HC Deb 14 March 1928 vol 214 cc1900-2
22. Mr. MAXTON

asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the test case in Derby County Court, where Mr. Fred Relf claimed wages from Victoria Films, Limited, for one day's employment; and whether he is taking steps to see that the other 210 men supplied through the Employment Exchange will receive their wages?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

A number of men were supplied to the Victoria Films, Limited, through the local Employment. Exchanges, but the question of the recovery of any wages due is a matter for settlement between the workpeople and the employers, and is not one in which the Ministry have any power to intervene.

Mr. MAXTON

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that if some 200 persons are given employment through a local Employment Exchange with a private company, and this company defrauds those men of a day's wages, the local Exchange have no responsibility for seeing that they get paid, when their claim for wages has been established in a Court of law?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I cannot be responsible, speaking for the local Exchanges, provided that every ordinary and proper care is taken, either for the employers or for the workmen. I take proper care, and beyond that I cannot undertake responsibility.

Mr. MAXTON

Do I understand then that the Minister has no responsibility for seeing, as these men drew unemployment pay on that day from the Exchange, that the wages for that day were on the shoulders of the person who employed them and not on the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I do not know what the hon. Member understands, but I have just given the hon. Member my answer.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over 200 of these men drew unemployment benefit for that day, that a test case has been fought, and that the employer has had a decree against him to pay wages, and is not the right hon. Gentleman's Department by law required to take up the question in order to safeguard the Insurance Fund from having to pay out benefit when wages ought to have been paid?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Not that I am aware of, and I am not aware that I either have the power or the duty to do that.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the Unemployment Insurance Act no workman is entitled to receive unemployment benefit when wages are due; and is it not his function to see that these wages are paid, and not unemployment benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

It is not my function to see that wages are paid. I take every ordinary and proper care to see that employment offered is proper employment, and from both points of view, that the person is suitable and the employment proper, but beyond that my responsibility does not and ought not to go.

Mr. E. BROWN

Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty, if he does not take that point of view, to see at least that the Fund is protected?

Mr. HAYES

Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty to see that the Fund is not used for subsidising the wage bills of employers?

Mr. J. HUDSON

Does the right hon. Gentleman protect the Fund against the workers and not against the employers?

Mr. MAXTON

Does the right hon. Gentleman know the facts connected with this case, that these men were representing soldiers of the British Army, and that this Victory Films Company deliberately tried to defraud these men, and—

Mr. SPEAKER rose

—

Mr. MAXTON

I beg to give notice that at the earliest possible moment will call attention to this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.