CLAUSE 6.—(Amendments as to third statutory condition.)

§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton)

I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 14, and to insert: (1) Sub-section (1) of Section four of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, shall have effect as if there were inserted therein after the words 'offered to him' the words 'or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment'. When this Bill was first printed, I invited representations and opinions not only from Members of all parties in the House but from people outside who were entitled to express the views of those who were likely to be affected, and the conclusion that I came to was that there was, and is, a doubt sincerely felt by large numbers of people that the words "unable to obtain employment" might be so construed as to mean in effect a reinsertion of the words "genuinely seeking work." Having had almost more experience than anyone in the House of what those words might mean, I am determined at all costs to avoid any doubt, and it is for the purpose of resolving those doubt that I propose this Amendment.

The reason that I speak with some feeling about these words "genuinely seeking work" is this: They were part of the Acts from 1921 onwards; in 1921 they applied to those on uncovenanted benefit. Cases of uncovenanted benefit were referred to committees which advised the Minister, and we had to give a final decision in many hundreds of cases as to whether this condition of "genuinely seeking work" was fulfilled. In order to satisfy the condition, a man had to go from colliery to colliery and from factory to factory where there might be no earthly chance of obtaining employment, and there was case after case where a man, perhaps, went and badgered the foreman 206 of some works or factory which all the time had displayed outside a notice that no labour would be engaged except at the Employment Exchange. That experience satisfied me, and I have been convinced, that those words "genuinely seeking work" are not proper words for an Act of this kind. In 1924 for the first time they were applied also to standard benefit, and in 1927 they were re-enacted. The trouble arose in the construction of the words "genuinely seeking work." It did not arise upon the words "unable to obtain employment."

I am satisfied, as the result of representations from many quarters inside and outside the House, that the fear is real and sincere that, when it comes to construction by the court of referees or by the umpire, it might conceivably be said that "unable to obtain employment" was in effect the same thing as "genuinely seeking work." Let me, by reference to the Royal Commission, state why the words "unable to obtain employment" were inserted in the first instance. The Royal Commission, in paragraph 439, relating to the condition "unable to obtain suitable employment," said: If that condition were restored, and if it were administered in the way in which it was administered when it formed part of the Third Statutory Condition, the effect would be that a claimant would not lose his benefit unless the Court were satisfied that he knew that there was a possibility of getting work and he did not take reasonable steps to get it. It has been suggested that such a condition might be so construed as in effect to require the claimant to prove that he was genuinely seeking work. We do not think that such a construction would be right. Therefore, the view of the majority was, that, although there was a possibility of these words being so construed, it was so remote that it might safely be disregarded. The minority came to very much the same conclusion. The minority state, in paragraph 73, on page 411: We have stated that benefit should be continued so long as a claimant is without work, able to work, and unable to get work. We do not think that with proper safeguards as to interpretation there is any reason why the condition which existed in the 1911 Act 'unable to obtain suitable employment' should not be reinstated. At the bottom of the same page, in paragraph 74, it says: It must be made clear that the only other occasion on which a claimant might 207 fail to satisfy this condition would be if it were proved that he knew that suitable employment was available and he made no reasonable efforts to obtain it. The condition would thus only apply in cases where a claimant had shown by his acts that he preferred benefit to work. It will be seen that there was a gap which both the majority and the minority thought ought to be closed. The case, of course, was that of a man who knew that work was available and did not apply for it. There is common ground with regard to that matter. The Amendment strikes out from the Bill Sub-section 1 of Clause 6, and inserts, in Section 4 of the Act of 1930, the words of the Amendment which I have moved. As very few hon. Members will have a copy of the Act of 1930 before them, perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I read from it. Section 4 of that Act reads as follows: If on a claim for benefit it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant, after a situation in any employment which is suitable in his case has been notified to him by an Employment Exchange or other recognised agency, or by or on behalf of an employer as vacant or about to become vacant, has without good cause refused or failed to apply for such situation, or refused to accept such situation when offered to him. At that point, after those words, I propose to close the gap to which I have referred by inserting the words in the Amendment, which reads that this Section shall have effect as if there were inserted therein after the words offered to him,' the words 'or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment, I do not think that I need read the rest. From what I have said, I have made it clear that, on the one hand, I have closed the gap to which both reports of the Royal Commission have referred, and at the same time I have made it abundantly clear that there is no question now of the restoration of words equivalent to "genuinely seeking work." I have put the onus of proof upon the officer of the Ministry in this matter in the same way as the onus is upon him in regard to the other cases referred to in this Section. When I introduced the Bill on Second Reading I said in all good faith that I was prepared to welcome constructive suggestions to make the Act 208 as good an Act as it could possibly be, and I believe that this suggestion, coming as it does, not from one quarter but from many quarters, goes the whole way to meet a position of which I ought to take notice. I explained why the words were originally put into the Bill, and I have explained the reasons which have induced me to take them out and to insert other words. I claim that I have, in this matter at any rate, fulfilled the promise to give full and fair consideration to any suggestions from whatever quarter they come if I believed such suggestions tended towards making the Bill a better Measure.

§ Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN

This is a very difficult matter to discuss, because we have only just had the Amendment put into our hands.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

It has only just been drafted.

§ Mr. BEVAN

It is very difficult to visualise its full effect. I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the administrative reasons which have led him to change the wording of the 1930 Act at all. He has mentioned the minority and majority reports of the Royal Commission, but what experience in the Ministry of Labour and at the exchanges has led him to desire any alteration at all? We have not heard. I have not heard from any official at the exchanges any effective criticism of the existing procedure.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has put his point on procedure and has asked the Minister for further information, and I do not think that he ought to make a speech at this point on the Amendment.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

It is a perfectly fair question, but obviously one which I cannot adequately answer across the Table at this stage. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the answer is to be found in the evidence which was tendered to the Royal Commission and upon which both the majority and the minority made their report. I think that it would be agreed that I would incur a very serious responsibility if, having had this report before me, I had done nothing to meet the case, which I have endeavoured to meet in a way which I hope the Committee will approve.

§ Mr. LOGAN

rose—

§ The CHAIRMAN

I want to keep the Debate in order, so as to prevent difficulties arising. My proper duty now is to put the Question, and the Question in the form in which I should naturally put it would be, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." I assume that that will be negatived and that Sub-section (1) will be omitted. I want to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that if that be done it will necessarily destroy the next two or three Amendments on the Order Paper. Hon. Members whose names are down to those Amendments perhaps may not wish to move them, but I realise that hon. Members who each have Amendments down may wish to raise some similar point on the inserted words on the assumption that Sub-section (1) is to be cut out and other words put in place of it. Therefore, I think I ought to remind the Committee that if they wish thus to deal with matters raised by those Amendments their only way to do so will be by Amendments to the Minister's proposed Amendment. We might to-day, for the convenience of the Committee, do what we have done on other occasions. If the Opposition care to do so, we might take the Minister's Amendment in two parts: First of all, strike out Sub-section (1) and then deal with the Question of the words being inserted in place of it.

§ Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD

Before I say anything about the substance—

§ The CHAIRMAN

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I thought he was rising to refer to the remarks which I have made. I have not put the Question. If the Committee raise no objection, I propose to put the Question in two parts, first "That the words proposed to be left out"—that is, from the beginning of Sub-section (1) to the end of line 14—"stand part of the Clause." I am assuming that the Committee will negative those words without discussion, and that will enable me to put the Question, "That those words be there inserted."

§ Mr. MAXTON

I am not clear on the matter. You said that you would put the Question that the words of Sub-section (1) stand part, and you assumed that that Question would be accepted.

§ The CHAIRMAN

No. I assumed that that would be negatived and that the words would be struck out.

§ Mr. MAXTON

Oh, I see.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD

I think the Government have put the Committee in a very serious difficulty this afternoon, and my first words must be formally to protest. I have already protested personally to the Minister in stronger terms than I can do in Committee at this sudden descent upon the Committee of a first-class Amendment, when only two or three of us knew of the substance of it a few minutes before the Debate began. The Minister had a very extended vacation during Christmas, when he might have brought his mind to bear upon the problem. Having, presumably, frittered away that opportunity, he appeared in Committee yesterday and carried through five Clauses under the Guillotine, and there was no indication up to 11.34 p.m. that he had it in his mind to bring before the Committee to-day a substantial Amendment of this kind. I should like to offer my sympathy to you, Sir Dennis, in the difficulty in which you have been placed owing to this eleventh hour repentance on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.

The right hon. Gentleman has gone some considerable way towards meeting the case which my hon. Friends and I have put up in the House, but how far he has gone it is very difficult to tell, because very few hon. Members have the Act of 1930 in front of them or the report of the Royal Commission. We have never believed that there was any need whatever for changing Section 4 of the Act of 1930, but now, after all this time, 18 months after the publication of the Royal Commission's report, yet when the Bill has been before the House for weeks, and on the second day of the discussion in Committee under the Guillotine, the right hon. Gentleman suddenly feels that there is something which must be changed in Clause 4 of the Act of 1930, which has been so strongly repudiated by hon. Members opposite, but which, so far as 211 I recollect, has never been repudiated on any occasion by the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary. We have never understood why they want to change it. We cannot understand why it has taken the right hon. Gentleman so long to make up his mind to change it, and, having made up his mind to change it, we cannot understand why he has said what he has said.

It is difficult to argue on the right hon. Gentleman's words in detail, because they are new to the Committee. Section 4 of the Act of 1930 has by general admission worked pretty well, and there is no reason for changing it, but the Minister, after mature reflection, has gone back on the words in the Section and wishes to insert other words. What is not clear to those of us who have had a minute or two in which to glance at the proposal, is the reason why the proposed words are to be inserted. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from the minority and majority reports, but it does not seem to us that Section 4 needs any alteration. It is made perfectly clear in the early part of the Section that if a man has refused an offer of a situation and put himself out of suitable employment, he is disqualified for benefit. Let me read the words of Section 4: If on a claim for benefit it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant, after a situation in any employment which is suitable in his case has been notified to him by an Employment Exchange or other recognised agency, or by or on behalf of an employer as vacant or about to become vacant, has without good cause refused or failed to apply for such situation, or refused to accept such situation when offered to him— That seems pretty well to cover the situation. The Section then goes on to say: or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that a claimant has without good cause refused or failed to carry out any written directions given to him by an officer of an Employment Exchange with a view to assisting him to find suitable employment (being directions which were reasonable having regard both to the circumstances of the claimant and to the means of obtaining that employment usually adopted in the district in which the claimant resides) he shall be disqualified for receiving benefit for a period of six weeks or for such shorter period and from such date as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may be. It appears to me that those provisions completely fill the need. But in the 212 middle of the words which I have read these further words are to be inserted: Or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of the opportunity of suitable employment. It is true that the words there proposed Or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour put the onus of proof upon the Department and not upon the man, but those are not the words to which I draw special attention. I want to know exactly what is implied in the words that the applicant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment. The provisions in Clause 4 of the 1930 Act seem to me to be sufficiently explicit. "An opportunity." What kind of opportunity? Any opportunity? Is an opportunity an opportunity when it is unknown to the man who is out of work? If there is a job vacant 10 miles away in another town, it may be an opportunity, but if it is outside the knowledge of the unemployed man, is that to be regarded as an opportunity? Is not an opportunity one which can reasonably, somehow, be brought to his notice, or which has been brought to his notice, by the Employment Exchange? This seems to me to be a form of words which may be the cloven hoof, and while on this side of the Committee we welcome this partial salvation of the sinner, not complete as yet, while we should welcome the re-establishment of Clause 41 of the 1930 Act, I do not feel that I ought to commit my hon. Friends on this side to the additional words which the right hon. Gentleman has inserted. I hope that one of my hon. Friends will move an Amendment to leave out these words, but if we are defeated on this, I must say that if, after reflection, we are as suspicious as we are at the moment, we shall feel it necessary to raise the question on the Report stage.

§ Mr. A. BEVAN

In the first place, I should like to associate myself with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has said in protest against this manuscript Amendment. The Government have been preparing this Bill for two years. Do I understand that the Minister allowed these words to remain in the Bill in 213 order to be able to make a concession in the course of the Committee stage, so as to be able to satisfy the Committee that he was in a reasonable state of mind, and that, after the experience of last evening, he thinks that the time has arrived to make a concession to the Committee? Obviously the Minister must have been aware of what the existing words in the Bill would have done. He has had long enough to study them, and I really must protest against this habit of inserting Clauses in the Bill in order to be able to take them out at a diplomatic time in the Committee. I would ask hon. Members to realise that if the Minister includes things in the Bill in this way so as to be able later to satisfy the Members of the Committee, then at once the Guillotine ought to be abolished, because there may be a lot of things in the other Clauses which we shall never reach—things with which he himself does not agree, but on which we shall not be able to force him to make Amendments because we shall not be able to debate the Clauses. I want to protest against that abuse of the House of Commons.

It is frightfully difficult in this business to understand what the full effect of these words will be. If hon. Members will cast their minds back over the history of this part of the Unemployment Insurance legislation, they will realise that the Ministry of Labour administratively has always violated the expressed intention of the House of Commons. That has been the difficulty over these words. I do not believe that there are Members in any part of the House who desire to see the not-genuinely-seeking work condition applied in the way it was in the Exchanges. In the last Parliament we had a very important Debate on this principle, and it was expressed in all parts of the House that it was absolutely undesirable that an unemployed man should be driven to look for work which he knew was not there, and that there should be organised lying at the rota committees in order to satisfy the officers of the Exchanges that men had actually been running about looking for work, when everybody knew it was a fiction. No one desires that state of affairs to arise, but it arose because Parliament incorporated in this legislation a form of words which made the test for work subjective, and not objective. It put the 214 onus of proof upon the applicant for benefit, and not upon the Employment Exchange, and once the onus of proof is shifted from the Exchange to the applicant, immediately all the difficulties of not-genuinely-seeking work can arise.

If the right hon. Gentleman will recollect, the Attorney-General in the last Parliament attempted to incorporate in the Bill words bearing some such interpretation as the Minister now suggests, and we rejected them. We insisted upon the inclusion of the existing language, because we wanted to make it clear, above peradventure, that the onus of proof must always rest upon the Exchange itself, and never upon the applicant, because if it rests upon the applicant, the test becomes subjective, and it does not exist in the presence of an actual offer of employment. I have had some experience of the administration of rota committees, and I know what happened. By this Amendment you are quite unnecessarily adding another test. There are tests already in the Bill perfectly adequate, and there is one situation that makes it unnecessary for the Minister to put in these words. It is that in almost every part of the country there are more men available for jobs than there are jobs available for men. That fact itself protects the Chancellor of the Exchequer from having to carry an additional burden if men will not seek out jobs that are there, because if one man does not get the job another man gets it, and the same burden will rest upon the Exchequer and the fund.

§ Mr. GLUCKSTEIN

Not necessarily. One man may be married, the other single.

§ Mr. BEVAN

There would, of course, be differences of that kind, but it might happen that you would drive a single man into a job and keep out a married man, and that would cost more. We cannot discuss differences of that sort; we have the actual protection as long as more men are idle than there are jobs available, and it is unnecessary cruelty to insist on the mass of the unemployed searching eagerly out for any opportunity of employment. They have not the means of increasing the amount of employment available, and, as long as they have not got that, this sort of legislation is unnecessary. I grant that this 215 legislation would be necessary if ever the situation arose in which employers were searching around for would-be employés and employés were hiding from them while the State was keeping them on the fund, but until that state of affairs arises, the necessity for this type of legislation does not arise. Coming to the actual words of the Amendment: if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment. If hon. Members will look at those words, they will see that it is the actual administration, and what has happened before, that we must keep in our minds, and not these words. What will happen at the Employment Exchange? The officer must shift the onus of proof on to the applicant. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Yes"!] Let us see. In the first place, the obligation to find out whether there are available jobs rests upon the applicant under these words. An officer of the exchange must, therefore, interview the man at the exchange to find out whether he has looked for jobs that it was within his knowledge he could obtain, so that he must shift the onus of proof at once on to the applicant, and say to the applicant, "So many jobs were available in that factory yesterday. Did you look for work?" "So many jobs were available at that colliery last week. Did you go?" He must say to a shop assistant, a girl, "This stores advertised a position the week before last. Did you apply?" In other words, the officer, in order to discharge his duty, must make a list of the jobs which were available in that locality, and must present it to each applicant for benefit to secure information as to whether they did, in fact, look for work.

§ Mr. DINGLE FOOT

Does not the officer have to prove that there were opportunities for work?

§ Mr. BEVAN

I said so. In every city, town and village in this country every day some job arises. I am not striving to make a party point; I am trying to say what would be the administrative consequence of this, and I am also assuming—I think I am right in assuming—that in all parts of the House no one desires to see men unnecessarily tor- 216 mented, and I really am apprehensive that this conceivably might give rise to some such danger, to which it is unnecessary for us to expose ourselves.

§ Mr. MOLSON

I am not quite clear about this point. Is it this? Suppose a pit was taking on an extra 100 men, and those extra 100 men were taken on, and the Employment Exchange proved that the other men knew of that opportunity, and did not avail themselves of it, does the hon. Gentleman pretend that when it is known that they were not seeking to obtain that work, they ought to go on receiving benefit?

§ Mr. BEVAN

I was trying to deal with that point. If there are jobs going in every city, town and village, those jobs always represent a very insignificant number for all the men out of work. Those jobs, presumably, must be known to every applicant for benefit. It assumes here that he has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment.

§ Captain MOSS

If he does not know about it, it cannot be an opportunity.

§ Mr. BEVAN

If hon. Members believe that these words mean that, then why do not they insert words to make it quite clear, or why do they have this in at all? The existing legislation meets every contingency. The officer will catechise applicants for benefit with a copy of all the jobs going in front of him; the applicants will know that they are going to be asked these questions, and you at once get the treadmill of search starting all over again in order that they may be armed with the right response to the officer. That is precisely what will happen. That is how the obligation will shift back on to the unemployed man. Seven jobs were advertised by an urban council in my constituency and over 600 men applied for them. Three men are required at a colliery, and there are 6,000 men at the exchange, but not one of the 6,000 knows that he may be one of the three to get a job. Therefore, the officer will be entitled, under these words, to insist that all the 6,000 men should try to get one of these three jobs. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members are talking without the book. If I was an applicant for benefit imagine the conversation which would occur. The officer 217 would say, "Did you look for one of these jobs?" I should say "No."

§ Mr. CAPORN

That is not the question.

§ Mr. BEVAN

The words of the Amendment are: Has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment. One of these three jobs was an opportunity for suitable employment—

§ Mr. CAPORN

Not if he did not know of it.

§ Mr. BEVAN

I am assuming all the time that he knew of it. There are 6,000 men at the exchange, and all who did not apply for one of these three jobs can be deprived of benefit under these proposed words. If the men know that they are going to be asked to satisfy that test, then the 6,000 men will troop to the colliery and ask for any job that might be given.

§ Mr. DAVID MASON

Three jobs cannot be an opportunity for employment for 6,000 men.

§ Mr. BEVAN

Hon. Members really are displaying the most appalling ignorance of unemployment administration. I submit that at the time these jobs are available and that anyone of the 6,000 men might have them, therefore, they are available to them at that time, and all the 6,000 men must apply for them because it is not known who are the three to be employed. The officer, therefore, is entitled to ask all the men whether they have applied for the jobs.

§ Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON

The officer of the exchange will send three men.

§ Mr. BEVAN

In that case this Amendment is unnecessary. That is, indeed, the existing situation and under it justice is done, because if an individual refuses to go to a job which is offered him he has definitely refused a particular job which he could have had. Under these words he is turned down for a job which he could not have had.

§ Mr. MARTIN

I think the hon. Member is right, he is on a sound point, but would he not be satisfied if words were added to the proposal to imply that any particular job should be notified in the 218 exchange, provided that the men were suitable? That would not be so objectionable.

§ Mr. BEVAN

What is objectionable is this. You put up a notice that John Jones requires three labourers. There are 3,000 men signing on at the exchange, and unless three men are sent, then 3,000 men must go to John Jones and apply for the three jobs.

§ Mr. CAPORN

That is not the case, and if the hon. Member will allow me I will tell him why.

§ Mr. BEVAN

I shall be delighted to hear the answer later on. I want the Committee to realise that all reasonable requirements of the State are satisfied under the existing law. Therefore, why expose yourselves to these dangers? Hon. Members who represent constituencies with more settled conditions will be very sorry later on if they accept this proposal. The best thing is to run no risks with ambiguous language of this kind, cut it out, and tell the Minister of Labour that he has under existing regulations all that he requires. We do not want to start this trouble all over again. Once the men know that they are to be liable to cross-examination by an officer of the exchange—and the officer will have to hold a cross-examination if he is to do his duty—the fear of that cross-examination will drive them into all sorts of futile searches for work around all the factory and mine gates in the districts. That is an uncivilised and brutal way of bringing employment within the reach of the unemployed. The right way is to send a particular man to a particular job, and to refuse him benefit if he refuses a particular job. Any subjective test with over 2,500,000 men idle will create endless trouble, will scare employers, because they will be asked to write endless notes, and I hope that hon. Members will consider the matter earnestly and ask themselves whether it is necessary to run these dangers. I hope the Minister will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. CURRY

The repeated interruptions which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has had to undergo shows the danger of the methods adopted by His Majesty's Government. The Bill is very complicated and all those who are 219 interested have spent hours and days upon a study of it and have tabled Amendments only after very careful consideration. It is therefore regrettable that the Minister of Labour has delayed so long in bringing forward this manuscript Amendment. It is between six and eight weeks since the Second Reading of the Bill when some of us, so far as this Clause is concerned, put forward exactly the arguments which the Minister has pointed out to-day, and the Amendment which we have tabled was put down in no spirit of party criticism but because our experience led us to be apprehensive of the very real dangers we were running in reviving what we said was the genuinely-seeking-work Clause. The supporters of the Bill told us on the Second Reading that that was not the case, and I believe, on the general case, it is held that there is no danger of a return to the genuinely-seeking-work Clause by accepting this Measure.

To-day the Minister of Labour has laid great emphasis on finding suitable work, but he did not mention the word which frightens many of us, the word "proof." We are apprehensive about the onus of proof being thrown upon the applicant. The purpose of the Amendment, as I take it, is to take that onus off the applicant and put it on to the Minister, through the proper officials. If that is so, we welcome it as a great step forward, but at the same time we regret that it has been brought forward in this way. I think it is unfair to ask the Committee to accept the responsibility for these words at a glance. So far as my friends and I are concerned we are glad that the Amendment has been moved, because the words which we fear most have been eliminated, but at the same time we hope that the Government will not prevent us having second thoughts about it. We do not desire our opposition to resolve itself into carping criticism or into something like a vain search for the Loch Ness monster, but, having regard to the importance of the matter, we do not wish to commit ourselves to the acceptance of these words to-day without further opportunity of giving them careful consideration. The Amendment to which my name stands will not now be moved because we have gained our point. With these reservations, I welcome the action taken by the Government this afternoon.

§ Major HILLS

I want to put before the Minister a difficulty which presents itself to some hon. Members. There is no doubt that the genuinely-seeking-work Clause is a matter which excites the greatest interest. When the Bill was brought before us we found a short Sub-section put in to meet that point. That we considered for some time. At the same time we saw that a very long Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1930 was repealed. On that we could make up our minds, for we had something upon which to decide. Now we have the whole of that long Sub-section reinstated, and put into the middle of it are two or three lines. I do not know what other hon. Members think, but I feel that I am quite incompetent to decide the question now. I cannot do it. We have considered the Government Sub-section, and that I am prepared to support, but now I am asked to give my mind to the effect of an alteration of a very long and complicated Sub-section of a previous Act. I respectfully say that it is rather hard that the Amendment should not even have been handed in last night. Had it been handed in then we could have spent this morning puzzling it out. Our brains are not as quick as those of Ministers, and we want all the assistance that we can get. We are put in a very difficult position. I admit that the Minister made one of his reasonable speeches, but we have to decide this matter for ourselves. I wonder whether the Minister could find some way of giving us rather more time to consider the proposal? It is a very difficult and a very important matter, and if it could be adjourned to the Report stage, or if some subsequent opportunity could be given, the Minister would do no harm to the prospects of his Bill and would give great help to his perplexed supporters.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

I agree that the words we are debating are of very great importance. Reference has been made to the annoyance caused by the Minister handing in a manuscript Amendment. I confess that I do not much care about joining in a heresy hunt on that score. I am more concerned that the Minister, if he seeks to improve a Clause, ought to try to amend it, even if it means handing in a manuscript Amendment. I would 221 sooner have a manuscript Amendment moved to improve the Bill than that the Minister should stand on his dignity because he is afraid to put in a manuscript Amendment. All Governments have done this sort of thing during the Committee stage. The last Labour Government did it on the "not genuinely seeking work" Clause. They did not even have their Amendment typed and handed to us. They bandied about words of which we knew nothing. They discussed them behind the Speaker's Chair, and then returned to the House, and we did not know what they were. If it were possible I would, of course, much prefer that Amendments should be on the Order Paper, but I want to make it clear that if an Amendment is moved to improve a Bill, whether the Minister is driven to it by numbers or by advice or in any way at all, I would much sooner the Amendment was made by any method that the Minister chose than that the Minister should have to defend himself against introducing Amendments in manuscript form.

Another thing to be recognised is that the Minister is on strong ground here. He is going further than the Majority and Minority Report asked him to go. That should be remembered. I hope that the Labour party will forgive me for mentioning these things: First this Commission was their Commission, appointed without the vote of this House. It was appointed deliberately by them and supported by them in private party meetings. Not only was the Commission appointed by them, but the terms of reference were chosen by them. The most damning thing of all is that evidence was sent to that Commission by the Ministry of Labour, then controlled by Miss Margaret Bondfield. The minority agreed to the words as passed in the Act. Both Miss Rackham and Mr. Astbury agreed.

Two or three considerations have to be taken into account in addition to the words. There are certain important factors which should be borne in mind by those who were not in the House at the time. First of all when "not genuinely seeking work" was abolished by the Labour Government it affected a far larger number of people than is now the case. "Not genuinely seeking work," even if it was reimposed to-day, would 222 not apply to anything like the number to which it formerly applied. The late Labour Government disqualified some under the Anomalies Act, and the means test has cut out large numbers of people to whom "not genuinely seeking work" would not apply. Benefit as a right from 30 stamps for, roughly speaking, a year and four months, has gone, and benefit is now a maximum of six months. These facts should be borne in mind.

There is another important aspect here. To-day we are not discussing merely "not genuinely seeking work." If a man commits this offence for the second time in 12 months he is now liable to a disqualification from benefit for six months. When hon. Members consider these words, and the liability of a man they should remember what they are doing. If a man cannot carry out this instruction his second offence in a year means that for six months he is to get no benefit; he can be disqualified for six months. When hon. Members put a penalty of six months on a man it is necessary to exercise far greater care than ever before. I hope I am not out of order in mentioning this, but the Minister would not impose such a penalty without very great concern. It has been suggested by one speaker that words should be added to the Minister's Amendment. We have taken the precaution of handing in an Amendment to the Minister's Amendment. We wish to have added the words "defiitely offered to him." That means work definitely offered.

§ Mr. A. BEVAN

Does the hon. Member's proposal mean the addition to the Amendment of the words "definitely offered to him"?

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

Yes, "definitely offered to him."

§ The CHAIRMAN

I have not the least objection to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referring to his Amendment, but I would point out that he must not yet discuss his Amendment.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

I agree that in the main they may be, but my point is this: It is not first of all the court of referees to which the applicant goes. He is first of all interviewed and examined by an insurance officer. He is asked: "Why are you unable to get a job? Why have you not gone and got a job?" The man replies: "I have not gone because I did 223 not know." But the officer says: "You are a pattern maker and you did not go. There is a pattern maker who has started and he is in the same branch of the union as you. Why did you not know of this job in the same way as he knew? Why is it that he knew and you did not know?" Of course the man finds difficulty in answering. It comes to this, that when a man is examined it is not an examination on facts at all but an examination on how the man looks, on how he appears to the officer at the time of the examination. A disqualification is to him a punishment of the most severe kind. It is a fine. Only facts should be examined by the insurance officer. You have no right to try a man on his appearance. Even under the Minister's Amendment the man will be examined by the officer. Supposing, as in the instance which I have just cited, pattern makers have been started at a certain place. I will reduce the dimensions of the case which I gave. Supposing there are two men in the same branch of a union living, if you like, in the same street, and one man gets a job and the other does not—

§ Mr. MARTIN

Surely, in that case, the words which the hon. Member proposes to insert should not be "definitely offered work," but "definitely notified of work."

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must not discuss the merits of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). That is not under discussion now.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

I will not quarrel about the words. My point is that there are two men, and the one gets a job and the other does not. What is the insurance officer to prove in that case? That is my point. In a criminal case there is always an indictment framed. In the Scottish courts the prosecution have to frame an indictment and they are called upon to prove it. Bear in mind that in this case a man is being tried for an alleged offence. But there is no plan of an indictment in this Amendment. As the law now stands, the indictment is that the man has refused to carry out certain written instructions. When a man goes to the court of referees he meets that indictment and it is something which he can meet. But in this case, even with the proposed change, he has no indict- 224 ment to meet. The officer has to prove that the man is unable to get a job, but the man who is being tried for the offence has no indictment to meet. Do not put the unemployed man in a worse position than the criminal. At least treat him the same as you treat the criminal. There is no lawyer in this Committee who would allow such a proposal as this to go through, in reference to a criminal who had to be tried by the courts. Why should we allow it to go through in the case of the unemployed man? Why should we make it worse for him?

The Minister says two things. He says first that it is not his intention to do this and the words appear to be harmless. But when the condition about "not genuinely seeking work" went through the House of Commons the late Dr. Macnamara the Minister and everybody said that the intention was only to punish those who were not genuine. What could be fairer or more equitable? In fact, the words "not genuinely" were good words. But they lacked this feature. There was no indictment in them. There was no charge; they were words capable of any kind of construction. My submission is that anything that does not give the unemployed man a proper indictment and charge to meet is no use. My plea to the Minister is, that we should meet the unemployed man on decent terms. Do not forget that the insurance officer has a tremendous advantage. He is doing this job every day in the week. The man only appears there once in a year. It is easy for the trained man to prove his case, but it is a terrible thing for the man who is only there as a fleeting visitor to prove anything. Bear that factor in mind.

These words may be some improvement on the words that the Minister has in the Bill, but this Committee ought to insist that whatever the unemployed man is to be punished for, should be a definite thing with which he is definitely charged. In other cases he may be charged definitely with misconduct for instance, but the misconduct must be made out and we must be shown what it means. Under other conditions, a man may be charged with a definite offence or it may be alleged that he is incapable of doing work, but in this case no charge is framed. It was stated in answer to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) that this was being done because 225 of the Commission's recommendations, and because of the evidence given before the Commission. I have been through that evidence and apart from the evidence of one or two officials—and most of it had nothing at all to do with the applicants who will come under this Clause—there was no weight of evidence to show that great abuses existed at all. No man in this Committee who represents an industrial constituency and who visits the local exchanges regularly and interviews the managers, can say that there is one-hundredth part of the abuses which have been suggested. How many men are there to-day refusing jobs—even half-decent jobs. I do not know what is the experience of other hon. Members but my quarrel is not with the men for refusing the jobs. It is with the men for the kind of jobs which they take. I know a man of 24 years of age who started the other day as a chimney sweep at 20s. a week. My quarrel with them is on account of the jobs they take and not on account of the jobs they refuse.

This is all for the sake of getting a few odd men here and there. I could have stood it if there were only one per cent. of unemployment and if when a man refused the job he became a burden, but at its worst what does it mean to-day? If a man refuses a job, it only means that somebody else gets it and there is no change. It is not as though there was any fresh burden involved. By this Amendment the Committee will be taking the risk of disqualifying a huge number of people in order to get a phantom few of so-called offenders. I trust that the Committee will reject the Clause as it stands in the Bill and will revert to the original wording under which every reasonable safeguard is taken and of which neither the country nor the unemployed need be ashamed.

§ Sir LUKE THOMPSON

I should like to add my quota to the discussion of this Clause which is, possibly, one of the most important parts of the Bill now under consideration. While I sympathise with those who have just seen the manuscript Amendment—as we have all just seen it—and who may have some difficulty in appreciating its terms, I would like to say to the Minister that I recognise the courage with which he has met this question. He has studied it carefully and, 226 evidently, after many representations he has been convinced that this Clause which was put down with a sincere desire to carry out the representations of the Commission was not likely to achieve its object, and he has therefore submitted his Amendment.

May I try to explain the position as I see it? It is quite easy to skim off from the difficulties, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has been doing, by referring to what has been done in the past. In the interpretation of this Clause there is a degree of uncertainty, but let us look at things as they are. Under the present Bill we are dealing with a different position regarding unemployment insurance, from any with which we have had to deal in the past. To-day you have a clear demarcation as between insurance and assistance. For the first time you are wiping away the test for transitional payments. There will be no statutory test when this Bill goes through for transitional payments and, while we are speaking of men who may be turned down under this Clause, we must remember that it will be possible for such a man to go through under the other part of the Measure, and to be better off, if he can prove a certain degree of need. That possibility exists. Under Sub-section (6) of Clause 3 we have laid down that if the first Statutory Condition is complied with, and if a man has 30 stamps available he can then draw benefit for 156 days. The only other test was the condition as to being capable of and available for work but unable to obtain suitable employment.

Is it possible to think, under all the conditions, that a man might go on for 156 days without ever attempting to get work? The Royal Commission saw that point, and the Royal Commission defined the position, and it was to meet that position that Clause 6 was put down. I think most Members had some doubt in regard to the fact that the onus of proof was being placed on the applicant instead of as it had been in the previous Act. The provision in the first part of Clause 6, Sub-section (1), as to proof that a man was capable of and available for work was a simple matter and I did not raise any quibble about it. The very fact that a man applied for benefit might be taken as showing that he was capable 227 of and available for work. The truth is that if you had placed the onus on him under capability, it meant that he would have had to be able to supply possibly, in the case of sickness, a medical certificate to the insurance officer instead of, as at present, a certificate of discharge saying he was capable of work.

These were difficulties and I could not see my way through them quite, but when I came to the latter part of this paragraph, "unable to obtain suitable employment," I felt like the Minister that the interpretation of it as it stood at present would imply an interrogation and that it would mean that the applicant must be examined from time to time. I am thankful to the Minister that under his Amendment, whether we think the words are absolutely correct and adequate or not, he has shifted the responsibility and the onus from the insured person on to the officer of the Ministry, and in so doing he has made a very great gain and security. After all, what can be the exception to the words? All that you have added is that the onus of proof is put upon the officer. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the need for it"?] There is a need for it, considering that we are discussing the permanent stability of the Insurance Act. The whole question is whether this is a reasonable Amendment. Is it reasonable to apply it as a test to a man who needs benefit?

§ Mr. COVE

Is not the onus of proof now on the man?

§ Sir L. THOMPSON

No.

§ Mr. A. BEVAN

The onus of proof is on the officer to show that a man has not sought suitable employment.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson)

Order!

§ Mr. BEVAN

I object to the interjection of the Patronage Secretary. He is not here all the time, and he does not know what has been said.

§ The CHAIRMAN

Order. I think it would be better if hon. Members would leave these matters in the hands of the Chair. I was attempting to assist the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) who was entitled to make his interruption when the hon. Member for 228 Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson) gave way.

§ Sir L. THOMPSON

I have not the least objection to the interruption. I personally have been through all the Insurance Acts since 1922, and I remember the 1924 Act, when the very best that the Labour Government could then do was embodied in the "not genuinely seeking" clause, which proved such a great heartbreak and disaster to the working men. We do not want to repeat that, and I am convinced that the only way to prevent it is to put the onus of proof, not on the man, but on the officer, which this Amendment does. I have not yet heard a single argument advanced by the Opposition that the onus of proof will come back on to the man himself. I am sure the Minister will listen attentively to all that is said, and, as I understand it, that the onus of proof should rest on the insured person is the very last thing the Minister wants. I think, therefore, the Committee will be well advised at this juncture to receive this Amendment.

§ Mr. MAINWARING

When the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) endeavoured to point out the danger contained in the words now proposed to be inserted, it was obvious that there was considerable doubt as to the correctness of the point of view which he was endeavouring to put. May I give this from my personal experience, which will also serve to indicate that little if anything is changed in the present proposal of the Ministry from the actual situation which existed when the "not genuinely seeking" clause was in operation? When the "not genuinely seeking" clause was in operation the responsibility was upon the officer. It was the officer who had the responsibility of questioning any insured person in case of doubt, and in practice whenever he did question an individual, he was in effect charging him with not genuinely seeking work, and that charge resolved itself into an allegation that he had neglected an available opportunity of suitable employment. I can quite sympathise with many hon. Members who have expressed doubt as to the logic of the position, because it is precisely what we put up on behalf of the workmen when the same difficulty arose in years gone by.

229 I personally could not at first understand why it was that an insurance officer at a local exchange, or a chairman of a court of referees, or even the umpire himself could deem it at all reasonable that 100 men should be expected individually to look for one job that might be available. How could they deem it possible for every one of those 100 men to obtain that job? Yet that is precisely what they did hold, and in my personal experience scores, aye, hundreds and thousands of such men have been turned down by courts of referees, and those decisions have been upheld by the umpire. Let there be no mistake about it. This is no hypothetical danger that we are arguing, but something that we have gone through. I have personally known scores of cases before the umpire where it has been argued that if any one individual out of 5,000, say, who had signed on at the local exchange could be shown to have failed to go and ask for one job that was available, that might reasonably be held against him as having neglected an available opportunity. What the umpire would ask and did ask was, "How do you know that if this man had presented himself, he would not have got the job?"

In my judgment, the substitution of the words "neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment" really is no improvement on the old "not genuinely seeking" Clause, and whatever hon. Members may think of our arguments, at any rate they cannot deny to me and many other hon. Members on these benches the actual experience that we have had. We are not talking about some hypothetical thing that might happen in the future, but of something that we have gone through for many years on behalf of many thousands of unemployed people in this country. Therefore, having regard to our experience, when we all agree as to the intention—there is no division in this Committee about the intention—to protect the unemployed man from any such evil, surely hon. Members are not going to blind themselves to our experience as to the danger implied in these words. To protect even their own intentions, therefore, we ask them to agree with us that we cannot accept these words.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

I do not know whether it will be for the convenience of the Committee that I should make a proposal now, but I agree, of course, that it is difficult at such short notice to appreciate the precise significance of the technical and local application of these words. I suggest that the actual wording of this proposal be considered by me between now and the Report stage. I will have regard to what has been said in all quarters of the House, and so long as the principle which I have endeavoured to lay down and the object which both the majority and the minority reports of the Commission had in mind are carried out, then I shall consider what is the best form of words for carrying out the purpose I have in view. I only make that proposal because I know there are a good many other matters to be discussed before seven o'clock.

§ Mr. MARTIN

On a point of Order. Shall we have an opportunity of putting down our own form of words on this matter between now and the Report stage?

§ The CHAIRMAN

That is hardly a point of Order. I shall not be presiding on the Report stage.

§ Mr. JANNER

On a point of Order. What will be the exact result of accepting the Minister's suggestion? Will it mean that we shall not proceed with this Clause now?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

No.

§ Mr. JANNER

The right hon. Gentleman proposes to proceed with it now?

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

Certainly.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD

As I understand it, the suggestion of the Minister is that the Committee should accept the words he has put before us to-day, subject to an undertaking on his part to reconsider the newly added words so as to see whether fresh words can be devised to meet the Minister's intentions and the wish of the Committee. So far as I am concerned in this connection, I shall be prepared to allow the Debate to end now, but I would put this point to the right hon. Gentleman, that on the Report stage, if this is going to be a matter of 231 controversy, the question of time will become important again, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that aspect of the case.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

Of course, it follows on my proposal that I must get this Amendment now.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD

I appreciate that, and I am not objecting to that. I am merely saying that, having got it on the Paper and then having to amend it later, this being a Government Amendment, hon. Members ought not to be robbed of discussing their own Amendments on this point on the Report stage.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

I cannot be a party to accepting anything but the complete deletion of this Sub-section (1).

§ The CHAIRMAN

I do not want the hon. Member to be under a misapprehension, but we have omitted Sub-section (1) already.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

Yes, but I understood from the Minister that he was going to ask for the insertion of his Amendment. In that case, I am not going to be a party to it. I want to be quite frank with the Minister. His suggestion means shuffling. We shall still come back to the old issue whether the present words are going to stand or be amended. I am standing for no Amendment in principle in the present Bill. That is why I moved an Amendment with words which brought the Bill back to the principle which existed before. All that the Minister is doing by his present offer is to shuffle off, but we shall still come back to the issue, which is a simple one, namely, whether the present Act is satisfactory or not. I say that the present Act gives everybody everything that is desired, and I shall divide against the insertion of these or any other words that make the position worse than the present Statute.

§ Mr. A. BEVAN

May I raise a point of procedure? If we accept the Amendment which the Minister now moves on the undertaking that he will amend it later, will that give us the chance of dividing against the Amendment itself at a subsequent stage? We are willing to accept the Amendment now on the assumption that it will be amended later. There 232 will then be a Debate. In the course of that Debate shall we have a chance of dividing against the Amendment in its entirety if we do not accept the Minister's new Amendment?

§ The CHAIRMAN

The Minister has undertaken, as I understand it, not to amend these words on Report, but to reconsider them between now and Report and to give hon. Members an opportunity of doing the same thing; and, if these words are now inserted, they will not come forward necessarily on the Report stage to be passed as part of the Bill as they would in Committee. It will be open to any hon. Member to put down an Amendment to leave out this particular Sub-section.

§ Mr. BEVAN

Therefore, the position in which we are left is that we are not given any more on the Report stage than we already have. We now have these words before us in the Committee stage, but we have no guarantee that we shall have them in our hands on the Report stage because we might not reach them.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON

I am not asking the hon. Member to accept this Amendment without a Division. If he objects to it, his logical course is to vote against it.

§ Mr. JANNER

May I make an appeal to the Minister, in view of the difficulty that has arisen, to consider this matter from the other angle entirely. It is clear that all hon. Members realise that we have not had an opportunity of fully considering the effect of the Minister's Amendment, and it is not fair to ask the Committee to commit itself to the acceptance even provisionally of an Amendment with the nature of which we are not fully conversant. There is a much simpler method by which the Minister can obtain his ends. He can withdraw the Amendment now and put down an Amendment on the Report stage. That would give us ample time to consider and discuss it. It is not such a trivial matter as might appear on the surface. It is a serious thing to create a new offence, and that is what this Amendment is actually doing. What is the extent of that offence? I do not know. It would require much more time to realise what the repercussions of it are going to be, but undoubtedly it 233 creates a new offence by a man who is unemployed. It is true that it does not, on the face of it, place the onus upon the unemployed man, but it creates something further for him to answer, which ultimately means that the onus is actually being placed on his shoulders to controvert something with which he will be faced and in respect of which he may not have full knowledge.

It also makes the unemployment officer carry out a further invidious duty and places upon him a new obligation. It says to him, "You have now to do something further than you had to do under the previous Acts; you have now to make yourself in the nature of a prosecuting counsel and find out further facts with which to confront the unemployed person when he comes for relief." The result is that it creates a new and difficult position, so far as I see it. I do not say that I thoroughly understand it, but I am convinced that it creates a new difficulty for the unemployment officer. I want to put definitely to the Minister that there is no case which is not covered by the Act which is already in existence. See how clear it is— If a claimant has without good cause refused or failed to carry out any written directions given to him by an officer of an Employment Exchange with a view to assisting him to find suitable employment (being directions which were reasonable having regard both to the circumstances of the claimant and to the means of obtaining that employment usually adopted in the district in which the claimant resides). This is so clear that it is obvious to anybody that nothing further is necessary, unless there is some motive which one cannot understand. It does not say any particular job. It does not say that the unemployment officer is bound to say, "You have got to go to that job." He can give directions as to what type of job a man has to look for and where he is to look for it. What more is wanted? Why place the onus on both the officer and the applicant to do anything more than that? I cannot see how the Amendment is going to help, and I cannot see what effect it will have different from the effect of the words now in the Bill.

We want to make the community realise that the Employment Exchange is the place to which they should apply for work. It is being done now and we know that year by year applications are 234 coming in to the Employment Exchanges in greater numbers.

I have taken the trouble to find out what happens in my own constituency in regard to this matter. The applicants who were placed in work through the agency of the exchange in Stepney were 16,780 on the 23rd January, 1933, and 18,420 on 22nd January, 1934. That means that the community is realising more clearly year by year that its duty is to go to the Employment Exchange and ask for men when it requires them. That is what we want the community as a whole to understand and to appreciate. We do not want our men to go looking for jobs in places where they cannot exist. If an officer has three vacancies and 5,000 or 6,000 men on his books it is true that he may argue that some of them had neglected to avail themselves of the opportunity to fill the jobs merely because they had not gone after them. I believe it would be incumbent on him to say to a man, "You knew the job was going; have you been there to see about it? If not, why not?" If the man replies, "I did not know of it," the officer should in duty bound—

§ Sir L. THOMPSON

The proof would be on the officer.

§ Mr. JANNER

My hon. Friend knows very well that that does not actually prevail in practice. He knows if he has ever visited a court of law that the method of shifting the onus from one side to the other is not difficult. If it is a question of proving negligence, the prosecution will come forward and establish circumstantial evidence to show that there was negligence. They have only to establish a prima facie case and then the onus is shifted to the person answering that case to show that the prima facie case is not right. It is a case of "a thin partition their bounds divide" when it comes to a question of whether the onus is on the unemployment officer or on the man. What is the need for this alteration? I have heard nothing from the Minister to indicate that there is a need for it. If it is redundant, it is unnecessary. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says that he does not care whether it is redundant or not; it should be taken out to make doubly sure. There are sometimes loopholes in these redundant Clauses which 235 do not make them so redundant as they seem. The Act is clear, and there is enough in the Act to meet what is necessary. It is not fair to impose anything more on the unemployed man when he is searching for work, and it is unfair at this stage to put us in the difficult position of having to vote for something with which we do not agree on the off-chance that on the Report stage we might be able to confirm the vote that we have cast to-day. That is not the way to do it. I suggest that the Minister should withdraw the Amendment now and give us an undertaking to put in something later when we can consider it fully.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK

I thought the hon. Member was continuing the point with which the Debate was interrupted. Do I understand the position to be that if the suggestion to insert this Amendment is adopted there would then be an opportunity at a later stage for re-discussion? If that be so, and the later stage is taken under the Guillotine, there can be no guarantee that this matter will be discussed again. Is not the only possible way of ensuring that for the Minister to withdraw the whole Clause and put down a new Clause? The 12th day is allotted to new Clauses, and this new Clause would then become the first Order of the 12th day. There would be no difficulty in having a discussion then.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member has put a question on a point of Order. I hope I have not been understood to give any Ruling or make any statement other than a statement of what is the ordinary procedure. Members of the Committee know what the procedure is under the Guillotine, and the difference between procedure on Report stage and Committee stage.

§ Mr. McENTEE

I have been hoping that the Minister would accept the suggestion made to him, and withdraw the Clause, because assuming that he gets the Clause now—which I should say he will—and later puts down an Amendment which has suggested itself to him between now and the Report stage, it may then be considered necessary to seek to amend that Amendment, yet we have no guarantee that there will be any oppor- 236 tunity to discuss either the Minister's Amendment or any other which may be put down. If the Minister will not withdraw the Clause, then I have to ask myself, in the first place, what was his intention in introducing this Amendment at all, and, in the second place, what is the real meaning of the words he now seeks to introduce—"the opportunity of work." What really is an opportunity of work? While my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) was putting what was regarded by some as an exaggerated case, I recalled to mind something that is happening now in my own constituency. The local authority have advertised for a public convenience attendant. From the experience of the past, I think it is safe to say there will be not fewer than 400 applicants for that position. I do not know how many men there are on the books of the local Employment Exchange, but probably there are some 3,000. Any one of them, probably, would be able to carry out the duties of a public convenience attendant, would be a suitable person for the post. Most certainly any ordinary working man could carry out the duties. I have said that probably 400 people will apply; let us assume that there are 1,200 people who are suitable for the job and who are now signing on at the Employment Exchange who do not apply.

What would be the position of those people in the event of these words being inserted in this Measure? A man who had not applied for the job might be told by one of the officials at the exchange, particularly if he were a man regarding whom there was some doubt w