UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

§ The CHAIRMAN

Mr. Aneurin Bevan.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

On a point of Order. I should be glad, Sir Dennis, if you could give me a reason for not calling the Amendment which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), myself, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern)—in page 14, line 10, to leave out Sub-section (1). I should be glad if you would, if possible, reconsider your decision and call our Amendment, which asks for the deletion of the provision as to the appointment of a Statutory Committee. All further Amendments that may be brought forward in this connection will be Amendments based on the existence of the Statutory Committee, and I should like to ask whether it would not be better first to discuss whether there should be a Statutory Committee or not? I suggest that it would be much better if our Amendment could be called, so as to raise the whole question of principle whether there should or should not be a Statutory Committee.

§ The CHAIRMAN

On this particular occasion I do not think I can meet the hon. Member's wishes. The Amendment which he and his Friends have on the Paper amounts, in effect, as he will realise, to negativing the entire Clause——

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

No.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I think I am right in putting it in these words: it amounts to saying that there shall be no such Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee as is proposed in the Clause. In the Committee stage it is the recognised practice to consider all Amendments on details of the Clause before considering whether the Clause in any or in what form should stand part of the Bill. That is completely different from the procedure on the Report stage, where it is necessary to put down a Motion to leave out a Clause if it is so desired. I cannot on this occasion go directly contrary to the long-established practice of the House in Committee.

§ Mr. MAXTON

May I make this representation to you? You say that you cannot accede to the request which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but may I point out that on a previous occasion when a similar situation arose, and you were unable to accede to the request, but told us that we should have an opportunity of raising the issue when the question of the Clause standing part was discussed, there was no discussion whatever on the Clause standing part; so that on that occasion the Committee accepted the principle of the Clause without having any opportunity of discussing anything but minor Amendments? I would also put this to you, that the Amendment which you are calling is similar to the one which we were proposing to move, in that it proposes to delete a Sub-section, just as our Amendment proposes to delete a Sub-section, and, if it were accepted by the Committee, it also would amount to a deletion of the Clause, because it would remove to all intents and purposes the reason for setting up a Statutory Committee. Therefore, the Ruling which you have given with reference to an Amendment to delete Sub-section (1) seems to me to apply with equal force to an Amendment to delete Sub-section (3). I would ask you, having regard to these two points—first, that on previous occa- 1599 sions in similar circumstances it has been impossible to get an opportunity to discuss the Clause at all, and that might quite easily be repeated to-day; and, secondly, that the Amendment which you are now calling is similar in magnitude and effect to the one which you are refusing—to reconsider the Ruling that you have given with a view to allowing the Committee to have an opportunity of discussing the important principle as to whether this Committee believes that the Minister needs to be reinforced in the administration of unemployment insurance by the setting up of an outside committee.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The answer to the hon. Member's first point is that it is a matter with which I have nothing to do whatever. As he knows quite well, we are now acting under an Order of the House. With regard to the second point, I would suggest that he is hardly doing himself justice by his contention, because he knows as well as anyone in the House the great difference that there is between the two Sub-sections in question. The Amendment which I have called, to leave out Sub-section (3), proposes to leave out a Sub-section which is subject to the main proposal for the establishment of the Statutory Committee; and, moreover, it proposes to substitute a Sub-section in place of the one to be left out. In the circumstances I have no doubt whatever in my mind that the two Amendments are entirely different, and that the Amendment which I have called is a proper Amendment to call.

§ Mr. MAXTON

I do not want to detain the Committee, but may I put this to you? I admit at once that the fact that the main principle of the Clause may not be given adequate discussion is a responsibility which the House must shoulder in view of the fact that it passed the timetable; but I would put it to you that that does not relieve the Chair of the responsibility of so calling Amendments as to provide for the most adequate discussion possible of the Clauses that are allotted to a particular period of time, and that in the past it has been found that that has not been the case. Recognising the limitations in the management of the discussion of this Bill that have been imposed upon by you by the timetable, we are urging you to see that as 1600 full discussion of the essential points should be given in the allotted time as possible, and we consider that it is necessary in this particular case that there should be a discussion on the main principle, which is raised by the first Amendment on the Paper.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I can assure the hon. Member that the very greatest care is exercised by the Deputy-Chairman and myself in the direction which he has indicated, of trying our best to select Amendments in such a manner as to cover all points as far as is possible within the time allotted for discussion. Of course, if the Committee were to take up the whole of the allotted time on the first Amendment called, it would be entirely out of our power to alter it. As the hon. Member will also know, we cannot do otherwise than call in the order in which they come such Amendments as we have decided to call. With regard to the other point, I must adhere to my decision that to select the Amendment which stands in the hon. Member's name and in those of his two hon. Friends would be contrary to the practice of the House. I would only add that, if the hon. Member is right in the contention which he put forward just now with regard to the deletion of Sub-section (3), he will presumably get the opportunity that he wants.

§ Mr. A. BEVAN

I beg to move, in page 14, line 29 to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert instead thereof: (3) The Committtee shall from time to time review the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Acts and if, in their opinion, any anomaly has arisen to the prejudice of any insured contributor or class of insured contributors, or undue hardship is being imposed in consequence of the interpretation placed upon any provision in those Acts, they may make a report thereon to the Minister and such report shall contain recommendations for such amendment of the provisions of those Acts as they may deem necessary. The purpose of the Amendment is that the functions of the Statutory Committee shall be mainly to look after the insured contributors, and not to look after the fund. As the Clause reads, the sole function of the Statutory Committee is to safeguard the solvency of the fund itself. They have no power to make recommendations to the Minister on their own initiative, because they consider that the unemployed person is being improperly treated. In other words, the Statutory 1601 Committee moves only on the initiative of the financial condition of the fund or on the initiative of the Minister, but cannot move on its own initiative at all if either of those two impulses is absent. Therefore, the value of the substitution that we are moving has both a negative and a positive aspect. Its first purpose is to strip the Statutory Committee of functions which we consider can properly be discharged by the Ministry of Labour and its staff. No case has been made out whatever for entrusting the Committee with functions of this sort.

Our past experience of the Department has proved to us that it is necessary that some watchdog be appointed to safeguard the interests of the insured contributor. It is difficult to tell when a Clause is being framed, what its administrative consequences are going to be. The whole history of unemployment insurance legislation is littered by Umpires' decisions and by administrative deviations from the intention of Parliament. Very often injustices have arisen against the unemployed person which Parliament never intended. That has perculiar application to the not genuinely seeking work formula, whose meaning was almost entirely built up by administrative practice, and at the end went very far from the intention of the House of Commons. Hardly a Member in any part of the House intended that that Clause should be interpreted in the way that it subsequently was. When the amending legislation was brought in, it was very belated. We believe that, if there was a body of persons to act as watchdogs for the unemployed man, keeping an eye on the administration, that is the only good purpose that this Statutory Advisory Committee could perform.

We do not consider that a Statutory Committee is necessary at all, but, if it is necessary, the best job they could do would be to protect the unemployed man against the abuses of administration. Functions of this kind should either be discharged by the House of Commons itself or by a committee entrusted with those powers, because there has been built up a body of case law in circumstances for which our constitution has not provided. The ordinary system of jurisprudence can be safely entrusted to interpret legislation, because it has been built up over many years. The judges are themselves persons of the highest re- 1602 pute and calibre, and they have before them eminent gentlemen who plead the causes and, when a decision is made, it is one that has been arrived at by the most meticulous examination and by expert information on what the Statutes meant. But when you have decisions made by Umpires, those decisions also interpret the intentions of the Statute. It is very rarely that the Umpire has before him, pleading on behalf of the applicant, persons of eminent legal standing. Very often those decisions are laid down without any expert legal guidance at all, and, in the absence of a system of jurisprudence which protects the House in the case of Unemployment Insurance like an ordinary Statute is protected, it might be said that a case is made out for a body of persons to watch that administration and that the case law built up by the Umpires does not depart severely from the intentions of the House of Commons in order that, when that takes place, recommendations can be made for an amendment of the law to bring it into line with the intentions of the House.

That is the positive aspect of the Amendment. Its negative aspect is of even greater value. I will read the Sub-section that I am proposing to omit.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I do not know whether the hon. Member intends to read the whole of the Sub-section.

§ Mr. BEVAN

I was merely going to read a portion of it. I will read none of it at all if that meets with your wishes, Sir. The committee will have power to make recommendations for the Amendment of the Unemployment Act: , being such amendments as, in the opinion of the Committee are required in order to make the fund, as the case may be, sufficient or no more than reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities; and (b) an estimate of the effect which the amendments recommended will have on the financial condition of the fund; and, where the Committee report that the fund is and is likely to continue to be more than reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities, the report may contain recommendations for the application of any sum towards the discharge of the liabilities mentioned in Sub-section (2) of the Section of this Act next following. Hon. Members will see that those recommendations are made only if there is a surplus or a deficit in the fund. In no circumstances whatsoever does the committee make a recommendation if, in their judgment, a wrong interpretation has 1603 been placed upon their previous recommendation. It may be that the committee will have made a recommendation to the Minister upon which an Order will be made, but in no circumstances can the committee, upon its own initiative, make a representation redressing a misunderstanding which has arisen. That, obviously, is a very important defect in the wording of the Clause, and I suggest to the Minister, that, even if he cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, he should, if the committee is still to stand—and I am not optimistic enough to believe that the Minister will make such a radical change in the Bill—he should enlarge the powers of the committee to include orders of recommendation upon its own initiative, as distinct from the financial aspect of the fund, and any wishes he himself may express.

§ Mr. HOLF0RD KNIGHT

Would the hon. Gentleman mind defining more closely, for the advantage of the Committee, the sort of deficiency he has in mind? Is that not covered by lines 35 to 38?

§ Mr. BEVAN

I was going to read that, but I was stopped by the Chairman: recommendations for the amendment, either generally or in relation to special classes of insured contributors, of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts referred to in Part II of the Second Schedule to this Act or of the provisions of any previous Order made under this Section, I cannot see that the point is met. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will turn to the Second Schedule to the Bill, he will see that these are practically all the conditions that apply to unemployment insurance, but that they can deal with them only as means either of wiping out a deficit or of dealing with a surplus. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will read on, he will see that their powers to make recommendations are contingent upon that situation. These powers are very considerable, indeed. First of all, they can deal with statutory conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit, then disqualifications, special provisions with respect to discharged seamen, etc., increase of benefit in respect of dependants, meaning of "continuous period of unemployment," meaning of "unemployed," supplemental provisions relating to right to benefit, rates of contribution, rates of unemployment benefit, and so on. Indeed, 1604 the powers of the committee will cover the whole gamut of unemployment insurance, except the right to intervene if the unemployed man himself is in distress. That is astonishing.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he considers it necessary, in the discharge of his duties, to set up the Statutory Committee to advise him upon such simple matters? Why have we been discussing Part I of this Bill at all? Hon. Members have been cheated; the whole House has been cheated. Many of us have been foolishly enough congratulating ourselves upon winning concessions from the Minister. The irony of it is that if we had reached the Clause which we have not been able to reach, we might have dealt with the point, but the things which the right hon. Gentleman gives to-day he can take back by Order in a few months' time. I accuse the Minister of Labour of wasting the time of Parliament, of giving us a fictitious opportunity, of making unreal concessions, of making believe that the House of Commons has been properly treated, and that the Minister is a reasonable person, and yet every one of the concessions which we have had in Committee he can get back by a regulation and by Order after a Yes or No Debate. If the Minister were honest, if the Government had the slightest degree of honesty, and if their desire to set up the Statutory Committee is buttressed by substantial argument, Part I of the Bill should consist of nothing except the setting up of the committee.

That is the position, and yet the House of Commons has been led up the garden for the last few weeks to discuss Statutory conditions, rates, children's rates, not-genuinely-seeking-work even, and the Minister has promised to make a concession. Looking at the first of the provisions—"Statutory conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit." The whole of not-genuinely-seeking work can be put back by Order, even after our discussion in this Chamber, and if discussion is necessary to guide the Minister in this matter, will not discussion be even more necessary in the future? Of course, we know why the Minister is doing this. I mentioned in Debate the other day that this Bill has been drafted to suit the requirements of the employers. I have before me the evidence of the National Confederation of Employers' Organisa- 1605 tions. I have also got here the report of the Engineering and Allied Employers' National Federation. The Bill is drawn up precisely on the lines of these reports. For instance, take the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations representing thousands of millions of capital: The outstanding feature of the past 10 years has been the extent to which the whole subject of Unemployment Insurance, in principle and in detail, has been dominated by political considerations. We are, therefore, convinced that the first essential to any new scheme is that a Board of Trustees shall be appointed and charged with the responsibility of maintaining the solvency of the fund. These Trustees should be empowered to modify the amount of weekly benefit, and the 'Ratio' and 'Yearly Limit' rules to such extent as might be necessary to ensure the solvency of the fund, with a further power for that purpose of increasing the rates of contribution. We therefore suggest, that a Board of Trustees should be appointed charged with safeguarding the solvency of the fund. And faithfully to his master's voice, the Government bring forward a Bill embodying the wishes of the Employers' Confederation. Now the first part of this Bill setting up the Statutory Advisory Committee has never been adequately defended by the Minister. I have read over and over again his speech on the Second Reading. Why does he need the advice of the Committee for this purpose? Are there not experts in his own Department? What information can these gentlemen give him that is not available to him already? What source of knowledge or inspiration will they have that he has not already got? They can furnish him with no new statistics; indeed, he will have to furnish them with all their statistics. He will have to provide them with a staff. What can he give that he has not got now? I will tell him—a whipping boy, a means of escaping his responsibilities, a means of protecting the reactionary Member of Parliament from the consequences of his reactionary views.

Since the Government tasted blood in 1931, their appetite for blood has increased. They discovered then, to their astonishment, that they can put through this House by Order, after two or three days' Debate, powers to impose deductions in the standards of livelihood of millions of people. Nothing happened. They got their powers. They used their powers. Having tasted that amount of 1606 blood, they wanted more, and set up a tariff advisory committee, who have made recommendations, and, as far as my memory serves me, the House of Commons has not rejected one. Each one has been moved at that Box in a most perfunctory manner. The Minister merely says, "This is the advice of the Committee. The Committee were set up for this purpose. We must have confidence in the Committee. Therefore I recommend these proposals to the House." The same thing will happen here. This is a means of avoiding the responsibility for unemployment insurance legislation. It is a cowardly and miserable device, and the House of Commons ought to be ashamed of itself for permitting it to go through. I submit that this sort of Rake's Progress which the Government at the present time are making, will bring the constitution of Great Britain into disrepute and disfavour among decent citizens throughout the country.

I have been looking through these reports to see what they say about debts. This Confederation of Employers did make one recommendation which has not been accepted, and that was that the fund should start off free of debt. We know very well that the present Government are an employers' Government. But there is one class of employers to whom they are more slavishly attached than any other, and that is the money-lender. When the producer interest say, "We want this fund free of debt," and the bankers say that it must carry the debt, of course, the Government obey the bankers, and the fund, therefore, has to start off with this £115,000,000 of debt. Indeed the Sub-section to which I have referred says that if they have a surplus at their disposal, they need not necessarily devote the surplus to increase the benefit. Oh, no; they can increase the £5,500,000; they can pay off more of the debt. For fear that the Committee will not have sufficient power, for fear that the £5,500,000 is not enough, you give them power to pay off much more than £5,500,000 under this Sub-section.

I submit that no case has been made out for the setting up of this Committee. It is a piece of legislative redundancy. Its sole purpose is to short-circuit the Legislature. Its sole intention is to re- 1607 lieve the Minister of Labour of his embarrassments, and I submit to hon. Members on all sides of the House that if they tell their constituents frankly that from now on the main responsibility for looking after the unemployed man is to be entrusted to non-elected persons—if they will have the courage and decency to say that to their constituents, they will be telling nothing less than the truth. If they say it, we know what will happen to them. We shall make it our business that if hon. Gentlemen say it, we shall say it, and we shall fight this provision in the Bill until the very end. If the Bill is passed we shall make it known throughout the country that the setting up of this Committee is simply a means of relieving reactionary Members of Parliament of their proper obligations.

§ Mr. JAMES REID

The Committee must have been interested in hearing what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) had to say. If I understood him aright, he prefers that the destinies of the unemployed should be left in the hands of the Minister rather than in the hands of the Committee.

§ Mr. BEVAN

In the hands of the Houses of Parliament.

§ Mr. REID

The result of this would be that the Minister would have complete charge of prospective Amendments or alterations, and I think it is a great tribute to the Minister coming from those benches that they prefer his arbitrament to that of an independent Committee. We know that when the Bill is passed the present Minister will continue to administer the Act for at least a period of years, and apparently the Opposition would prefer that the Minister should exercise his absolute discretion rather than that he should be advised by an independent Commitee. I am very glad to see that change of attitude on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it is a well deserved tribute to the Minister. The Committee is to be set up for the purpose of creating an independent, non-political organisation. It was thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite might think that the recommendation of an independent Committee would be fairer perhaps.

§ Mr. MAXTON

I am very interested in what the hon. Member is putting to 1608 the Committee, but I want to ask you, Sir Dennis, if it is in order, since he has covered the precise ground covered by the Amendment which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and I wished to move, and which you ruled out of order?

§ The CHAIRMAN

I am listening very carefully, and I am loath to interrupt the Debate if I can help it. The hon. Member will remember that I specially reminded him that he might have an opportunity to some extent of putting forward his contention on this Amendment, and I do not see, in view of the form in which the Amendment was moved, that the hon. Member is now in a position to call attention to anything as being out of order at present.

§ Mr. MAXTON

Even in the circumstances which you indicate, is it not a courtesy to the Committee to attach the speech which is being made to the Amendment which is under discussion, rather than to proceed with the discussion of the Amendment which has been ruled out of order.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I am very sorry, but I do not quite follow the hon. Member.

§ Mr. MAXTON

The point which I am making is that the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) has been talking now for some minutes and has made reference to the subject matter of the out-of-order Amendment but has made no reference so far to the subject matter of the Amendment which we are now discussing.

§ The CHAIRMAN

That may be a matter of opinion on which the opinion of the hon. Member and mine may differ, but at present he seems to be wasting time crying over spilt milk.

§ Mr. REID

I do not wish to pursue the matter at undue length. The object of the Government in framing the Bill in the way in which they have frame it, and to which the Amendment objects, is to create an independent authority which shall advise the Minister, and the idea was, I think, that hon. Members opposite might feel that their point of view would receive more attention from an independent authority than it would from the Minister himself. I am not so sure that we on this side of the Committee would not have been just as pleased that the 1609 Minister should have been in complete charge, but, in order to remove the whole question from the sphere of politics and put it into the sphere of economics, where it properly belongs, I think that the proposals of the Government are absolutely justified. We have approved of the principle of setting up a fund, and it is no use setting up a fund unless we make provision for the fund being solvent; otherwise, it would be a complete humbug to set up a fund and allow it to get into debt the very moment it started. The corollary of the fund is that we have Part II to deal with cases with which the fund is not in a position to deal. When we come to Part II, there will, no doubt, be a good deal of argument as to whether some settlement is to be made in particular cases. But here, after we have approved the principle of the fund, surely, it is our business to see that the best arrangements are made for keeping the fund solvent and not letting it get into debt.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now discussing the Clause as a whole without the particular relation to the substituted words which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) discussed.

§ Mr. REID

What I had in mind were the words which I understood were under discussion: Is likely to continue to be more than reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities. It seems to me that in order to discuss those words it is necessary to say what follows, and the general principles which underlie them, but I certainly will not pursue the matter further. I believe that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale would be more relevant when we come to Sub-section (5) of Clause 19 because that Sub-section entitled the Minister to refer——

§ Mr. COVE

We have got an Amendment down there as well.

§ Mr. REID

It entitles the Minister to refer to the Committee all the questions which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has in mind. I see no particular reason why the Committee should not on their own initiative consider these questions if they so desire without waiting for a reference from the Minister. Surely, that is a question which will be much more relevant under Sub-section (5) of 1610 Clause 19 than it is at the present time. The whole substance of the Amendment therefore is not very relevant to a discussion on Clause 17. The substance of the Amendment of the hon. Member is really to leave out this part of Sub-section (3), and if we leave it out we shall wreck the whole scheme for having a solvent fund. Other hon. Members have detailed Amendments at a later stage on the Paper and it would not be in order to discuss them now. One can see that there is room for differences of opinion on the details as to how the principle of solvency should be applied, but the Amendment of the hon. Member strikes at the very root of that principle. For that reason, I would ask the Committee to deal with this Amendment fairly speedily so that we can get on to the principal function of the Committee stage, namely, the discussion of details of a principle which has already been accepted by this House. The hon. Member is really raising the matter of principle all over again, and I ask him, and those who sit opposite, whether it would not be more in accordance with the traditions of the House to let us get on with the detailed Amendments which are on the Paper, and which, I am sure, require detailed consideration.

§ Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH

I do not think that the Amendment on the Paper is in any way contrary to the principles of this discussion. We have not at present accepted, except by the mere fact of passing the Second Reading, the principle involved in this Statutory Committee. We are entitled, if we get time and are in order, to discuss whether there should be such a committee at all. We are certainly entitled to discuss what its functions and purpose should be. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) tries to console us by a reference to Sub-section (5) of Clause 19, but it will be observed that that is a mere power to the Minister to refer matters to the committee. There is no power of initiative for the committee at all, except in the matter of cutting things down. If they are in an expansive mood they have to wait for the Minister to set them in action, but if they are in a restrictive mood they can act at once. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk justified that on the 1611 ground of the necessity of keeping the fund solvent. Is the Minister incapable of deciding, with the aid of his own experts, whether the fund is becoming insolvent or not? I should have thought that he was capable of such a calculation. I am not sure whether I shall be in order, but I am only following the last speaker who suggested that it was desirable that we should have an independent, non-political organisation because the matter concerns economics. Therefore, of course, if it concerns economics the Members of this House would be ruled out automatically, and I have sometimes been tempted to think that that is so. But it is not according to the constitution of this country to imagine that the elected representatives of Parliament are incapable of dealing with those things which come home most to us and the people whom we represent. The economic questions are everything to us.

§ Mr. REID

This House is not being forced to a consideration of this question, because under Sub-sections (5) and (6) any recommendations of the Committee, first, have to go to the Minister, and, second and more important, have to come to this House before they can receive effect.

§ Mr. GRIFFITH

Yes, but the function of the House is restricted. We are not to consider whether we can make the recommendations of the Committee any better. That would be far too audacious for such humble people as ourselves. Sometimes in this House we are permitted to utter an expression of "Hear, hear," or sometimes even some remote indication of dissent. If these principles go on, I suggest that the only function of Parliament should be restricted to making these inarticulate noises, because that is all that we can do if we cannot deal with the matter in detail and treat it properly. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), I have no doubt from his speech, would not have this body at all, but being wise in his generation he thinks that, if we are to have it, we had better give it something useful to do. He has suggested a round of activity which would be very much more beneficial than that which is laid down for it here.

I cannot help but be impressed by the whole spirit of the body as laid down in the Amendment. It is all financial. The 1612 Orders which are to be laid, and the Amendments which the Minister may recommend have only one object. He can put forward Amendments if they have substantially the same effect on the financial condition of the Unemployment Fund. That is in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (5). The only thing they are to consider is the financial condition of the Unemployment Fund. I should have thought that that was just the matter which the Minister could easily decide for himself, whereas the matters which are suggested in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale are matters which can much more be considered by the private Members of this House, each in their individual capacity through the knowledge which they have formed of the effect of this legislation on their constituents. I would much rather go into a debate and make suggestions as to the kind of matters that would come under the Amendment than I would on the broad financial propositions which alone are left to the Committee in the Bill, and where the Treasury have enormous advantage in making out a case in their own interests as to whether or not the fund was solvent.

We are here dealing with one of the danger points of the Bill. Clause 17 is a danger point, and we go on for another 17 Clauses and, by a remarkable coincidence, we get to Clause 34. In these two Clauses there is a barrier set up between Members of this House and the people for whom they ought to be responsible. The Minister, the local authorities and we are to escape blame, and this proposed authority is to be set up and used as a smoke screen. No further powers are given to that Committee unless we pass the Amendment. We are considering here a great deal more than the fortunes of this Bill, more even than the fortunes of the unemployed. We are considering a constitutional matter as to how far Parliament is to devolve its duties and what duties are proper to be devolved. That question is directly raised by the Amendment. If we are to devolve duties upon outside bodies, what kind of authorities are they to be? Every Member of the House has at times felt some uneasiness as to the adequateness of the Parliamentary machine to deal with all the details of our public life. Therefore, the question which we are now considering is one of enormous importance.

1613 Why should we devolve on an outside authority matters of this kind? What would hon. Members feel if it were proposed to devolve the future amendment of the criminal law upon His Majesty's judges. His Majesty s judges as a body are surely as capable of making as good recommendations as the proposed Statutory Committee, but this House would most jealously say that while the judges might administer the law they would not consent to a system under which the judges could make recommendations for the alteration of the criminal law, and that those alterations should came before the House of Commons merely for an "aye" or "no," without power of amendment. The matters which we are dealing with directly concern the lives of the people and are as important as matters which concern their liberty. There can be no liberty in people if they have not a certain amount of economic freedom. Although I distrust the proposal in the Clause and if the opportunity came, having regard to what I have learned in a description of the Committee's functions, I should be inclined to vote against it. I would rather, if we are to have it, that it had the powers suggested by the Amendment than those contained in the Bill.

§ Mr. TINKER

The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) urged us to get clear of this Amendment and get on with the Clause. I know, however, that he and his friends have other Amendments down, and if we accepted his advice we might find ourselves discussing one of their Amendments, and they would take the opportunity of occupying Parliamentary time.

§ Mr. REID

I hope that I did not give the idea that that was my object. Surely, the right time to discuss this problem is on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." We could consider the detailed Amendments on the Order Paper and then we might have ample time to consider this particular matter on the Question, "That the Clause stand part."

§ Mr. TINKER

It is very seldom that we get an opportunity of dealing with a Clause properly. To-night we have to get rid of Clauses 17 and 18 by 7.30. It will be impossible to touch Clause 18, and we shall not have dealt adequately 1614 with Clause 17. Therefore, we had to consider what Amendments could best be discussed. If Parliament had wanted to deal with this matter properly it would not restrict discussion in the way it has. Again and again we are confronted with the position under the present procedure as to whether we shall get a point dealt with adequately or whether it will be dealt with at all. I submit that there is no need for Sub-section (3), and I endorse the point raised by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. K. Griffith). Surely the Minister's officials will have cognisance as to when the fund is not paying its way. As the returns come into the Department it will be clear whether or not there is a greater drain on the fund than there ought to be, in which case the Minister could draw the attention of the House to the matter; but a body is to be set up to deal with that point, and we say that it is redundant. The Committee will be able to deal with the position if the position arises that there is a surplus, and they will have the power to recommend how that surplus shall be applied. A committee of this character will not know the real feelings of the unemployed and if a surplus should arise they may recommend that it be devoted to clearing off the debt and not to applying it to increasing the benefit of the unemployed. That is the fear that we have.

The committee might recommend that the surplus should be devoted to a purpose to which it ought not to be devoted, seeing that such committee would not be under the eye of Parliament. If this matter were kept under the eye of Parliament and there was a surplus, Parliament could direct the Minister as to the way the surplus ought to go. We should suggest that the surplus should be devoted to increasing the benefits to the unemployed. I object to the setting up of a statutory body of the kind proposed. There is no need for it. If there is to be a statutory body, we say that it should not deal with finance but that it should draw the attention of the Minister to the anomalies that may arise. I object to a Clause which seeks to take power out of the hands of Parliament and to place it in the hands of a committee which may not have sympathy with the unemployed.

§ Mr. GLUCKSTEIN

If the hon. Member will look at the Second Schedule, 1615 paragraph 4, he will see that it provides how the members of the committee are to be appointed. One is to be appointed after consultation with organisations representative of workers. Does not that make any difference to the hon. Member's view?

§ Mr. W. THORNE

Read the paragraph before that.

§ Mr. TINKER

The Chairman would not allow me to wander away from the point. I know that there will be a representative of the trade unions on the Committee, but he will only be one voice and he will be controlled by the majority. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

I am sorry that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment is not in his place because I want to put a question to him, as civilly as I can. The first part of the Amendment says: The Committee shall from time to time review the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Acts and if, in their opinion, any anomaly has arisen to the prejudice of any insured contributor or class of insured contributors, etc. Under the reading of the Amendment the Committee would have the power to make a recommendation with regard to any anomaly that may arise. That anomaly may relate to someone drawing benefit and they desired that he should not draw benefit. This is a point which has arisen before. The Labour Government argued on the last occasion in regard to anomalies that certain insured persons drew benefit and thereby inflicted a form of hardship on other insured persons. I do not favour the first part of the Amendment in regard to the power that it would give to the Committee. The last part of the Amendment limits the power of the Committee to the question of hardship, but in my view the Amendment, taken as a whole, is capable of being read in a way that I should certainly not stand for. I should not favour such a power being left in the hands of the Committee. We are dealing with a fundamental issue. We have been told that one-third of the Committee will come from the workpeople and that therefore the rights of the workers will be safeguarded. That is a very strong argument, on the face of it, to 1616 those newly taking part in matters connected with unemployment insurance. In my early days I was attracted by that argument, but experience is against it. Under the Anomalies Act an official board was set up consisting of seven people, three from the workers, and three other representatives with a chairman. There is an analogy in the proposal in the Bill. What did that board do? The former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) accused the board of not doing their job properly, and when one looks at the recommendations of that board, which included trade union representatives, it means, in effect, that to-day nobody can trust them on these boards.

Take, for example, the recommendations of the Advisory Board in connection with anomalies. The only criticism made by hon. Members below was the administration of it. The Act was good, they said, but the administration was bad. Who was responsible for that? The board was responsible by reason of the recommendations which they made, and yet those recommendations showed that they were incapable of having a trust of this kind handed over to them. My fears about this board are not modified because one of the members is to come from the trades union movement. Indeed, my fears are greater, for many reasons. There might be something to be said on behalf of that if the member was responsible to the trade union movement, but when he goes on to this board he is no longer responsible to the trade union movement, but becomes a servant of the board and a man who has a salary and terms of office that put him outside the touch of anybody. He is no longer responsible to any body, but is the servant of a board set up to do certain duties under the Act. He is not subject to recall or to reappointment. He remains there immune, and consequently that is no safeguard at all from any point of view. Worse than that, it may well become, in my view, a scourge to the trade union movement, because the presence of that man on the board may be made the excuse for doing all sorts of dastardly things and hiding behind him.

I cannot see the Government's case. The Minister has to take the responsibility for any deficit. He will have to 1617 come to the House and say he needs more money or less money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to do that now. Why cannot they continue like that? What access to information will this board have that it is not open to the Minister or to any Member of the House? The duties of the board are to find out the state of the fund, whether there is or is not an income sufficient to meet the demand. Why cannot the Minister do that without burdening himself with this expense? Every penny that the board costs will have to come out of the unemployed man's benefit, and when you are taking away from a man's benefit to keep this board you must show as a business proposition what duties the board is performing, which the Minister cannot do now. Any tenth-rate clerk in the Ministry of Labour given the figures can say whether the fund is paying or not. Any person to whom you are paying 15s. 3d. a week who has been a clerk could do so.

I cannot see any justification why you should need this board and a chairman with a salary of thousands a year. The real purpose behind this board is clear. It is to take unemployment insurance out of politics. The Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with one clerk can do everything it is to do. But in order to take this vexed question out of the House of Commons, and to make it less of a storm centre at elections, they propose this board so that when elections come Cabinet Ministers of all parties can say, "It was not us who reduced benefits, it was the board; and on it there is a trade union representative and he has agreed." The trade union movement is going to be driven into defending the reduced benefits, a position in which, whatever faults they may have had, I hope they will not be put in future. I hope the Minister when he is replying will tell me what duties these men will have to perform, what need there is to set up this board which cannot be met by the Minister, and why we should involve ourselves in this extra expense when the Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer can find out the fact and figures simply. Before embarking on expenditure of this kind the Government ought at least to defend it as a business-like proposition. While my feeling is to vote for the Amendment, I certainly view with 1618 suspicion, as I have said, the first part of it.

§ Mr. A. BEVAN

Why?

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

I will explain again. Under this Amendment the Committee have power to go into any anomaly. There might well be an anomaly affecting one person drawing benefit on which the Committee might say that that person is prejudicing somebody else's benefit.

§ Mr. BEVAN

I think the hon. Member will agree that the words of Sub-section (3) are the words that force the Committee to adjust the rates and conditions of benefit to the financial condition of the fund. If these words are left out and this power taken away, he will not be able to argue that one person is prejudicing others. I would like to point out that the words, "Without prejudice to any insured contributor" do safeguard against the danger.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

I only put that point in view of my own experience that one anomaly may well be set against another, and for that reason I view with suspicion the first part of the Amendment. The second part I believe is limiting. I trust the Government will give some explanation for this change being made.

§ Sir GEORGE GILLETT

I do not want to follow the hon. Member in the point he has raised about the position of trade union representatives on these committees. On some of the former committees their services have been exceedingly valuable and I should much regret if the hon. Member's speech to-day led to the withdrawal of any of those members.

§ Mr. MAXTON

Will the hon. Member give us an example of the type of committee he is thinking of?

§ Sir G. GILLETT

It was one of the smaller committees dealing with the question of unemployment, on which there were representatives of the trade unions, and that committee did exceedingly useful work.

§ Mr. MAXTON

But they did not become full-time officials or receive remuneration?

§ Sir G. GILLETT

Oh no, I said they were only small committees. I thought the statement of the hon. Member on trade union members serving on committees was exceedingly sweeping. I 1619 would like to point out that this is an advisory committee to give advice and assistance. Many of the remarks of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) would have been quite applicable to the second part of the Bill, but I cannot follow how they apply to this advisory committee which is being set up under the Clause now before us. The question has been raised how this committee might have been of assistance not only to the Government but also to those who are insured under this scheme. I would like to point out one very important occasion in recent years when I think this committee might have had an exceedingly important bearing. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, we first reached the point when the fund became what might be termed insolvent. I believe the first amount of the debt which finally accumulated to £115,000,000 came into existence during his Chancellorship. What would have been the effect if you had had an influential and independent committee to step forward at that moment and to say, "We consider that it is not fair or not desirable that this fund should be financed by loans"? The position would have been different.

Then you come to a second point, when the purposes of the fund were extended and benefits were paid under various names to those who were technically not entitled to them. There again you would have had this independent committee bringing forward the question publicly. When Mr. Snowden brought in his Budget, if a committee of this kind had reported that a debt was accumulating to the extent of £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 or more, and that no provision was being made for it, I very much doubt whether such a committee's report would not have had a very profound influence.

§ Mr. MAXTON

On a point of Order. I protest. I have been one of the few Members who have sat here from the beginning of this discussion and have kept absolutely silent so that I might have an opportunity of speaking on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and I am now listening to an hon. Member who is being deliberately disorderly and neglecting the Ruling of the Chair on this matter.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I am very happy to listen to any point of Order, but I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir G. Gillett) and at the moment I cannot rule him out of order.

§ Mr. MAXTON

The hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir G. Gillett) has not been in order for one minute since he has been on his feet.

§ The CHAIRMAN

It is for the Chairman and not for the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to decide what is or is not in order. I take it he raises the point whether the argument of the hon. Member for Finsbury is in order or not. As I have said, I have been listening to the hon. Member's speech very carefully, and I am inclined to think that he is in order; but I was about to say that he must not discuss the question whether this Advisory Committee could or could not do certain things which are outside Sub-section (3), which the Amendment proposes to omit. As I followed the hon. Member's argument he was suggesting that if this Sub-section had been in operation three or four years ago this Advisory Committee, acting under this Sub-section, could have made recommendations stating whether in their opinion the fund was sufficient and no more than reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities, and so on. I have been listening to what the hon. Member has said very carefully, and for the reason I have stated I think he has been in order so far; but he must bear in mind what I have ruled, namely, that he must not go beyond Sub-section (3).

§ Mr. MAXTON

With all respect I submit to you, as one who accepts your ruling, that the hon. Member for Finsbury was called upon by you to discuss the Amendment that is before the Committee. He has not come within 100 miles of the Amendment. He has not made the faintest reference to it in any way. He is now discussing a statutory Commission and the value that it might be. I know that you have other duties and responsibilities, but I have paid the closest attention to the hon. Member and he has not dealt with the Amendment even indirectly.

§ The CHAIRMAN

Sir George Gillett.

§ Sir G. GILLETT

The hon. Member who raised the point of Order has missed one of my points. It is quite true that I have not referred to the Amendment, 1621 because I do not agree with what it proposes, but what I do say is that the Committee which is being proposed under this Clause——

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now really doing himself an injustice and putting me in an awkward position. If he has not been referring to the Amendment he is out of order. The first part of the Amendment which we are discussing is to leave out Sub-section (3). I have said that I thought the hon. Member's speech was in order so far as it came within the proposal to leave out Sub-section (3). To that extent and to that extent alone would he be in order, but he must confine his remarks to that point.

§ Sir G. GILLETT

What I was going to say was that one of the chief advantages of this Advisory Committee would be that under this Sub-section they would make recommendations if they thought that the fund was in a condition that was insufficient to discharge the liabilities. I was referring to the position into which the fund got two or three years ago. Under this Sub-section the Committee would have been enabled then to report publicly on the condition of the fund, and that, I believe, would have been of very great importance to the country at that time.

§ The CHAIRMAN

That is all right and in order. But the hon. Member should not have stated that he was not speaking to the Amendment. I understood he was speaking to the first part of the Amendment, and not the second.

§ Sir G. GILLETT

I entirely agree. I was anxious to ask the Minister a question in regard to paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3). It refers to Part 2 of the Second Schedule. Under that Second Schedule are included a number of recommendations that the Minister may or may not make. If this Sub-section is left in the Bill are we to understand that if this Advisory Committee does make recommendations they in any way tie the hands of the Minister? Does the Clause in any way give the Advisory Committee power not only to make recommendations that the benefit should be reduced, but also that it should be increased, and would the Minister's position be different in any way from what it is now? Suppose that the Advisory Committee sug- 1622 gested that the payment to children should be increased and suppose that the Minister did not want to do it. Is the Minister bound to take that recommendation, or can he simply report to the House that he does not approve of the proposal? On the other hand if the Advisory Committee recommended that the payment should be increased by 1s., would the Minister still have power to say, "No, I think the payment ought to be increased by 2s.?" That, to my mind, is the vital point about this Advisory Committee. I cannot help feeling that some of the speeches made already refer much more to the second part of the Bill and the new statutory body that is to be brought into existence, a body which may have some influence upon the powers of the Minister; but as far as I can see this Committee is to be a purely Advisory Committee and I shall be glad of an assurance to that effect.

§ Mr. HOLDSWORTH

Where in this Sub-section can the Advisory Committee recommend any increase in benefit?

§ Sir G. GILLETT

I am not in the legal world, but I suggest that the hon. Member should look at the Schedule, where he will find the words "the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, Section 4, Rates of Unemployment benefit." There are mentioned one or two Acts which deal with the benefit. I believe that it would be a distinct advantage to have this Advisory Committee drawing the attention of the public to such things as happened two or three years ago, and it would not be a danger by any means to those who are receiving benefit, but would save them from having the whole of the debt finally imposed on their fund.

§ Mr. GLUCKSTEIN

On a point of Order. We are now discussing an Amendment which seeks to leave out the whole of Sub-section (3). There is an Amendment on the Paper later, which seeks to leave out a portion of that Sub-section. Would it be in order, in the discussion on the present Amendment, to refer to matters dealt with in lines 5 to 11, which in their turn refer to Clause 18, or are you proposing hereafter to call the later Amendment?

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is perhaps not familiar with the practice of the Committee. When the question is put it is put in such a way as to 1623 save subsequent Amendments to later parts of the Clause. The hon. Member cannot discuss on this Amendment the later one to which he has referred.

§ Mr. COVE

As far as I can gather from the the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir G. Gillett) we are opposing this Clause on the very grounds on which he supports it. He suggested that if we had had an advisory committee of this kind before, the fund would not have got into the parlous condition that it is in now. He suggested that an advisory committee, of this kind would have saved us from debt. It is interesting to notice that this advisory committee has extremely limited powers as far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned. If I am incorrect I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put me right. I find in the official explanation of this Clause issued by the Government this statement: The Committee will have power to make recommendations about the rates of contribution, but not the provision for the Exchequer contribution, to be equal to half the aggregate of the employers' and workers' contributions. I take it that that means that the advisory committee will have far more power in recommending increased contributions from the workers and the employers than it will have as far as the contribution of the Exchequer is concerned. My hon. Friend seems to be very much in love with the Statutory Committee this afternoon. If this body merely had the powers which he has suggested, it would be perfectly harmless, but in fact the Statutory Committee which is now being set up is meant to be much more than a harmless thing. If it is to be harmless, why, indeed, set it up at all? The Minister can do everything with the advice of his Deparament, that the Statutory Committee in that case could possibly do. I notice that my hon. Friend addressed his questions on this matter to the Minister of Labour. He ought to have addressed them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ Sir G. GILLETT

I did say "or the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is going to reply."

§ Mr. COVE

As far as I could gather, most of my hon. Friend's references were 1624 to the Minister of Labour, but, in this connection, the man who is more important than anybody else, is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His presence here is extremely significant. The Minister of Labour sinks into the background and the Chancellor comes to the front when we are considering this matter. Finance dominates this Clause. I remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer graced our proceedings with his presence on a previous occasion. That was when we were discussing the Financial Resolution. Behind the Minister in regard to this Clause, undoubtedly, is the Chancellor of the Exchequer determined to get his pound of flesh.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I hope that the hon. Member will soon come to Sub-section (3).

§ Mr. COVE

I am only observing in my own way that we are dealing here, not with the human interests of the beneficiaries but the financial interests of the Exchequer.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid that the hon. Members way is not my way. If he wants to have has way at all, he must keep within Sub-section (3).

§ Mr. COVE

I am endeavouring to keep within the scope of Sub-section (3), and I am sure Sir Dennis you would not seek to prevent me putting my point in my own way, so long as I am trying to confine myself to the question at issue. Sub-section (3) deals with the functions of the Statutory Committee, and I suggest that its main function is not to be concerned with the human interests of the beneficiaries under the fund. This Clause lays down that the over-riding consideration is to be the solvency of the fund. Hence I was remarking on the importance and significance of the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have here the dominance of finance in the whole of the administration of the fund. Sub-section (3) embodies another important principle. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has often been accused of wanting a dictatorship. Here we are to have the dictatorship of this Statutory Committee. We are to have legislation by Order. Would hon. Members agree to have legislation of that type covering the whole field of our activities?

§ The CHAIRMAN

The question of the power to make Orders comes under Sub-section (5).

§ Mr. A. BEVAN

On a point of Order. The second Schedule, to which Sub-section (3) refers, contains enactments in relation to the whole range of benefit. Alterations can be made in these by Order, in pursuance of Sub-section (3) which we desire to leave out. Is it not, therefore, in order for the hon. Member to refer, not only to the functions of the Statutory Committee but to the manner in which its recommendations would be given legislative effect?

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member of course would be quite in order, within certain limits, in referring to Part 2 of the Second Schedule, but he cannot refer to and discuss the method of making Orders, which comes under a subsequent Sub-section.

§ Mr. COVE

I shall endeavour, Sir Dennis, to keep within your Ruling. In a discussion of this kind on a narrow Amendment, and having in mind all the time that the guillotine is in operation, it is extremely difficult for the Opposition to put their case. I think, however, I am in order in emphasising that the Minister is determined that whatever else happens the fund shall be self-balancing and solvent, and that one of the first charges upon it shall be the repayment of debt. This Statutory Committee is to work an insurance fund. We are told that we are now going back to the principle of insurance. We are told that this Statutory Committee is to look round to see if there is enough money to pay the benefits accruing, and that, if not, the situation is to be reviewed at least once a year. That is an easy way of running an insurance fund. I myself, I believe, with the limited knowledge which I have could run an insurance fund if I had the power which the Statutory Committee presumably will have, of ignoring contractual obligations, and of saying, if there is not enough money in the fund, that the contributors must immediately pay more. I always understood that any person who took out an insurance policy did so with the idea that the premium to be paid, say in 1934, would be the premium normally payable over the whole period, until the insurance had 1626 fructified and the amount had been paid. This Statutory Committee is to have the power to say that they will raise contributions and lower benefits. That is the kind of insurance we are going to have—and we want experts from outside the Ministry of Labour for it. I think the real purpose of this Statutory Committee is to be found in the evidence of the Government Actuary to the Royal Commission. There we find these significant words: I go no further than to say I see no principle which would require the three parties each to pay the same. If present circumstances require the contribution to be put up, it does seem to me that, as the Exchequer is responsible for the whole cost of transitional benefit, there is a very strong argument for putting the additional contribution on one or both of the other two parties, and putting nothing further on the Exchequer. Therefore, the contribution of the workman or the contribution of the employer may be raised. The solvency of the fund is to be achieved at the expense, in the first place, of the unemployed. No human considerations are allowed to enter. Our Amendment endeavours under great difficulties to secure that some human consideration shall enter into the matter. The unemployed are to pay in increased contributions or lowered benefits for the solvency of the fund, and the repayment of debt. The whole business of discussing the details of the conditions of these people will be taken out of the hands of Parliament and handed over to the Statutory Committee. I cannot believe that anybody who believes in democratic government and has at heart the prestige of the House of Commons, will vote for such a proposal. It may be said that there will be some representation from the Labour side, and that some amelioration can be gained in that way. I, for one, will not support any oligarchy of this kind, whatever its composition, and I shall go into the Lobby with the greatest pleasure to vote for the Amendment and against the Government's proposals.

§ Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS

The hon. Member who has just sat down seemed to be discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and not the Amendment.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I think it would be better, and would shorten the Debate, if these questions of order were, as far as possible, left to me.

§ Sir W. BRASS

I am sorry if I have offended you, Sir Dennis, but I was merely saying that that was how the hon. Member's argument appeared to me. I propose to return to the actual terms of this Amendment. The Amendment starts by proposing to leave out Sub-section (3). As far as that part of it is concerned, I disagree with the hon. Members who have supported it. I think we want to have Sub-section (3) in the Bill, and I agree that the fund ought to be kept self-supporting. But, as regards the second part of the Amendment, which proposes to insert certain words, I would urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider that proposal. I would like, if possible, to retain Sub-section (3) and to insert some words such as are proposed in the second part of the Amendment. I have found in my constituency a large number of hard cases which have arisen during the last few years. The Amendment proposes to insert words to the effect that this Statutory Committee is to review the operation of the Act and if in their opinion any undue hardships exist, then they can make certain recommendations to the Minister. I think the Statutory Committee ought to be able to do that.

Under Sub-section (5), Clause 19, the Minister may from time to time refer to the Statutory Committee, for consideration and advice, such questions relating to the operation of the Act as he thinks fit. I would not leave the matter there. I want the Statutory Committee to be forced to make recommendations, if certain things exist. I want "shall" instead of "may." If the Minister could accept the words proposed in this Amendment in addition to Sub-section (3) he would then be in a position, not only to get the fund solvent, but to be able to look into hard cases. We should not be in the position of being told by the Minister when we submit to him letters from our constituents, "I have no power to do this or that because of an Umpire's or referee's decision," and I do not want again to be placed in that position. I want this committee to have the power to be able to review these things, not because the Minister asks them to do it, 1628 but because they have a duty to perform under the Bill in looking into these things as well as keeping the fund solvent. Would it not be possible to have both these things in the Bill, to have the committee set up to keep the fund solvent and make recommendations where possible either to reduce contributions or to increase benefits, where there is a surplus in the fund, and also to adjust any hardship which may exist? I should like to have added at the end of the Amendment some such words as: "with an estimated cost of what those recommendations would result in."

§ Mr. A. BEVAN

If the Amendment were accepted, the same position would arise, because the committee would still be under an obligation to keep the fund solvent.