§ Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, no employer shall be required to make any contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund in respect of any person employed by him who is a person exempted tinder the said Acts from payment of con- 1106 tributions to the said Fund.—[Mr. Harmsworth.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. HARMSWORTHI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Amendment is not one that will affect a great number of people. It has to do with exempted persons, and I feel sure that the Minister will agree that, whether the exempted persons are in the scheme or outside the scheme, it will not make a great deal of difference to the success of the scheme financially. In answer to a question which I put to him, he replied that there were 31,456 exempted persons, and that their employers contributed approximately £50,000 in 1926–27. If this scheme were managed by an ordinary insurance company, for in stance, there would not be payments by the employers or the State for people exempted from that scheme. I under stand that the argument in favour of these payments for exempted persons is that the employers might be tempted to employ exempted persons so that they would not have to pay the contributions. There are, however, so few of these exempted persons that it could not possibly make any difference in that respect. If an employer set out to look for exempted persons to employ, he could not find enough to make any difference to him.
I suggest, therefore, that the Minister might accept this Clause because, as a matter of principle, it seems ridiculous that either the employers or the State should be asked to contribute to a Fund in respect of people who are exempted from the Fund. Whether the amount of relief given to industry or to the Exchequer would make much difference does not matter. It is as a point of principle that I am raising it. Was it intended when the scheme was started that the State and the employers should pay money for people who are getting nothing out of it? They are simply being taxed to pay money to a Fund from which no one is to benefit. It would make a great deal of difference to the scheme if the Minister were to remove this anomaly and put the matter on a proper footing.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI am so hardhearted, as hon. Members opposite know, that I am afraid I must say "no" 1107 to the hon. Member. As he says, it is more a question of principle than of the difference it would make to the Fund. But it is as a question of principle that contributions have always been paid by employers in respect of exempted persons. This employment ex hypothesi is an insurable employment. It is an employment in respect of which normally the employer would pay an employer's contribution. The employer is really benefiting if the person in respect of whom he pays a contribution is not likely to come upon the Fund if he should be out of work. That is one of the reasons why, looked at from that point of view, an employer does not suffer hardship nor does the Exchequer in respect of the contribution which it pays as the employer pays his. For that reason there is no justification in principle for this Clause. On the other hand, there is also a good deal of force in the argument that we ought not to put a person who can say he is an exempted person at an advantage as compared with a non-exempted person. In so far as cost is a matter of moment to employers, to that extent there would naturally be a tendency not to employ the person who comes under the scheme when it is possible to employ someone who is exempted. The scales should be held equally between the two. For that reason, it is right that employers should pay contributions for exempted persons. I do not think they suffer hardship. It is an insurable employment. They pay for the person who works for them in an insurable employment. If that person is not likely to be a burden on the Unemployment Fund then they, like others, are advantaged thereby.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEYI am sorry the Minister is not going to give this matter further consideration, because it is one of those little annoying things, small in themselves, about which many employers of labour are complaining. Several people have approached me on this matter, and they regard it as paying for something for which no benefit is going to be derived by anybody except the Fund itself. The type of person that is usually exempted is one in a responsible position, such as a foreman earning over a certain amount per year. Employers argue that it has been their custom in the past when trade has been slack to keep those men in employment and, as they are 1108 prepared to continue to do so, they cannot understand why they should have to pay this contribution when the man himself is exempt from so doing, and as he receives no benefit, they have to contribute to his maintenance if trade be slack. There is more in the complaint than the Minister realises. Perhaps, because it is a small number of people who are affected, the volume of protests against it is not so loud as it should be, but I can assure him that many people regard it as an annoyance and would welcome this Amendment.
§ Sir JOHN MARRIOTTI wish to join my hon. Friend in asking the Minister to give this more consideration. I agree that, from the point of view of finance and of the employer, it is not a matter of great importance, but it is one of those little irritations which tend to impair the smooth working of an admirable scheme. On that ground I hope the Minister may be induced to give it a little more consideration before the Report stage.
§ Mr. A. GREENWOODI only wish to say that, if hon. Members opposite will challenge a Division on this, we shall be glad to support the Government.
§ Mr. GARDNERI am glad to learn that the Minister, who is so hard-hearted towards us on this Bill, is not going to accept this Clause. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) said that some employers keep men from going on the rates—
§ Mr. WOMERSLEYI did not say that. I said they kept these men going when trade was slack, and have done it for many years past. They are valued servants and, though they have to pay contributions for them, they keep them, going.
§ Mr. GARDNERThe whole principle of the exemption is that the man concerned is so well-off that he need not come on the fund or on the rates. The hon. Member who moved the Motion laid it down that the contributions are very small, and said that he could not conceive employers being tempted to employ persons who were exempted. If he will read the daily newspapers, he will see numbers of prosecutions which show that it is very difficult to get some of them to pay contributions at all. I am certain that if this privilege were granted that the time would not be very far off 1109 when some employers would advertise for men specially exempted in order to carry on their industry.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.