HC Deb 31 July 1914 vol 65 cc1706-7

Where the Board of Trade, whether before or after the passing of this Act, have made an Order under Section one hundred and four of the principal Act excluding any occupation from the occupations which are deemed to be occupations in an insured trade any workman shall, on making an application to the Board of Trade for the purpose within six months after the making of the Order or the passing of this Act, whichever may be the later, and on satisfying the Board of Trade—

  1. (a) that the number of contributions paid in respect of him are less than ten; and
  2. (b) that by reason of the Order he has ceased to be employed in an insured trade;
be entitled to have repaid to him out of the unemployment fund the amount of the contributions paid by him whilst employed in the occupation so excluded, after deducting the amount of the unemployment benefit, if any, which he may have received; but if at any time after such repayment he becomes entitled to unemployment benefit he shall be treated as if no contributions had been paid in respect of him whilst employed in such occupation.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

Under Section 104 of the Act where the Umpire decides that a workman is not properly under the Act his contributions wrongly paid are refunded. Where, however, he has rightly paid contributions under employment in a trade that is subsequently excluded by exclusion order, he is not entitled to recover. There is no real hardship in this case, wherever more than ten contributions have been paid, because the workman is actually in benefit. But hardship does arise where less than ten contributions have been paid. Ten is the limit under this amending Clause, and where less than ten have been paid, the workman, at the time of exclusion, is out of benefit.


I do not understand the words in the Clause, "after deducting … have received." Are they not unnecessary, benefit not being payable unless ten contributions have been paid?


I will consider those words, and if necessary, I undertake that the matter shall be put right in another place.


Are we to understand that anyone who has paid over ten contributions is entitled to have those extra contributions refunded, although the workman may be excluded. There are cases where the workman has paid for six months, and we are told that he would be entitled to unemployment benefit; but in the meantime the man might die before being unemployed, and therefore there would be no refunding. Where men have paid contributions who are not insured persons, will the whole of their contributions be given to them less any benefit they may have received.


Where a man has actually paid contributions enough to qualify he remains in benefit. If he becomes unemployed, no matter at what date, he is entitled to benefit, even though his trade is no longer insured. In the case where the Umpire decides that contributions have been paid illegally, those payments now will always be refunded.


In the case of one ironworks the men have paid their contributions for eighteen months, and then were excluded from the Act. Are they entitled to get their contributions returned?


Certainly; if the Umpire decides that they were not properly under the Act, they are entitled to have them refunded.

Clause read a second time, and inserted in the Bill.