HC Deb 24 November 1911 vol 31 cc1688-96

The statutory conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit by any workman are—

  1. (1) That he proves that he has, since the commencement of this Act, been employed in an insured trade during each of not less than twenty-six separate calendar weeks.
  2. (2) That he has made application for unemployment benefit in the prescribed manner, and proves that since the date of the application he has been continuously unemployed.
  3. (3) That he is capable of work but unable to obtain suitable employment.
  4. (4) That he has not exhausted his right to unemployment benefit under this part of this Act.

Provided that a workman shall not be deemed to have failed to fulfil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined an offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a trade dispute involving a strike or lock-out, or an offer of employment at a rate of wage lower than the rate which he habitually earns when in employment, or, in the case of an offer of employment in a district other than that in which he resides, at a rate of wage lower than the rate current in the district in which the employment is offered.

Mr. BUXTON

I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "since the commencement of this Act."

Mr. HILLS

I do not think the Sub-section can stand as amended. We have inserted in Clause 61 a provision that no unemployment benefit is to be paid in the first six months. Now this Clause 62, Sub-section (1), says that any person who is in an insured trade for six months will come on the fund. It cannot mean that a man who was six or ten years ago working in such a trade should come upon the fund. You must make some date from which you have to start or else you will get into hopeless confusion. I am afraid the Government have not given this Amendment the attention it deserves.

Mr. BUXTON

Our object is to protect the funds in the first six months. At the present moment you must, before the Act comes into force, be a member of a trade, and qualified by employment for twenty-six weeks. The Bill, as it originally stood, said that for the first six months a man would not be entitled to any benefit. It must not be thought that if a man is not qualified under the Schedule he will receive benefits. They have to qualify, and the Bill as it now stands gives them a greater opportunity to qualify than as it stood originally. Both employers and workmen brought the matter to our attention. I think the point is not disturbed by my Amendment.

Mr. HILLS

Perhaps I did not make my point quite clear. Suppose a man is out of work now for two years, but was employed in an insured trade for twenty-six weeks before that, does he come upon the fund? A man who is six months in employment in an insured trade at any time before the commencement of the Bill would benefit to the extent of coming upon the fund. He may have been employed for six months three years ago, and he may have since been out of work, and he may have paid no contribution for the whole of these three years. It cannot be the intention of the Government that that man should come upon the fund.

Mr. BUXTON

He comes upon the fund in this sense in that particular case. The man has paid no contribution will receive no benefits, but so far as the future, and as he has paid contributions in the proportion set out in the schedule, and he will be entitled to benefits because he has been in an insured trade in the past. As the Bill originally stood, this particular man could not have come upon the fund until he paid twenty-six contributions, and it was pointed out that in many trades this particular man might be barred out from obtaining the benefits until a much later period. I do not think the hon. Member clearly understands that the benefits the man receives will be in proportion to the contribution he pays.

Mr. HILLS

Then this Sub-section is useless.

Mr. HOLT

Can a person be said to be employed in an insured trade previous to the day on which the Act comes into operation. In my opinion there is no such thing as an insured trade until the day the Act comes into operation.

Sir J. SIMON

As the list of insured trades are scheduled, I do not think there is any difficulty about this point. The hon. Member opposite appreciates that if a man asks for benefit he can only get it at the rate of one week for five contributions.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

As the discussion has rather trenched upon the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley, I should like your ruling as to whether it will be possible later to discuss that Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not quite appreciate the point of order. What the President of the Board of Trade has moved to leave out of the Clause is the sentence "since the commencement of this Act." I understand the point of order is whether, if those words are left out, it will be in order to move to insert the words, "in the year immediately preceding any period of unemployment."

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I will not press my point, and I assume it will be in order to move the insertion of those words.

Mr. HOLT

Is my hon. Friend quite certain upon this point? Supposing the man was employed in an illegal trade, I think I am right in the point I have put forward because the schedule can only apply from the date on which the Act comes into operation.

Sir A. MOND

I understand that the object of this Clause is to give some guarantee that a man applying for unemployment benefit is a bonâ fide member of an insured trade. I see that twenty-six separate calendar weeks are provided for, but I do not know how they are to be calculated. I think it would be better to leave out the Sub-section altogether, because the words do not constitute a bonâ fide test as to whether a man is a bonâ fide member of an insured trade. If we leave out these words we ought to have some period fixed, it might be a pretty long period, say, five years, if you like, during which a man can show that he has worked twenty-six separate weeks.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I ask the Committee to pass this Amendment.

Question, "That the words 'since the commencement of this Act,' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Mr. BUXTON

moved in Sub-section (1) after the word "employed," ["been employed in an insured trade "] to insert the words "as a workman."

Question, "That those words be inserted," put, and agreed to.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words, "within the last twelve months immediately preceding any period of unemployment." I think this Amendment is necessary to complete the object of the Bill. This Clause does not apply to all trades but only to certain selected trades, and we want to make this provision definite in regard to those trades. A man may be employed in the engineering trade for twenty-six weeks, thereby qualifying under the Bill; then for five or ten years he might be out of that trade altogether and yet be qualified, when he is out of work and following another trade altogether, to come back and claim his insurance, made five or ten years before. The limit I wish to suggest is in the year immediately preceding. I am not wedded to any particular form of words, but I do say that there ought to be a limit because I am sure it would not be the intention of the Government that a man should go out of the trade, become employed in another trade altogether, and then subsequently claim his unemployment benefit. I think if the Committee thought it was desirable it would be possible to amend Clause 2, so that a man who has once been a contributor and has left his trade, providing his time limit has not expired, could have his contributions returned. That is a matter for further consideration.

Mr. HILLS

I am afraid my hon. Friend will think me rather hard to please, but I hope he will not press this Amendment. When I spoke on the last Amendment I did not want to limit the number of men coming on the fund. All I wanted to do was to point out the definition of that Clause was so wide that every single person would come in, and that therefore the Clause would practically have no effect at all. If we pass this Amendment I am afraid we shall impose an undue restriction. I think the words are too narrow. Let the Committee appreciate what this means. It means that no man could claim unemployment insurance unless he had been employed for at least half of the preceding twelve months. You do not want a restriction of that kind to protect the fund; the fund protects itself and it is automatic, and once you have got that I do not see why you want to restrict the number of people who come on the fund. I am certain an artificial restriction of this kind would operate with great hardship, and it would give rise to the very hard case of a man who had been employed for twenty or twenty-five weeks in the preceding year and could not come on the fund, whilst one employed for twenty-seven weeks could. My point was an entirely different one. I tried to show that the Government Clause excluded nobody, and I still think the Bill is better without Subsection (1) of Section 62. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

If there be no time limit, how will it be possible to work the fund when a man may be for this number of weeks employed, then be abroad ten years or in some other part of the country, and afterwards come back, when the whole of the account connected with him will have disappeared?

Sir J. SIMON

The actual proposal of the hon. Member would lead to this result. If a man during the twelve months preceding his claim on the fund had worked for one day less than six months, he would be outside the benefit altogether. I think that is much too strict a limitation. Whatever the difficulty may be, I do not think it is necessary to lay down so strict a rule as that to avoid cases of this kind which might arise. The view of the Government is that we certainly could not require the man as a condition of getting benefit, to show that he has during the last twelve months worked more than six months at an insured trade. It may be that he had worked continuously for three or four years, and accumulated considerable claims on the fund, and then had the misfortune to have a bad year in which he was out of employment for the greater part of the year. I think in a case of that kind it would be much too hard to say that the man had no claim on the fund. The form of the Amendment needs reconsideration, although I think the substance of the hon. Member's suggestion deserves attention. Is it practical to allow a man to claim if you do not concern yourself as to whether he worked before or after the passing of the Act at the trade, however far back he may go to prove his twenty-six weeks?

I understand the hon. Member is not wedded to this particular proposal, and I invite the Committee to consider what is the best course to take. There are two propositions in which I think we shall all agree. One is that we all desire to be certain that the genuine workmen in all these insured trades is not going to be deprived of any benefits he has earned, merely because he has been particularly unfortunate in the matter of getting work. On the other hand, we want to have such a limitation as will prevent the absurdity occurring which has already been pointed out. I think the sort of period much more worthy of consideration would be something like five years. If a man could show within five years that he had worked twenty-six weeks at an insured trade, I suppose he might be regarded as satisfying the conditions of the fund. The very basis of the scheme is that the trade, and those genuinely concerned in it, ought to bear this burden of fluctuation in that trade. I suggest to the Committee, if they will generally agree that the period ought to be extended beyond twelve months, it might be desirable to collect opinion as to whether five years is a proper period or not.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I myself should prefer a shorter period. I would recommend three years, and if this Amendment is withdrawn I will submit another suggestion. The point at issue is really very important, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed further with the Bill to-day. I think he will admit that the Grand Committee has got on very well for the first day, and when this Amendment has been disposed of we might agree to adjourn.

Mr. BUXTON

I am perhaps hardly in order, but I will readily respond to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. We have made very good progress to-day, and I think there has been a real desire on the part of Members to arrive at a friendly agreement.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment, but I certainly should like to know beforehand what period is to be suggested. My recommendation is one year.

Sir J. SIMON

If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment I will move, or will ask him to move for that will be the same thing, some such phrase as "in the preceding three years."

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

The Solicitor-General mentioned five years. I mentioned one. I am quite willing to take three.

Sir J. SIMON

It is not a question of bargaining. It is a question of what is the right period.

Mr. JOHN WARD

I think the Solicitor-General's suggestion of five years is by far the best.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I am not quite sure of that. Remember there must be a certain amount of genuineness about the man. Twenty-six weeks in five years is an exceedingly small average. I would suggest that, more particularly in the trade with which the hon. Member is associated, the men would be protected by a shorter period than five years.

Mr. JOHN WARD

I was just looking at the case of a man on the margin between insured and uninsured trades. You are laying it down that though a man may have been practically in permanent employment in some other trade which is not insured, because he was not employed in an insured trade during the whole time, he is to get no benefit. You would thereby exclude many men who have been honestly employed during the biggest part of the time in some other trade closely connected with those trades that you are insuring, and thereby you are doing a great injury to a number of men.

Mr. DENMAN

Three years is too short a period. On what ground do you say if he has not been to work twenty-six calendar weeks within the last three years he will not be entitled to receive benefits for which he has paid? I admit that for practical working you cannot go back centuries, but surely three years is too short, and I very respectfully submit five years would be a reasonable period to decide on at once.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment in order to allow five years to be inserted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. SIMON

I beg to move, after the word "weeks" ["twenty-six separate calendar weeks"], to insert the words, "in the preceding five years."

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I think five years is too long, but perhaps the Government will agree if we allow that period to go through now to reconsider it on report.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

The argument of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) applies just as much to five as to three or ten years. A man on the margin of a trade who quits it and goes to another might have the same reason for coming back after twenty-five years as after five years. Looking at the accounts that will have to be checked and the responsibility of the employer, I think five years is ample.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. BUXTON

I beg to move to leave out all the words of the Clause after the word "declined" ("Provided that a workman shall not be deemed to have failed to fulfil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined an offer of employment"), and to insert instead thereof the words:—

  1. "(1) An offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute; or
    2. 1696
  2. "(2) An offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those which he habitually obtained when in employment or would have obtained had he continued to be employed; or
  3. "(3) An offer of employment in any other district at a rate of wage lower or on conditions less favourable than those generally observed in such district by agreement between associations of employers and of workmen, or, failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in such districts by good employers."
I do not propose to make my observations about the Amendment now, because we will consider this and other questions at the next meeting.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Mr. BUXTON

I beg to move "That the Committee do now adjourn till Tuesday next, 7th November, at 11.30 o'clock a.m."

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Thirty-eight minutes past Three o'clock.