CLAUSE 11.—(Amendment as to anomalies regulations.)

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

I wish to raise a point of Order in connection with the Amendment which appears in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), and myself—in page 9, line 10, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of the Clause, and to add: The Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act shall cease to have effect. There is in the Clause a reference to the Expiring Laws Continuation Act, and I take it from that reference that if this issue were raised only on the question "That the Clause stand part," and even if the Clause were deleted, having regard to this reference to the Expiring Laws Continuation Act, it would not have any force, because it would still leave the Expiring Laws Act in force. If the Clause were deleted you would not have any reference to the Anomalies Act, and, therefore, to overcome that, you must have a definite decision by this Committee, or, if need be, subsequently in the other House, to delete the Anomalies Act; otherwise no Amendment for the deletion of the Clause itself would have the desired effect. For that reason, I ask you, Sir Dennis, if it is not possible for you to reconsider the decision not to call this Amendment.

§ The CHAIRMAN

What the hon. Member has said is demonstrably quite correct, but he has not realised the reason why I did not call his Amendment. It was not because it was possible to deal with the subject on the question "That the Clause stand part," but because I thought he should put down the Amendment he requires in the form of a new Clause, which, of course, there is plenty of opportunity for him to do.

§ Mr. MAXTON

But on your Ruling, Sir Dennis, if we pass this Clause the 576 principle of the continuation of the Anomalies Act has been thereby accepted, and a new Clause would then be attempting to put into the Bill something that has already been rejected at this stage. In our view, the passing of this Clause continues the Anomalies Act with all the disabilities which it places on married women, seasonal workers and part-time workers. The passing of this Clause continues that, and if at a later stage we moved a new Clause to abolish the Anomalies Act, it would not then be in order, since the Committee would have already accepted it.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I do not agree with the hon. Member. I think that the pass-of this Clause would not rule out of order a new Clause on the lines of the Amendment which is on the Order Paper. Clause 11, it is true, refers to the Act in question, but it does not in any way reenact it. I am reading the Clause to see what it does do.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

With great respect, the first Sub-section of the Clause refers to the continuance in force of the specified Section, and, later, the Clause abolishes part of the working arrangements. If you continue Section I of the Anomalies Act, and also reject the Advisory Committee, in real essence you have continued the Act.

§ The CHAIRMAN

If the Minister has any opinion to express on this particular point, I will consider it.

§ Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN

Before the Minister replies, may I put this point? All that can be raised on the Amendment can also be raised on the question of the Clause standing part, and we should have a repetition of the Debate, because the Amendment, in effect, does the same thing.

§ Mr. O'CONNOR

Would it not appear from Sub-section (1) that upon the passing of that Sub-section the Anomalies Act would remain in force until Parliament otherwise determined, which must be by a subsequent Act of Parliament and not in the same Act? With the greatest respect, it would be difficult to read it in the sense of your ruling, Sir Dennis, that a subsequent Clause of the 577 same Bill could be a different determination within the meaning of Sub-section (1).

§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton)

Since you ask me, Sir Dennis, if I can give any assistance on this point, I am bound to say that the point is new to me in the sense that I have not heard it mentioned until a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but it seems to me that there is substance in it, because if the effect of the proposed new Clause would be to repeal the Anomalies Act altogether, then, on the face of it, that would appear to be inconsistent with the Clause already passed. I give this opinion with very great diffidence, and as a first impression, because I have not considered the point.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I think there is no question about it that the proposed new Clause would not be in order if this Clause were passed as it is or to this effect, and, therefore, it would seem to me that the hon. Member's proper course would be to propose to negative this Clause with a view to bringing in another one. I have considered again very carefully, in view of what the hon. Member has said, his request that the first Amendment on the Order Paper should be called, but I do not think I could see my way to do that. It would be, in my mind, an abuse of the proceedings of the Committee in that the effect of it would be to discuss at the commencement of proceedings on the Clause a Motion which would be tantamount to a Motion to negative the Clause, as a whole. I admit there is a certain inconvenience in this case in that if the hon. Member's proposal to negative the Clause should ultimately be carried, it would, of course, have been a certain waste of time to discuss Amendments to the Clause, but that is a necessary result of our procedure which I do not think I can get over. I must, therefore, adhere to the ruling I have given that I cannot call the Amendment. The only way in which the hon. Member can achieve his purpose is by the two separate steps of negativing this Clause and then bringing in a new Clause to repeal the Act of Parliament referred to.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

That is in view of the fact that this Act is continued in the Expiring Laws. Suppose we negative the Clause. It has got no relation to that Act in so far as that, Act is continued in the Expiring Laws, and, consequently, before you can repeal this you must have the words here; otherwise you have got to put down a new Clause to deal with the Expiring Laws Act which is not under discussion. While it may appear to be somewhat redundant to have the discussion, at the same time I think that the Amendment is the only way in which we can conform to Parliamentary procedure.

§ Sir BASIL PETO

With regard to the point just raised by the hon. Member, I would draw attention to the fact that it is not the Expiring Laws Continuance Act which is in question, but an Act which is mentioned specifically in this Clause, namely, the Unemployment Insurance (Expiring Enactments) Act. It is a special Act which was passed to prolong the Anomalies Act by one year to June next. As that Act is specifically mentioned in this Clause, I should say that there is no substance in the last point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) dealing with an Act which is not referred to in this Clause.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has really answered the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I do not think, with respect, that there is anything in the point which the hon. Member for Gorbals last raised. I still think that the only way in which the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his friends can achieve their object and repeal the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act is by moving a new Clause to that effect, and I agree also that in order to do so it would first be necessary for them to negative Clause 11 of this Bill.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

I merely wish to ask a question and not to discuss your Ruling, Sir Dennis, any further. This Clause does raise the whole question of the Administration of what is known as the Anomalies Act and the question of whether that Act should be continued, in part or in 579 whole. It is not likely that the Committee will negative the Clause. We may as well face that fact. That means in effect that there can be no discussion on the question of the Anomalies Act as a whole. I suggest that it is desirable however that the Committee should have an opportunity of discussing the Anomalies Act, not in relation to one particular point or another but in relation to the whole administration because in our view all the different parts of that Act are correlated one with the other. I would like to ask your guidance therefore, Sir Dennis, as to how we can raise the whole question of the Anomalies Act, not in detail but as one subject, in view of the fact that the Clause is re-enacting that Act in part.

§ The CHAIRMAN

On the question that Clause 11 stand part of the Bill, I think it would be in order to discuss Sections 1 and 11 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, which are specifically referred to in the Clause—that is to discuss the continuance or the repeal of those Sections—but those are the only parts of the Act referred to in the Clause. I have not considered, however, whether this Clause is such as would permit of a discussion on the whole of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, but I think it would probably permit all the discussion the hon. Member wants, namely, a discussion on those parts of the Act with which the Clause deals specifically and they form the greater part of the Act. I wish to guard against the possibility of having to curtail or restrict discussion later.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

Sections 1 and 11 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act contain practically the whole of the operative part of the Measure. Sections III, IV and V really do not alter the position at all. The whole principle is contained in the first two Sections.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

As I read the Bill, what is being done here refers to married women. That is all your Bill deals with in this Clause. It also sweeps away the advisory committee, but it has no reference to seasonal workers, for instance.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member misunderstood me. What I was referring to was Section 1 of the Unem- 580 ployment Insurance (No. 3) Act and not Sub-section (1) of this Clause.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

I see the point. I thought it was Sub-section (1) of the Clause. But if it is the case that you, Sir Dennis, will allow a discussion on Section 1 of the Anomalies Act it means, in effect, and I say so frankly, largely dealing with the Anomalies Act as a whole.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I intended to refer to Section 1 of the Anomalies Act. If I had intended what the hon. Member thought I should have referred to Sub-section (1) of Clause 11 of the Bill. What I intended the hon. Member to understand was that on the Question, "That Clause 11 stand part of the Bill," it would be open to him to discuss the advisability or otherwise of continuing in operation Section 1 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act. It would be open to him in the same way to discuss Section 2 of that Act which is referred to in Sub-section (4) of the Clause.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

Thank you, Sir Dennis!

The following Amendments stood upon, the Order Paper:

In page 9, line 16, leave out Sub-section (2).—[Sir B. Peto.]

In page 9, line 16, after "Minister," insert "subject to the subsequent approval of Parliament."—[Lieut.-Colonel Moore.] In page 9, line 22, at end, insert: but such regulations shall entitle any person covered by paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of the said Section one who has been employed and paid contributions for a period of not less than 13 weeks in any year to benefit, during the portion of the year when seasonal employment is not available, for one week in respect of every three weeks for which contributions have been paid in that year."—[Sir B. Peto.]

§ The CHAIRMAN

Sir Basil Peto!

§ Sir B. PETO

I do not propose to take a long time in presenting my Amendment as I understand that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and his friends wish to have an opportunity later to raise the whole question of the Anomalies Act. The Amendment which you have called, Sir Dennis, was before the House in substance, and practically 581 in identical wording, before the Christmas Recess and the Minister has had ample opportunity of making himself acquainted with the point which I wish to raise, namely, what I regard as the unfair treatment of seasonal workers.

The Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, referred to in Sub-section (1) of this Clause, was passed in 1931 and was intended to be for a period of two years only. By the Unemployment Insurance (Expiring Enactments) Act, 1933, the Act of 1931, generally known as the Anomalies Act, was extended for a further year, that is until June, 1934. In these circumstances and considering that this Bill proposes to make that Anomalies Act of 1931 a permanent part of our legislation, until Parliament otherwise determines, I think this is a proper occasion on which to consider how that Act has operated in respect of the different classes of people referred to in it. These include people who habitually work less than a full week, people whose occupations are of a seasonal nature and married women. The principle laid down in the Act was that it should be the duty of the Minister to make regulations in relation to the classes of persons to whom the Act applied, and to impose such additional conditions and terms with respect to the receipt of benefit and such restrictions on the amount and period of benefit as might appear necessary for the removal of anomalies. Parliament empowered the Minister to make such regulations as he thought fit for dealing with these classes of insured workers.

The next question which arises, as far as the seasonal workers are concerned, is how these regulations operated. First, let us consider the position before the passing of the Anomalies Act. Then, the seasonal worker, whose normal employment did not exceed six months in the year—usually the summer months—was able to go upon unemployment benefit for the remainder of the year, drawing benefit for the 26 weeks of the off season. That was unfair to the Unemployment Fund and to their insured fellow-workers, because those whose employment was not seasonal had not the same immense pull on the Unemployment Fund. That was one of the anomalies with which Parliament decided to deal in 1931. As I understand it the present position is that if an unemployed seasonal worker finds himself in a "broken" job during the season; 582 if during the season he is out of work and gets another seasonal job before the end of the season, he can claim benefit. But it is very unusual that the seasonal worker has any wish or any need to do so. As a general rule the seasonal workers' employment depends upon the continuance of the season. As long as a seaside resort, for instance, is crowded with summer visitors the seasonal worker is sure of his job. Therefore, under the regulations he is offered a benefit which it is unlikely he will ever be able to claim and which is of no use to him. What he wants is some measure of benefit during the off season.

§ The CHAIRMAN

There appears to me to be some little difficulty in connection with this Amendment. I would like the Committee to follow carefully what I say and possibly the Minister will be good enough to help me. What is in my mind is that on the Amendment which the hon. Baronet is moving we must not discuss the past working of the Act called the Anomalies Act. The particular Sub-section which the hon. Baronet proposes to omit seems to give the Minister power to make regulations to deal with anomalies which may arise in the future, whereas Section 1 of the Anomalies Act only gave him power to make regulations in regard to anomalies which had arisen. I am not sure whether that is the only difference between the two. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister will correct me. If I am right, then on this Amendment, it would only be in order to discuss questions relating to regulations to deal with anomalies which may arise in the future and not those which have arisen and which have been dealt with in the existing Act.

§ Sir B. PETO

I gave very definite consideration to that point and Sub-section (2) of Clause 11 gave the Minister what semed to be precisely the same powers to make regulations as those which he already possessed under the Act of 1931 called the Anomalies Act. But the Anomalies Act is continued under this Bill until Parliament otherwise decides and in consideration of that fact it is necessary to give the Minister powers to make regulations in respect of any fresh difficulties or anomalies which may arise in the future. Surely on such an 583 Amendment as I have put down, it is open to us to consider the question of limiting those powers to make regulations in respect of seasonal workers, so as to leave those seaonal workers with some practical benefit and surely I can refer, as I proposed to do quite briefly, to the present position and the nature of the regulations which so far have been made? I do not want to take away his power of doing what he has done in the past, but I do want him to exercise his power differently in future under Sub-section (2).

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

On that point of Order. I would submit that if my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) wishes to establish the point that these regulations have inflicted undue hardship on various classes of persons, he should be entitled to call in aid of that argument the experiences of the past, and would be in order in going over the last two or three years' experience in that regard.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I think that is so, and when I first rose to deal with this point I did not want to strike out all reference to the past. It is the old question that has so often arisen, as to how far one may discuss a point which may properly be referred to, but on which the discussion ought to be limited to matters that really apply to the particular Amendment before the Committee. I can see from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that in dealing with a provision enabling regulations to be made with regard to anomalies which may arise, it is quite relevant and proper to quote in aid cases which have occurred under regulations which the Minister has had power to make with regard to anomalies which have arisen in the past. I only want to guard against this Amendment being made use of to do what I have already ruled cannot be done until we come to the Clause, namely, to discuss the question of the advisability or otherwise of continuing the Anomalies Act as a whole.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

On the point of Order. I understand that the point raised here is that under this Sub-section the Minister has power to make regula- 584 tions, and I understand that the hon. Baronet is questioning the Minister's right to be given complete power to do as he likes in that respect, and is pointing out how that complete power has been wrongly used in the past. That is the issue here, and I think the hon. Baronet is quite right in pointing out that the Minister's powers regarding seasonal workers have been harshly used to their disadvantage, and in asking that there may be some limitation on the Minister in the future.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I think that is in accordance with what I have already said.

§ Sir B. PETO

That was my sole purpose in addressing my remarks to the Committee when you intervened, Sir Dennis. I do not want to give numerous examples, but I will merely indicate the sort of example that I have in mind—that of a seasonable worker at a seaside resort. Take the case of a man who owns a sailing boat or a rowing boat. The boat is put away for the winter and only brought out when the first tourists or trippers arrive. The man is taken on probably for the season, and he is pretty sure of his job. Very likely he carried it out the year before to the satisfaction of his employer. But the moment the tourists have gone, the boats are put away again, and the thing absolutely ends. That man is very unlikely to be the sort of man who will find, in the dead winter season at a seaside resort, employment of any kind to keep himself and his wife and family during the winter. In the past he has been entirely shut off, so far as benefit in respect of his contributions was concerned, during the winter months, and I hold that some benefit in the off season, when no work is obtainable, is a thing that these people have a right to, because they have paid in all the time that they could reasonably get employment, and they ought to be given, in return for their contributions, something which is of value to them, not a mere offer of something which they are very unlikely to be able to claim.

The previous practice, before the Anomalies Act, was unfair to the fund and to those who contributed to it, because it gave an excessive right to these seasonal workers, a right for which 585 people whose employment was not of a seasonal nature had to pay more in contributions, and I suggest in my Amendment that they should be entitled to one week's benefit in the off season as a minimum in respect of three contributions. That would work out like this: Supposing the season had a duration of 21 weeks, or the particular worker had 21 weeks' employment during the summer, he would know that he would be entitled, not to 26 weeks' benefit, as in the past, but to seven weeks' benefit, which would be something substantial and, I hold, a fair return for the contributions that he has made. Of course, I do not wish to pin the Minister down to that, if he can show any reason why what I have suggested as the minimum that the man should receive—

§ The CHAIRMAN

Will the hon. Baronet tell me which Amendment he is moving?

§ Sir B. PETO

I am moving the Amendment in the name of myself and other hon. Members, on page 9, line 22, at the end, to insert certain words.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I am much obliged to the hon. Baronet, but he has an earlier Amendment on the Paper, and, as a matter of fact, I called him to move that.

§ Sir B. PETO

I only put down the earlier Amendment in case you might for any reason say you did not purpose to call the second, and in case for some obscure reason, some reason not clear to me, the other Amendment might be out of order. As I was given to understand that my second Amendment, which I regarded as the substantial Amendment, was in order—

§ Mr. THORNE

On a point of Order.

§ The CHAIRMAN

Order. I cannot have two hon. Members putting a point of Order at one and the same time. We must have the hon. Baronet's point first, and then I will call on the hon. Member.

§ Sir B. PETO

I was given to understand that the second Amendment was going to be called, and I thought that was the one that you were calling. Would you perhaps now call the Amendment to which I have been speaking, Sir Dennis?

§ Mr. THORNE

On a point of Order. I understood you to say, Sir Dennis, that you called upon the hon. Baronet to move his first Amendment, and now he is not moving it, but he is moving the second one, which cuts other people out.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I was going to deal with that point. I called the hon. Baronet, and it was not clear to me for some time that he was not moving the first Amendment, which I thought he was moving, and then I suddenly discovered that he was moving his second Amendment. I was not proposing to select the only Amendment which comes between those two on the Order Paper; and therefore, in the circumstances, as I called the hon. Baronet understanding that he was going to move the second Amendment in his name, perhaps he will now do so.

§ Sir B. PETO

I beg to move, in page 9, line 22, at the end, to insert: but such regulations shall entitle any person covered by paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of the said Section one who has been employed and paid contributions for a period of not less than 13 weeks in any year to benefit, during the portion of the year when seasonal employment is not available, for one week in respect of every three weeks for which contributions have been, paid in that year. I had consulted your colleague, Sir Dennis, on the question of those Amendments, and I understood that the one which was going to be called was this second one which I am now moving. I had nearly finished moving it when you intervened, and I only want to refer to one argument that might be put up against it and which I hope will not be used. The payment to these seasonal workers of any benefit in the off season, it might be said, would be a deterrent to their endeavour to find work in the off season. I do not hold that that would be so at all. I think, on the other hand, that the knowledge that a man had had, say, 21 weeks' work during the season and that he would be entitled to at least seven weeks' benefit during the off season, would be a material help to the seasonal worker to get through the off season. It certainly would not be anything in the nature of support for him and his wife and family. It would be 587 nothing more than a little help to get through the winter season and would act, I think, as an extra incentive to him, rather than otherwise, to get work for as many weeks as possible during that period.

Therefore, while I am satisfied that it would not do to attempt to abolish the Anomalies Act of 1931 and to go back to the previous very unfortunate position, from the Unemployment Fund point of view—for, after all, to be of the greatest use to the great mass of the unemployed we should have a solvent fund and a reasonable system of working it—I want to limit the power of the Minister in the future to make any Regulation with regard to the benefit to seasonal workers which does not secure to them as a minimum one week's benefit in respect of every three contributions paid by them during the season. I hope the Minister will tell us that this part of the discussion will not last long, because I have put such a reasonable plea before him, and I cannot but hope that he will intervene at once and tell me that my plea is absolutely reasonable, that he hopes to accept my Amendment, and that he does not mind his powers, with the heavy duties imposed upon him by the Anomalies Act, being curtailed to that limited extent.

§ Mr. LAWSON

On a point of Order. Do I understand that the hon. Baronet has been moving his second Amendment?

§ The CHAIRMAN

Yes.

§ Mr. LAWSON

If that is so, his first Amendment, to leave out Sub-section (2), has been waived and is not to be moved at all.

§ Mr. COVE

On the point of Order. This is really important. The fact that the hon. Baronet is not moving his first Amendment prevents our discussing the point of the Minister having power to make Regulations, because I understand that the hon. Baronet's second Amendment is a restriction of the Minister's power, not its complete abolition. Do I take it, therefore, that since the hon. Baronet could have moved his first Amendment under your Ruling, but by mistake did not move it, the Committee has no opportunity of going back to his first Amendment?

§ The CHAIRMAN

We have now got past his first Amendment. I was under the impression, it is true, that the hon. Baronet was going to move the first of the two Amendments in his name, but he did not do so, and he has since said that he did not desire to do so. That is the end of the matter.

§ Mr. COVE

Would it not have been open under normal conditions, when the Committee was not labouring under a misapprehension, for another hon. Member, in default of the hon. Member moving the Amendment which he had put down, to have moved it in his place?

§ The CHAIRMAN

It is too late to do so now. The hon. Member should have put his name to the Amendment on the Paper.

§ Sir ROBERT HAMILTON

I do not wish to go over the ground that has been covered by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), but I think it would be for the interest of the Committee if hon. Members who wish to take part in this Debate put cases with which they are personally acquainted before the Committee, because there are a number of various classes of seasonal workers who are affected in different parts of the country. I propose to put forward the case of a particular class with which I am acquainted. In my constituency we have a number of people who work on the roads, and, owing to the bad weather during the winter season, they cannot work for three or four months of the year. During the remaining eight or nine months they are employed on the roads. At present a seasonal worker, if he is employed for more than 18 weeks, is unable to obtain exemption. Consequently these men have to pay their contributions during the time they are working without any possibility of getting benefit during the off-season. I put it to any hon. Member whether he would not feel it an intolerable position to be asked to contribute to an insurance fund from which he could get no benefit.

As the hon. Member for Barnstaple has said, it is sometimes put forward as an argument that these men might get benefit during the season in which they are working, but of course they do not want benefit then; they want it in the off-season when they are not working. I 589 have a case before me of a man who over a period of five years averaged from eight to nine months' work in the year, and he is called a seasonal worker. He is unable to obtain any refund of his contributions or any benefit during the off-season because he is a seasonal worker. That is peculiarly a case in my constituency, because there is no other possible class of insurable employment to which these men, living in small islands, can apply for work. I have brought the case of these men to the notice of the Ministry, and the Parliamentary Secretary gave it, his sympathetic consideration. I think he said that he hoped that when there was legislation on the subject this matter would be put straight, or something to that effect. This is the opportunity when anomalies such as this can be put straight. I know that there are a number of hon. Members who can put forward cases, if not as good as this, nearly as good.

§ Captain HEILGERS

I support the Amendment because I am interested in the beet-sugar workers who are classed as seasonal workers. They have the shortest season of all—less than 18 weeks. Owing to the location of the factories, work in the beet-sugar factories is the main occupation of these men. There are 10,000 workers in the industry, and 8,000 of them are seasonal workers; and when they have finished their 18 weeks' work they have no possibility of any other work until May or June. I support the Amendment, because they must have some means of tiding over the three months of February, March and April. I hope that the Minister will not tell us that they are allowed exemption. That is pointed out in the Report of the Royal Commission, but I think that no man worth his salt would claim that exemption. I ask the Minister's favourable consideration for these men to enable them to tide over the difficult three months after the beet-sugar factories close down.

§ Miss RATHBONE

On a point of Order. Do you wish that points which are contained in an Amendment down in the name of my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) and myself dealing only with part of the Sub-section should 590 be dealt with under the proposal to delete the whole Sub-section, or do you propose to take it later as a separate Amendment?

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Lady cannot discuss on this Amendment anything which goes beyond it. If she desires to speak on this Amendment she may have an opportunity of doing so.

§ Miss RATHBONE

I understand that the Amendment that is now being considered proposes to leave out the whole of Sub-section (2).

§ The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Lady had been in the Committee she would have known that it was made very clear indeed that that is not so. We are not discussing that Amendment.

§ Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE

I have an Amendment down dealing with this question which I think goes further than the Amendment under discussion. In page 9, line 22, at the end to insert: (3) Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of the said Section one shall have effect as if there were inserted at the end thereof the words 'But any person who has been employed and paid contributions for a period of not less than thirty weeks in any year shall be entitled to benefit during the portion of the year when the seasonal employment is not available.' I would like to know whether my Amendment will be called or whether it will be in order to speak on this Amendment?

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will be in order to speak on this Amendment. I cannot pledge myself definitely as to the other Amendment, but the probability is that, when the discussion on this Amendment has been dealt with, the later Amendment, which is on a similar point, will not be called.

§ Captain ERSKINE-BOLST

In my constituency this is a burning and vital matter to a greater extent, I suppose, than in any other constituency, because we have 25,000 to 30,000 seasonal workers in our midst. My hon. Friend referred to the principles of the 1920 insurance scheme, which endeavoured to maintain, I believe, the principles of the 1911 scheme. One week's benefit was payable under that scheme for every six weeks' contribution. Of recent years we know that that has been swept away, end the seasonal worker to-day finds himself sometimes inside and sometimes 591 outside insurance and never on any sort of solid and satisfactory basis. The Anomalies Act, I think, placed him in an impossible position. I am aware that the Minister has different views. I understand that he says that the seasonal worker does get benefit, in fact more than he puts in. The seasonal worker can only get work when it is available, that is, in the season. If he could not, he would become simply a seasonal worker in name, and would actually become an ordinary unemployed man. Last December I tried to induce the Minister to get me some information on this question. I asked for the number of seasonal workers in Blackpool and the aggregate amount of contributions they paid in; also the number of workers for a specific period and the amount of their contributions over that period. I did not get a very satisfactory reply. It came from the Parliamentary Secretary and was: I regret that the information desired is not available in respect of the 1932 on-season. An inquiry by sample into the benefit drawn by seasonal workers during the 1933 season is now proceeding, and I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend when the results are available. I should add that the figures will relate to the whole country and not to any particular place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1933; cols. 1802–3, Vol. 283.] I feel sure that the result of that inquiry will not be accepted by my constituency as a guide to the conditions that obtain there. We are a thriving, prosperous town and we exist on the seasonal worker. With us he is the normal worker, and in consequence we feel that he has a just grievance when he is unable to get any benefit in the off-season unless he conforms to almost impossible conditions. I know that it is possible to contract in or contract out, and on the face of it that seems fairly generous, but in my opinion it is a rather devious method on the part of the Ministry. Indeed, the Ministry says, "We know you will be coming to us for benefit, so just keep out." It is a sort of washing of hands, like Pontius Pilate. My people are so desirous of obtaining work that they do of their own volition come into the insurance scheme because they realise that they would otherwise be in a hopeless position and they hope to get a little work in the off-season. This is such a grave issue with us that I 592 earnestly ask the Minister to give it very favourable consideration. I am sure he will forgive me mentioning the old tag—"What Lancashire thinks to-day, England will think to-morrow." I will go further and say that what Blackpool thinks to-day, Lancashire thinks to-morrow, and England thinks afterwards. My constituency is of one mind in this matter, and I hope that its view will be shared by the Minister. I earnestly beg him to give sympathetic consideration to this very reasonable request.

§ Mr. CROSSLEY

I very much regret to find myself opposing the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool (Captain Erskine-Bolst), for most of my constituents go to his constituency in wakes week to recruit their health for the year. I feel that all the arguments we have heard so far have been based upon the assumption that, in fact, the seasonal worker does obtain more or less regular work during his own season and is unable to draw but a very small proportion of benefit during that period. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend noticed a written answer which appears in to-day's OFFICIAL REPORT which shows a rather different state of things. It is stated, in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Banbury (Major Edmondson) that an analysis over the country of seasonal workers shows that the percentage of men who drew benefit during the course of the season was 48.1 and of women 42.5 per cent. for an average respectively of 39 days and 35 days, and the percentage of the season for which benefit was received was 28.5 and 28.2 respectively. Further, I think I remember an answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) in which it was shown that the workers at Margate, who can reasonably be compared to those of Blackpool, though they are less numerous, drew in benefit more than four times what they contributed to the fund.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

Suppose they gave us the figures for Oldham and for other industrial areas showing the amount the cotton people have paid in and drawn out, would the hon. Member defend the refusal of benefit to workers in Oldham because they had drawn out far more than they had paid in?

§ Mr. CROSSLEY

But they are available for work throughout the year; they are in occupations in which they expect to be employed throughout the year; and I do not know that one could complain about the present regulations on that point. The decision of the umpire definitely laid it down that a worker going into seasonal employment must have been in seasonal employment for three years before he could—

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

I do not want to interrupt, but I think we ought to have this point clear. After two years the presumption is raised that a person has become a seasonal worker. Before the expiration of two years it is for the man or woman who is applying for benefit to rebut the presumption that he or she has become a seasonal worker, but at the end of two years that presumption is put forward, and the great danger in every case is that after two years they become seasonal workers.

§ Mr. CROSSLEY

There is another safeguard, that under Clause 2 and Clause 19 of this Bill there are perfectly good methods of bringing a class of persons who are special sufferers, such as the class for whom the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) spoke, into the provisions of the Bill and exempt them from the working of the Anomalies Act. Furthermore, under this Bill there is the great difference that if a seasonal worker has not got his seven contributions during the off-season and does not come on to full insurance then instead of going, as now, to the public assistance committees he is dealt with under Part II of this Bill. I maintain that that makes a very big distinction. We must remember that this is an insurance fund, a fund which is rightly intended to be watertight. It had got into a weak financial position two years ago, and in justice to those workers for whom the fund is properly established it would be a great shame for us to undo what has been done since with a view to putting the fund on a more financially stable basis. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will not be passed.

§ Mr. COVE

I shall not spend much time on this comparatively narrow point, which we shall be able to discuss later, and I am of the opinion that it would be a good thing if we could take a vote on 594 it very soon. I rise to urge the Minister to accept the Amendment, though it does not go as far as I would like. I have seasonal workers in my constituency. Porthcawl is a very beautiful place in which to live, and is exceptionally healthy and inviting to visitors, and the impression has got abroad that men who have got work in this very beautiful seaside resort went there with the idea of dodging work in other areas. The suggestion was that they could get an out-of-doors job there for the season, and when it was finished—before we passed the Anomalies Act—could draw insurance for the rest of the year. In other words, they had a very nice occupation in a beautiful place in the summer time, and for the rest of the year were "on the dole," as it was called in those days. As a matter of fact, the men did not go there because it was a beautiful place, but out of sheer necessity. They had been hunting everywhere for jobs. In the hinterland there is the colliery industry. Practically all those men were miners who had tramped the valleys in search of work at their ordinary occupations, but had failed to get it, and had to take anything which they could get. They did not take seasonal work because is was seasonal, but only because it was the only work they could find. Under the present regulations they may now pay insurance during the whole of the season when they are working, and then find it is absolutely impossible for them to get any benefit.

The Minister was given powers some time ago to deal with what were spoken of as outrageous cases, but we have seen this afternoon how the operation of those powers has inflicted very great injustices. It has been shown that a man can pay insurance for nine months and get no benefit. From what was said during the discussions when the Minister was given the powers to which I have referred, one would imagine that we were dealing with cases of men working for one week and getting benefit for the rest of the year. Now it is perfectly clear that the law which we passed to deal with these supposed glaring cases of malingering is being used to penalise men who are good workers and ought to get insurance benefit. I am pleased to associate myself with this step in the right direction, even though it goes no 595 further, which we are now asked to take. As far as I can sum up the views of the Committee, I think there is a strong feeling that grave injustices exist and that we ought to take steps to eradicate them. I hope the Minister will not force us into the Lobby, but if he does so I shall have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

§ Mr. DENMAN

I do not pretend to know enough about the facts of seasonal employment to judge whether this Amendment provides the best way of dealing with the problem, but I wish to add my voice to those which have appealed to the Minister to treat this problem with sympathy. Only last week I had representations made to me from my own constituency by one employed in the ice-cream trade. Of course, we all know that that is a seasonal occupation. Those workers are paying contributions all the summer and not getting benefit when they need it in the winter. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) stressed the necessity of maintaining the principles of insurance, but surely one of the elementary principles is that a person who pays his premiums shall have a reasonable possibility of receiving benefit. It was represented to me that these workers have no chance whatever of ever making a claim to benefit, and I feel it is a real hardship that they should have to pay without any chance of getting benefit.

§ Mr. CROSSLEY

I would point out that the aggregate of claims was greatly in excess of the total of contributions.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

So it is in the case of mining and of cotton. It is all right in the case of cotton, though!

§ Mr. DENMAN

I am dealing with representations made to me by a particular class of workers. There are 200 of them in Leeds. The fact that they are a small number does not lessen the hardship to them. I am sure the Minister will deal sympathetically with this limited problem.

§ Miss HORSBRUGH

I think there is a distinct amount of misunderstanding of the situation, and I would ask the Minister to enlighten us as to the facts 596 of the case. Instance after instance has been given by hon. Members of workers in different employments who are paying insurance but getting nothing out of the fund, and I think the idea has got about that in these particular cases there is no insurance at all, that it is merely a case of paying in with no chance of getting anything back. If that be really so surely it is an unfair arrangement, certainly it is not insurance. On the other hand, we hear that there is a very large percentage of these people who are drawing insurance benefits. Therefore, I would like to hear from the Minister what are the real facts. If there are occupations in which there is not the slightest chance of the employé being unemployed, and he still wishes to pay and not to be exempt from paying, we should like to know what those occupations are and why those people are remaining in the insurance scheme when it certainly does not give insurance.

I have always felt—although I have realised that it cannot be the case—that there was something to be said for the insured worker who has been insured all his life and never drawn anything out of the fund at all, having the right of claiming back in his old age all or any of the contributions which he has paid. That is how it ought to be if this is an insurance scheme. You have the chance of paying in, in order that you may have the chance of drawing out. You may continue in employment all your life, in which case you draw out nothing. The contrary statement has been made here this afternoon, and I should like to have further information on the point, especially in the light of the written answer which appears in to-day's OFFICIAL REPORT. I may be making a wrong statement on this point, and I should like an answer from the Minister, as to whether changes have lately been made by regulation or otherwise, which make the lot of the seasonal worker easier.

I lately had a case, which I thought was extremely hard, of a labourer who had tried to get work, but had been unable to obtain it except as a showman's labourer. He discovered that he would be registered as a seasonal worker, and I at once thought that that was surely not fair. The man had not been able to find any other work in the way of labouring, and it seemed to put him in a worse position by taking work as a 597 showman's labourer than if he had secured no labouring at all. On considering the matter further, I realised that other labourers who had taken no work would, in the six months, have run out of benefit. By taking work as a showman's labourer, the man had not put himself into a worse position, because at the end of the time, and after the season was over, he would not have received anything if he had had no work at all, and he would also run out of benefit during the six months. I want to know how this man can again become a nonseasonal worker. I believe that the regulations have lately been changed, and that the minimum number of contributions during the on-season brings him back as a seasonal worker for the whole year and the next year.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

The matter was not dealt with by regulation, but by umpire's decision.

§ Miss H0RSBRUGH

I thank the hon. Member. I was not quite sure of the matter, and I would like a clear understanding as to how a seasonal worker in the on-season can become a full-time worker, and how long it lasts. The main points to which I would like the Minister to reply is whether seasonal workers as a whole are getting anything in return for their contributions, whether the majority are getting something in return and that it is insurance; and further, that they are no worse off for taking seasonal work than if they remained unemployed? Lastly, what are their chances of getting back to full-time insurance?

§ Mr. LAWSON

I would like to ask if the Minister can now see his way to answer the points which have been raised. I know that he wishes to give as many Members as possible a chance of speaking, but it is now nearly 20 minutes past five, and discussion upon this Clause will come to an end at half-past seven. Because the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has been ruled out, and the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) did not move his first one, we have not yet had an opportunity of discussing the matter. We have been dealing with the Regulations, but we have not had an opportunity of dealing with the general administration.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

A good many hon Members have wanted to get up, and I did not like to interfere, but I will very willingly reply to the points which have been made. First of all, I wish to call attention to the wording and to the form of the Amendment which we have been discussing. It reads: but such regulations shall entitle any person covered by paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of the said section one who has been employed and paid contributions for a period of not less than thirteen weeks in any year to benefit, during the portion of the year when seasonal employment is not available, for one week in respect of every three weeks for which contributions have been paid in that year. When I have explained what the Amendment means, the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) will no doubt be surprised. It means that after the seasonal worker has paid 13 contributions, amounting to a sum of less than 13s., he will be entitled to get, as a matter of course, rather more than four weeks' benefit, that is, rather more than £4, in the off-season. The Amendment imposes no requirement at all, even that he must be unemployed, and it will follow that a man who might be employed after having paid 13s. would then proceed to draw £4 during the off-season.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

Is it not a fact that such a man has first to satisfy the statutory conditions? The first statutory condition has to be fulfilled.

§ Sir B. PETO

Nobody is entitled to benefit unless he is out of work. That is a fundamental principle, and the right, hon. Gentleman knows that.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

That is not what the Amendment has said. I was going on to assume, I hope in the hon. Baronet's favour, that that was what was meant by the Amendment, because it is on those lines that the whole discussion has taken place. The Amendment seeks to deal with classes of persons who, during the on-season, are engaged the whole time. They pay contributions but they do not draw benefit. That is really the point of substance which lies behind the Amendment. The hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) drew attention to an answer which appears in to-day's OFFICIAL REPORT. It points out that we have made a sample inquiry, which is the normal 599 method, as the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) knows, of arriving at an estimate in certain cases. The answer says: A full report of the results of the inquiry will appear in the February issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette. This inquiry shows, as the hon. Member for Dundee has said, the percentage of people receiving benefit or transitional payments as no less than 48 per cent. during the season. The average duration of the season was five months four days for men, and four months 16 days for women. The answer states: Among the men, salmon fishers, waiters, and certain classes of labourers received amounts well in excess of the average, and the same is true among women, of kipperers and other fish workers. Then it goes on in the last paragraph: From the sample, it appears that the benefit and transitional payments received during the 1933 season were well in excess of the amount of the contributions paid by workers, employers and the State and was over three times as great as the amount of the contributions paid by all the seasonal workers, including those who were not unemployed during the season."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1934; cols. 373–4, Vol. 285.] Therefore there are large numbers of seasonal workers who, during their season, are not unemployed and who in consequence pay contributions for which they get nothing.

§ Sir B. PETO

What becomes of the 52 per cent.? Owing to the nature of the inquiry there is no evidence as to their contributions.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

Clearly, if they are unemployed during their season, they get benefit.

§ Sir Mr. A. BEVAN

In their season.

§ Sir Sir H. BETTERTON

The Committee must really make up their minds whether we are discussing a pension scheme or an insurance scheme, and if it is intended to make this a pension scheme the Committee must say so. It is not my view, and it was not the view of the Labour Government in 1931 when the position of those who do not get employment at all in the off-season was considered. Unless it is a pension scheme, you cannot expect, and it would not be right to ask, 600 contributors to provide pensions for those who in the off-season are doing no work at all. There is one further point which has already been referred to. If a seasonal worker is aggrieved by the operation of the regulation, he may take his exemption, if his normal employment does not extend over 18 weeks in the year. The third point to which I want to draw attention is that there are a certain number of persons who are classed as seasonal workers but who get a certain amount of work in the off-season. The Act says that if that period of employment is substantial, such a worker is no longer regarded as a seasonal worker, and the regulations do not apply to him.

The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said quite truly that the Umpire has said that a man is employed for a substantial period if he is employed for one-quarter of the off-season. I do not think that it is very unreasonable to say that if a man is not employed for as much as one-quarter of the off-season, he should still be entitled to draw benefit in respect of contributions which he has paid. The hon. Member for Dundee asked whether I knew of any case where a seasonal worker's employment during the season was such as to fall into a certain category. No such case has been brought to my notice. I would remind the Committee that the procedure set up under the Act has been simplified in this regard, so I am just going to refer to it. It is open to me to put formally to the Advisory Committee under the existing Act, draft regulations for their consideration, but as at present advised I do not propose to draft fresh regulations. I will willingly put to that Committee any case or any class of case where it seems to any body of persons that they are being unfairly treated by the regulations as they now exist. It is the business of the Advisory Committee, as it will be the business of the new body, to consider this matter from time to time, when draft regulations are submitted to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) said that I exercised this right of making regulations quite arbitrarily, and that therefore I was to be criticised for making regulations which were acting unfairly. The Committee will remember, however, that this very point was provided for in the Act 601 passed by the Labour Government in 1931. Sub-section (6) of Section I of that Act says: Before making any regulations under this Section the Minister shall submit a draft thereof to the Advisory Committee, and that Committee shall forthwith proceed to take the draft into consideration and shall as soon as may be make a report thereon to the Minister. The next Section of the Act prescribes the constitution of the Committee, which includes representatives both of employers and of workpeople. That procedure, which was laid down by the Act, is exactly the procedure that I have followed from the very moment I took office. I have not made a single regulation that has not been approved and sanctioned by the Advisory Committee set up for the very purpose of advising me. Therefore, I am entitled to say that my action has been strictly in accordance with the obligations placed upon me by the Act. The very first thing that I did after I was appointed Minister of Labour was to set up an Advisory Committee. Draft regulations were put to them, were approved by them subject to certain suggestions which I adopted, and were then made as regulations. Some time last summer, I think in July, I thought that some of these regulations might be acting rather harshly, and I put before the Advisory Committee other suggested regulations modifying the former ones substantially. These again were approved by the Committee, and they are the regulations now in force. Therefore, with regard to this question, which has been raised in various parts of the Committee, of alleged grievance or injustice to any class of workers in any trade, I shall be perfectly willing, if any case seems substantial and worthy of consideration, to put it to the Committee for their advice.

§ Mr. A. BEVAN

Is it not the case that Sub-section (4) of Clause 11 of the Bill abolishes the Advisory Committee to which the Minister has referred?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

Yes; I meant to have said that. The Advisory Committee under the previous Act is abolished, but its duties are to be taken over by the Statutory Committee.

§ Sir B. PETO

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend two questions. In the 602 first place, I should like to know, in view of the nature of his reply to this Amendment, whether his objections to it would be removed or modified if the right to benefit in the off season were limited to those workers who had made no claim to benefit during the season—if, in fact, it were limited to the 52 per cent. who, according to the inquiries which he has made, made no claim to benefit during the season. My other question is whether, in view of the fact that the only way in which a seasonal worker can get out of being classified as a seasonal worker—which, ex hypothesi, is greatly to his disadvantage—and get back to his full right to benefit, is that he should have found employment for at least a quarter of the off season, the Minister thinks it a just provision that the person who does not get a chance of getting any employment in the off season should receive nothing in the way of benefit, while the person who gets employment for a quarter of the off season is entitled to get out of being classified as a seasonal worker and then to get benefit? The principle here seems to be that he who hath shall receive more, and from him who hath nothing there shall be taken away even that which he hath.

§ Mr. HARBORD

I represent a town where there is a number of these seasonal workers who work for two or three months in the summer during the fishing season or who work in the beet sugar industry. There are some 800 of them who are engaged in that industry. Their complaint, I think, is a just one, and one which should receive favourable consideration from the House under this Bill, and their employers would like to see them receive a certain benefit and a proper answer to their complaint. The point has been put very clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). They have done their best, paying their contributions to State insurance for seven or eight months of the year, and yet, although they cannot get any kind of employment in the off season, they are turned down. That is a hardship and a shame which should be remedied here when we have the opportunity.