UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT. (Hansard, 18 May 1931)

§ Mr. BEAUMONT
The matter which I desire to raise is one which has very widespread effect in reference to the working of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It can best be illustrated by an isolated case brought to my notice in my own constituency, and this case is, I understand, typical of many all over the country. In the Royal Air Force camp at Halton, men have been employed, since 1739 the inception of the camp, as stokers, and, as such, for many years, have paid insurance contributions. The insurance contributions were deducted from their pay at each week-end, but in March of this year the deductions suddenly ceased. They were informed that, under a judgment of the High Court in April of last year they had been declared to be domestic servants and were thus no longer eligible for unemployment benefit and therefore no longer liable to contribute. I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to be able to state how that definition was arrived at, but I am convinced that men who stoke the boilers for the steam heating of a large Air Force camp were never intended by the House to be classed as domestic servants, and that it was never intended that, having paid contributions all these years, they should be deprived of benefit. The hardship is even greater. In some cases this is casual employment. These men have been taken on in the winter months; they have paid their insurance contributions, and have subsisted on unemployment benefit during the summer months. Now, having paid for insurance, having had all these winter deductions from their wages—money which they might have saved in order to help towards provision for the summer—they will have no means of subsistence during the summer.
Some of these men have been employed for 10 and 12 years and some have-only been taken on recently. Some of them have been informed that they can only recover their past payments for more than one year or less than six years. Therefore, a man who has been in unemployment insurance for only nine months, and is suddenly deprived of any right to benefit, cannot reclaim his past payments, and a man who has paid for nine years cannot reclaim payment for the first three years. That is a dead loss to him, and not by his error, but by the error of the Government. The answer to this may be that these are the laws on the Statute Book and that without legislation nothing can be done. But this is a matter of very grave urgency. Some of these men will be in want. They are all poor men. They are also told their situation will not be certain until the case has actually been tried before the 1740 courts. That is another hardship and a very serious one to put on poor men. In a matter of this sort, on which there can be no disagreement, the House will be very well employed if, instead of spending its time in some of the questionable ways in which it does, an agreed Measure to deal with these very hard cases was pressed forward at once.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
I should like to reinforce the plea and the particulars of cases set forth by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont). I have received communications from the firemen who are members of my organisation at the Cranwell depot. Some time ago the case was heard affecting firemen employed on yachts at Cowes. It was then decided that they belonged to a class, and should be classified as seamen. While I recognise that the Minister cannot help the decision of the Judge in this case, I would suggest that these men belong to the class of boiler firemen. Who on earth would ever have dreamed of a time when a Judge would have described a boiler fireman as a domestic servant? We might as well suggest that gas stokers employed in the carbonisation of coal and the manufacture of gas for domestic use belong to the same category. I know that there is the question of the refund. I know of cases where boilermen have paid their contributions for over 11 years. They have worked as boiler firemen in other places, and that. is their trade and occupation. It takes 12 months before the Department can warn these men, and I hope that something will be done to put an end to the classification of men of this character as domestics, so that they may take advantage of any benefits that may accrue to them under the Insurance Fund.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am bound to tell the House that, strictly speaking, this subject on the Motion for the Adjournment would be out of order, because the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont), in the concluding part of his speech, asked the Government to bring in legislation, which clearly proves that if this thing is to be dealt with, it must be done by legislation. That would not be strictly in order on the Motion for the Adjournment.

§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield)
I quite agree with the hon. 1741 Member that this is not a party question. It is a question which has to be administered, no matter who is at the head of the Ministry. The definition of a Judge of what is or is not domestic service is entirely beyond the comprehension of the lay mind. I say that frankly. I may, first of all, point out that the phrase in question is: Employment in domestic service except where the employed person is employed in any trade or business carried on for the purposes of gain. Under that paragraph, the High Court has established that a stoker who is employed by the Office of Works, not by the Air Ministry as stated, is classified in this way by the Judge. The exception has been held to cover, for example, not only a stoker, but also a huntsman and kennelman, a river keeper employed on a private estate where fishing was preserved, an attendant at a museum, a storekeeper at a hospital, a greyhound trainer and gamekeeper, a caretaker in county council offices, a school cleaner, an attendant at public baths, and an attendant at a public library. Public bathe include pit head baths. We have therefore a perfectly anomalous position. It is true that it cannot be dealt with except by legislation. We have directed the attention of the Royal. Commission to these judgments and the situation which has been created by this definition of what is or is not domestic service. can only say to the House that that is the position at present under the law, that these men technically are stokers in the employ of the Office of Works and as such have been held by the Judge to be employed in domestic service not for the purpose of gain. The High Court has decided that they are not insurable against unemployment, and against this position there is no appeal.
The men concerned may claim a refund of the contributions for the last six years. When we come across cases of this kind we do everything we can to expedite a refund to the employers and the workers. While having every sympathy with those affected by the state of confusion which these judgments create I am helpless to do more than see 1742 that the attention of the Royal Commission has been drawn to the matter.

§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN
Without waiting for the legislation which may or may not follow the report of the Royal Commission is it not possible to secure that these men, if they cannot have the benefits for which they have paid, should be refunded their contributions not merely partially, but in full? I understand that their contributions if they are not continued for a year are not now refunded, or if their contributions have been made for more than six years then that part which was paid outside the immediate six years is not refunded. Cannot the Government, without any legislation, deal with the matter by a Vote of this House, if a vote is required, in order to repay these men money which ought never to have been collected from them; according to the judgment of the court, and for which they can receive no possible benefit?

§ Mr. HAYDAY
In the event of these stokers having served for four or five years in some other form of civilian employment that was insurable, does the fact that they have been in this employment for two years disqualify them from their previous qualification and alter their status?

§ Miss BONDFIELD
That is the law at the present time.

§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN
May I have an answer to my question?

§ Miss BONDFIELD
I will certainly look into that point, but the Regulations as they stand at present limit the power of refund. I will certainly look into that point.

§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN
Is not that an executive regulation which is not in the Statute itself?

§ Miss BONDFIELD
I will look into that point.