'The telegram published on Saturday, referring to the Brit-sh Labour Government's change of attitude with regard' to Clause IV of the Unemploymeat Bill is interesting, in view of the general trouble which the Government is encountering with the measure as a whole. Indeed it may very well be that-the substitution of the new clause is an endeavour to secure support from the Opposition to offset the threatened defection of about fifty Labour members over the question of the size of the weekly payments to insured un-, employed. When the. Bill wa: first mooted it became known that the Left Wing required the provision of £1 por week for an unemployed man, 10s, for a woman and 5s for each child.
was strongly opposed by Margaret Bondfeld, the Minister of Labour, and by Mr. Philip Snowden, Chancellor of the Exchequer, as involving £12,- 000,000 per annum above what the Bill will cost if passed in its present form, namely £24,- 500,000. The rebels of the La-hour Party threatened to go into the Lobby against the Government if their request were not met, and, as far as we know, there has been no change in their attitude. Consequently, should an agreement not be reached the Government stands in grave danger of defeat, with fifty of their own votes swung against them in division, unless some concession can be made to gain the support of either the Liberal or Conservative parties.
Clause IV of the Bill as orig. mally drafted provided for the repeal of the existing legislation which imposes the condition that "those not genuinely seeking work" should not receive any benefit, and substituted quirenient that proof of suitable work being available should be adduced before a claimant was disqualified, The clause in the original legislation gave trouble, and the proposal which the Labour Government put forward and has now withdrawn was no freer from criticism, It will be interesting to see what it can suggest that is calculated to meet with the approval of the Opposition, for the suggestion that "suitable employment might be offered a man outside his usual occupation which, if refused, would involve loss of benefit," opens up a vista of new contentions. If this were calculated to move the Laboui rebels to further opposition, better spur could not have been devised, It may not only con firm the Left in its obduracy, but may secure for it more ad: herents, for, if the Attorney General is correctly reported, he has enunciated a principle that 4 man, having insured himself against unemployment as a good cooper, may be constrained to become a bad wallpaper hanger or lose the benefits which: the Government has contracted to sive him, and for which he has paid. It' seems as if the Coopers Union and the Wallpaper Hangers will have a great dear to say upon the subject, and the suggestion, if persisted in, may rank the whole of trade union ism against the Government, Apart from immediate political considerations there is ancther aspect of the proposal which is unattractive, It seems place further power in the hands of the growing bureaucracy of Britain, against which prominent thinkers have been agitating for some little time past. Who is to decide what is suitable work outside his occupation in the case' of our unemployed cooper? The establishment of courts to decide such a question would lead to the creation of a cumbersome adjunct to what is already inconvenient system. Failing that, it would appear that the decision of what is suitable work. for the applicant for insurance would rest with some official or other of the Labour Exchange of his district. "That decision might very properly be render ed, might even be well in accord with the facts of the case, but it placing in the hands of the officials a discretionary power, the use of which the average unemployed person would be court because of... the expen) unable to have revised by
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.