HC Deb 30 November 1911 vol 32 cc795-801

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

  1. (1) that he proves that he has been employed as a workman in an insured trade during each of not less than twenty-six separate calendar weeks in the preceding five years;
  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—

  1. (a) an offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute; or
  2. (b) 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 in his usual employment in that district, or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed; or
  3. (c) 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.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton)

I beg to move to leave out the word "during" ["during each of not less than"] and to insert instead thereof the word "in."

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I think the Government might explain what they mean by the Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson)

The word "during" might conceivably be interpreted as applying to each one of the twenty-six weeks. It would carry a wider meaning than is desired. The word "in" excludes an unduly wide interpretation and limits it to the precise stipulation desired to be made.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I do not quite gather what the explanation of the Government is. Does it mean in each of the weeks?

Mr. BUXTON

Yes, it does.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

What is the difference? What is the object?

Sir J. SIMON

If one says that a man has been at work during a week, it may be understood to mean that he has been at work from the beginning of the week to the end of the week without interruption, and consequently if he has been unemployed for half a day during the week it may be said he has not been employed during the week. That is not the intention of the Clause, and to that extent the correction is purely verbal. What is necessary is that he should have been at work for some part of each of the twenty-six weeks.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I beg to move, to leave out the word "five" ["in the preceding five years"] and to insert instead thereof the word "three."

As the Clause was originally drafted there was no time limit at all. If a man had been in an insured trade, and for any period subsequently had ceased to belong to an insured trade and then got unemployed—he might have been out of the country even—he could come back years after and claim the right to unemployed benefit. It was pointed out that that made the Bill practically unworkable. The Government were prepared to meet us. Of course it is quite true to say if this part of the Bill applied to all trades, it would be perfectly unnecessary to have any time limit, but it does not. It only applies to these two trades and in those trades we want to make the experiment perfectly clear and simple, and surely it cannot be pretended that if a man goes away for a long time he should come back and get unemployed benefit. I proposed that the time limit should be one year. If a man has been away for more than one year, he should lose the right to get benefit. The Government suggested five years, and there was a good deal of discussion in Committee on the subject. It was generally thought that three years would be a fair limit, and the Government undertook to consider the matter. I hoped that they would put down an Amendment to limit the time to three years. A man may be an engineer who has paid in for twenty-six weeks. Then he goes away for just under five years, lives in a different place, and then he comes back upon this fund. The period is too long, and it will be difficult to trace these people. It will make the work of the insurance officers difficult, and it will be difficult to keep the funds solvent. I think three years long enough, and I hope the Government will meet us in this matter.

Mr. HOARE

I beg to second the Amendment. I was under the impression that the Government agreed in the Standing Committee that the period should be three years. I think the general feeling of the Committee was that three years was the proper length of time.

Mr. BUXTON

My recollection of the matter is that the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) moved in the Committee that the period should be one year. It was suggested by others that it should be three years. The Government thought five years would be better, and we put that period in the Bill. In accordance with the promise made in the Committee we have looked carefuly into the matter, and we have come to the conclusion that three years would be too restricted a period, and that it would be unfair to the man himself. If a particular man has paid during the time he has been engaged in an insured trade a certain number of contributions, and for some reason he falls out for a period from the insured trade, I cannot in such a case see what the justice would be if that man forfeited the contributions he had paid and the benefit he would otherwise receive. I admit that carrying it on indefinitely might be somewhat difficult. With reference to the question as between three and five years there is no difficulty from our point of view. The Board of Trade look at the matter from the point of view of justice, and we think that the period of five years is better than three years. I would ask the hon. Gentleman opposite on what grounds he could justify such a rapid forfeiture of the amount which the man himself has actually put into the unemployed fund simply because, for the time being, and for reasons over which perhaps he might not have control, he was for a short time away from the insured trade. I think it would be a great hardship from the administrative point of view. We think five years certainly not too long, but if anything, too short.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

There was a discussion on this matter in the Committee upstairs, and the leader of the Labour party was in favour of a shorter period than five years. I find that the hon. Gentleman for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) said:— 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B., 2nd November, 1911, col. 66.] I call the attention of the House to the fact that that was apparently his view, and I fancy it was on the basis of this that the President of the Board of Trade said that, so far as he was concerned, there was no administrative difficulty in having the period either three or five years. I agree that there is no administrative difficulty from the point of view of the Board of Trade, because they are merely to repay to the trade unions the portion of the benefit they can claim. But the trade unions have to keep track of these men for five years. The administrative difficulty is, it is true, not on the Board of Trade, but on the trade unions. There are hon. Gentlemen in the House more qualified than I am to speak for the trade unions. I would remind them that this point was raised upstairs by one of their members, and I leave it to them to make good their case if they want an Amendment. The President of the Board of Trade seemed to try to raise a question of prejudice by saying that it would be hard that a man's contributions should be forfeited in this way. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had been here during the discussions on Part I. of the Bill. We have to-day been protesting against the forfeiture of contributions paid, not for a short period, but year after year, it may be, for ten years. When that claim is raised by hon. Members on this side of the House the Government disregard it, but now they take refuge under that form of argument in this matter. It seems to me that they are endeavouring to raise prejudice in order to prevent the House from dealing with the matter in the way my hon. Friend proposes.

Mr. BARNES

I do not think there is any strong feeling on this side of the House as to the difference between three and five years. On the whole we favour the shorter term rather than the longer one. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Well, I will put my own view before the House. It is not a matter for the trade unions. So far as the trade unions are concerned, and especially the trade unions of skilled men, it does not matter much to them whether a man comes back after three years or five years. I do not know that it will make much difference either one way or the other. But as the Bill is framed this is to apply not only to the skilled men in the unions, but also to labouring men who might find it difficult to prove to the Board of Trade, or whatever the authority might be, that they had been employed for twenty-six weeks in the trade in the previous five years. For that reason, I should say it is far better to take the shorter period. I was sorry to hear the declaration of the President of the Board of Trade that he intends to stick to five years. I think it would be easier for the man, apart altogether from the trade unions, to prove that he had been working twenty-six weeks in the previous three years instead of in the previous five years.

Mr. TYSON WILSON

I was present in the Committee when this subject was discussed, and my understanding was that it was the intention of the Government to insert three years. Personally I would sooner strike out five years altogether and leave it unlimited. I would sooner have two years than three. As the hon. Member for Blackfriars has pointed out, the Bill applies to unskilled labour as well as to trade unionists and as regards the unions it would be impossible for them to trace the history of all the members.

Sir J. SIMON

I do not think that my hon. Friend who has just spoken has quite considered the nature of the alternative suggestions. I understood him to say in one breath that he would prefer a more limited period than five years and in the next breath that sooner than have five years he would have it unlimited. I must ask the House to consider what the real bearing of this matter is. It is the simplest thing in the world. The man in question has paid a certain number of contributions into this fund in order to insure himself against unemployment. Having done that he is in this position under the Bill, that he cannot withdraw more than one week's benefit of 7s. for every five weeks which he has paid into the fund. Obviously in pure logic you ought not to deprive a man of his rights as far as they go, however long ago it is since he has contributed. But this is not practicable because we cannot go back say fifty years. That is the only reason why anybody suggests that there should be some limit. The President has said that from the administrative point of view it is just as easy to keep records for five as for three years. The position is not quite what the hon. Member for Colchester describes as regards trade unions. This arrangement does not mean that the trade union member goes straight from the job where he has been turned off and demands his benefit. He begins by handing in his card to the insurance officers and he is entitled to claim either to be paid by the insurance officer or through his trade union. Therefore, it is not a fact that it would necessarily throw upon the trade union the difficulty of keeping this account.

All that the House has got to do is to decide—since you cannot have an unlimited period and therefore in some cases he must forfeit contributions though logically he ought always to have his own contributions as far as they go—what is the limit of time you are going to impose. I would suggest that when the Board of Trade officers say that they can administer this quite as well during five as during three years back there is no justification for saying to a man, "I do not care whether you have subscribed or have been sick, unless you can show that you worked twenty-six weeks during the three years, you may have subscribed, but this benefit cannot be given." There is no justification for this. The whole question is what is a practical period to lay down over which you can go back? Besides, I would point out to the hon. Member for Blackfriars that I do not think there is any great difference between going back three years and going back five years, and for this reason. He wants to bring in every man who can prove that during the last three years he has worked for six months. If he shows that then it follows that the man has worked six months during the last five years also. So there is no difficulty about that at all. When we make this proposal that he will be entitled to benefit even though he has only worked for a half-year at the insured trade during the last five years that does not mean that for four and a-half years he has been idle. It may mean that part of the time he has been sick, or unable to work, or for part of the time he has been working at a trade which is not an insured trade, but is just on the other side of the line. I would suggest to the House that if the administrative difficulty can be got over five years is not an unreasonable time.

Sir HILDRED CARLILE

I do not think the learned Solicitor-General has dealt quite fairly with the speech of the hon. Member opposite. What the hon. Member said was that he was in favour of two years himself and that he would rather have three years and not five as the learned Solicitor-General said. The whole object of this Clause is to place special benefit within the reach of men engaged in these specified insured trades. But I do not think we could rightly describe men as being engaged in those trades who have been merely engaged for a single month or five weeks every year for five consecutive years. I think five years is an excessive period and I shall be prepared to support my hon. Friend if he proposes to divide.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I raised the point, but do not wish to press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.