§ (Refunding of part of contributions paid by employer in the case of workmen continuously employed.)
§ The Board of Trade shall, on the application of any employer made within one month after the termination of any calendar year, or other prescribed period of twelve months, refund to such employer out of the Unemployment Fund a sum equal to one-third of the contributions (exclusive of any contributions refunded to him under any other provisions of this part of this Act) paid by him on his own behalf during that period in respect of any workman who has been continuously in his service through the period, and in respect of whom not less than forty-five contributions have been paid during the period.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENThere is a very important point in this Clause to which I must call attention. I am not quite sure whether it is met by the words just put in. The right hon. Gentleman moved it in rather a different form from that in which it appears on the paper. The point arises on the word "continuously." It is very hard that if an employer has employed a man for a year and there has been a small break through the man being ill, or as the result of an accident, and the employer has paid forty-five contributions, the employer is not allowed to get the refund. I do not know whether the new words in the form in which they have been put in meet the point. Instead of using the words "continuously employed by him" the right hon. Gentleman proposes that the clause should read "continuously in his service." I repeat my doubt as to whether this meets my point. Let me put a case. I am an employer, and I am employing a man. In the current year I have paid forty-five contributions, and for three weeks in the middle of the period the man leaves my service and then comes back again. Why should I not have the refund? I should like to leave out the word "continuously" in the last line of the new Clause, and after the word "paid," insert "by such employer."
§ The CHAIRMANDoes the hon. Member wish to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Durham?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENNo. What I propose is to move to leave out the 2009 word "continuously," and after the word "paid" in the last line to insert the words "by such employer."
Later on I shall move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Durham. I want to get in the employer who has paid forty-five contributions, because I think he is entitled to the refund even though the man may have left his service and may not have been in his employ for the whole of the fifty-two weeks of the year. If, however, it will be more convenient for the Committee, I will move the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Durham: "In lines seven and eight leave out 'who has been continuously employed by him through the period and," and in line nine, insert "by such employer."
§ The CHAIRMANI think the words must be varied to meet the alteration of the new Clause from "continuously employed by him" to "continuously in his service."
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "who has been continuously in his service through the period, and"
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENThe point I wish to emphasise is this, that if on a man's behalf forty-five contributions have been paid in the current year, then the man who has employed him and paid the contributions ought to be entitled to the refund even if there may not have been continuity of service.
§ Sir J. SIMONI must ask the hon. Gentleman who has moved the omission of these words to reconsider his proposal, because if we accept the suggestion he now makes, the justification for this Clause, as we understand it, would very largely go. The reason why in this Clause we offer this bonus to the employer, is to meet the case of a workman in respect of whom the employer has made contributions and who has not come upon our Fund. If you accept the Amendment now suggested, this case will arise:—A workman may have been upon our Fund for no less than seven weeks in the year, and he may therefore have drawn out of the Fund no less than 49s., and although he has drawn that amount we should be giving to the employer the bonus which this Clause confers upon him. That is not carrying out the spirit of the proposal. The spirit of the proposal is that we should make it to the interest of the employer to see that his workmen do not come upon our Fund for the whole of the year. There is a small alteration which we have made in 2010 the language of the Clause which is designed to meet another point. It was pointed out to us that a case might arise in which the balance of weeks in a year during which no payment had been made by the employer were not represented by the man being out of work in the sense that he has come upon the Unemployment Fund, but was due to the fact that the man had met with an accident under the Workman's Compensation Act.
It is for that very reason that we have modified the words of the Clause and put in a reference to his service as distinguished from his employment, the idea being that, by that means, we save the employer from losing benefit if the man has been away owing to an accident under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but we certainly could not give this bonus to the employer if the workman is a workman who has fallen on our Fund for a number of weeks. For that reason I must oppose the proposal.
§ Mr. PETOMay I ask the learned Solicitor-General whether the words as they stand would really cover the question of the summer holidays, because I think it is open to question whether anybody could claim that he was a continuously-employed person? I only want to be assured that these words are sufficiently wide, because it certainly seems to me that if a man was away on his holidays, he would not be following his employment.
§ Sir J. SIMONI do not think the hon. Gentleman observed that the Chairman put the words not in the language just quoted, but in this form "any workman who has been continuously in his service." That is done for the purpose of securing, as long as the workman is on the books of the firm, whether he is earning wages every week or is away for a holiday, he will still get the benefit of the Clause.
§ Mr. HOLTI do not think there is any real difference between the learned Solicitor-General and myself as to what we want to say. I quite agree with what he wants to say, but has he really succeeded in saying it? That is the proposition we want to discuss. This, after all, might apply to a man who is a weekly wage earner; this contract of service is as a weekly wage earner, and mean's a consecutive number of weeks' employment, and if you go away for a three weeks' 2011 holiday it is not consecutive employment. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can explain the difference between "in his service" and "employed by him," but if it means when the man is off duty because he has gone for a holiday or through some injury is away from work, and then the employer gets the rebate, I am quite satisfied.
§ Sir J. SIMONMy hon. Friend's speech proves what I have so long suspected, that there is no fallacy so profound as the fallacy entertained by those persons who think that it is only lawyers who can criticise an Act of Parliament. I appreciate fully the point he has made, and I think it is a matter which will have to be carefully considered from that point of view. The same difficulty had occurred to my own mind, but I was not able to find for the moment any better words, and if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to consider it between now and Report, and take an opportunity of discussing it with him and any other hon. Gentleman who cares to, we will try and get better words.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENOf course; these new words "in his service" I have never seen, and I really wanted to carry out exactly what the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Holt, put.
§ Sir J. SIMONWe are all at one, then?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENYes, I quite agree with the Solicitor-General. I do not want a man to come on the Fund for seven weeks, but if he stands off for a week or a fortnight for any reason the employer should not be damaged, and as the Solicitor-General has said that he will reconsider the words, I withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. J. WARDIs not seven weeks an exceptional condition of affairs? I think, myself, that it looks rather awkward from the workman's point of view. It means that, for some reason or other, the workman might be stood off for seven weeks. Supposing he is told "you had better have a rest for three weeks and your job will be open for you at the end of the three weeks," he is not dismissed from his employment, and that could go on for a second period and be done again, but he could not claim unemployed benefit.
§ Sir J. SIMONI think he could.
§ Mr. J. WARDI am not so sure about it. Seven weeks seems to me to be rather a long period. I can quite understand it if a man had been continuously employed for the whole year, and had one or two or three weeks off, although it is a little peculiar for a workman to get three weeks' holiday in a year. We know that lawyers get long holidays—in fact, they call their holiday the "Long Vacation"—and I think this point should be re-considered.
§ Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ (Payment of contributions in case of Reservists or Territorials during training.)
§ Where a man of the Naval Reserves, the Army Reserve, or the Territorial Force is being trained and is in receipt of pay out of the moneys provided by Parliament for Navy or Army services, and immediately before the training was employed in an insured trade, he shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be deemed, whilst so training, to be in the employment of the Crown in an insured trade.
§ All I need say is that it shows on the face of it what is intended. On Report it may be necessary to alter the wording, but the principle of it is the thing.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENMay I as a member of a very aggrieved force, the Special Reserve, lately the Militia, ask why we are omitted? I am certain the words "Army Reserve" do not include the Special Reserve, and the words "Territorial Force" do not include the Special Reserve. Here we have men who go out for four weeks, and receive payment as soldiers. I would point out also that here we have a case that might come under the last Clause. A man goes out with the Territorials for a fortnight or four weeks, and he is not continuously employed by the employer during that time. Would he be in his service? I think that is a very material consideration, and I should like the answer of the Solicitor-General on the point.
§ Mr. J. WARDI would have liked some brief statement from the Solicitor-General as to what this really means. I have read it two or three times, and, like the hon. Gentleman opposite, I do not quite understand what the terms "Naval Reserves" and "Army Reserve" include—whether 2013 they include the forces to which the hon. Member referred, or whether they include some portion of them. I should like, in addition, to hear the last few words of the suggested new Clause explained.
§ Mr. PETOMy difficulty in regard to this new Clause is slightly different from that of my noble Friend in front of me, and the hon. Member for Stoke. The Clause says, where the man was immediately before the training employed in an insured trade, he shall be deemed whilst training to be in the employment of the Crown in an insured trade. I should like to know what that means. Does it mean that the contribution of 2½d. per week will have to be paid out of public moneys during the time he is training? I should also like to know what possible risk of unemployment that small amount of public money is being paid for, because it seems to me merely assuming him to be in an insured trade during the period of training, when obviously he could not be out of employment in that year or any other year is a very curious reason for making any contribution towards this particular part of the Act out of public moneys, even if it is only a small one.
Mr. BUXTONThe object of this is, that although for the moment he is not working at his insured trade, he shall be deemed to be continuing in his insured trade, and himself paying his contribution in order to get his benefit in the ordinary way. Therefore there is some employer who has to pay his contribution as against the man's contribution. In this case; as he is serving under the Crown, it would be the Crown's contribution. The whole thing is a comparatively small one from the money point of view, but I think that is the answer. In regard to the Special Reserve, the question does not come under the Board of Trade, and my information is not sufficient to enable me to give a definite answer. I am advised by the draftsman that they will be covered. The drafting may have to be altered, but I will take that point into account. As to how far the Clause which we passed just now will be affected, I should like to look into that. As regards the point put by my hon Friend, I did not understand what he wanted to ask me. The point of this Clause is to allow an employee to continue as in the service of the insured trade, although, since he is going out as a Territorial or in some other way, he is not actually working at an insured trade. It is in order to prevent any breach with his ordinary employment.
§ Mr. J. WARDI wish to know whether it is intended that you should deduct from, a man's wages his contribution while on training or whether the Government themselves will consider it their duty to pay both his share and the employer's share. The expression "Naval Reserves" is used. That includes all reserves attached to the Navy. If you had used a similar expression in regard to the Army, I should have thought you would have included all the reserves attached to the Army.
Mr. BUXTONI will look at the wording. It will be within the power of the Crown either to deduct the contribution from the employee or to pay the contribution on the part of the employer—that is to say, the Crown for the time being. What decision they will come to will really depend on the War Office rather than upon ourselves. But they will have power to deduct it if they wish, or they will have power to pay it themselves.
§ Mr. J. WARDI hope that is definitely understood, because the sum you pay the Territorials and men of that description is so mean—
§ Mr. J. WARDYou represent the Government. The sum paid is so mean that to make any deduction for the few weeks of training, even for this purpose, would be meaner still.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a second time" put, and agreed to.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI beg to move after the words "Army Reserve" ["the Army Reserve"] to insert the words "the Special Reserve."
The term "Army Reserve" is a technical term which everybody understands. The Army Reserve consists of men who have served with the colours on the regular establishment, and after their colour service passed into the reserve. The Special Reserve is a totally different thing. It is the old Militia, and the majority of the men have never been in the regulars. They are not in any sense an army reserve have. I served in the Special Reserve most of my life, and I know something about these things. To suggest that a man in the Special Reserve can be held to be a man in the Army Reserve is to suggest what really cannot be held for a single moment. I cannot conceive any harm arising from the 2015 acceptance of these words. If they are unnecessary, they can be struck out afterwards, but I feel convinced that they are necessary.
Mr. BUXTONI am in some difficulty about accepting any alteration in the wording. It is a very technical question. We are advised that the Special Reserve is included. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be content with the undertaking, which I think I have already given, to look into the matter with the War Office, and if words are required we will insert them. I 2016 hope for the present he will allow the Clause to stand as it is.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI will not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause added to the Bill.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes before Five o'clock until to-morrow (Thursday).