HC Deb 09 July 1920 vol 131 cc1883-95

(1) For the purpose of qualifying seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen to receive unemployment benefit on their return to civil life, the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council, respectively, shall, subject as hereinafter provided, out of moneys provided by Parliament for Navy, Army and Air Force services, respectively, pay to the unemployment fund such sums as may in the opinion of the Treasury be sufficient to enable all seamen, marines, soldiers, and airmen discharged from the service after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty, to be credited on discharge with the fixed number of contributions, and every seaman, marine, soldier, and airman who is so discharged shall, for the purposes of this Act be treated as though he were on the date of his discharge an insured contributor in respect of whom the fixed number of contributions have been paid, and who ceases to be employed on that date:

Provided that—

(a) the sums payable under this Section shall not exceed in the aggregate such an amount as would be produced by weekly contributions paid in respect of each person so discharged as aforesaid at the weekly rate of sixpence throughout the period of his service; and

(b) no such payment shall be made in respect of any person who is, after the commencement of this Act, entitled to receive any sum out of public funds under any scheme for making payments to discharged seamen, marines, soldiers, or airmen in respect of unemployment.

(2) The fixed number of contributions for the purposes of this Section shall be ninety unless the Treasury are at any time of opinion that, having regard to the sums payable to the unemployment fund under this Section, it is necessary to fix some lower number.

(3) The sums to be paid under this Section to the unemployment fund shall be calculated in such manner as the Treasury may direct, and shall be paid to the unemployment fund in such manner and at such dates as may be agreed upon between the Minister and the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council, respectively.

(4) Nothing in this Section shall apply to any seaman, marine, soldier, or airman who is discharged through circumstances due to his own fault or at his own request.

(5) In this Section—

The expression "seaman" means a seaman within the meaning of the Naval and Marine (Pay and Pensions) Act, 1865;

The expression "marine" means a marine within the meaning of the Naval and Marine (Pay and Pensions) Act, 1865;

The expression "soldier" means a soldier of the regular forces, but does not include any soldier of His Majesty's Indian Forces or Royal Malta Artillery, or a native soldier of any regiment raised outside the United Kingdom;

The expression "airman" means a man of the regular Air Force;

Reference to "discharge" includes references to "transfer to the reserve," including a seaman, marine, soldier, or airman who, on the completion of any term of service, is transferred to any reserve.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "such sums as may in the opinion of the Treasury be sufficient to enable", and insert instead thereof "by way of employers' and employed persons' contributions in respect of".

After the word "twenty" insert the words "such sum as may in the opinion of the Treasury be sufficient to enable those seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Dr. MACNAMARA

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (a).

This was a provision to secure that the weekly contribution of the discharged men of the Navy, Army and Air Force Services should not exceed sixpence, but now that the State contribution is a fixed figure this Sub-section is no longer necessary.

Sir F. BANBURY

Will this throw an increased charge upon the Exchequer?

Dr. MACNAMARA

Surely my right hon. Friend knows that it would not be competent for me to do that without re-committing the Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY

That is why I asked.

Dr. MACNAMARA

My right hon. Friend may be quite sure that I should have taken care to ask for the re-committal. Had I thought that there would be any increased charge.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "through circumstances due to his own fault or".

This is a matter of substance which was raised in Committee upstairs. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes) asked whether a man disqualified from benefit because he was discharged through circumstances due to his own fault, would have a right of appeal, and I promised to give the matter consideration. This Amendment is an endeavour to deal with that point, and partly to cover cases previously omitted. If hon. Members will look at the next Amendment, they will see that I propose to insert the words "or at the request of his parent or guardian". In all probability he is a mere boy under age, who has served for a very short time. On the whole, we thought that it would not be fair that he should be able to claim free insurance by reason of his very short period of service. The same is true of apprentices. There is also the case of the re-enlisted pensioner. He is a person who has served less than three months, and clearly his is not a case in which it would be proper to grant free insurance. The essential point raised by my right hon. Friend relates to the deserter, or the man who is discharged or dismissed in consequence of having been convicted on any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act, Army Act, or Air Force Act. Such a man has two opportunities of establishing his case: First, at his hearing; and then, if dismissed, by appeal to the War Office or the Admiralty.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert the words or at the request of his parent or guardian, or who is a deserter, or who is discharged or dismissed in consequence of having been convicted on any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act, or the Air Force Act, or by any civil Court, or to recruits or re-enlisted pensioners not finally approved.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman would accept an amendment to leave out the words or who is discharged or dismissed in consequence of having been convicted on any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act, or the Air Force Act. I quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the man who deserts; but at the same time I do not think that many officers sitting on Courts-Martial or Disciplinary Courts, in deciding whether a man is to be dismissed the Service or not, will realise that it may mean the loss of his total Unemployment Benefits, and the matter, I think, requires a little more examination. We know that men, quite properly, are dismissed from the Services for offences which would not bring upon them similar punishment if they were in civil life. Possibly they are excellent workmen and good citizens, but, through temperament, are really unsuited for a disciplined force. It seems to me rather hard that these men, in addition to being dismissed or discharged and losing all pension rights, prize money, and benefits of that sort, should also lose the right of insurance if they take up regular employment in civil life. He has left, the Service as unsuited for it, and then you say he shall lose all Unemployment Benefits if he goes into some trade outside which is insurable.

Dr. MACNAMARA

No.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

It seems to me that you do. There is something to be said for a man who commits a serious offence, losing his benefits, but it does not seem right that for an offence which in civil life would not be so serious we should visit a man's sins upon his family. I would much rather that the right hon. Gentleman had confined the Amendment to the deserter and the man who leaves the Service at the request of his parents. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment which I suggest, but I certainly think the matter needs a little more examination.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend quite under- stands, and I am not surprised, because this is a very technical matter. During a man's service, it does not matter whether he is a soldier or a sailor, the Government is paying something in on his behalf, and, when he leaves the Service, even although he has paid no contributions at all, he has 90 contributions to his credit and is able during the first year to get 15 weeks' unemployment benefit. If he deserts, he will not have any such contributions to his credit. He may, however, go into insurable employment and start afresh. My hon. and gallant Friend does not object to that; he objects to the man who is dismissed the Service in consequence of having been convicted of some offence being deprived of his unemployment benefit. He thinks that it is hard. I really do not think that it is. What happens is that he loses his opportunity of fifteen weeks' unemployment benefit in respect of his service with the forces. I think it is not unfair to say that a man discharged from His Majesty's service in consequence of the proceedings under these Acts ought to suffer that loss. A man who is not dismissed and not discharged, but is punished under the Naval Discipline Act, and has stayed in the Service until the end of his time, is not penalised and will have the opportunity of getting the fifteen weeks' unemployed benefit in the first year after he leaves the Service.

Mr. CLYNES

I was not convinced by the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that there was a great deal of justice in his Amendment, but, after listening to the statement of the Minister of Labour, I am tempted to ask if it is to be imagined that anyone in the service will ever be in the slightest degree influenced in regard to what he considers is his duty in the service by any prospective benefits in relation to this Act. Would a provision of this kind deter him from doing anything wrong or committing any mistake. If a man is guilty of misconduct the penalty should fall upon him in some way and not upon his wife and family, as in 99 cases out of a 100 it does. The unemployment benefit is not so much a payment to a workman out of work for the time being in the shape of money for him to spend as it is income for the household, and therefore we ought not to penalise the wife and children for misconduct on the part of the man. Is it anticipated or imagined that a man would be influenced in his conduct in the service by the terms of this Act? I do not think any prospects of monetary gain in relation to the terms of employment would in the slightest way influence a man in respect of what he may do in the service. If he does wrong let him, as a service man, be personally punished in some other way, but do not penalise his family by withholding from them the money to which otherwise they would be entitled.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that this does mean an additional penalty on the man who commits an offence, for which he may be discharged from the service by sentence of court-martial. The officers of the court award the sentence which they think fits the offence and on the top of that, under this Act, it is proposed to impose an additional penalty on the man.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Not unless he be dismissed or discharged.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY

Assuming that the sentence of the court is that he be dismissed, that sentence presumably in the opinion of the court fits the crime, but in this case the right hon. Gentleman says there must be an additional penalty which falls not only on the man but on his wife and children. I suggest it is fair neither to the man nor to his family to impose this additional penalty, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in view of what has been said on this point, will either now alter this Amendment or undertake that the necessary alteration shall be made when the Bill reaches another place.

Brigadier-General SURTEES

I entirely disagree with the arguments of the last two speakers. I recollect the time when the system of deferred pay was in vogue in the Army, and I know that the possibility of losing that deferred pay had an extraordinary effect on the conduct of men. If members of a Court-Martial do not know what extra penalties are involved by sentences which they pass then they deserve to be severely dealt with.

Mr. R. SMITH

I do not think the point raised by the last speaker has any application to this matter, because obviously if the offence of which a man has been guilty is of such a nature as to render him, in the opinion of those who try him, unfit to remain in the Service, they cannot take into consideration, to any great extent, the penalties that would follow on a man being dismissed. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour to consider this point. We are dealing with the Service man who commits an offence differently to the way in which we deal with a civilian. The penalty in the Act with regard to the man in civil life who loses employment by his own fault is in effect to deprive him of his unemployment benefit for a very limited period. I do not think it is fair to treat the man in the Service differently in that respect, seeing that the offence may be exactly the same. It may be an offence arising out of drunkenness which has caused the man to be discharged from the Service. In civil employment a man so discharged is penalised to the extent that he cannot claim benefit for six weeks, whereas in the case of a man in the Service he is deprived in the first twelve months of his opportunity of 15 weeks' benefit. I think there is a case for reconsideration in this matter, and if the Government cannot concede what is now asked, they certainly should agree not to place the Service man in a worse position than the man in civil life.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words or who is discharged or dismissed in consequence of having been convicted on any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act, or the Air Force Act, or by any civil Court. That would cut out the cases of those men whom we have been considering. I need not repeat the arguments which I have just put forward.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I quite sympathise with the general spirit of my hon. Friends who have put this point to me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) asked me in Committee what sort of appeal a man would have, and I pointed out that, if a man is dismissed or discharged in consequence of such proceedings, he would have an appeal, although I do not say that that goes the whole way to meet the point. I am asked now that this penalty, if it be so called, shall not be imposed. I hope that that request will not be pressed. The matter has been the subject of very careful calculation by the Admiralty and the War Office, and I have been in close consultation with them in regard to it. I would, however, go thus far, for what it is worth. I cannot make any modification on my own responsibility, apart from the services concerned; I must work in connection with them. I will, however, consult them, and see if, between us, we can agree that this can be fairly modified—I do not say it can, but I will ask them—so that the penalty may not fall upon women and children. Of course, in the very large proportion of these cases, the men concerned would be single and not married men. If it appears to those who are responsible for this, acting in consultation with myself as Minister of Labour, that some modification is possible, I will do my best to get whatever may be agreed upon inserted in another place. I must, however, resist this Amendment now, and I hope it will not be pressed.

Major BARNES

I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman could meet us as far as this. There has been a good deal of expression of opinion, at all events from this side of the House, with regard to this matter, and we realise that it is probably one which the right hon. Gentleman does not feel able to deal with himself at the present moment. If the matter is left as he proposes to leave it, however, we may never have another chance of taking a decision on the point. The Bill is leaving this House now and going to another place. When it comes back again, if nothing has been done on this point, we could not raise it again. Could not the right hon. Gentleman meet us by taking out these words now, on the understanding that, if, after consultation, he cannot modify them, he will put them back in another place. That would give us an opportunity, when the Bill came back to this House, to take a decision on the point.

Dr. MACNAMARA

That suggestion was made to me last Friday in connection with Clause 8, which deals with disqualification for unemployment benefit. I would rather leave it the other way. I have no authority, naturally, to modify the terms. I have said that I will do what I can, after consultation, to see if they can be modified, and that, if that is found possible, I will do my best to get the modification carried out in another place.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY

We are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but I think this is a case in which he should be supreme. It is not a matter for either the Army Council, the Admiralty, or the Air Force to settle. As far as they are concerned, their desire is to carry it out by the court-martial that takes place, and I can see no reason why they should be called upon to decide whether or not an additional penalty to that imposed by their subordinates should be imposed upon a man's family. It is a question of the civil versus the military power, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to bear that in mind.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert a new Sub-section: (5) Every seaman, marine, soldier, and airman who, subsequent to the date of his discharge, joins an excepted employment, shall cease to be an insured contributor under this Act, and the sums paid to the unemployment fund in respect of any such person shall be repaid to the Admiralty, Army Council, or Air Council, as the case may be. This Amendment is designed to safeguard the Exchequer. The Clause enacts that out of moneys provided by Parliament, the Navy, Army and Air Force respectively shall pay to the Unemployment Fund such sums as may, in the opinion of the Treasury, be sufficient to enable all seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen discharged after a certain date to be credited on discharge with the fixed number of contributions. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I asked in Committee what would happen in the case of those seamen, soldiers and airmen who, subsequent to their discharge, joined one of the excepted employments referred to in Part II. of the First Schedule of this Bill; and I suggested to him that, before the Report Stage, he might consider some means whereby sums credited to the Unemployment Funds in respect of men who subsequently joined an excepted employment should be repaid to the Army Council, Admiralty, Air Force, as the case might be. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment. If it is accepted, I assume that the moneys refunded will be put under Unexpended Balances, and will not be spent in some other way. So far as the national Exchequer is concerned, I certainly think that these sums, if the men subsequently join an excepted employment, ought to be repaid to the authorities mentioned in the Amendment.

Major BARNES

I beg to second the Amendment.

This is clearly an Amendment in which the past of the right hon. Gentleman tends to go against his present. As Minister of Labour he will want to keep the unemployed fund as big as it can be. He is asked under the Amendment to secure that sums shall be paid back out of it to the Admiralty, Army Council or the Air Council, as the case may be. I have no doubt if he were still Secretary to the Admiralty he would think this was rather a good Amendment. Perhaps it will help him to make better terms with regard to the one we have just left. If he accepts this he can go to the Admiralty and point out that what they will lose on the swings they will gain on the roundabouts. If they will not insist on the former Amendment and let the man with whom I am quite sure his vast experience will give him a great deal of sympathy, have the benefit of it, the Admiralty by this Amendment may recover some amount. I do not know if this will succeed in convincing the right hon. Gentleman that there are good grounds for accepting this Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I do not take seriously the suggestion that I should go to the Admiralty with a proposal of that sort. What my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Murray) put to me up stairs was this. What would happen to a soldier, a sailor or an airman when he came out of the Service, and went into an excepted occupation? Will he then have to go on paying?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY

That was not the principal point—not whether he had to go on paying, but what would happen to the sums which had already been contributed to the unemployment fund on his behalf?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I thought my hon. and gallant Friend asked me generally what would be the position of the man when he left the Service, and went into an excepted occupation? He will not pay, of course. What will happen to him will be that for 12 months he will be entitled to 15 weeks' unemployment benefit. Thereafter it will depend whether he goes into an insurable occupation or not, whether he pays or not. I agree that is not the main thing. The main thing is, what is going to happen to the contribution. The Amendment proposes that if an ex-service man takes a post in agriculture, for instance, no contribution shall be credited to him. That has to be borne in mind The money paid on his behalf by the Army Council or Admiralty, as the case may be, shall be refunded to the Army Council or the Admiralty. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Barnes) quite realised that. He says I must be anxious that the fund shall be as large as possible.

Major BARNES

I suggested that your former position as Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty would pull against your present position.

4.0 P.M.

Dr. MACNAMARA

My hon. and gallant Friend entirely left out my future. That argument will not do. But it is not in the interest of the man to have this money so paid back. Although, in an excepted occupation, he may fall into unemployment at some other time, and have no benefit coming to him. Surely it is probably in his interest that the money shall stand where it is, and not be paid back to the Army Council or Admiralty, otherwise, with the best intentions in the world, my hon. and gallant Friends may inflict a hardship upon the very man for whom they are most solicitous. I do not know whether they have considered that aspect of the matter. That alone will make it impossible for me to accept the Amendment.

Lieut-Colonel MURRAY

Let us assume that a man be in an excepted occupation for 10 years, and then joins an insured occupation. Would he stand in the same position as if he had joined it 10 years before?

Dr. MACNAMARA

Not 10 years, because elsewhere there is a provision that if he be away from insurance for five years, everything is wound up.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made:

After Clause 41, insert the words:

"TEMPORARY AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS."

After Clause 42, leave out the words:

"TEMPORARY AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS." [Dr. Macnamara.]