§ 2. Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether he will order the repayment of their contributions to 1148 individuals who have been refused unemployment benefit on the ground that their employment has been seasonal and in respect of whom contributions have, nevertheless, been paid and deducted from their wages by employers, either because the trade had not yet been declared to be a seasonal one or because the insured persons were unaware of the fact that they could claim exemptions?
§ Sir H. BETTERTONThe Unemployment Insurance Acts do not authorise me to repay contributions paid in the circumstances described, since, in the absence of a certificate of exemption, the contributions were properly paid.
§ 8. Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Minister of Labour whether, arising out of the decision of the umpire that a person who takes up temporarily a seasonal job does not thereby lose his normal claim to benefit and that the Anomalies Regulations do not apply to persons unemployed through fluctuations in trade, such as in the coal, distributing, building, or tailoring trades, he can state how many persons to whom this decision would apply were deprived of benefit prior to the decision being given; and whether any steps are being taken to ensure that the claims of those so deprived shall now be met?
§ Sir H. BETTERTONThe principle that the Regulation relating to seasonal workers does not apply to a person who for one or two seasons has been able to obtain only seasonal work, despite his desire for employment which is not seasonal, was established by the umpire in a decision given on 26th November, 1931. This was very soon after the Regulations came into force, and I have no reason for thinking that any claims have been disallowed contrary to the principle so stated.
§ Mr. HALLHave any new regulations under the Anomalies Act been issued since the umpire's decision which is referred to in the question?
§ Sir H. BETTERTONNo, but what I will do is this, and I think that it will meet the hon. Gentleman's point, which I fully appreciate: If there are any such cases I will certainly bring them to the notice of the authorities, but, having regard to the fact that the umpire's 1149 decision was so soon after the regulations, I cannot think that there are any cases. If there are any, I will bring them to the notice of the statutory committee.
§ Mr. BUCHANANCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether any action of his Department has in any way made the anomalies regulations stricter or harsher than the Government that passed them intended them to be?
§ Sir H. BETTERTONNo, Sir, I think that there has been very little complaint.
§ Mr. NEIL MACLEANIs it not the case that the Royal Commission on Unemployment Minority Report drew the attention of the Government to the conflicting regulations that were issued by the Minister, and that under them thousands of women who were entitled to it have been refused benefit?
§ Sir H. BETTERTONThat is not the same question which was asked by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan.) So far as I can see, the regulations now in force are exactly the regulations which carry out the obvious intention of the Act that was passed a few years ago.
§ Mr. MACLEANDid not the Royal Commission actually state that the regulations issued by the Minister and submitted to the Advisory Committee did not carry out the terms of the Act, but were stricter and put out of benefit women who were entitled to it under the Act?