BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL) (ALLOCATION OF TIME).

§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin)

I beg to move: That the remainder of the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:

§ Mr. W. THORNE

How many times did the Labour party put it in force?

§ The PRIME MINISTER

I am coming to that. There were obvious reasons, which the hon. Member will, be the first to recognise, why it was rather difficult to put it into force at that time. [An HON. MEMBER: "The time is coming!"] The last time that we moved this Motion the Opposition did not debate it. This time, "I gather from the Amendment put 742 down, they do desire to debate it, and I shall, I hope, be able to give some information to the House that will facilitate the task of the right hon. Gentleman who is moving the Amendment. The Committee has already sat for the equivalent of 7½ normal sitting, days, and they have got to the end of Clause 5, leaving nine Clauses and five Schedules yet to be debated with 95 Amendments on the Paper, and those numbers are not likely to grow less. Clause 5 has been under consideration for 29 hours, equal to four normal sittings. In all, 7½ ordinary sittings, or, if count be taken of late sittings, the equivalent of 9½ ordinary sittings have been occupied in considering the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. The Motion before the House allocates three further days for Committee, one for Report and one for Third Reading, which, together with the nine already occupied, make a total of about 14 sittings for the consideration of all stages of the Bill, and, I may say at this point, that if the Opposition think fit to let this Motion go through unopposed, they will have the whole of to-day on which to debate it.

I am always anxious to do what I can to help any party in this House. I know what a busy man the right hon. Gentleman who is going to move the Amendment is, and I think he may be glad, for the purpose of debate, to be reminded of the procedure which took place in this House under his Act of 1924. That was a Bill of 17 Clauses and 14½ pages. Our Bill is 14 Clauses and 10½ pages. [An HON. MEMBER: "This is more controversial!"] Let us see. The subjects comprised the right of persons to benefit, and the tests imposed—that was three pages longer than the present Bill—conditions as to seeking employment, a trades' dispute Clause, provision for men in the Army, Navy and Air Force, the question of trade union administration, and there was a Clause as to special schemes, and if anything be said about the complexity and difficulties of understanding this Bill, I suggest a reference to Section 3, paragraph (b). If hon. Members will look at that Bill they will find quite as many, or more, difficulties than have been raised by any portions of this Bill.

How long did that Measure take in this House? The Second Reading took one day. We have given two days. The 743 Committee stage took 16 hours. We have already had 50 hours, and we are going to have a good many more. The Report and Third Reading occupied one day. We suggest two. That makes the total for that Bill, which descended from the blue, whereas hon. Members have had the opportunity of studying our Bill for some months—that Bill in 1924 took four days; this Bill, even under the Guillotine Resolution, will take 14, or 3½ times as long. I think it rests with the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the House what has come over the mentality of hon. Members that they should now desire 3½ times as long to debate what they were able to debate in four days three years ago.

§ Mr. T. SHAW

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" in line 1, to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words this House declines to assent to any limitation of debate, other than that provided by Standing Orders, in respect of a Bill which will admittedly deprive many thousands of unemployed persons of unemployment insurance benefit, in many other cases will reduce the amount of benefit now payable, and, unless its complexities are carefully considered, may inflict further hardships without the knowledge and consent of this House. When the Members of an Opposition are to be deprived of their right to discuss matters under the Standing Orders of the House there ought to be a definite case made against them to show that they have been improperly using their position as Members of the House, either wilfully to obstruct or in any other way to prevent the House getting quickly and effectively through its business. The Prime Minister has offered no word of reproach to the Members of the Opposition that they have used their position for factious opposition, that they have used their time in vain repetition or that their criticism has been either ill-founded or wide of the point, so I think we may take it for granted that if the Prime Minister could not find any of those grounds on which to base his case, it must, indeed, be a very weak one and obviously it can scarcely be expected that we, who after all, have as much respect for the traditions of this House as hon. Members opposite, who have perhaps a keener historical appreciation of the sacrifices made to win the liberties of the House, who are determined that we will not sacrifice 744 any of those liberties—with all our love of these fine traditions of the House we are scarcely likely to consent to a Motion that asks us to give up our rights when no allegation is made against us that those rights have been improperly used.

The first argument of the Prime Minister in favour of this extraordinary Motion is that business is in a congested state. Whose fault is that? It is not the fault of the Opposition that the Bill is presented on such a date and in such a way. It is not the fault of the Opposition that the Government has managed its business—I do not want to use an offensive term—in such a way as to get itself in a hopeless mess. It is no business of the Opposition to say that because the Government has made a mess of its business the Opposition must come forward and voluntarily renounce its rights in order to help the Government out of the mess into which they have got. It would indeed be asking too much of any Parliamentary party to give up its rights in order to help its opponents, particularly in a case where the party itself feels that the Bill is one of the most dangerous that has been introduced in the sittings of this Parliament, and even the vague threat of a sitting during Christmas week leaves our withers unwrung and we must face, if need be, that regrettable necessity, and try to face it with a smile. We are told the Government will have only used the guillotine twice. It is no pleasure to the guillotined person that he is only the second man to be decapitated. Why should we hail with feelings of joy the guillotine because not many people before us have been executed by the same Government? That we can scarcely take as an argument. It may be a regrettable necessity that we should be guillotined but certainly we are not likely to be guillotined of our own free will.

Then we are told the length of time the Bill has taken in Committee. That again is not the fault of the Opposition. Think how the Bill was presented. Think of what it contains. Think of the fact that during its progress we had to have a White Paper to explain it, and that White Paper contained a mass of prophecy and very little facts. Think of the fact that all the criticism has been well founded and that the Minister has found himself in this regrettable position, that with the exception of one 745 Member on his own side, who was more of an embarrassment than a help, he has received no assistance from any Member of his Government. As a matter of fact some of the most searching criticism of the Bill has come from the Government side. Why, under these circumstances, should we be asked to give up our rights of full discussion? Certainly there can be no justification on our side for giving them up, and there is no justification on the part of the Government to use its own embarrassment to deprive the Opposition of its right to discuss, without unnecessary obstruction, but thoroughly, everything that this Bill contains. We are told how many Amendments there are. No Member of Parliament, even the most erudite, even the most highly skilled and learned Member, can read this Bill and understand it. There is no man who, by reading the Bill, can understand what the law will be if it is carried into law. Is it any wonder that under these circumstances there are many Amendments. What I am saying is well within the knowledge of every Member of the House, and if there is any Member anywhere on any side of the House who can say honestly that by reading this Bill he or she can understand it I shall be glad to meet that paragon of all the excellencies.

Some of us have special knowledge of unemployment insurance because we have actually been in contact with its working, not that we have special knowledge and brains or anything of that kind, but we have been interested in the actual administration, and consequently have a specialised knowledge that other Members cannot be expected to have, but not one of us can read the Bill and understand it. I could not read it and pretend to understand it. I am making that open confession for the benefit of the side opposite, and they can use it in the best way they like. There is a great difference between the Bill of 1924 and this Bill. The Bill of 1924 went' through this House without even a suspicion of an attempt to introduce the Guillotine, and though the Labour party was not in a majority, if the Opposition had become factious and unreasonable there were sufficient Members at that time to apply the Guillotine had it been needed. The fact of the matter is that they let it go through comparatively without a fight because it appealed to 746 their generous instincts, and they could not oppose it because they were convinced of the justice of it. On the other hand, this Bill contains what we and many Members on the other side consider is the grossest injustice, and one cannot wonder that it is to be discussed, has been discussed, and ought to be discussed at length. In spite of every desire to help in every possible way to do the business of the House, we cannot accept the principle of giving up our rights when we consider that no case has been made out why we should give up those rights, and I am rather surprised that the Prime Minister himself, full as he is— I am saying this in a most respectful way—of sympathy with our own traditions and of the finest sentiment for those old institutions which we are proud to call the Mother of Parliaments, should ask us to break the old traditions simply because the Government has been unable to carry out its business properly.

Let us see what we are being asked to do. The Prime Minister has told us how many Clauses there still remain to be discussed. What he proposes is that we should finish the Clauses in Committee at one sitting. Can any hon. Member opposite say with any degree of fair play that it is reasonable to ask that nine Clauses of the most vital importance, with all the Amendments to them of which the Prime Minister speaks, shall be finished in a Friday sitting? Is that really showing that respect to the Opposition to which it is entitled? Is that treating us, after all, as the equals of the gentlemen on the opposite side? The right hon. Gentleman is a very mild-mannered English gentleman. His speeches are the essence of kindness. I am told that Nietzsche was a very mild-mannered man, but his philosophy was very ruthless. But, in spite of that, when the right hon. Gentleman gets to grips, there is little difference between his action and the philosophy of Nietzsche. They are pretty much the same. But, really, we are not German soldiers on this side of the House, and the Prime Minister is not a Prussian officer. Not even if he tries to use Prussian methods in the most generous possible way can we accept the meek and mild attitude of the German soldier who is bound to respond to the orders that are given. We cannot be expected to do it.

747 Let us look at what has taken place on the Bill in order to consider whether the opposition to this Bill has in any way exceeded, not the hounds of the right of Parliamentary debate but even an implication of any kind that opposition has become obstruction. We are asked, to accept a Bill which, on the showing of its promoter, will, when it becomes operative, throw 56,000 poor people to the wolves. That is on the showing of the Minister himself, and this 56,000 is based on an assumption that a miracle is going to happen before the Act comes into operation. Is it any wonder that we have tried to explain what this means? Is it any wonder that we have tried to amend it in ©very possible way. Can the party opposite really blame us for insisting, so far as we are able to insist, that we must have the right, without factious opposition, of dealing thoroughly with every Clause that the Bill yet contains.

We finished by the use of the Closure at Clause 5 last night. Let us see what is contained in the other Clauses that we are asked to deal with, to amend, to discuss and to get explanations on in the course of a Friday sitting. Clause 6 makes an alteration which in the opinion of most of us will be an alteration for the worse. Clause 6 will, in our opinion, put a premium on employers who deliberately try to break through an agreement made generally in their trade. Cases have occurred already, in Lancashire, in which an employer has broken through a general agreement applying in the trade, and, if he does it again under the provisions contained in Clause 6, the people who refuse to break the agreement may find themselves deprived of unemployment benefit in consequence. Can the Prime Minister ask us to forgo our right thoroughly to discuss this question in order to get to know where we are? We come to Clause 7. There, again, there are many details that ought to be discussed. It is no fault of ours that the Bill is arranged in such a way by cross references that it is impossible thoroughly to understand it. Really, I want to call the attention, if I may, of the Prime Minister to the fact that even if the Government of 1924 did commit errors, that it is no reason why the present Government should commit errors. I 748 never could understand the argument which says: "It does not matter whether it is right or wrong. Provided we can prove that you have done it, it is bound to be right." I never could understand the argument, and I am not going to pretend to understand it.

We have put down Amendments that ought unquestionably to be discussed. They cannot be discussed if we have to submit to the guillotine which will chop off the heads of our Amendments and give; us no opportunity of making them felt and leave them dead on the floor without a chance of giving an account of themselves. Take Clause 8. There you have a long Clause dealing with all kinds of conditions which deserve the very fullest consideration. As a matter of fact, skilfully amended, Clause 8 could be made to remove a great deal of the difficulties that will exist if the Bill, as it now stands, becomes an Act of Parliament. If we had had, on the Second Reading, an explanation of what these things meant, the Government would have been justified in saying, "We thoroughly explained our scheme. You have had the explanation, and there is no need for you to have it again. You have no right to ask for it again." I will read a few passages from the Minister's speech in introducing the Bill in order to try to show exactly how he explained the difficult and involved Clauses of this Bill. That they are difficult and involved, I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree. He begins by making a very long, and, if I may say so, a very interesting historical survey, and he tells us, among other things: You may drive out nature with a fork, but it always comes back again."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th November, 1927; col. 206, Vol. 210.] That is a very nice way, perhaps, of putting things, but it does not explain anything about the Bill. Listen to this: The Report suggested a periodic investigation into the Fund. We introduce that in Clause 3. The Committee ask for certain changes in the classification of the dependants in respect of whom the 7s. might be paid. We deal with that in Clause 4. There are the two very important recommendations as regards trade disputes. They are dealt with in Clause 6, again following the Report. There is the Clause that deals with the administration by trade unions, in which case, again, we follow the Report. In Clause 7 we abolish the power to set up special schemes, as the Report wished, and in Clause 12 we set out the transi- 749 tional provisions based on the recommendations of the Report as to the transition from the existing scheme to the future permanent scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1927; col. 212, Vol. 210.]

Not a word of explanation of what all this means or a word of justification for it. We have been placed, as an Opposition, in a most extraordinary position. The Minister of Labour has, figuratively speaking, sat at that Box, and every time we have raised an objection he has spoken of the "Gospel according to St. Blanesburgh," and if "St. Blanesburgh" in Chapter 6, Verse 3, said a certain thing he has looked upon us with an air of injured innocence if we have complained that Chapter 6, Verse 3 was not really Holy Writ. Even when we have called attention to "St. Blanesburgh" and pointed out that there were things the "Gospel" did not contain he has looked upon us with holy horror, as if to say: "I am the Political Pope, and I am the interpreter of 'St. Blanesburgh' and you may hold your peace." That really is not the way to deal with a serious Bill, which means either the guardians or starvation. The Minister admitted in his speech that what he had been saying had not been lively, and said that when he dealt with the finance he thought it would be as dry as a diet of cracknels in the Sahara! Well, the Minister has the gift of expression. He perfectly described what he said on finance in a way that left nothing more to be said. But we cannot understand it. It may be our fault, but really it is the business of the Minister to be kind to us and to explain these things. Listen to this as an explanation of a very serious matter: On the other hand, we defer for the time being accepting the Committee's recommendations as regards reduction. If the "Gospel" does not please, we do not accept it. The 6 per cent. figure of a normal average of unemployment is being criticcised. And so it ought to be. I have taken all the extraneous expert advice I could, and I, personally, have come to the conclusion that it is at least as reasonable to take 6 per cent. for a continuing cycle as any other figure. And then another passage. If anyone were to say that it should be 5 per cent. or 7 per cent., I should say it was more likely to be 6 per cent. 750 And then the most extraordinary passage of all: Hon. Members opposite laugh at me fox speaking thus cautiously."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1927; col. 214, Vol. 210.] He talks of a state of things that means that the live register is going to drop at least by 400,000, and then he says: Hon. Members opposite laugh at me for speaking thus cautiously. What would I give to be able to see visions like that. What a pleasure it ought to be. What a pleasure it would be, even to convince myself that in some way 400,000 of our unemployed workers were going to get work. I wish I could believe myself in that way, because it would give me much pleasure if I could. That is the way that the discussion is proceeding!

Take the financial provisions of the Bill. Surely, the time of this House would be well spent in discussing the figures and the proportions that ought to be paid for Unemployment Insurance. "But, say the Government," you must finish your Clauses to-morrow. What you may have to say may be interesting, but you must finish to-morrow." That is literally the ultimatum. Then we get the advantage of a little more time for other items of the Bill. The Schedules and the Report stage chop off another chunk without any reference at all to the necessities of the case. "That is the time we can give you, and you must be satisfied." Really, to us, that is not quite satisfactory, to say nothing stronger. I believe, with temptation, that I could have said something stronger, but I will leave the words as they stand.

I am not wasting the time of the House. I am leaving innumerable details of the Bill unmentioned, and taking an item here and there to show the necessity for a thorough discussion; a necessity which is admitted just as much by hon. Members opposite as by hon. Members on this side. I do not blame hon. Members on the Government side or hon. Members on my own side for wanting to know what the Bill means. I do not blame the Minister for not being able to explain it. No man short of a Philadelphia lawyer could explain it. This legislation by reference has got to such a point that the probability is that not more than three men in the whole country could sit down and 751 write a fair précis of what the law in regard to unemployment insurance is today. There may be more than three, but I have in my mind three extremely capable servants of the Department who might be able to do it. I might add the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary; that makes five. I will say six men could do it; but I question whether any other man in the land could sit down with this Bill before him and tell us what the law in regard to unemployment insurance will be when the Bill becomes an Act. I am not saying this for the purpose of raising a laugh. I say it because it is the cold and frigid truth. Frankly, I have sympathised with the Minister. He has brought in a Bill by reference, and his own party have sat there helpless and could not defend him against the attacks, simply because they could not understand the Bill. With the exception of one hon. Member who has stood by him, trying to prompt him with information which he did not want, he has not been supported by hon. Members opposite.

Let us take another matter of vital importance to the unemployed person. Surely, the question of the transitional period between the present conditions and the new conditions demands careful consideration line by line and careful amendment where amendment may be necessary. Is it fair to the House, is it fair to this Parliament to ask us to take this great thing amongst a bundle of others and put it through on a Friday afternoon, obviously without consideration? No man on the Government Benches could get up and say that this thing can be properly considered under the proposals made by the Government to-day. When we have gone through the very vexed and vital principles as to the amount of benefit, we find ourselves again limited strictly to time; limited not to the necessities of the case, but to the necessities of the clock. The importance of the matter is nothing. Under this Motion of the Prime Minister the importance of the matter is like the flowers that bloom, in the spring; it has nothing to do with the case.

There is another little item which I would mention in passing, just to show what this Bill means. Somebody has thought out a brilliant scheme for putting the unemployed man on oath 752 when an inquiry is to be held. That suggestion does require very careful consideration. Whether we like it or not, and I am speaking from the full knowledge of a man who has gone through it, the ordinary working man in this country still leaves school so imperfectly educated that a thing like an oath is to him a thing of terror. I was not one of the worst educated men who left an elementary school. I was fully up to the average of the scholars who left school, but I tell the House frankly that the thought of an oath to me as a young man, with my lack of knowledge of the world and my lack of knowledge of these things, would have been a terrible thing. To find the oath patch worked into a Bill like this is a serious matter; yet it is to go through under the Motion moved by the Prime Minister.

I do not wish to take up any time which might be available to my hon. Friends behind me or to hon. Members on the Government side who feel keenly about this matter, but I do wish finally to make an appeal. It is a very serious thing that the rights of the Opposition to full discussion should be taken away. I could understand the desire to take those rights away if it could be alleged that the bounds of ordinary discussion and the bounds of ordinary criticism had been overstepped, but in this case I assert that the criticism has been well founded, it has been well grounded, and it has been well informed. The criticism which has come from this side has been the criticism of people who have worked the Acts up to now and know what they mean. Our criticism has been criticism which has not been faced up to, now by the Minister. It is not enough for us to be confronted by the Blanesburgh Report. With all due respect to the Blanesburgh Committee, or anyone else, the responsibility in this House for a Bill which is to become an Act of Parliament is the responsibility of all Members of this House, and none of us can hide ourselves behind any Committee. We are responsible and we alone. Why should we be asked in a Bill which so vitally affects the unemployed to be content to have our rights of criticism taken away? There is just a chance of melting even the stony heart of the Government, although it takes a very high temperature to melt stone. I wish we could apply that heat to the heart of the right hon. Gentle- 753 man and melt it. It is possible even yet by adequate discussion in Committee so to modify the provisions of the transitional Clause as to avoid the great danger which many of us see in this Bill. We cannot voluntarily give up our right of criticism.

We see in this Bill a calamity which is as certain to happen as that the sun will rise to-morrow. We see a possibility in this Bill of nearly a quarter of a million people being cast adrift to make their way as best they can. We see the danger of the distressed areas becoming more distressed. We see a picture of local authorities drifting to bankruptcy and despair. We see the loss of morale, we see deterioration and we see the degradation of the working part of our population coming in the trail of a Bill like this. Believing that these things are true, it would be a base betrayal of every ideal we have on this side to venture even to consent for a moment to the suggestion to give up voluntarily any right we have to criticise and amend and, if possible, improve the Bill now before us. I move the Amendment in the hope that the Committee will rise above party prejudices, and on the merits of the case deal with the situation.

§ Mr. HAYDAY

In supporting the Amendment, I wish to submit a few cogent reasons why the guillotine should not be applied to the present Measure. The Prime Minister in introducing the motion mentioned the large number of Amendments on the Order Paper. The reason why so many Amendments have been found necessary is because there never was a Bill so full of complexity or framed in such a manner as to defy real understanding of all its implications as this Bill, which breaks away from the long sequence of Bills which have become Acts of Parliament in connection with unemployment insurance. It is a Bill which introduces new principles which are likely to have a very serious effect upon the working-class population. Were it not for the tragedy behind the Bill, one might feel inclined to look with amusement upon the Prime Minister's request that we should further complicate the position by referring to Section 3 (6) of the Act of 1924. We have had so many cross references in the Bill during the Committee stage that we feel sufficiently 754 bewildered without complicating the issue further by hunting up Sub-sections relating to an Act of Parliament not mentioned in the present Bill.

I should like to say something with respect to the magnitude of the Bill. The Bill affects—this is why I suggest the guillotine is unwarranted at this stage— 12,000,000 of insured persons. It will set up conditions under which these 12,000,000 of people shall pay contributions or receive benefits. Of the 12,000,000, it deals with about 1 ¼ millions of a very unfortunate section of the industrial population, who at the moment happen to be unemployed. It deals with their contributions, with their measure of benefit, and creates such a position as has never been previously created during the discussion of the 17 Unemployment Inusurance Acts which have preceded the present Bill. It proposes a rate of benefit for young persons in a new class from 18 to 21 years of age. That proposal in itself would warrant a whole day's discussion in order to demonstrate the reactionary sentiments that are embodied in such a proposal.

5.0 p.m.

Never in the whole history of unemployment insurance has there been such a class as that which is created by this Bill—the class between the ages of 18 and 21—with all the consequences which such a class involves. If it took all the remaining period of Parliamentary time between now and Christmas, even if we had to prolong the Parliamentary Session, in order properly to consider this proposal that would be preferable to restricting and curtailing our discussions and deliberations in any way. In introducing the Guillotine at this stage the Government have confessed their inability to deal adequately with the problem of unemployment insurance. It is also a sign of fear at the rising storm of public opinion, which seems to be increasing as the Press of the land conveys to the public the discussions and decisions on this Bill with all the implications they carry. The Government, I feel sure, must be receiving from many boards of guardians resolutions expressing a fear as to the results of this Bill, if it goes through without amendment or alteration. It will mean that many local authorities, which are now on the verge of bankruptcy, will become absolutely bankrupt, or contain 755 within their boundaries numbers of unemployed workers, who will suffer to such an extent that any epidemic disease might well be feared in the near future owing to their weakened physical constitution and low resistance power. I believe a resolution expressing this very fear has already been received from one board of guardians. And these are the fears of local administrators, who cannot be called street corner tub-thumpers, or propagandists, attempting to arouse the feelings of the people on party lines. They are really seriously minded men and women who are fearful of the consequences of this Bill.

No hon. Member on the Government side appears to be able to understand the Bill because of its cross references. If the Prime Minister has read the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that the Chairman of Committees on one occasion said that it would have been much better if it had been a consolidating Bill rather than a Measure containing so many cross references to other Acts.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS

In fairness to the Chairman of Committees he said that his remarks would apply to all Bills; not to this particular Bill.

§ Mr. HAYDAY

The Chairman of Committees was quite right. With all his knowledge he found it difficult at times to follow the trend of the Debate because of the cross references in the Bill, and after the Minister of Labour, or the Parliamentary Secretary, have explained matters we have been more confused than we were before we had their explanation. The fault for the slow progress of the Bill does not lie with the Opposition; it is not due to any attempt to take up Parliamentary time. If you read the OFFICIAL REPORT you will find that much of the time has been taken by hon. Members opposite, who have urged that the proposals should be made clearer, and, therefore, I think the last thing the Prime Minister should have dome was to introduce the guillotine. The Prime Minister has said that this is the second occasion upon which it has been considered necessary to introduce the guillotine during the present Parliament. It is very significant that the two occasions on which it has been introduced have been of such a character as to impede 756 the development of a peaceful understanding in the industrial world. The first time was on the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, and the second occasion is on another Bill affecting the industrialists of this country. On a Bill full of reactionary proposals and restrictive influences, full of added burdens to the already over-burdened industrialists, and harnessed with a proposal for the guillotine, we get a request for peace in industry. Surely this is an occasion when labour should have an opportunity of declaring in measured terms its objection to the various proposals, believing as we do that they will be most harmful and will inflict injury upon the most unfortunate of our citizens.

Involved in the subsequent Clauses of this Measure, which have yet to be discussed, is the transitional period, which is in Clause 12. That will not be discussed at all if this Motion is carried, because all the intervening Clauses must come up for discussion before Clause 12 is reached. When we get to Clause 12 we have, on the Minister of Labour's own statement, 56,000 persons whom it is intended to clear off unemployment benefit by the end of 1929, or by the 19th of April, 1930. That was the figure given in the White Paper, but, after allowing for certain eventualities and deductions, the Minister said the figure would be reduced to 30,000. That matter has never yet been fully discussed. It comes up on Clause 12, and it deserves a day for itself. I put the number who will be affected, if the principles of this Bill were applied at the moment, at 138,000; that is those who will be unable to fulfil the statutory conditions as laid down. You have the Minister's first estimate of 56,000, then his estimate of 30,000, some of his own supporters put the number at 100,000; I say the number will be 138,000.

Surely, with all this difference of opinion you ought not to introduce the guillotine on such a Clause and pass it without any explanation from the Minister and without any debate by those who question the accuracy of the figures of the Department. You might as well, as the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) has said, use the guillotine in its full physical sense. The Minister says that only 30,000 will be slung off unemployment benefit on to 757 boards of guardians. Where these boards of guardians are bankrupt these people will be slung on to the industrial deadheap. You had far better use the guillotine in its full physical significance than say that these 30,000 are to be sacrificed without rhyme or reason because the Prime Minister of the country has made up his mind that the business of Parliament will not permit of an extra day's discussion being given so that their case might be thrashed out before they are condemned. And if that 30,000 is 138,000, as well it might be, then the crime becomes even more enormous. I am the last person to hope that the rest of the Prime Minister will be disturbed by nightmares, but when we are speaking in terms of the guillotine in its present connection let us try to think of the guillotine in its worst form and all that it means.

By its introduction to-day the Prime Minister is condemning thousands of the best of the land. He is putting thousands outside the range of human consideration; considerations of common humanity must give place to political expediency. The demand from Conservative supporters of the Government that certain Measures must be rushed through is to have precedence over the lives of men who did more towards building up Great Britain and maintaining her honour than many of those who are behind the Prime Minister to-day, and who are forcing him, because of political expediency, to sacrifice the workers of this country. I suppose the decision is irrevocable. It is forced by Cabinet considerations. It is felt that it will never do to let practical men apply themselves to a thorough search of the philosophical phrasing in this Bill. Under all the intricate and bewildering cross references and wording of this Bill there lies tragedy, and the tragedy is beginning to expose itself, with all its ugly monstrosities. The Government are afraid of it; they are afraid that the people outside are beginning to understand it. If the Prime Minister ever has conveyed to him the mutterings of his own supporters in the Lobbies, in the Corridors, in the Reading Rooms and Dining Rooms, then I am sure he would think twice before introducing the guillotine at this moment upon this particular Measure.

I have heard many remarks coming from supporters of the present Govern- 758 ment, and I think that if they had been free to exercise their own free will and to apply their minds in a humane way in coming to decisions, during the Divisions that have taken place on this Bill they would have walked into a different Lobby from that which they entered. One need not walk about as an eavesdropper to get this information, for such Members openly state that they are disgruntled with their own Government, with the futility and the lack of ability properly to explain the Clauses of the Bill which have been shown by their own Minister. That has left them in such a state of mind that they would like to see the Bill altered in order that all the sooner we may get something like a humane instrument for dealing with the less fortunate people of the nation. It hurts very much to imagine that the introduction of this guillotine Motion might convey the impression that there has been deliberate waste of time and an attempt to impede Government business or the business of the House. There have been no such things. If this matter were under discussion for another three months we should not exhaust all the possibilities of reasoning with a view of protecting that class which, after all, we represent far more than do hon. Members opposite, for we work with those who are affected by this Bill, we are associated with them, and we belong to the same class; the suffering is in our own homes. I never care to make personal references, but I remember an occasion when I had 17 weeks of unemployment.

§ Major COLFOX

One for each child.

HON. MEMBERS

Withdraw, withdraw!

§ Mr. HAYDAY

I would not ask one with so low a level of mentality to withdraw anything. If it will give any satisfaction to the hon. and gallant Member I will tell him that one of my children, because of that period of unemployment, was born in a place little better than a hayloft. Does that give him any satisfaction? Does it give anyone any satisfaction to know that as a result of this Bill there may be thousands of children born under even worse circumstances than those, because the most elementary provisions are denied to their parents under the Clauses of this Bill. It stands ill that there should be any man in this House who could find satisfaction in such 759 a state of affairs. We think very little of the Conservative party as a whole, but it comes ill that there should be a member of that party who can hurl such low-browed insults across the Floor of the House. Let me tell the hon. and gallant Member this: I learned during that period to have less respect for constitutionalism and law. I have not been able to appreciate and respect constitutionalism as much because of that experience. Do hon. Members opposite want thousands of men, ex-service men, to have that feeling eating its way into their hearts, not taking thought for the maintenance of constitutional procedure and feeling almost compelled to resort to unconstitutional methods. If I had my life to go through again, and if society warred against me, I would war against society, so that my children should not go short of food, whatever the consequences might be.

This guillotine Motion is moved to help a Bill which will not add to respect for constitutionalism but will create the very atmosphere that we all desire to avoid. I urge the Prime Minister to consider the proposal more seriously than he has done up to the moment. I do not want him to have troubled rest at night because of the feeling that his act to-day is not the act of a British statesman. The right hon. Gentleman's action is not the action that should be taken by a Prime Minister, unless he puts political considerations before the condition of more than 1,000,000 unemployed. It is all very well to say that between now and 1930 there will be an improvement and that unemployment will be brought down to 6 per cent. Who knows? It may be 12 per cent., as against the 9 per cent. at the moment. Of course it is possible to bring down the percentage by cutting men off the unemployment register and so misleading the people of the country.

I was hopeful that we should have more time to discuss the Bill, more time to try to bring home to the Ministry the enormity of the crime they are about to commit in carrying this Bill through in its present form. Whatever may be the financial emergency that the Government have to face, whatever may be other considerations, let us start from the only true basis which deserves consideration, and that is the helping of the lame dog over the stile, the bringing 760 forth of humane instincts, the giving of a helping hand to those who require it in times of diversity; not the wet-nurse position but the tiding over of the difficult time of the men and women who want to do good by the nation and the race to which they are proud to belong— men and women who, if this Bill becomes an Act, will have less consideration and respect for their race and nation, for they will find themselves condemned to starvation or distress.

§ Major COLFOX

I look upon this Motion as a great tribute to the Opposition, because it shows that the Opposition, whose duty it is to oppose, have managed so far to delay the proceedings on a Bill of importance as to make the guillotine a necessity. But now that the Opposition have had the tribute and the compliment paid to them by the Prime Minister, I would like to make a suggestion to them. If there be any sincerity in the speeches to which we have listened —to the effect that more time is necessary for consideration of the Bill—if, in fact, the Opposition wish to amend the Bill so that in their judgment it will be a more suitable and a better Bill, let them cease this discussion on this Motion and get on with the discussion of the Bill, since the Prime Minister has said that if the Motion be disposed of early the rest of the day can be devoted to the discussion of the Bill.

§ Mr. THURTLE

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman forgive me intervening for a moment?

§ Major COLFOX

No, I will not. Every speech delivered on this Motion by the Opposition can have no real or lasting effect, but speeches delivered on the Bill may very likely have some effect in moulding the Bill into the form in which it will leave the House. Therefore, since this Motion will be carried, whatever the Opposition may say, and since discussion can be of no good to anyone, I suggest to the Opposition that they allow the Motion to go through in order that discussion of the Bill may continue.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

I wish to support the Amendment. It has been suggested to me by my colleagues that I should "go for" the individual who has just sat down, but I must honestly confess to the House that I consider him a foe-man not worthy of my foil. We view 761 very seriously this guillotine Motion, because we who represent the workers in this House are very much interested in the Bill, and the Motion will thwart our criticism of the Bill. If it were an ordinary Government that brought forward a guillotine on a Measure of this kind it would not hurt us so much, but this Government, from the Prime Minister down, has posed and is always posing as a body of nice, kind, philanthropic, Christian gentlemen. They are bringing in a Bill which will be the most brutal Measure on the Statute Book. Moreover, they are doing it in cold blood. When they come, as they will come, before the Judgment Seat, the great Bar, when they have to give an account of their deeds done unto the people of this country, they will not be able to stand forth and say that they did not know. The Author and Finisher of the Christian faith said:

Father, forgive them, for they know-not what they do, when they were crucifying him. Members of this Government will not be able to stand forth and say that they did not know, because we from these Benches have told them. We have done our best to tell them of the hellish life lived by the working-classes of this country as a result of unemployment. They have sneered at us; the back benchers opposite have sneered at us and tried to belittle those who have risen on this side to explain their point of view to the best of their ability. My comrades here have risen and paid compliments to the other side, but the words that were spoken across the Floor a few minutes ago prove that we ought not to pay compliments to the other side at all. They do not treat the working folk of this country as human beings like themselves. The guillotine in this case is being used in order to thwart us and to prevent us from letting the country know the type of men who are ruling us at the moment. Madame Roland, who was among the first to be guillotined, said as she looked at the statue of liberty: Oh, Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name! It is the same thing here to-day. The Government usher in this Motion pretending that it is for the good of the country, but such is not the case. What is it they are trying to rush through? Take Clause 4 of the Bill and what do we find? 762 The Minister of Labour, who comes to this House with a great record as a decent. Christian gentleman, and who stands at that Box representing the richest and most powerful Government in the world, is in Clause 4 using all that power, to what end? Is it to ameliorate the awful conditions of poverty in our country? It is not. What is being done by this powerful Government in Clause 4 of the Bill, not to Germans, not to Russians, but to Englishwomen, Scotswomen, Welshwomen and women of Northern Ireland? I ask the House to look at the proposals of Clause 4 concerning young women at the age of 18 to 21—the young women of my class. There is nothing more wonderful and nothing more beautiful in the world than a good young woman. They are far away beyond any of your wonderful works of art. Those are as ashes compared with a good woman. What is the Government proposing to do? The Government propose to offer these young women the sum of 10 shillings a week when they are unemployed, and the Government admit the possibility of tens of thousands of them being unemployed.

Clause 4 offers these young women from 18 years to 21 years eight shilling to 12 shillings per week! I ask the House to note the age. It is just at that period in life when womanhood is blossoming forth and when it is the most natural thing in the world for a young woman to desire to be as well dressed as possible and to look her very best. No women in this country, including Prineesses or Duchesses, have any better right to be well dressed than these young women who are unemployed. Here is this Government, which pays reverences to the Royal Family, &c., and who believe that they have a right to a good living, and I believe, I honestly believe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—Mr. Deputy Speaker will tell me if I am out of order. Do not think you will put me off because you cannot. You cannot put me off to-day. I will drill you before I am finished. I will get right under your skin. You are treating my class in this fashion, and this day I am going to go for you. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] There is no withdrawing for me to-day. I have taken the highest authority on this matter. I made sure this time. You, Sir, may have been right last time, but I am right now in 763 what I have said. I was discussing Clause 4 when Members opposite at tempted to put me off—but they are not fit for that job. I say that this Clause 4 is going to condemn tens of thousands of these young women to misery and drive them on to the streets. That is some thing of which this Government ought to be proud. Why should the Prime Minister be part and parcel of an organisation which is going to force these young women on the streets? There is no other way given among men whereby these women can live. Tell me, Sir, how is it possible for a young woman, here in London, never mind in Glasgow—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)

The hon. Member is entitled, up to a certain point, to discuss the Bill, but he must not deal with it as if this were the Second Reading of the Bill. The question now before the House is the Motion for the allocation of time.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

I know that perfectly well but that is why we are so anxious that the Guillotine should not operate. I think you will agree with me that it is perfectly in order to show why the Guillotine should not operate and I am busy doing so. As I was saying, I put it to any man here—I put it to the Prime Minister: "Do you honestly believe, before God, that ten shillings a week can keep a young woman in London?" [Interruption.] I am addressing the Chair!

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member must address me, but he must do so in an orderly manner and he must not refer to questions which I have told him are not in order in this discussion. He is not entitled to discuss the Bill in detail.

§ Mr. THURTLE

May I submit a point of Order. This Motion is intended to facilitate the passage of the Bill through all its stages. Therefore, in resisting the Motion we are, in fact, attempting to resist the Measure as a whole, and surely in doing so we are entitled to discuss the nature of the Measure.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Up to a point that is true, but hon. Members cannot develop this discussion into another Second Reading Debate on the Bill.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

Is it not in order for the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to argue that the Guillotine is being applied because the Prime Minister does not want a discussion on certain points? If so, is he not then entitled to bring out the points on which, in his opinion, it is being sought to prevent discussion?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It would be quite in order for the hon. Member to use, as an argument, that the Government did not want certain points to be discussed but it does not follow that we need discuss all those points now.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

Is it not in order that the hon. Member should bring out the points on which he says the Government do not want discussion?. If the hon. Member says that the avoidance of discussion on this matter relating to the young woman is one of the purposes of the Prime Minister in this Motion, is he not in order in bringing out that point and in suggesting reasons why the Government do not want it to be discussed?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

He can do so to a certain extent, but I repeat what I have said. I will not allow a Second Reading Debate on the Bill.

§ Mr. MACLEAN

This Motion is brought forward to stop discussion on a certain Bill and is it not the case that objectors to such a Motion should give their reasons against it? My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is giving certain reasons why the Motion ought not to be put into operation and why a free and unfettered discussion should be allowed on all the Clauses and Schedules of the Bill. I submit he is in order in giving his reasons.

§ Mr. STEPHEN

Is it not the case, Sir, that under your ruling the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is only precluded from making Second Reading references to these matters? He is not precluded from referring to them, as long as he does so in such a way as to show that inadequate discussion of these Clauses will lead to great hardship to the people concerned. I think that is all the hon. Member wants to do.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

Exactly so, and with your consent, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will 765 now proceed. I will leave the young women. I will leave that part of the Bill, because I think I have said as much upon it as will make the Government think. I have said as much upon it as will worry them. We were sent here not to make friends with the other side, but for the express purpose of worrying this Government out of their lives if we possibly could. That is what we are here for and not to make friends with them at all. I now come to the young men. Under Clause 4 young men are going to get 12s. per week.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is a point which I have already told the hon. Member would not be in order in this Debate, and he must not continue to deal with it.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

I want to be perfectly clear with you, Mr. Deputy- Speaker. You say I am not in order because the guillotine does not affect that, but I hold a point of order there for you. We are not past the Report stage yet, and therefore the guillotine will apply to every Clause. You will agree that I got the best of you that time. As I was saying, you have the young men being offered from 10s. to 14s. a week, and just think what that means for a young man—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If the hon. Member persists in disregarding my ruling, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD

I will take Clause 5, and try to accommodate you. That is the Clause dealing with the question of "genuinely seeking work." This is another Clause that affects my constituency and the trade at which I worked before I was a Member of this House. It affects shipbuilding and engineering very much, and particularly the skilled artisans. It will affect miners, because they are highly skilled men, engineers, joiners, plumbers, shipwrights, rivetters, platers, coppersmiths, blacksmiths—all the tradesmen. I take this phrase "genuinely seeking work" as a direct attack on the standard of life of the artisan section of the community. It means that if a highly skilled man is unemployed, he is sent by the employment exchange to take what is commonly called an unskilled man's job, although we, as Socialists, do not believe there 766 is such a thing as unskilled labour; the only individuals who are unskilled are those who do not do any work, and we are not interested in them; but it means that the tradesman will be sent to what is commonly called unskilled work, and that would not be so bad, but it means that he will have to accept the unskilled man's wages, which means a reduction in his wages. If he does not accept the job, it means that he is cut off, and that is one of the worst things that could possibly happen.

Think of the dignity of labour and of the struggle. The Government do not understand what is at stake here. Think of a young man who has finished his time in the shipbuilding or the engineering trade and is now a journeyman. Probably he is the son of one of those individuals commonly called unskilled and of a mother who had a great ambition in life that her boy would be a tradesman. It was her dream that her boy would be a fitter, a turner, or a joiner. Oh, if she could only get him a tradesman —her darling, clean boy, the greatest asset any country can possibly have. When he finishes his time, what happens?

It has happened in thousands of cases in every big shipbuilding and engineering centre in this country. He is turned adrift. The word "journeyman" has been put into operation because it means that when their time is out they have to journey. It has been put into operation these last two years in a manner never seen before. They are forced to journey out on the street, and all that mother's sacrifice and all her ambitions go to the winds. Think what it costs everyone included in the community to make the young man who was specially trained into a highly skilled man, and then this dirty Government—because they are a dirty Government—will not give adequate time in order that we might discuss the pros and cons of the business.

It is all right for people with £100 a day, like the Attorney-General, to sit there, to "smile, and smile, and be a villain" all the while. But it is a different matter for the family that is being put right up against it by this Clause. In constituencies where you have factories where there is a great amount of what is, called semi-skilled labour employed—that simply means skilled labour with a cheap wage, skilled 767 labour only getting unskilled labourers' wages—there may be alongside big works where there are skilled men, and it means that those highly skilled men, when they are unemployed, will be sent to take the place of the semi-skilled men; and we are going to get no adequate discussion of a situation such as that. Such a hypocritical, unchristian Government never held sway in this country to treat our people in that fashion. Further, it really means a scientific method, designed by subtle brains, to crush the workers of this country further down the scale of human degradation. Instead of those outstanding abilities that these men have being used as they ought to be used, as they were given to them by an all-wise and loving Father in heaven to use, namely, to defend those who are not able to defend themselves, they are using them to crush those people down further in order that some of the Government might get honour and become rich. They have sold themselves, the British Government at the moment, like Esau of old, for a mess of pottage.

There is another point that I wish to deal with before I have finished, and that is the question of the 30 stamps. When this point was under review we did roast the Minister of Labour; there is no doubt about that. Both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary were made to sit up, because it means that there will be thousands of men and women who will be cut off as a result of this provision and who will never get on to benefit again—both men and women, and ex-service men at that. It was not only our own benches that drew the Minister's attention to that fact, for from the Government's own benches the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) distinctly pointed out that this would mean that there would be thousands in his own constituency who would be cut off, and hundreds of them were ex-service men. Could anything go further than that? Yet the Guillotine is being used in order to prevent us from having adequate discussion of that question also, trying to cover it up, trying to get away with this before the country will know it. We are satisfied that when once the British people understand the part that the 768 Government are playing, as soon as they get an opportunity, they will never send back this Government again.

6.0 p.m.

With whom are they dealing thus inhumanely? It is the unemployed, and how did they come to be unemployed? Does that question never dawn on the Tory Members of this House? Why did they become unemployed, and what section is it that is being dealt with here? It is the poor unemployed, and it is the poorest of the poor who are going to be the most heavily hit. Fancy this wonderful, powerful Government using all that great following that they possess to attack the poorest of the poor in our own country! Who are the unemployed, and why are they unemployed? They are unemployed because there is no work for them to do. Is that their fault? No. The lories say they have no right to starve, but why do they not agree with our proposal, that is, that when the workers are denied the right to work, they ought to be given full maintenance as far as this country can give it? I know what it is to be unemployed. I never was lazy. There is not a lazy inch in my body, but I know what it is to go from day to day with a wife and family dependent on me, a highly skilled man with the best of credentials and yet turned adrift. This Government says that a man of that description is only to get a mere pittance. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) drew attention to the fact that the money the Government were going to give to the young women was not enough to keep body and soul together, and the Minister of Labour said that it was never intended it should keep them. He went further. You have to remember he is a human being—he appears to be, at any rate, and it was human beings he was talking about, young women who are as good as his own daughters, and I know he has two. He said he hoped that the Government never would give an allowance that would maintain these women. Could anything be more inhuman? It appears to me that the reason this Guillotine is being put into operation is because the ruling class in Britain would treat the unemployed as they would an army of criminals. They are not criminals, these men who are 769 going here, there and everywhere looking for a job. In the words of our national bard: See yonder poor o'erlaboured wight, Sae abject, mean and vile Who begs a brother of the earth To give him leave to toil. And see his lowly fellow-worm His poor petition spurn, Unmindful the a weeping wife And helpless offspring mourn. But he went further and put into me the spirit that is animating me to-day, when he said: If I'm designed yon lording's slave By nature's law designed, Why was an independent wish E'er planted in my mind? If not, why am I subject To his cruelty and scorn And why has man the will and power To make his fellow mourn?

Captain A. EVANS

Whenever the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) intervenes in Debates in this House, he introduces a wealth of sincerity and a knowledge of matters such as this, which the whole House respects; but after the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, it is difficult for Members on this side of the House to appreciate the sincerity of Members of the Socialist party in supporting this Amendment, because they propose to waste six hours of Parliamentary time which could be usefully employed in discussing the very difficult Clauses in which they are interested in this Bill.

§ Mr. STEPHEN

I would like to ask the hon. Member what he means by that?

Does he mean to say that this Debate may not influence Members on the other side to support us in getting this programme extended, and that they are absolutely impervious to reason?

Captain EVANS

The hon. Member's knowledge of Parliamentary procedure is surely enough for him to realise, whether he likes it or not, that this Amendment is going to be defeated before the night is over. Therefore, surely they would be much better advised to allow the House to get back to the Bill and discuss line by line and word by word the Clauses in which they are really interested. As one who has endeavoured modestly to support the Government in debate on 770 this Bill, I would like to make an appeal to the Minister of Labour. There cannot be the slightest doubt in the mind of the House that the point that is worrying not only the Opposition, but hon. Friends of mine on these benches, is the one dealing with depressed areas. My hon. Friends and I feel that that is a question that should not be discussed when you are discussing a contributory insurance scheme. We believe that is a state of affairs that should be discussed apart, and introduced by the appropriate Minister. There is no doubt that that is the chief anxiety, at least in the minds of the Opposition, and I feel that if the Minister or a responsible representative pf the Government were in a position to make a pronouncement on this matter it would go far to facilitate the passage of this Bill. There is not the slightest doubt in the judgment of the Government that the gloomy picture of the industrial future which has been drawn by Members of the Opposition parties will happily not be realised, but if, for instance, in April, 1930, the industrial prospects of this country are not what we on this side of the House feel they will be, and the conditions in necessitous areas are such as to call for Government intervention, it would relieve the minds of some of us if the Government would say that, if such were the case, they would take whatever steps were necessary, through boards of guardians or other machinery, to deal with the situation. Every Member knows that whatever party is represented on the Government Front Bench it cannot afford to see men and women who are genuinely seeking work through no fault of their own—

§ Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Member appears to be discussing the Bill. We must dispose of this Motion before we can get back to the Bill.

Captain EVANS

I must apologise for not keeping within your ruling, and I apologise to the House for intervening in this Debate at all. My only reason was that if the Minister of Health will get up and say that if the conditions are not altered at such time as he thinks necessary, steps to deal with the situation will be taken, I venture to think that this Debate will be ended sooner, and the passage of the Bill will be facilitated.

§ Mr. THURTLE

I rise to a point of Order in regard to the range of this 771 Debate. As I understand it now, we are discussing the Amendment which was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw). May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the terms of the Amendment, which says that the Bill will admittedly deprive many thousands of unemployed persons of unemployment insurance benefit. May I submit that on that phrase it is competent for us to discuss the effect on the unemployed? Then the Amendment goes on to say, in many other cases will reduce the amount of benefit now payable. May I submit on that, that it is competent for us to discuss the scales of benefit that will be paid Further, it says, unless its complexities are carefully considered, may inflict further hardships without the knowledge and consent of this House. Does not that general phrase enable us to discuss the whole ramifications of the Bill?

§ Mr. SPEAKER

It enables hon. Members to emphasise the importance of these points, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) said in opening the Debate, but it certainly does not enable hon. Members to argue the pros and cons, which can only be done on the Bill itself. There is a clear line between the two things.

§ Miss LAWRENCE

Bearing in mind your ruling, I desire to give some reasons why we imperatively desire more time to discuss the Clauses of the Bill. We have not yet really done half the Bill, and many of the most difficult and intricate subjects lay before us. We are on the threshold of Clause 6. I will not say anything about the merits or demerits of Clause 6. I would only remind the House of the very long history which had to be gone through and the amount of Parliamentary time that had to be taken before this Section referred to in the Clause came into existence. The Prime Minister gave a sort of time table of the Act of 1924. If I followed his example and distributed that time table into subjects, we should find a very large proportion of the time, both on Second Reading and in Committee upstairs, and, above all, on the Report stage, was taken 772 in arguing out what should be done to meet certain difficulties in trade disputes. That problem was originally believed to be insoluble. I am not dealing with the merits, but the amount of Parliamentary time needed to deal with it. In 1911, when it was discussed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) pronounced the question to be insoluble. In an analysis of some length he said that a provision of that kind might enable a trade union to call out the key-men and allow the rest of the members of the union to draw unemployment benefit. After discussing that point of view, he came to the conclusion that nothing could be done with a Clause like the Clause it is proposed to amend in Clause 6. As late as 1924 the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health said: Throughout the whole of the time this matter has been confronting the House and the country, the difficulty has proved insurmountable."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1924; col. 2397, Vol. 175.] Then a curious thing happened, a thing that does sometimes happen in Parliament. In the processes of discussion all parties came gradually together, and in the first Debate on Report we had the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley approaching the question. He did not get there all at once. In the course of that Debate, after his words in 1911 had been quoted, he said that the passage of time, and particularly the occurrence of the mouders' dispute, had caused him to direct his mind to the question again. The moulders' dispute, as will be remembered, was one in which the skilled men struck and the labourers were out of work four weary months, and in a condition of extreme poverty—all through a dispute in which not one of them had any interest, nor from which he could gain anything. After his meditation upon this subject, we bad what I call a creative speech from the right hon. Member for Spen Valley. He said: It may be—and I have been puzzled on this subject and have been much interested in it for years— it takes a great deal to puzzle that eminent gentleman— that it is not easy to devise a more satisfactory arrangement, but it is no good beginning as though the present situation was one which worked manifest justice for everyone."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July 1924; col. 2402. Vol. 175.] 773 Then there was a good deal of the sort of conversation that happens sometimes and then the Debate was adjourned. The Debate was resumed on the 18th July, and was mainly occupied with hammering out a formula, and finally, after these two discussions, and after reflection by every person concerned for more than 20 years, the right hon. Member for Spen Valley struck out a formula. So happy was the formula that the House was nearly united upon it. There were very few dissentients. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Very few. I would like to recall the names of the few of those who agreed to that Clause. As I look down the list these are some of the names that strike me among those who voted for the Clause: Baldwin, right hon. Stanley; Betterton, Henry B. Bridgeman, right hon. William Clive"; and fraternally mixed with those names were some of our own names: Shaw, right hon. Thomas, Macdonald, R. I should think it was the only Division in the House where I could read among the Ayes the names of the Leaders of the House all fraternally voting together on one Clause. It is not very often that such lions and such lambs lie down together. After having thus decided upon an arrangement we are going to amend it in what I and other Members here regard as a violently controversial manner. I am perfectly certain that if we had time enough to talk round and round this new Clause as we talked round the original Act, it would end with the Government dropping it, because, in a matter which is so intricate and so technical, when you have once arrived at a working arrangement and harmony amongst the Members of the House everybody who has any business sense knows that it is a very bad thing to disturb it. If that arrangement is to be upset we shall need a great deal of time to consider what is being done. We may well take another 20 years before resettling the point again if we upset it.

There are many other provisions in the Bill which need a great deal of time, though I will not go through them all. Clause 8 is an exceedingly difficult one, and needs to be thoroughly explored and examined. Clause 10 though, as the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) said, a small thing, is a controversial one. Having got so far, we 774 have done with one Insurance Bill and we begin a new one, because with Clause 12 we enter on the provision for the interim period cases. That is, in all essentials, a new Insurance Bill, to apply to the next two years. No one knows better than the Minister in charge how technical, complicated and controversial many of these proposals are. The Prime Minister spoke of the 95 Amendments that remain on the Paper. They are not frivolous Amendments. They are technical Amendments dealing with excessively difficult points, matters on which, in ordinary circumstances, we should spend eight or nine days in Committee upstairs. They are not Amendments of the kind ordinarily dealt with on the Floor of the House; they are essentially upstairs Amendments. This Bill is being considered on the Floor of the House because it involves important points of principle, and matters which the House as a whole must settle. But it also involves matters which, I say it with all respect, are hardly suitable for the House itself, many of them being so technical and complicated that they usually go upstairs. Everybody knows that when we are dealing with business of this sort, time in Committee upstairs goes much further than time on the Floor of the House.

§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)

indicated dissent.

§ Miss LAWRENCE

The Minister shakes his head, but when it comes to these details you can get at them in Committee in a way in which you cannot get at them in a great House, with hundreds of Members. How are we to do justice to the business side of this problem—I put aside the principles involved, and consider only the excessively intricate problems which Clause 6 raises, and which the Clause relating to the carryover period raises? I have a great deal of sympathy with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans). I wish we could press the Government a little more about the Clauses which ought to be in this Bill but which are not in it. Anyone can see how the feelings of hon. Members opposite are touched in this matter. Anyone who is in communication with any manufacturing district knows that the alarm and the anxiety over this Bill are not confined to the Members on this 775 side of the House. All classes in the industrial districts look upon the Bill with nearly as much fear and as much alarm as we do.

I have spoken before of the feelings of employers. It is not to be wondered at that employers look upon this legislation with anxiety, in view of what has been said about the 56,000 cases which will be affected. In the industrial districts those who support hon. Members opposite are not thinking in terms of cases, but they are thinking of the workmen whom they have known, all their lives, perhaps, for whom they now have no work and for whom they are unlikely to have any work. There is a feeling of remorse. Employers do not like continually to refuse the requests of men who have lived by their trade and worked in their trade for so many years. They are feeling very unhappy about the business. I do not know whether I am going beyond the bounds of order, but I am not going beyond the words of our Amendment when I join with the hon. Member opposite in asking whether we cannot persuade the Government to give us some indication of what else they propose to do. Order or no Order, that is the point. If this were an Unemployment Insurance Bill to deal with the classes to which it is applicable, we could sit down and knock it into shape and come, perhaps, to as happy a conclusion as was come to in 1924. What causes alarm and bitterness is that this Bill throws out of court a great number of insured persons, and we do not know what is to become of them, because we do not know what other Measures the Government intend to bring forward. We are very much afraid they will not want to bring anything else forward.

If we had a list of Measures dealing with people who will not come under any Unemployment Insurance Bill, then we could settle down to this Bill without spending very much more time. We could send it upstairs, as the 1924 Bill was sent upstairs, and we could get on with the details of an insurance scheme. What is hanging this Bill up, and why every Clause needs debating, is that the situation is much beyond an Insurance Bill. This is not an Unemployment Insurance Bill; this is an Unemployment Dis-insurance Bill, and that is precisely why we need so much time for it, that 776 is what causes passions to rise and makes it almost impossible for us to settle down, to a discussion of insurance details. The Prime Minister could secure a passage for this Bill much more quickly, even than under the Guillotine Resolution, if we could have from him a declaration of policy with respect to what are called the distressed areas and with regard to local burdens, and, further, as to what is to happen to the men who are cut off unemployment insurance. If he would do that, I believe we could all agree with him that the time offered was ample— if that dreadful consideration were taken off our minds. If we are to get the Bill through and to waste no more words, we ought to have a statement of policy. That is what the House asks for, and has a right to expect.

§ Sir JOHN SIMON

I intervene for a few moments to join in the very sincere appeal which has been made from the Opposition side of the House. Of course I have been in this House long enough to know that a controversial Bill of this kind affords scope for a very large number of Amendments, and such a Measure has often to be brought under some timetable. It is always a matter of regret when that has to be done, but it has been done by many Governments. I, for one, do not join in this appeal merely because we find ourselves on the Opposition side, and consequently are expected to denounce the time-table as a thing which is intolerable. It is always a temptation to Chief Whips to try to secure that the Government business is got through with the shortest possible consumption of Parliamentary time. I am quite aware that the majority of those who support the Government can carry this time-table in spite of any demonstration on the part of the Opposition, but no good is going to be done as a result of the Division, and I am not really interested in the demonstration.

For a long time I have had a very close association with questions affecting unemployment insurance. I have read a good deal of the Debate, and I am familiar with the main points which have been raised. I happen to be one of the Ministers chiefly responsible for the original Unemployment Insurance Act and the hon. Lady the Member for North East Ham (Miss Lawrence) has referred to the small part 777 I took in regard to that Measure. Therefore, I can. claim to have taken a continuous and a serious interest in this subject. I want to ask, are we really going to be asked to dispose of the rest of the-Clauses of this Bill at a single sitting when the sitting in question is to be a Friday sitting of five hours? Even a full sitting would be a matter of only seven hours. I think that is a very serious proposition even for a powerful Government to put forward. I am not in a position to say whether there has been in the course of these debates anything which could be fairly described as actual obstruction. Very often a Government thinks that things are obstructive which the Opposition thinks are quite justifiable. I know that on this Measure there has been a very great deal of useful debate. I am aware, also, that some of the declarations made by the Minister of Labour and by the Parliamentary Secretary have been of real value, because those speeches have put on record the view which the Government have, and as such they are a source of satisfaction to all of us.

Nobody can say that these debates have been a waste of time from any point of view. Every hon. Member is aware that of all the questions with which a Member of Parliament has to deal in his correspondence with his constituents, to whatever party he belongs, there are no questions that involve more detailed consideration than those connected with the Unemployed Insurance Act. I have learned a great deal from listening to the debates on this subject. Therefore, of all subjects, this is the sort which the ordinary Member of Parliament feels it worth spending time to follow in order to understand the details. In this Measure you have one of the most unhappy examples of legislation by reference, and one needs to be a most accomplished master of the Statute Book and have the advantage of the explanations of everybody before he can follow it. I think one is entitled, in considering questions like these, not to an extravagant or unlimited amount of time, but at any rate to sufficient time. Here we have a proposal that in five hours we are, willy-nilly, to dispose of every Clause remaining in the Bill.

I do not say that all the questions raised in the Amendments on the Papers 778 are equally difficult or important. But the Clause referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for North East Ham is one in which I take a special interest. I cannot believe that you can justify the possible changes, revision and alterations in that most difficult Clause about the relations between trade stoppages and unemployment insurance being disposed of between 11 o'clock on Friday and the time hon. Members go to luncheon. Take Clause 12. I am not at all certain that there may not be complete justification for amending it, but at any rate, it is right that we should do all we can to understand what it means. Looking back upon what has taken place, I cannot believe that five hours is enough to dispose of all these Clauses. Then there are the new Clauses which during the Committee stage offer every possible opportunity for putting forward misguided suggestions. No doubt many of the new Clauses will be found to be out of order. But I notice that there is a new Clause down in the name of the Minister of Labour which deals with vocational training. This is a question which affects Conservatives just as much as the Members of