Captain BENN:

I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, after the word "payable," to insert the words "by the employed contributor and."

This proposes to amend paragraph (d) (3) of Clause 4, which deals with the time when the Insurance Fund has approached more nearly to solvency. It is provided in the paragraph that if at any time it appears to the Minister that the amount of the debt on the Fund does not exceed the amount as it exists to-day, he may then make arrangements by Regulations that the amount of contribution payable shall be reduced. That is a very natural and proper thing, and we look forward to the time when it shall be reduced. But the strange thing about this provision is that it only allows for a reduction of the contribution by the employer and makes no allowance for a parallel or equal reduction of contribution by the employed per son. I think everyone will agree that, if we come to a time of greater trade, in which the Insurance Fund has been replenished and the debt is not greater than it is to-day, the employers will benefit by the improvement of trade at least as soon as, and probably just before, the workman. That being the case, it seems to me illogical to single out the employer and give the relief of 1d. first to, him and to make no corresponding relief in respect of the contribution by the employed workman. The purpose of the Amendment is that the relief given, when this fund is in this move satisfactory condition, shall be equal as between the two. There is no preference in our Amendment. What is given to the employer on the one hand should be given to the employed person on the other. I think this proposal is just and reasonable and will commend itself to all Members of the House, and I hope the Minister may see his way to accept it.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The hon. and gallant Member has explained its meaning and intention, and there is no need for me to say more.

I rise to say that I regret that we cannot accept this Amendment. Neither the Proposer nor the Seconder quite realised the circumstances of the case. The acumen and knowledge of history of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the

Amendment were not quite so good as on previous occasions. He says both should be treated equally, that employer and employed should be on a parity. That is exactly what it is proposed to do by the Bill and what would not be done by the Amendment. I only ask the House to listen to what has been the actual history and the actual principles of the Bill from the beginning. In the early stages the contributions of employers and employed were the same in the case of men from its inception in 1912 to 1920. The contributions of the two were the same, 2½d. each. After that, when they were raised in 1920, they were again the same, 4d. each. When they were increased in 1921 because of the stress of unemployment, the employers' contribution, in order to try to meet the extra emergency, was increased by 1d. more than was the increase of the contribution of the employed. At the present moment, it is 10d. and 9d., and under the Bill it is still kept at a disparity, 8d. and 7d., and I only remark in passing that this disproportion of 8d. over 7d. is more than 10d. over 9d. The principle has been accepted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that they should revert to being equal again. It is in harmony with the principles of the Bill, and really in harmony with the principles laid down by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that both sides should be treated on a parity and that they should be equal. For that reason, I hope the arrangement in the Bill will be allowed to stand.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 144.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, at the end, to insert the words An order made under paragraph (a) of this Sub-section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament in the same manner as regulations made under The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, and Sub-section (3) of Section thirty-five of that Act shall apply accordingly. I undertook in Committee to bring forward an Amendment in order that this particular Order dealing with contributions should be laid upon the Table of the House. I, therefore, submit this Amendment to the approval of the House. Previously this Clause would have left it to my discretion, without bringing it before the House, to say at what period the contributions, as stated in Clause 1, should be ordered. The argument was addressed to me by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that this should be done by Regulation laid on the Table of the House, in the same way as previous Regulations under Section 35 of the principal Act. I consented to do so, and I promised I would get it into proper wording. I submit it to the House, and hope it may be accepted.

As the Member responsible for getting this concession from the Minister, I desire to say I am quite willing to accept the form in which he has put it. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour could not have accepted the same form which appeared on the Amendment Paper earlier in the day dealing with Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the principal Act. I think it would have been much better if he had made the concession earlier, but one has to be thankful for small mercies. I believe the total sum of concessions that have been made to us by the Minister consist in the addition of the word "aforesaid" in another part of the Bill, in the alteration in one place of 1926 to 1927, and the dole that he threw to a member of his own party to-night when he was threatened with revolt.

I do not really feel thankful to the Minister of Labour. I think the way he has carried through this Measure cannot be satisfactory to those who are opposed to him or to the Members of his own Party who are not very servile adherents. In accepting this Amendment I want to say that I am in thorough agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) who has not had to suffer as much as we have from the lectures on charity by the Minister of Labour, a quality that he has not practised in this Measure.

I only want in a few sentences to enter my protest against the way in which this Amendment has been moved. It would have been much better from all points of view if the Minister had adopted the procedure which Is enshrined in several other Amendments, and explained exactly what is meant by the proposal, instead of pro- ceeding by way of legislation by reference It does not make the meaning of the proposal clear.

Before the Amendment is put and carried I would like the Minister of Labour to tell us if he can say how much it is likely to cost during the ensuing year?

I cannot give the exact amount, but it will not be considerable.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Captain BENN:

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask whether the Question has been put to the House: "That the Bill as amended be reported"?

There is no Question put.

The Prime Minister has instructed me to say that he is not in a position to make any statement to-night on this subject, as he is meeting both parties to the dispute this evening.