I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The object of this Bill is to extend for a year the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1930 and Sections 1 and 2 of the No. 3 Act of 1931. The No. 3 Act of 1931 is what is usually known as the Anomalies Act. I ought to explain that the effect of extending the Act of 1930 is automatically to extend the Transitional Payments Prolongation Act of 1932 and also the Determination of Need Act, 1932, since the operation of both these last two Acts is limited by reference to the Act of 1930. The Determination of Need Act, 1932, is, as the House will remember, that which secures 50 per cent of disability pension and 50 per cent. of workmen's compensation and makes certain provisions with regard to the amount of savings which are to be taken into account.

Might I at once, for the convenience of the House, point out what will happen if either of the Amendments now on the Paper is carried or, which comes to the same thing, if the House refuses to give a Second Beading to the Bill which I am now moving? The first result will be that transitional payment to those persons who have not 30 contributions to their credit in the last two years automatically ceases at the end of this month, and these persons would, I have ascertained, amount, as far as one can judge, to about three-quarters of a million people. The second thing is that the statutory protection for 50 per cent. of disability pensions and workmen's compensation and for savings up to the amount prescribed would also cease. The third result would be that the Anomalies Act would lapse, and the protection against the evils which were described in such impressive terms by those who were responsible for introducing and passing through this House the Anomalies Act would cease to be effective and would come to an end.

Another result would be that the adult dependants benefit, which is now 8s. a week, would automatically become 7S. a week, representing a loss of 1s. a week to them; and a still further result would be that the power of the insurance officer to disallow a claim would be revived. As those Members of the House who were in the House in 1930 may remember, one of the provisions of the Act of 1930 was that an insurance officer should not disallow a claim that was in doubt, but that it should automatically go to the court of referees. That power would, as I say, be revived. Another result would be that the automatic right of appeal to the Umpire when the court of referees is not unanimous would go. As the House may remember, the Act of 1930 provided, among other things, that where the court of referees was not unanimous with regard to a decision, there should be a right of appeal to the Umpire. The next result would be that the genuinely-seeking-work Clause, about which there has been so much controversy, would revive. I was responsible to a large extent for the administration of that particular formula, and I confess that it is not one which I want to see revived at all, but the effect of passing either of these Amendments and of throwing out the Bill would be that that Clause would be revived. The last result to which I need call attention is that the provision made in the Act of 1930 for approved courses for juveniles instruction would go.

The hon. Gentleman opposite who will move an Amendment which will have the effect of throwing out the Bill will no doubt explain his reasons for desiring any of these things to happen. Speaking for myself, I want them all to be retained, but, if he or any of his friends have other views, no doubt they will explain why they do not want them to be retained. I am the last person to say that the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues on the Opposition Benches have not a right to alter their minds if they want to do so, and I shall listen with a good deal of interest to the reasons which they may advance as to why they want, for instance, the Anomalies Act to go, because that Act, which it now appears they wish to repeal, was passed, in spite of great opposition from hon. Members below the Gangway, by the last Labour Government, and the effect of not passing this Bill would be that it would go.

I want to make it clear that the needs test was not imposed by any of the Acts with which we are concerned to-day. It was imposed by the Order-in-Council of October, 1931, and is not affected at all by anything which we may do to-day. Therefore, so far as the needs test is concerned, if we throw out this Bill, all that will happen is that those applicants who have not 30 contributions to their credit in the last two years will cease to get any transitional payments, and the needs test to which they will be subjected will be the test applied by the Poor Law authorities to whom they must go if they do not get transitional payments. The result will be, therefore, that the charge for these cases, numbering something like 750,000 persons, will become a local charge instead of a national charge, which I should have thought was the one thing which hon. Members opposite were anxious to avoid.

I have, I hope, clearly explained what would happen if this Bill were not passed. Before I return to one or two other matters, particularly the Anomalies Act, about which I want to say something, I will refer to Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, which the House will see is in italics. By that financial provision Parliament is asked to provide the amount which is authorised by the Act of 1930; in other words, an amount to provide transitional payments for those applicants who have not 30 contributions to their credit, and who, but for this Bill, would get no transitional payments at all after the 30th June. As stated in the Memorandum to the Bill, it is estimated that the amount for this payment will be £30,000,000 in a full year and £22,500,000 in the current year, the current year for this purpose being the period between June this year and the end of the financial year in March next.

May I remind the House of one or two figures. My Estimates, which are already before the House, provide for a sum of no less than £54,000,000 as a direct charge upon the Exchequer for insurance benefit and transitional payments. That amount is made up of the equal third's contribution of the Exchequer, which is estimated at £19,650,000, transitional payments £31,400,000, and the deficiency grant, £2,950,000. If we add that sum to the £22,500,000 which we shall require by this Bill, the resultant cost of the Bill, together with the amount which appears in the Estimates, reaches the vast total of £76,500,000, which is a direct charge upon the Exchequer for unemployment. For the purposes of comparison, may I remind the House that six years ago, in the year 1928–29, the expenditure for insurance benefit and transitional payments amounted in the aggregate to £53,700,000, of which the Exchequer's share was £11,800,000. To-day, the expenditure is £115,800,000, of which the Exchequer's contribution is £76,500,000. I do not propose, therefore, in these circumstances, to argue to-day, because I do not think it relevant, the principle of the means test. I would say, however, that the Order-in-Council did not disentitle a single individual to assistance if it was shown that he was in need of assistance. The insurance scheme can only meet its ordinary obligations to unemployed persons, because no less than 40 per cent. of the insured persons never claim benefit at all.

I hope that in the course of this Debate we shall have it stated clearly by those who speak for the Opposition whether they do or do not defend the payment of relief in cases where no need can be established. In this connection, I am just going to say a word, and it will only be a word, about the recent Report I called for at the request of the Leader of the Liberal party and at the request of the Opposition on the administration of the Durham Commissioners. In my view that Report is a justification of my action in appointing the Commissioners and is a justification of their administration. I have examined the scales most carefully and I find that they compare favourably with those in neighbouring districts, and I am satisfied that the Commissioners are carrying out their duties both humanely and with a proper regard to their responsibilities.

Next I wish to say a word about the Anomalies Act because, as I have already mentioned, it is one of those Acts which lapse unless this Bill be passed. The House, therefore, is entitled to a justification of the Anomalies Act. It is not sufficient for me to say merely that it was passed by the Labour Government. I realise the onus which rests upon me of showing that, in our view, it is desirable that that Act should be continued. At the same time I hope it will be made clear during the Debate what is intended by the difference in the wording of the Amendment which stands in the name of the official Opposition and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The official Opposition Amendment refers to certain anomalies which have the effect of depriving many unemployed persons of the right to benefit. We should like to know what are the particular anomalies which they have in view. The other Amendment is much more explicit. Those hon. Gentlemen do not want to continue the Anomalies Act at all, and say so in so many words. They are always consistent in this; they are always consistent except in their support of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. I would like to know what is the difference in the minds of those two sets of hon. Members. I quite understand what the hon. Member for Bridgeton means, but I am not so certain what the official Opposition mean. If they intend the same thing I would, if I may respectfully do so, offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Bridgeton upon the tremendous influence which he appears to have exercised upon the Leader of the official Opposition, because less than two years ago we sat up all night while the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposed the Labour Government of the day, moving 35 or 36 Amendments and telling us exactly why they objected to the Anomalies Act.

But, as I have said, that is not sufficient or my purpose to-day. I have to justify the continuance of the Anomalies Act. That involves a reference to a little past history. The Anomalies Act is stated to be an Act for the amendment of unemployment insurance "with a view to the elimination of anomalies." This story has its origin in the first report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, which, incidentally, the Labour party also appointed. Paragraph 104, on page 38 of that report deals with this question of anomalies in these words: The seriousness of these anomalies lies in:

1. (1) the unnecessary expenditure from public funds to which employers, workers and the State have contributed;
2. (2) their effect on the repute of the scheme;
180
3. (3) their encouragement of methods of industrial organisation which may be harmful to trade and employment in general."

In the next paragraph it goes on to say: The classes of claimants to which our attention has been particularly directed in this respect are as follows:

1. (a) intermittent, short-time, and casual workers,
2. (b) married women,
3. (c) seasonal workers."

In three successive paragraphs the report deals with these different classes of workers. In paragraph 109, dealing with intermittent workers, it says: We accordingly recommend that no claimant shall be treated as unemployed within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, who habitually works for only two days or less in each week, and is unable to satisfy the statutory authorities that he is normally employed in regular insurable employment for the other working days of the week. Married women are dealt with in paragraph 119, where it says: Regard must, of course, be paid to the fact that many women work after marriage, especially in those districts and industries where they are customarily employed in large numbers. But we cannot avoid the conclusion that, under the present conditions, married women who have no wish to work have no difficulty in obtaining unemployment benefit, and we are satisfied on the evidence before us that there are many married women receiving benefit who have not since marriage worked in an insurable trade, and, in their existing circumstances, have no intention of doing so. In regard to seasonal workers the report says: In our view a worker who habitually obtains his (or her) living for the year, by work in a seasonal occupation for a part of the year, should not be deemed to be unemployed and qualified for benefit during that part of the year which is the off-season. We therefore recommend that a seasonal worker should be entitled to benefit in respect of unemployment occurring within the season subject to the general conditions applying to all claimants, but that during the off-season a claimant who, from his industrial record, appears to the Insurance Officer to be a seasonal worker, should not be entitled to benefit unless he can prove to the satisfaction of the Court of Referees"— On receiving that report the Labour Government proceeded to introduce a Bill. The then Minister of Labour, Miss Bondfield, said, in introducing the Bill: Hon. Members will see that there they sketch out"— that is, the Royal Commission— in very broad outlines, the lines upon which they think these anomalies should be dealt with. The Government agree, in principle, with these recommendations, and the purpose of the Bill is to give substantial legislative effect to the recommendations contained on page 51 of the Report. That is the object which the Minister of Labour set out to attain, by the drafting and introduction of the Bill. Miss Bond-field then proceeded to deal with the three classes of persons to whom I have referred, namely, the people who work for a short time each week, the seasonal workers, and the married women. This is what she said with regard to the seasonal workers: There are certain classes of workers who do not, in fact, do anything except particular seasonal jobs, and they wait until next season comes round before they come into the employment field again. These, I submit, can be better dealt with by regulation than by any words in a Statute. With regard to those who work a few days a week, she said: It is obviously unfair that those people who do not wish to have a full week's work should be able to draw regularly four days' benefit from the Fund and earn two days' wages in the shops. With regard to the married women, she said: I think that it will have to be made clear that benefit is not a dowry on marriage on account of contributions paid; that it is not a source of income to enable a woman to be economically independent of her husband's earnings, or to supplement the poor earnings of her husband; that marriage does not create a special privilege to escape the normal obligations of a job; that benefit is only due to an unemployed married woman who is still in the industrial field, and will remain so in the same sense in which a man or a single woman remains."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1931; cols. 2104–8, Vol. 254.] So, in each one of these three classes of case, she justified the proposals that she made to deal with them.