a purpose. He will be able to satisfy the tribunal that he has done everything required, just as when four people take a taxicab there is always one who pays and three who feel in their pockets. They are used to fumbling, and will go on fumbling. That is the position we have got to face, but I do not think the Minister of Labour or the Attorney-General is facing it if the Amendment suggested is all that can be offered. I do not want to pretend to be wiser than others, and for my part I say frankly that I can find no satisfactory amendment for Sub-section (2), except to run a blue pencil through it and strike the whole thing out, and I hope that will be the conclusion of the Government.

I would like to draw the attention of the Attorney-General to that part of the Sub-section which says the system which is to be continued by Sub-section (2) every claimant will be looked upon at the outset as dishonest, and the effect of that will be to increase the number of what you call immoral people, because the more you impress upon people that they are dishonest the more they will become dishonest. If you take the returns relating to small crimes in the big industrial districts, you will see what I mean. That will be the effect of officials treating everybody who comes before them as being dishonest.

Then there is the question of a man changing his occupation, which arises through the introduction of the words

What will happen? A man will come forward with his papers signed by the local trade union secretary, and those papers will prove that the man has been round trying to find employment. That man will go to the Employment Exchange officials to have his case decided. Hon. Members may take it from me that whenever any Department of the Government set themselves to find proof, they will find it and, consequently, the result of this proposal will be that the officials will determine whether the man has been genuinely seeking work or not. The only way in which Sub-section (2) can be made workable is that it should be so amended as to coincide with Sub-section (1).

9.0 p.m.

I want to make absolutely certain, as far as I can, that I shall put the Committee in possession of what I believe this Clause means. When I have done that we shall be able to allow the collective wisdom of the House to say whether we are right or not in inserting a Sub-section like the one we are discussing, in spite of the fact that we have already passed Sub-section (1). May I point out to the Committee the fundamental distinction between this Sub-section and Sub-section (1)? Subsection (1) deals with the case where you have a specific situation offered to a man who is seeking employment. I do not want the Committee to be under any misapprehension about Sub-section (2). That Sub-section deals with a case where you cannot point to any specific situation being available. What is the difference between the two Sub-sections? The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare) suggested an extension of this Sub-section which, I think, he will agree, on reconsideration, was not quite to the point. How can you have the offer of a situation unless you are able to specify that situation? The fact of the offer being made necessarily involves that the situation is specific.

It seems to me that the Committee really have a very important point to decide, and I earnestly hope that no Member of the Committee will allow himself or herself to be influenced by emotion. I think hon. Members have been unduly prejudiced by the undoubted fact that the existing system has worked great injustice. We have to consider a very important point of national policy. There are a large number of unemployed, and this is the problem as I see it. Are we to legislate on the lines that these people should think that they need do nothing themselves; that they should wait at home, sit down, smoke their pipes and wait until an offer comes to them? On the other hand, are we by our legislation to give effect to the principle that just as God helps those who help themselves, so we want to encourage in every way we can the spirit amongst these unhappy people that they must help themselves and not rely solely on what others can do for them? Are you or are you not going to lay down the principle that these people need not do anything, or is it desirable to lay down the principle that these men must do what they can for themselves?

It is because we have thought that the latter is the right principle, and that we must encourage these men to do what they can for themselves, that we have introduced Sub-section (2). This Subsection, as the Minister of Labour has already pointed out, is analogous to the trade union principle that trade unionists must always do what they can to help themselves, and not rely solely on what can be done for them. I think that every Member of the Committee will agree that it is a sound principle to lay down that you must expect from all these men an endeavour to help themselves, and an endeavour to do what they can to remedy their own situation, and not merely rely upon what can be done for them. We are dealing here with a very important question, and there is a danger of being led away by our sympathy to do something which is really unwarranted. I am quite prepared to consider any Amendment to this Clause which is not at variance with that intention. It differs fundamentally from the existing procedure. Under the existing procedure with regard to the question of genuinely seeking work, the onus of proof rests upon the workman throughout, and anybody who has had any experience in a court of justice knows that, if only you can get your adversary into the witness-box and cross-examine him, your best chance of proving your own case is by cross-examining your opponent.

Under the existing system, from the beginning the onus is upon the unfortunate claimant, and he is, as we know, cross-examined, sometimes, I am afraid, in a ruthless manner. What we propose to do by this Clause is to stop that. In future, before the man who goes before a Court of Referees can be asked one single question, he is entitled to sit there like a deaf mute, he is entitled to take no part in the proceedings at all, he cannot be called upon, or cross-examined, or put through an inquisition, until three steps have been taken by the insurance official. I say three steps because I am assuming for the moment that the Amendment which the Minister is going to propose later on may be considered acceptable by the Committee. The three steps are these. First of all, the insurance official has to prove that employment in the man's usual occupation was available. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member, who knows a vast amount about this matter, will know that at the present time the onus is upon the claimant all the way through.

As I have said, the insurance official has to prove, in the first place, that employment in the man's usual occupation was available. In the second place, he has to prove that the claimant could reasonably have been expected to know this. Then he has to prove a great deal more. One of the great hardships of the present system is this. You may have a district where there are, say, 10,000 people out of work. You may have in a given week some 10 men fixed up, that is to say, there have been 10 vacancies. And, because there have been 10 vacancies and 10,000 men looking, you may call upon the 9,990 to submit to an inquisition. That has got to go, and, if this Clause does not take it away, the Clause fails to carry out its object. The third point, therefore, is that not only must the insurance official show that employment was available, and that the claimant ought to have known that it was available, but he must show that the extent of the available employment was such that it is reasonable to assume that the claimant, had he tried to get a job, could have got it.

Let me give one illustration, taking again the case of 10,000 men out of work and 10 vacancies. The Court of Referees dealing with these cases—who must be encouraged to behave, and will behave, as a Court—would have to say to the insurance official in that case, "You have not proved your case," and they would not call upon the claimant at all. Then take an extreme case at the other end of the scale. Suppose that there are 100 people looking for work, and that on the 1st January there are 99 vacancies. Other things being equal, and these facts being proved, it is reasonable to assume that a man, if he had tried, might have got work, and it is only if it be proved that the volume of available work is such that it is reason- able to assume that the man could have got a job had he tried for it, that the claimant can be called upon for the first time.

If it be proved that employment was available, that the claimant knew that employment was available, and that the volume of employment was such as to make it reasonable to assume that had the man tried he would have succeeded, then, and then only, can the man be called upon. But that does not conclude the case. The man is then called upon for the first time, and, if he can show that he has taken all reasonable steps to get employment, then, notwithstanding the proof of these three things by the insurance official, he is still entitled to his benefit. If, so far as legislation is concerned, we limit this to Sub-section (1), if we limit our machinery to the case where a specific offer can be proved to have been given, there must be many hundreds of thousands of cases in which we cannot possibly tell anything more than that there have been, over an extended period of time, a large number of available jobs and comparatively few men out of work, and yet the same man has always been the man who failed. Surely, that is a case in which it is reasonable to say to that man, "The insurance official has proved his three points, and we ask you to tell us what steps you have taken." If you do not do that, you remove from your legislation all necessity for these unfortunate unemployed people helping themselves.

With all the vices of the present system, with all the injustice that it has brought about, it is an amazing thing to me, so far as I have gone into this matter, that the vast majority of these men are still anxious to get work even when they have been out of work month after month and sometimes year after year. May it not be that to-day all these men realise that it is up to them to help themselves, to do what they can; and if we could, by an appropriate form of words, make it plain that these men must still go on trying to help them selves, while removing or altering those words which have given cause for all the grievances and heart-burnings and injustices which exist at the present time, might not that be a wise thing and, for these men, a humane thing? I submit to the Committee that they ought to consider very carefully and very anxiously whether the principle which I have enunciated—I am not for the moment dealing with words; I am quite ready to admit that the words I have set out here can be improved, and, if the Committee gives me its collective wisdom, I have no doubt that they will be improved—I submit to the Committee that it is not wise in the national interest to leave this matter simply as it stands in Sub-section (1), but that we ought to have some such provision as is contained in Sub-section (2).

The Sub-section with the Amendment will read in this way. The Committee will observe, in the seventh line of the Sub-Section, the word "unless," and they will see that down to that word the Sub-Section deals with matters the onus of proof of which is upon the insurance official, while after the word "unless" it deals with matters the onus of proof of which is upon the claimant. The Minister proposes to lift out these words, which at the present moment come in the latter part of the Sub-section:

"and to the extent to which such employment was available."

The Committee will see that I am dealing first with the three matters the onus of proof of which is meant to be upon the insurance official. The Sub-section as it will be will read as follows:

"If on a claim for benefit it is shown that employment in the usual occupation of the claimant and of a kind suitable in his case was available for persons seeking employment of such a kind, and that the claimant would have had a reasonable chance of obtaining such employment had he sought it, and that the claimant could reasonably have been expected to know that such employment was so available, the claimant shall"—

Now we come to the last half of the Sub-section, that which deals with what the claimant has to do—

"the claimant shall, unless he shows that he has taken all such steps as (having regard to the means usually taken for such a purpose), he could reasonably be expected to take for the purpose of obtaining such employment, be disqualified for receiving benefit."

With regard to that last provision, after the word "unless," I think the Committee will agree that, if we retain it at all, it is quite essential that the onus here should be upon the claimant, because it will be impossible for the insurance officials to prove what particular steps a particular man has taken unless you have an elaborate system of espionage, which I hope we shall never introduce into this branch of the law. I suggest that these three provisions placing the onus upon the insurance officials reasonably carry out our intentions.

The Committee is greatly indebted to the Attorney-General for the admirable way in which he has made the position clear. At the same time, I am still going to suggest that he would be well advised to omit the Clause. One reason why I still stress that is that, although you have changed the onus from the man to the insurance officer as regards the three points that have to be proved, the issue itself has still to be tried, and a great many of us feel that this is not an issue which can really be fairly determined without injustice to a very large number of workers, or, if you like, placing an unfair duty upon the insurance officer. I followed the Minister closely in her statement in regard to the reasons for retaining the Clause. I should like to emphasise what she pointed out that, first of all, as regards trade union workers, this Clause is not required, because they have something very similar in their regulations, and they are quite satisfied as regards that large body of workers. She is not concerned as regards the body of workers to whom the Exchange is able to offer a specific job. She is really concerned with that proportion of cases where a job is not offered by the Exchange at all. I was speaking to one of our own officers this morning, who pointed out that the percentage of places offered to the Exchange had risen from 20 to 30—an increase of 50 per cent.

The Minister is dealing with jobs that will not come to the Exchange at all. The Exchange has no knowledge of them except as they may pick up general knowledge of what is happening in the district. You require the man himself to take reasonable steps to secure this work. I am in full agreement with the Attorney-General that we expect men who are out of work to take every reasonable step to secure work. I am not a lawyer and I would not attempt to teach the Attorney-General anything at all on matters concerning the law, but we are bound to realise that the issue itself which has to be tried by the Court of Referees is one that it is almost impossible for any Court to settle without grave risk of injustice being done in individual cases. The insurance officer has. to prove some things before the Court, but, when he has proved them, you still leave the responsibility on the man to show that he has taken the reasonable steps that he ought to have taken to fulfil those conditions.

I am not going to suggest that the Clause is not a vast improvement on the old conditions. I want to ask the Committee to recognise something that in all these discussions appears to be forgotten. What was the object of instituting Employment Exchanges at all? It was to avoid that disastrous state of affairs by which unemployed workmen had to parade their own area and tramp from town to town to find a job. We instituted and built up a fairly costly but very able administration of Employment Exchanges, spread all over the country, whose business it is to know what jobs are available. The great danger of all this kind of legislation is that it diverts the time and energies of insurance officers to the task of eliminating individual claimants when that same time and energy might be used for discovering jobs that are available.

I have been associated with the work of the Employment Exchange ever since it started in my town. I have been chairman of the juvenile committee all the time, which is in close association with the other committee, and I have been appealed to over and over again on various issues which have arisen, so I am speaking about something that I know, and the real trouble is this. Half the difficulty arises from the fact that the employing classes generally are not using the Exchanges as they ought. If a man has a job available, the mere fact of intimating it to the Exchange would be of use in eliminating men who might be sticking on the fund, because if a job is offered they either have to take it or to get eliminated.

The real trouble is that much work that could be offered through the medium of the Exchange is not so offered. I feel very strongly that the real remedy is clear and simple. It is that you should be able to offer a job and, if a man refuses a job in his own trade, or a suitable job in another trade, he ought to be debarred from benefit. But the real trouble is that, if a man is out of work, he has still got to live and if, by your machinery, you succeed in eliminating a certain number of men, you really have only succeeded in transferring them to another fund — on to the rates. That is really all that you have succeeded in doing. I would like to impress upon the Minister that I believe the right line of advance is to work on the broad principle that it is the duty of the Exchange to be able to offer a job. People who are in a position to give jobs should regard it as one of their duties to the community at least to notify the Exchange that there is a vacancy. I am not referring to the conditions which exist in some places in the North where they have a recognised system of applications for work—where 400 or 500 men go for such work as exists and so many are taken on. Under those conditions, it is absolutely impossible to prove that those men have not tried or that there is work available.

This question of availability is in my judgment one of the most difficult things to apply. The simple fact is that you have 100 men out of work and 80 jobs available. Those 80 jobs are filled and 20 men are left unemployed. If you change A for B or C for D, you have not made an extra job, and those 20 men who are left unemployed ought not really to be passed through a sieve to find whether by any possibility, if they had been a little more energetic, they might have been among the men who got a job, for that would only have meant that they would have displaced some of the other men who did get a job. When one weighs up the whole consideration, I really think, if we could save the energy and strength and money spent in trying to eliminate those people and put it into strengthening the general work of the Exchanges in collecting available work, we should have done a better service to the Exchanges and to the community.

I think all Members of the Committee will hope that the statement which we have had from the Attorney-General is not to be the last statement on Sub-section (2) from the Government this evening. I agree that, listening to the Attorney-General, anyone who did not keep his mind glued to the language of the Clause would almost have been persuaded that the Clause meant what he said it did. Unfortunately for the Attorney-General, many Members on this side and on the opposite side of the House have had a good deal of experience of the interpretation placed upon these Clauses, and I am afraid that we are not able to agree with him as to what is actually meant. He said that, when an applicant went to the Exchange, the Exchange official had to go through three stages in order to deal with the individual's right to benefit, that in each of these three stages the onus is placed upon the Exchange officials, and that in the first stage the Exchange officials have to prove that work is available. That first stage is done automatically. The difficulty is got over immediately, because there is no Exchange in Britain but some man every morning gets work. Even in a colliery district where there is only one single industry in which men can find employment, some men get work every day, so that the Exchange official is immediately assisted over the first stile.

The next point was that the Clause placed an obligation upon the official to prove that the applicant knew that work was available. It does no such thing. It does not place upon the Exchange officials the obligation to prove that the applicant knew. It says that the claimant "could reasonably have been expected to know," which involves an amount of proof on the part of the applicant as well as the officials. I have an Amendment down later on to substitute the word "knew" for the words "could reasonably have been expected to know." As the Attorney-General has read the Clause up to now the words, "could reasonably have been expected to know" are there. It really means that the applicant has taken those steps which are normally taken in his district to ascertain the availability of employment. Is not that so? There can be no other interpretation. If the applicant is in a colliery district and if, in the usual custom, men are employed on the surface of the colliery by making application to the colliery owner or the management, then the Exchange official, no matter what the Attorney-General says in this House, will say the claimant could reasonably be expected to know what work was there and was unreasonable in not being at the colliery. Under such an interpretation as that, all the persecution and victimisation which occurs now is possible. I want to assure the Attorney-General that I am not taking up this attitude in a spirit of captious opposition, and, if I thought the Clause meant what he said it does, I would accept it immediately.

When we come to the third stage that the Exchange official has to go through, there is still more dubiety about whether the whole proof rests upon the Exchange official, because it says that the employment shall be of an extent that the individual could reasonably have been expected to obtain. What does that mean? Supposing the individual is informed by the Exchange official that 10 men had employment in the colliery the day before. All those jobs have been obtained. It is retrospective. You are not urging an individual to go for a job that he might have if he had tried to go. You are simply punishing the individual for not knowing about the job afterwards. In other words, it is merely retributive justice. All the time that the individual is told that 10 men have got work, there are 500 on the Exchange.

The learned Attorney-General says it is unreasonable for the 500 men to be challenged whether they sought 10 jobs, but I submit that if the first part of the Attorney-General's speech is reasonable, it is reasonable to ask the 500 to go for the 10 jobs, because at that point not one of the 500 knows who the 10 are going to be. I submit that the Exchange officials will reason, not like lawyers, but like practical administrators, and that they will say, in these circumstances, if there are not 500 jobs and 500 men idle, according to the Attorney-General no man is to be deprived of benefit, but if there must be more jobs than there are men, before any man can be deprived of benefit, no man would be then, because they would all be in work. The Employment Exchange official is, I submit, going to say to John Jones, "There are only 10 jobs you can have, and how do you know you will not be one of those 10?" Will the Attorney-General inform me how he would answer that?

Under the old Act that was not what Parliament intended at all, and I think that hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House were sincere in their desire that the only men to be persecuted, or to be deprived of benefit, should be those who really were work-shy, but here we have the extraordinary spectacle of Members on all sides of the Committee being prepared to take a radical and progressive step forward and the Departmental officials behind the Minister being the only people in the way. The Minister shakes her head and says that is not so. Well then, I am to understand that when the Minister informed the Committee that she desired that what has been called the Hayday formula should inspire this Measure, she was not really sincere in her statement. Under this Sub-section (2) I think it will be agreed that the whole of Sub-section (1) is vitiated.

If you really desire that the onus of proof shall be placed on the Exchange official, why not delete the Clause? If you say that the onus is placed, under the Clause, on the official, and there is any doubt at all about it, why not confirm your own intention by deleting the Clause? Because you know that this Sub-section is intended to do something else, and the Attorney-General let the thing out in all its naked horror at the beginning of his speech. He let the Committee understand that what he desired to do was to devise a Sub-section which would leave the applicant for benefit to understand that he was expected to seek out the employer. I never expected to listen in the House of Commons to a spokesman of a Labour Government making such a statement as that. In my district, this is, for me, not a matter for further juggling; it is for me a matter of the greatest possible importance, because I have attended Courts of Referees every day for the last two years, and I know what happens. I saw men in the middle of last winter having to walk 10 and 15 miles in the worst possible weather in order to convince the Courts of Referees that they were properly seeking out employers.

I want to know exactly where we stand in the matter. Do we believe that as things are now in the distressed areas a single extra man will have employment if you put the onus of proof still on the applicant to seek out the employer? If a single man more will have employment under those conditions, then it must be assumed that there is an employer who could employ a man but is not doing so. But if this scheme allows an employer who can employ a man not to do so, it ought to keep the idle man who has not been able to get employment. We are asked to believe that employers are so stupid that they can employ more men remuneratively than they really are employing.

I hope the Committee will realise that you are not under these provisions actually finding out the man who ought to be found out at all. You are not relieving the burden upon industry. All that you are doing is trying to thrust this burden upon the shoulders of local authorities which cannot bear it. It does not matter very much about some parts of the country, where the local authorities are able to come to the assistance of the unemployed man, but it is tragic in all seriousness in the South Wales coalfield, in Durham, and in Lanarkshire. It means in those coalfields that the local authorities are not able to come to the help of the unemployed man, and it means that by depriving him of his unemployment benefit, you are literally starving him and his wife and children. While I have tried not to be sentimental, I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will realise that we are again in the middle of a dreadful winter and that the South Wales coalfield is being attacked by floods and famine. We ought to take every step in our power to ease the burdens upon these poor people and not to allow any engines of legal intricacy to try and thrust more and more burdens on the shoulders of those who are unable to bear them. I submit that this Clause does not meet the point, and I hope the Government will not ask us to go into the Lobby and support it.

It is difficult to follow the last speaker, because I was associated with an Employment Exchange in an industrial area for some years, in the capacity of chairman, and my experience there taught me that in that industrial area in London there are quite a large number of men who really do not try seriously to obtain work. The last hon. Member, speaking of a particular industry, the coal mining industry, may be correct in regard to that industry, but he is certainly not correct regarding the general industries of such a town as London. My difficulty is in believing that the three points enunciated by the Attorney-General are possible to be carried out and yet to give justice, not only to the man, but also to the country. How can you possibly expect the official of an Employment Exchange to be able to prove that a man is seriously seeking work when there are applications for only one-third of the positions to be obtained? If this Clause is passed as it stands and as the Attorney-General has explained to us, it means that as regards proving that a man is genuinely seeking work, it will be a dead letter.

The whole Bill is absolutely in favour of the men. When as chairman, examining these men who came before the committee, I generally put one question to them: "Where have you been seeking work?" and the usual answer was: "All round the district." I used to say to them, "That is not good enough. The next time you come here you will have to bring with you a list of the firms you have called upon." We found when we placed that condition upon the men, that many of them did find work. We are perfectly well aware, those of us who are in industry, that frequently there is a week's work going in one factory, and a fortnight's work going in another. One morning's orders are opened, and they are found to mean a little extra work for a few weeks, and the man who applies at the works gets that work. The man who does not apply does not get it.

The whole object of the Bill should be, while doing justice to the man, to see that he does not stay at home, as the Attorney-General said, smoking his pipe, and then simply walk from his home to the Employment Exchange, register, take his money, and walk back again home to sit by his fireside. We want to see that man honestly endeavouring to obtain these odd jobs. If he does that not only would it, in one way, enable him to obtain a job, but it would also keep up his keenness to obtain work and not demoralise him, as so many have been demoralised by simply going day after day for what is termed the dole, and never attempting to obtain work which might or might not have been obtained.

I rise to emphasise a point which I think the Attorney- General, whatever we think of his speech, did lay very fairly and very squarely before the Committee, and that is, if we succeed, as I hope we shall succeed, in eliminating this Sub-section from the Bill we shall make a profound change in the whole industrial life of this country, and in future the obligation of finding employment will be on the employer working whether from the Employment Exchange or whether direct, as he wishes. This Government could not make a more excellent contribution to the social progress of this country than by this Bill making that change. See what will be the operative words if we eliminate the Sub-section! The important words in Clause 4 will be that the disqualification for benefit will be on a man who has been notified by the Employment Exchange or otherwise that a specific job is available, and that seems to me the right disqualification and no other. What do we introduce if we bring in any other disqualification? The Attorney-General said very clearly that Sub-section (2) has nothing to do with a specific job at all. The Employment Exchange only falls back on Sub-section (2) when no specific job can be found. What does that mean? Sub-section (2) is a vague threat held over the head of the unemployed man even when he cannot be challenged by a specific job.

We have come to a point in our industrial evolution when it is quite right that a man should receive benefit until the very elaborate system which we have worked out through our trade unions and through our Employment Exchanges can challenge that man with a specific job. What, after all, is the real fear which lies behind the opposition to eliminating this Sub-section which we have heard, at any rate, from the opposite side of the Committee? I am not suggesting that this point of view is taken anywhere on this side of the Committee. The real opposition to eliminating this Sub-section is that, undoubtedly, when a committee withdraws some of the pressure on unemployment and when you withdraw some of the pressure on the labour market of those seeking work, you withdraw some of the pressure towards reducing wages. The labour market is, like any other market, governed by supply and demand. If you reduce the supply of labour, the head steam in the pipe, if I may use the phrase, which is supplying the labour, the urgency of the demand for work, the sheer pressure of supporting men who are seeking it, well, then, unquestionably, you reduce some of that competition which is always the depressing factor on wage rates. That is really why this Sub-section is of such importance, and why there is such strong feeling upon it.

It is true the Attorney-General has told us that, if this Sub-section is retained, he will meet us in some way by amending it. But, as the discussion has proceeded, it has become quite clear that, if this Sub-section is amended, so as to make it innocuous, then it will be superfluous. There is no way of amending it which can make it useful and harmless, from the point of view which represent. Therefore, I hope the Committee to-night will see their way to eliminate this Sub-section from the Bill. After all, the Attorney-General will still be able in Sub-section (1) to put in the form of words which he thinks best. He is not tied down at present to any particular form of words in Sub-section (1). I believe that we shall make an immense improvement in this Bill if we finally eliminate this Subsection from this Clause.

I have listened to the whole of this Debate since four o'clock this afternoon, and I do not know that I have ever been more concerned as to the vote which should be given than upon the matter before us to-night. Many of us are gravely troubled as to the course which we ought to take. I think we are agreed upon certain things, are we not? I think we are agreed upon two things. First of all, I accept absolutely what the Attorney-General has said, that there ought to be some responsibility upon the unfortunate man who is out of work to find work if he can. I hope that there is no difference in the Committee upon that point. There is a responsibility upon him, and there ought to be some machinery to show that that responsibility is discharged. [ Interruption. ] I did not know there was any difference upon that point. Another point on which there is absolute agreement is that the troubles and persecution which has arisen in the past must be stopped. The evidence which is before the Committee as to the administrative persecution is overwhelming. If we are agreed upon those two principles, cannot some form of words be adopted to meet the opinion of the Committee?

It is absurd to suggest that there has not been a very substantial change in the Clause now put before the House, as compared with the Clause which demanded that the workman should be genuinely seeking work. There is a fundamental difference, and the Committee must be thankful to the Attorney-General for explaining that fundamental difference. I have not anything like the experience of the Attorney-General, but I know in regard to workmen's compensation cases the difficulty of the injured workman when he has to go into Court to prove his case. In very many cases where the balance is even the Judge gives a decision that the case has not been proved. With every sympathy for the workman, he has to dismiss his claim because he has to discharge his duty. It is an immense and enormous change that the onus is now, in the first place, put upon the authorities rather than upon the man. That is a fundamental change, and it is only fair that we should recognise it.

If we are agreed upon two things— (1) that the sufferings of these deserving men and women must be stopped, and (2) that there is an obligation still upon the unemployed man to discharge his responsibility for obtaining work, if work is obtainable—then it ought to be within the power of the Committee to find some words that shall embody the common wish of the Committee. My answer to the hon. Member who spoke as representing one of the South Wales constituencies is, that I thought he approached this matter as if the whole country was a distressed area. [HON. MEMBERS: "So it is!"] I know that is so, in a general sense, but is not that merely a rhetorical interruption? There is a difference between one part of the country and another. The problems that the hon. Member has to face are not the problems that we have to face in other parts of the country.

I can assure the hon. Member that there are a very large number of people and a very large number of constituencies who have to face these problems. It is a very common experience with a great number of us.

I did not need that explanation from the hon. Member. I recognise that fact. I am anxious, as I am sure every hon. Member is anxious, to meet the situation if it can he met. Surely, if we are agreed upon these two principles they ought to be clearly embodied in the Bill. It is a very great responsibility for the Members of this Committee to get rid of this Sub-section and to leave nothing in its place, to leave a gap between Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3). That is a heavy responsibility to take. I want some assurance from the Government that these words can even yet be reconsidered, so that we shall be able to put into plain and simple language the two principles upon which I believe the majority of the House are agreed.

I would ask the Members on the Front Government Bench to realise the difficulties with which we have to contend regarding our people who are unemployed, when we are asked to deal with these various points. Although it is thrown upon the Exchanges to make certain points good before a man or woman has completely to make their case, yet when one knows how difficult it is for an unemployed man or woman before a Court of Referees or the Umpire, one realises the great hardship that is being inflicted. If there is any doubt in the minds of the Government in this matter, I ask them to give us an opportunity to have a free vote in order that we may show our feelings. In view of the position of our people and the want of knowledge of what is happening in other parts of the country in their own industry, I do ask the Government to allow us to have a free vote.

10.0 p.m.

There is very great danger in the course of this discussion of a great injustice being inflicted upon the men who are unemployed. The first point on which there is great difficulty is that a distinction is being made between a specific situation, and employment in the usual occupation of a man. In the opinion of a great many of my colleagues on these benches, we think that that distinction is absolutely fictitious. We see no reason why there should be the slight- est distinction between a specific situation and employment in the general occupation of the man. Take an illustration. I have had the honour of discussing with a number of hon. Members opposite what "specific situation" means, and I am certain that there is in the minds of a considerable number of hon. Members opposite a view as to what "specific situation" means which is quite different from the view which any legal Umpire would take of those words. "Specific situation" would be limited entirely to a job peculiarly carried on by one individual, and would not be applied at all to cases where there were, say, 50 vacancies in a shipyard, a factory or a mill. Those would not be regarded in any sense of the term as "specific situations." They would be regarded merely as vacancies in general employment.

In the view of many of my colleagues there are only two classes into which employment ought to be placed—in the first place, employment which is of the kind in which men of the class of the particular individual is ordinarily employed, and, secondly, employment of a different kind. If that is the case, there is no necessity for Sub-section (2) if Sub-section (1) is suitably amended. Sub-section (3) deals with employment of a kind which is outside the category of the usual employment of the individual. Sub-section (2) deals entirely with employment of a kind in which the applicant for benefit is ordinarily employed. Sub-section (1) deals with both these categories, and the only reason why it is brought in is because it is a specific situation. With great respect to the Attorney-General, when I put to him the point that under Sub-section (1) a man might be driven to seek employment of a kind entirely outside his ordinary employment, he suggested that that was covered by Sub-section (5). In my submission, with the greatest respect, he is quite wrong. Sub-section (5) does not deal with that point in the smallest extent. It excludes from the operation of the words "suitable employment" the case of men engaged in a trade dispute, and the next two paragraphs of Sub-section (5) merely deals with the point as to wage rates, not with the kind of employment at ail-namely, that a man who is working in his own district is not bound to take work at less than the ordinary wage rates, and that if a man goes into another district he is not to take work at less rate than the rate of wages in the district. It does not deal at all with the question which I put to the Attorney-General. Subsection (1) deals with the cases of men engaged in their usual occupations and who might be put in occupations which are not their usual occupations. The result of Sub-section (1) will be that it might force men to take work in entirely different occupations. I suggest that Subsections (1) and (2) might very well be covered by a general provision to the effect that if it is shown that there was work of the usual class of the applicant for benefit, and if it is notified to him by the Employment Exchange or otherwise, then, if he does not apply for that work or if he does not accept it, he should be disqualified from benefit. In the view of my hon. Friend's it is not necessary to go one bit further than that, and we suggest that if the Government will adopt that view in regard to Sub-section (1), then Sub-section (2) is not necessary at all.

I have sat through the whole of this Debate and heard every speech that has been delivered. I do not know how long one has to be a Member of this House before he ventures to make an appeal to the Front Bench, but I am going to make an appeal to-night to the Minister responsible for this Bill, that she should sense the whole feeling of the Committee and withdraw this Sub-section. I have heard speeches from this side of the House, from the Liberal side and from the Conservative side, all urging this course, and I am wondering why, except for the fact that there must be some hidden hand, it has not been withdrawn before. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) that no case has been made out. The speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was devastating, and it has not been answered, and, in fact, I suggest that it cannot be answered. The Amendments which have been proposed do not really get rid of the inquisition. To suggest that the onus should be put on the insurance officer does not get rid of it. The inquisition will still be made, but it will be made in the absence of the claimant—behind his back—an even more dangerous form of inquisition than if it were a direct charge where he could defend himself. A pledge was given, a very distinct pledge, and I noted carefully every word of it. There was a distinct understanding that what we call the Hayday formula should be accepted in the spirit and in the letter, not only in regard to Sub-section (1) but also in regard to Sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5). When I heard the speech of the right hon. Lady on Sub-section (2), I thought of the words of Shakespeare:

"That keep the word of promise to our ear,

And break it to our hope."

That is a perfectly permissible suggestion from the Southern Plains but if I were sitting on the Northern Heights I should quote the two lines in front of them:

"And be these juggling fiends no more believ'd,

That palter with us in a double sense."

I suggest that the Minister responsible for the Bill will meet the expressed view of the Committee if this Sub-section is withdrawn. I believe, not only this Committee, butt the whole of the country would feel thankful if we could get rid absolutely of these inquisitorial methods and make a simple test the governing test of what genuinely seeking work really is.

When I spoke earlier in the evening, I said that I wanted to get the combined wisdom of the House in connection with this matter, and it is perfectly clear from the Debate that has taken place, that the combined wisdom of the Committee is that Subsections (2) and (3) should be withdrawn. I accept the view that has been expressed by the Committee; but I want to say this. We are suffering from the maladministration of the last five years which has so affected the minds of hon. Members in their consideration of this problem that they are so afraid of a repetition of that administration that they are not willing to give due consideration to the words which have been placed before them in the Sub-section, because of that fear. I ask the Committee to allow me to withdraw Sub-sections (2) and (3) at this stage in order to bring up a comprehensive Sub-section (1) on the Report stage which will, I hope, meet with the wishes of the Committee. I desire to make a special reference to the very admirable speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), in which he pointed out that this step agreed with the intentions of the Government as explained by the Attorney-General. I think that that is very important. I want to frame words which will embody that intention in Subsection (1). If we can do that, and get agreement upon it, there will be a much more satisfactory state of affairs.

May I be permitted to express my appreciation of the action which has been taken by the Minister? I feel that that appreciation will be shared by both sides of the House.

I am satisfied that the right step has been taken, but I want to make one statement upon it. The course taken shows the great importance of individual Members speaking emphatically, even against their own Government. Undoubtedly attention has been paid to the views of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). As has been said, he made a devastating speech, and the Attorney-General's case was torn to ribbons. The whole incident shows the great importance of having in the Labour party men who can tackle even the best legal talent that can be secured. We listened to the Attorney-General's description of the situation as it was to be in the Employment Exchanges. That description satisfied me that he had never had any experience in the matter. Picture the applicant being left to sit down, to say nothing, with all these powers in the hands of the managers! It showed what could and would have happened. It is a great satisfaction to all concerned that at last a Labour Government, after tremendous pressure, has given way.

I would like the Committee to realise the situation with which it is faced by the action of the Government. No one hurried the Government. The Government had the whole summer to think over this Clause. They meditated upon the Clause; they consulted all their experts; they consulted people up and down the country; they read the Report of the Morris Committee; they took the opinion of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). They went into the matter thoroughly and deeply, and then drafted a machinery Clause covering two pages of close print. Then they began to put down Amendments to it before it had ever been submitted to the House. In the House this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said:

The incompetence of the Government has never been more clearly demonstrated. Even to-night we said that there should be a provision in this Bill to the effect that this should be reviewed within 16 or 18 months. The Government have begun to review it within 16 or 18 minutes. We say again what we said before, and what an hon. Member on the back benches here said just now, that these attempts to draft relief provisions in Statutes of Parliament are impossible, and must break down and will break down. The fundamental fault is in attempting to run these two schemes together. An insurance scheme ought not to have any test other than the test of whether or not a man is unemployed— not even the test of whether he is seeking a job or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Of course it is so, and the original Insurance Acts had no other tests. In 1920 there was no "genuinely seeking work" test or any other kind of test, because you were dealing there with a contributory insurance scheme, and when you are dealing with a contributory insurance scheme, then you will be able to sweep away all these tests.

I dislike interrupting a colleague of mine but I submit that remarks which are now being made by the hon. and gallant Member on the question of relief schemes and insurance, while appropriate to a Second Reading Debate, are not now in order. We are discussing Sub-section (2) which deals with a specific point.

It is perfectly true that we have been discussing Sub-section (2) but the Minister has now indicated that she is going to withdraw Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) and I am in rather a difficulty arising therefrom. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) will keep as near as possible to the proposals of Sub-section (2).

I agree that the Government have placed the Committee and the Chair in a very difficult position. To decide what is and what is not in order in this Debate is a task which would puzzle a metaphysician. We are told that the Devil himself cannot define the mind of man, but what angel or archangel is supposed to be able to define the mind of woman? What we are discussing now is what is in the mind of the right hon. Lady and what is her intention at some future date—and that is all. I beg of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee to consider whether it is not clearly proved that as you pass away from the basis of a contributory pensions scheme, you fall into a bog from which no amount of drafting, no amount of legal ingenuity will rescue this Committee or even the House of Commons—or what is more important still the unhappy people subject to these schemes and the unhappy officials who have to administer these schemes.

When you are dealing with a simple scheme with simple provisions you know where you are. The provisions in this Sub-section prove that a limited liability-insurance against unemployment is possible and that an unlimited insurance against unemployment is not possible. You must be driven back upon a scheme where there are no work tests of any kind, and where the person who has paid his premium has only to show that he is unemployed, which he can do either by registration or signing a book at the Exchange. That is the only test as to whether a man under an insurance scheme is unemployed or not, and I ask my hon. Friends and I ask particularly the Leader of the fourth party, whose attention I am glad to find that I have secured for the moment, to realise that we are not bringing this forward as a means of driving down the unemployed man. We are looking at it as a problem which this House will have to face, because it has seen the breakdown of one insurance scheme after another and one Act after another; and we say that when you deal with the question of putting the scheme on a limited liability basis, you are dealing with something which can be worked and administered. When that passes, you come to the unemployment scheme, Part 2, which is adumbrated in Clause 12 of the Bill, which is the really important constructive portion of this Bill. The unemployment insurance scheme, Part 1 of the Bill, should be and must be an insurance scheme, and, if Rules and Regulations are carried out, there is no need for statutory "seeking employment" tests whatever. They are all wrong, and, unless the House can arrive at a scheme where they are not applied, we will, year after year, have these Bills, and they will flit like fleeting shadows across the mind of whatever Minister happens to be in power.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that I have left my task unfinished, and I beg to move—

On a point of Order. The Government have given way, especially to their Back Benches, on a most vital part of this Bill, and I want to ask whether I am in order in moving to report Progress. [ Interruption. ] May I have an answer? [ Interruption. ] I beg to move—[ Interruption. ]

If the hon. Gentle man had moved to report Progress, I would have considered it. I now call Mr. Brown.

The logic of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) is beyond reproach, but unfortunately his Government were unable to live up to the logic. His colleague the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) will remember what we said on these benches two years ago. We told him that he would never be able to make a permanent insurance scheme on the basis of unemployment of more than a million. He had to insert transitional provisions in his own Bill, and had to extend them, and it is futile to come here and talk logic to the men who are out of work. You have to do one of two things. You have either to find work for them or you have to take them off the insurance scheme and make them a national charge. If you are not prepared to do that, you have no right in an insurance Bill to include, not merely the men under the transitional provisions, but the whole range of insured categories, and to have provisions which no man can apply to the millions of differing cases that happen from week to week. I am glad that the right hon. Lady has withdrawn the Subsection. I want to make no party capital out of it, and we congratulate her on having sensed the feeling of the Committee. As far as the members of our drafting sub-committee are concerned, if we can contribute to do what the House wants to do, we shall only be too happy to do it.

I merely rise to say a word in response to the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). A large portion of his speech was the standard denunciation which a Leader of the Opposition always delivers on occasions such as this, and I congratulate him on having done it as well as I have heard it done. He himself realises that it is the appropriate thing on these occasions to denounce the Government for having brought to the House a Bill that was badly drafted and having to accept some Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: "We congratulate you!"] If the hon. Member and his friends will recall what happened during the last 4½ years, they will remember that even in the case of the Unemployment Insurance Bill of 1927 there were many nights on which great consultations had to take place on the Treasury Bench between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) and those associated with him to find their way out of some difficulty which they had created for themselves by the wording of a Bill which they had had over four years to prepare.

We took the principles from the Minister of Labour, in the Blanesburgh Report.

No, I think the right hon. Lady denied quite strenuously any responsibility for the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman alleged he had founded on the Report.

However that may be, instances are innumerable in Tory experience of a Government deciding that it would be wiser to alter the course on which they were proceeding. I personally congratulate the right hon. Lady on the promise she has given to the Committee to-night. I hope that the composite Subsection which she drafts will not contain much more than the present Sub-section, and I hope that the composition will not contain any of the bad elements of Subsections (2) and (3). I understand that that is the right hon. Lady's undertaking. With reference to the points raised as to whether this destroys the insurance basis or not, the whole of the insurance basis was gone years and years ago. The fund went steadily into debt under Tory control, and as long as it was going into debt nobody could claim that it was on a sound actuarial insurance basis. But this is the fact that stands out clearly to my mind. It is an insurance scheme to this extent, that there are three contracting parties, the workman, the employer and the State.

The Bill is founded on the assumption that there are 1,250,000 people unemployed just now. It is right that the State, which has the primary responsibility— admitted now by all parties—for the reduction of that 1,250,000, should have its contribution steadily increased in proportion as it fails to reduce the numbers of the unemployed. It is a sound insurance scheme in that sense, that the measure of the State's failure to reduce the number of the unemployed is the measure also of the additional amounts that the State will have to pay. The one important point in my mind and that of hon. Members associated with me, and the important point also in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member when he himself had to face up to the problem as a human problem, is this: that the person who is not to be allowed to suffer is one of the million and a quarter unemployed people. I hope that when the right hon. Lady submits her new proposals they will be such as will meet the most extreme demands that can be made by any hon. Member in any part of the House.

I understand that the Minister of Labour is going to propose the deletion of this Clause and I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

If the right hon. Lady had withdrawn this Clause earlier we should have been saved a good deal of time. This Committee, which has so often admired the courage of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in defeat now admires his modesty in triumph. I only rise to make certain that the hon. Member for Bridgeton, in his over great respect for constituted authority, has not led himself into a trap. I am very anxious to understand how far the right hon. Lady's statement goes. There are certain hon. Members who support Sub-section (1) and others who support Sub-section (2). I now understand that Sub-sections (2) and (3) are to be withdrawn, and the right hon. Lady has proposed an alteration of Sub-section (1) which meets what is known as the Hayday formula.

I understand that there is going to be a re-draft of Sub-section (1), not as outlined by the Attorney-General, but for the purpose of substituting a new omnibus Sub-section. I want to know what is going to be put into the omnibus. Hon. Members opposite want an amended Subsection (1), and, if the right hon. Lady is going to introduce any passengers at all, they are going to be unwelcome to hon. Members opposite. As I understand the question, the Minister of Labour is going to try and carry out the intention of the Attorney-General that there should be some obligation upon the unemployed man to seek work for himself. I think that intention was agreed by the whole of the Committee. I understand that that is the intention which the right hon. Lady is going to try and carry out in an omnibus Clause, and I want to know what the Clause is going to be—whether it is exactly the Hayday formula, which hon. Members have been working so hard to seek, and for which hon. Members to-day are so whole-heartedly thankful to the right hon. Lady. I do not want in any way to act as a pourer of cold water upon the enthusiasm of the Committee, but, on the other hand, forewarned is forearmed, and it will save hon. and right hon. Gentlemen a considerable amount of disappointment next Thursday if they demand to know, and if they realise now, exactly what is meant by the very crytic—[ Interruption. ] Perhaps the hon. Member does not want to know; perhaps he wants, for five, six or seven more days, if he can, to retain his pristine faith in the complete sincerity and the complete subservience of the right hon. Lady. We on these benches are not so interested in the civil war that is raging on the benches opposite. We are more interested in a Clause which is going to become the law of the land, and under which, for an unlimited period —because our proposed limits have been rejected—the administration of a fund touching millions of lives is going to be carried on. We are interested in knowing here and now what the right hon. Lady meant when she said that she was going to withdraw this Sub-section for the purpose of introducing an omnibus Clause which would really carry out, as far as she could, the noble and agreed intention of the learned Attorney-General.

On this side of the Committee we have listened throughout nearly the whole day to the expressions of opinion on the opposite side, and we have in no respect obstructed the business., but have been anxious to get on with the consideration of the Bill. Then, just recently, we have been told—I do not want to repeat the phrases, but I rather think that the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Glasgow took objection to some rather extraordinary occurrences in which he appeared as the Leader of the Labour party of Glasgow. I think, however, if I may respectfully put it to the Minister of Labour, that, as has been just said by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley), we are at least entitled to know what her intention is.

The leader of the Labour party on the fourth bench opposite stated quite clearly that in his opinion it is practically to be the undiluted, or at any rate the unincreased Amendment which was submitted earlier in the day. What we gathered from the right hon. Lady was that she was going to carry out those intentions which were denned to us by the Attorney-General. If that is going to be the case on Report, I think we are entitled to know. It is due to every Member of this Committee that the Committee should not be left in doubt as to what the intentions of the Government are; and I would press the right hon. Lady once again to give us some indication of what is meant.

I confess that I did not take the earlier speech seriously, as it so very much misquoted what I said. I never used the word "omnibus," but I made it perfectly clear that I was going to take into consideration the discussions that have taken place on this Sub-section, and to respect the obvious wishes of the Committee in connection with the re-drafting of Sub-section (1); and I gladly accepted the offer, made by those who have been taking a prominent part in the discussion, to assist us in that re-drafting.

But there is also the question of Sub-sections (2) and (3). After all, the right hon. Lady did mention Sub-sections (2) and (3). She may not have used the word "omnibus," but she certainly said that the new Sub-section would be a Sub-section embracing the provisions of the other parts of the Clause. We on this side, above the Gangway as well as below, have a right to know at least what the Minister's general idea is. Does she or does she not intend to put in Sub-sections (2) and (3) into the new Sub-section (1) which is to be drafted at some future date? I do not think it is stressing the point to say we have a right to ask for an answer.

On a point of Order. Is it competent for the right hon. Gentleman to ask that question of the right hon. Lady when already it is stated that there is to be a drafting Committee appointed?

What is the situation? Here is an hon. Member who has just stated that he believes there is to be a drafting Committee. Here is the right hon. Lady who has talked about Sub-section (1). On the other hand, the Attorney-General has given the intention of the Government even though, as he said, it may not have been properly expressed in Sub-sections (2) and (3). He gave the intention of the Government officially on behalf of the Government. He invited the Committee to amend Subsections (2) and (3). His declaration of intention and purpose was quite specific on behalf of the Government. He went through it in detail and we listened to him. The intention was clear and he took great trouble to make it so. Surely we are entitled to know whether the intention of the Government as expressed by the Attorney-General is the intention of the right hon. Lady.

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

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'that,' in line 34, stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Remaining words omitted.

The Minister is moving to leave out one and a half pages of her own Bill. I think we are entitled to ask for an explanation, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman defended Subsections (2) and (3) and the Minister is now moving to leave them out. We have left out Sub-section (2), but what is exactly the position with regard to Subsection (3)? I am sure the Minister or the Attorney-General will give us some explanation.

I think it will save the time of the Committee if the right hon. Lady will give us an explanation. It must be obvious to her— [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members will be saving time if they will allow the Minister to give an explanation— [ Interruption. ] We have all been very much interested—[ Interruption. ]

There are many Amendments that have yet to be disposed of, and, if we are to keep to the arrangement, I think hon. Members should allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be heard.

How can we amend a Clause that does not exist? Cannot we get on to the next Clause?

I was pointing out that we, on this side, expect to have an explanation from the Minister as to the reason why she has moved to omit Sub-section (3)—[ Interruption. ] We have had the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and the Liberal party— [ Interruption. ]

On a point of Order. We cannot hear a word of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage).

I want to suggest to the Committee that it would be better to negative Clause 4—[ Interruption ] —and bring up a new Clause on Report, which we could then have the advantage of discussing the first thing on that stage. [ Interruption. ] I cannot understand how we stand, and I do not believe anyone else knows where we are. I therefore think that what I have suggested would be the simplest way out of our difficulty.

I suggest that it hardly conforms to the decency of debate in this Committee that we should, on a matter of this moment, when we are not here trying to defeat one another in argument——[ Interruption. ] Surely, if we are discussing anything, we are discussing a matter of the greatest moment be this country, and I suggest, not in any fractious spirit, but entirely in a manner which I think will be accepted in all quarters, that if we are to understand what we are discussing, we must know how we stand on this Clause. My understanding is that up to the present Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) are withdrawn.

I understand then that Sub-sections (1) and (2) are withdrawn, and we are trying to get a proper understanding of how this Clause stands. I may be wrong, but I am certain that what I am now stating is the understanding of the great majority of the Members of this Committee, and until we get a clear and explicit statement from the Minister as to how we stand on this Clause, I fail to understand how we can properly conduct the business of the Committee.

I understand. the desire of hon. Members opposite is to get on with this Bill as quickly as possible, and by continually shouting down anybody who wants to say something, they will not achieve that object. Will the right hon. Lady let us know if it is her intention to give some explanation of the withdrawal of Sub-section (3)?

11.0 p.m.

Sub-section (1) of Clause 4 is still in the Bill, subject to the agreed Amendment to be drawn up on the Report stage. We are moving the deletion of Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) because these two Sub-sections hang together. If you read Sub-section (2), Sub-section (3) automatically follows because they are based on the same principle. That principle is not included in Sub-section (1). Sub-section (4) and Sub-section (5) have no relation to Sub-section (2) and Subsection (3). They are separate matters which are quite unrelated to Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3), and are only related to whatever remains in the other part of the Clause. That is to say, they are quite independent, but they are dealt with under this particular Clause.

The right hon. Lady has, it is true, at last vouchsafed and told the Committee something, and taken us, to a very limited extent, into her con- fidence. She has told us that Sub-section (1) is to remain, though it is to be altered by what she calls an agreed proposal.

On a point of Order. I desire most respectfully to draw your attention to the fact that the right hon. Lady, when speaking, mentioned Sub-section (1), Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3), and a very large number of Members present were still unable to understand exactly what the right hon. Lady proposed to do. If we are not to refer to Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2), we cannot elucidate the matter.

I am not responsible for that. Sub-section (1) is not taken out of the Bill. Promise was made that there would be other words put down on Report, and, when that stage is reached, will be the time to deal with Sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) is now out of the Bill, and the Question before the Committee is that Sub-section (3) shall go out of the Bill.

On a point of Order. May I respectfully remind you that the right hon. Lady when she took Subsection (2) and Sub-section (3) out of the Bill said—

I am well aware that Sub-section (1) is to remain though it is to remain in an altered form, and we are not yet in possession of that altered form.

Oh, no. That in not the position. Sub-section (1) remains in the Bill at the moment. What Sub-section (1) may be on Report is quite a different thing.

No doubt a very different thing. That is the whole point of my remarks. We have now eliminated, as you say, Sub-section (2), and we are now asked to eliminate Sub-section (3). The right hon. Lady, when she took us, to a very limited extent, into her confidence did not tell us if she intends or proposes to put anything at all in the place of either Sub-section (2) or Subsection (3), or whether she intends to leave an absolute blank between Subsection (1) and Sub-section (4). My purpose in rising is to endeavour to elicit from the Government, who have got the Committee into a very considerable muddle, some information as to their intentions. If we continue to attempt to legislate in this way we shall reduce the process of Debate to an absolute farce. I suggest for the consideration of the Government that they are doing a great deal to-night to reduce the House in the esteem of the people of this country, until the people will hold the Government in the contempt which it deserves.

I am not quite sure whether the Minister of Labour realises what a mess we have got into. I think that far the best and wisest thing to do, if I may venture to make a suggestion, which is made with a desire to help, is to negative the whole of this Clause, and put down a new Clause to come first on Report. Then we shall have the whole Clause before us, we can see what the whole Clause is, and we shall be able to debate it and make such Amendments as the House may consider right at that time. If the Government attempt to go on as they are doing now, they will merely get into deeper water and we shall be in utter confusion. After the Debate which we have had, and I have listened to a good deal of it, I do believe that the wisest course would be to negative the Clause and for the Government to give an undertaking to put down a new Clause complete, when it can be taken as the first Government Clause on the Report stage. We shall have plenty of time to debate it then. We could adjourn further Debate now, and start with Clause 5 on Monday.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what is a very valuable and practical suggestion, and I accept it.

I must ask hon. Members to maintain order. We shall not get any business done in this way.

The right hon. Lady has adopted a very ingenious and very dangerous proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman. What we have been arguing for during the last three or four days has been to get the present position altered.

It is not for the right hon. Lady to accept it, but for the Committee to accept it.

The suggestion was made to the right hon. Lady, and she said that she preferred to accept it. I would remind the Committee that we must get rid of Sub-section (3) before we can proceed further.

I ask the right hon. Lady to keep the Clause even in its attenuated form, because we have passed something which is useful. [ Interruption. ] She has fallen into a trap; it is nothing but a trap. [ Interruption. ]

May I draw the attention of the right hon. Lady to something which I think she overlooked when she accepted the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition?

Really we must first get rid of Sub-section (3) before we can deal with Sub-sections (4) and (5).

With all respect, what I am saying is germane to the Motion before the Committee, that is to leave out Sub-section (3). Later in the Bill there are references to Sub-section (4) of this Clause and if we accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman it means that the whole Bill will be thrown out of gear if the remainder of this Clause is dropped.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

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

I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, to leave out Sub-sections (4) and (5).

I think it is desirable that the Committee should realise what is happening, and I pray in aid a remark you, Mr. Chairman, have made more than once in the course of the last five minutes, that it is desirable we should get rid of Sub-section (3). [HON. MEMBERS: "We have!"] At the moment I say quite frankly that I am not sure that we have got rid of Sub-section (3). It would facilitate the passage of the Bill if we could be told that we had got rid of Sub-section (3).

I have already said that the question before the Committee is the deletion of Sub-sections (4) and (5). Sub-section (3) has gone.

That will relieve a great many of us of the doubts that we entertained. After all, it is a question of arithmetic. Many years ago, when at school, I was taught that 4 followed 3. My main consideration is—

On a point of Order. It is competent to put two Sub-sections as one question?

I am not concerned with technical points of that kind, and in view of what has been said I am satisfied.

Sub-section (4) is entirely against the unemployed man, but Sub-section (5) is entirely in his favour. As far as I am concerned, I want to see Sub-section (5) remain, and I hope it will remain. I therefore ask if you can put the two Sub-sections separately?

I have put the question to the Committee as one, and it must remain in that way.

On a point of Order. Has not Mr. Speaker often ruled, for instance, on the question, "That the Eleven o'clock Rule be suspended? ", that, if any Members object, it cannot be put in a double form, but must be put in two parts?

I submit that the Speaker and all past Chairmen have ruled that no point of Order can be raised when you are on your feet, and that when you are seated they must raise the point of Order seated and covered?

Perhaps after these questions, I shall be allowed to put the Question.

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

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

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

( seated and covered ): On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that the Clause has been withdrawn by the Government?

I am sorry that hon. Members should raise questions of this kind when they have not been in the Committee to hear what has been done. Sub-section (1) is still part of the Clause, and I have to put the part of the Clause which remains to the Committee. That is the reason why I put the Question "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

It is not negatived yet.

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

Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[ Miss Bondfield. ]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 9th December.

Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

It might be for the convenience of the House to say that I propose to accept all the Amendments except two, which raise the question which was fully debated in the House, that is, those dealing with the insertion in the Bill of the means test.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Title

Lords Amendment: After "1928," insert:

"and the mode of collecting contributions under those Acts."

I beg to move, "That consideration of the Lords Amendment be postponed."

It would be perhaps the, desire of the House that this Amendment should be postponed, because its passage affects the passage of a later Amendment on the Paper.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of right to widows' pensions.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 6, after "A," insert "necessitous."

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I do this on the ground that this question was on three different occasions during the Debates in this House settled by the House, and I hope therefore that the House will agree with me that we should disapprove of this Amendment.

I do not intend to delay the House by making any prolonged observations upon the Amendment, but I do not think that we can allow the matter to pass without a protest on our part. It is time that this Amendment and the Amendment at the bottom of the page, which is to be taken with it, was debated in this House when we had the Bill before us, but that does not make it any the less important that the House should express its opinion now, when it has a further chance of doing so. Since the Debate on this question we have had the introduction of another Bill, which has very vastly increased the liabilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It therefore becomes the more important that we should closely scrutinise any expenditure proposed by the Government, with a view of seeing whether it is really necessary, and whether it is in the interests of the country that we should spend the money in this way. The right hon. Gentleman, in a phrase which is rapidly becoming notorious, said that what the nation could afford depended on how much the nation wanted it. I feel every confidence in saying that if there is anything which the nation does not want, it is that the nation's money should be handed over to people who have done nothing to earn it, and whose income is such as to place them within the Income Tax limit. Therefore, on the showing of the right hon. Gentleman himself, it would be entirely wrong and would be something which the nation cannot afford, to give money to widows whose income exceeds the amount named in the Amendment. That being so and in view of the new commitments of which we have heard since the matter was discussed in this House, I hope the House will disagree with the right hon. Gentleman and agree with the Amendment. We on these benches will certainly go into the Lobby in support of them.

As the mover here of the Amendment which the Lords have adopted, I would like to say a few words. This was the first of a long series of Amendments all of which were rejected by the Government, and it is rather difficult to say now whether I am in favour of it or not. But this much I will say, that it is absolutely illogical for any widow who receives more than £250 a year and who has not contributed to the fund to receive a pension under this scheme.

If the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman and his new leader were to be carried into effect, I am afraid all the widows who would suffer would not be members of the working-class. The limit is the Income Tax limit. I am absolutely certain that there is a large number of widows who are within the limits of the Income Tax who would feel very grateful indeed if they could add a little more to their income, especially when they have family responsibilities. Everybody seems to imagine that widows belong to one class. On the other side they have got more widows in proportion to their numbers than we have. I want to say that the House of Lords ought to be good judges of when widows ought to get pensions. They are a marvellous collection of people. All through the ages they have had the opportunity of seeing that their widows are well provided for without contributing anything. Some of the widows who will be watching this Debate and reading the reports in the Press to-morrow should pass a vote of thanks to hon. Members opposite because they have given me the opportunity to point out that they are saying that widows are not entitled to a pension because they have a certain income. We have always opposed those inquisitorial tests. A widow is a widow. As far as we are concerned, the means test is a mean test. If we are giving pensions to widows every widow is entitled to a pension. You do not ask soldiers whether they are married, whether they have families, or whether they are single or bachelors having more ladies to look after than they care sometimes to pay for. We never put the means test on them. We never ask them to prove whether they are genuinely seek-

ing employment or whether they are genuine bachelors or not, or whether they belong to night clubs. It is humbug on the part of hon. Members opposite to talk of the means test when we are discussing these things. Because a few women may get a pension who may not altogether require it we are going to establish this system of inquisition in respect of all women's pensions. That has been the policy of the party opposite all the way through, to see not how much justice we can do but how much we can rob the common people of the things they ought to have.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 108.

Division No. 78.]

AYES.

[11.35 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Horrabin, J. F.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Dickson, T.

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Dukes, C.

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Duncan, Charles

Isaacs, George

Alpass, J. H.

Ede, James Chuter

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Amman, Charles George

Edmunds, J. E.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Arnott, John

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Aske, Sir Robert

Egan, W. H.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Ayles, Walter

Elmley, Viscount

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Barnes, Alfred John

Foot, Isaac

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Batey, Joseph

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Freeman, Peter

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Bellamy, Albert

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Kelly, W. T.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Kennedy, Thomas

Bennett, Captain E. N.(Cardiff, Central)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Kinley, J.

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Benson, G.

Gibbins, Joseph

Lang, Gordon

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Gill, T. H.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Glassey, A. E.

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Birkett, W. Norman

Gossling, A. G.

Lawrence, Susan

Blindell, James

Gould, F.

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Lawson, John James

Bowen, J. W.

Granville, E.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).

Leach, W.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Lees, J.

Bromfield, William

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Bromley, J.

Groves, Thomas E.

Lindley, Fred W.

Brooke, W.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Brothers, M.

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Longbottom, A. W.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Longden, F.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Buchanan, G.

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Burgess, F. G.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

McElwee, A.

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Harbord, A.

McEntee, V. L.

Caine, Darwent Hall-

Hardie, George D.

Mackinder, W.

Cameron, A. G.

Harris, Percy A.

McKinlay, A.

Cape, Thomas

Haycock, A. W.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Hayday, Arthur

McShane, John James

Charleton, H. C.

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Chater, Daniel

Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Mansfield, W.

Church, Major A. G.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Marcus, M.

Clarke, J. S.

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Markham, S. F.

Cluse, W. S.

Herriotts, J.

Marley, J.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Mathers, George

Compton, Joseph

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Matters, L. W.

Daggar, George

Hoffman, P. C.

Maxton, James

Dallas, George

Hopkin, Daniel

Melville, Sir James

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Messer, Fred

Middleton, G.

Romeril, H. G.

Strauss, G. R.

Milner, J.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Sullivan, J.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Rothschild, J. de

Sutton, J. E.

Morley, Ralph

Rowson, Guy

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

Mort, D, L.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Tinker, John Joseph

Moses, J. J. H.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Toole, Joseph

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

Tout, W. J.

Murnin, Hugh

Sanders, W. S.

Townend, A. E.

Nathan, Major H. L.

Sandham, E.

Turner, B.

Naylor, T. E.

Sawyer, G. F.

Vaughan, D. J.

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Scrymgeour, E.

Viant, S. P.

Noel Baker, P. J.

Scurr, John

Wallace, H. W.

Oldfield, J. R.

Sexton, James

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Wellock, Wilfred

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Owen. H. F. (Hereford)

Sherwood, G. H.

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Palin, John Henry

Shield, George William

West, F. R.

Paling, Wilfrid

Shillaker, J. F.

Westwood, Joseph

Palmer, E. T.

Shinwell, E.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Lady wood

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Simmons, C. J.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Perry, S. F.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Phillips, Dr. Marlon

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Potts, John S.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

Price, M. P.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Pybus, Percy John

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Wise, E. F.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Raynes, W. R.

Sorensen, R.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Richards, R.

Spero, Dr. G. E.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Stamford, Thomas W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Stephen, Campbell

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Whiteley.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Everard, W. Lindsay

O'Neill, Sir H.

Albery, Irving James

Ferguson, Sir John

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Penny, Sir George

Balniel, Lord

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Ramsbotham, H.

Beaumont, M. W.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Remer, John R.

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Bird, Ernest Roy

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Boyce, H. L.

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bracken, B.

Hartington, Marquess of

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Briscoe, Richard George

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Haslam, Henry C.

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Smithers, Waldron

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Butler, R. A.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Hurd, Percy A.

Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Christie, J. A.

King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

Thomson. Sir F.

Colfox, Major William Philip

Knox Sir Alfred

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Colville, Major D. J.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Courtauid, Major J. S.

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Cranbourne, Viscount

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Lymington, Viscount

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Wells, Sydney R.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Meller, R. J.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Dixey, A. C.

Mond, Hon. Henry

Womersley, W. J.

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Muirhead, A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Captain Sir George Bowyer and

Captain Wallace.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 2, line 34, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 14, after "( b )," insert "or paragraph ( c )."

I beg to move, "That this House doth, agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment raises a question of privilege.

Question put, and agreed to.

I will cause a special entry to be made in the Journals of the House.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 3, line 28, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 30, at the end, insert new paragraph:

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is really consequential on the first Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 16, at the end, insert:

"or, as the case may he, was employment of such a kind as is specified in paragraph ( f ) or paragraph ( g ) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Insurance Act, in the like manner in either case as if the question were a question arising under paragraph ( a ) of sub-section (1) of the said section eighty-nine."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This really becomes consequential on the insertion on the Report stage in the Commons of paragraph (ii), dealing with share fishermen and other people who come within the Act of 1928. In order to put these new contributors on all fours with the others, it was necessary to make this provision.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 9, line 7, agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment with respect to statutory conditions as to pensions.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 13, at the end, insert

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Amendment of s. 1 of principal Act with respect to duration of additional allowance and orphans' pensions.)

"A. For sub-section (2) of section one of the principal Act, which fixes by reference to the age of a child the date at which any additional allowance or orphan's pension ceases to be payable in respect of him, there shall be substituted the following sub-sections:

"(2) The specified age in relation to any child shall be the age of fourteen, or, in the case of a child under full time instruction in a day school, the date on which he ceases to be under such instruction, or the thirty-first day of July next following the date on which he attains the age of sixteen, whichever is the earlier'."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a question which I promised to consider and to deal with in another place. It deals particularly with those children of deceased insured persons who are attending secondary schools. The matter was pressed from both sides of the House, and I gather that this Amendment meets with their views.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 12, line 10, agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Amendment of ss. 18 and 19 of principal Act.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 8, at the end, insert

"or, in the case of a child who on the date when he attains the age of sixteen is under full-time instruction in a day school, the date on which he ceases to be under such instruction, or the thirty-first day of July next following the date on which he attains the age of sixteen, whichever is the earlier."

This Amendment and the next, which is consequential, raise a question of Privilege.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The point is the same as that of which I spoke a moment ago, namely, the extension to children at the age of sixteen.

Question put, and agreed to.

A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 9, leave out from the word "child" to the word "the" in line 12, and insert "or."

Here again the question of Privilege arises.

Motion made, and Question "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[ Mr. Greenwood. ]

A special entry will be made.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 13, line 33, agreed to.

CLAUSE 23.—(Application of principal Act to adopted children.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 12, at the end, insert

NEW CLAUSE B.—(Amendment of s. 8 of the Insurance Act.)

"B. If provision is made by regulations under the Insurance Act for the payment of contributions, at the option of the persons liable to pay, either by means of adhesive stamps or by some alternative method the use of which involves greater expenses in administration to the Government Departments concerned than would be incurred if the contributions were paid by means of adhesive stamps, a provision may be included in the Regulations for requiring any person who adopts the alternative method to pay to the Minister such fees as may be determined by the Minister, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to represent the difference between the expenses incurred by the said Departments by reason of the fact that the alternative method has been adopted and the expenses which would have been incurred by the said Departments if the contributions payable by that person had been paid by means of adhesive stamps."

I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Clause 3 of the Unemployment Insurance Bill now before the House, and which has been approved by the House, contains the same provision, and I think this Amendment will be acceptable to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

A special entry will be made.

Subsequent Lords Amendment, to page 24, line 5, agreed to.

Postponed Lords Amendment agreed to.

Ordered, that a Committee be appointed to draw a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Mr. Secretary Adamson, Sir George Bowyer, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Greenwood, and Miss Lawrence.

Three to be the quorum.—[ Mr. Greenwood. ]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.— [ Mr. Greenwood. ]

Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Additional Grant Bill

Not amended ( in the Standing Committee ), considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next, 9th December.

Capital Punishment

Ordered,

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the question of capital punishment in cases tried by civil courts in time of peace and to report whether another penalty, and, if 60, of what nature, should be substituted for the sentence of death in such cases where that sentence is now prescribed by law:

Mr. Ayles, Mr. Barr, Dr. Ethel Bentham, Mr. Culverwell, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Dr. Hunter, Mr. T. Lewis, Mr. Marjoribanks, Mr. Milner, Mr. P. Oliver, Sir John Power, Mr. Ramsbotham, Sir Gervais Rentoul, Major Ross, and Mr. Toole nominated members of the Committee.

Ordered,

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,

That Five be the quorum.—[ Mr. Kennedy. ]

Education (Scotland) Bill

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.