UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (GROUNDSMEN). (Hansard, 26 March 1934)

§ Mr. HAMMERSLEY
In accordance with notice already given, I beg to draw the attention of the House to the subject of the groundsmen employed in urban areas being debarred from the benefit of unemployment insurance. The broad facts of the position are very simple. In 1921 Mr. Justice Roche, in the High Court, decided that groundsmen were agricultural workers, and although that decision was based on a case dealing with groundsmen employed in rural areas that decision has been taken by the Minister of Health to apply to groundsmen wherever and however they are employed. As the House knows, agricultural workers are exempt from insurance against unemployment. In consequence of this decision groundsmen who are engaged in urban districts if they fall out of work in an area in which many people are also out of work have no recourse against hardship and indeed starvation except the sole recourse of appeal to Poor Law relief.
A case in my constituency is typical. For six and a half years a man named Clark was engaged as groundsman in the Manchester High School for Girls. During a portion of the first year he paid unemployment insurance. Whether he was in fault or not I do not know, or whether he got the payments repaid to him, but two years ago he lost his employment. He has a wife and five children, four of them dependent children. He receives a maximum sum of 30s. a week, 15s. in cash and 15s. in kind, and it does not require any words of mine to impress the fact that to maintain a family on 30s. a week for a period of two years involves hardship which no words can express. One is entitled to ask from the Minister of Labour why these individuals are debarred from what is in fact the privilege of being able to be in an insured trade. This individual has a good industrial record.

Mr. SPEAKER
I understand that this matter has been decided by a decision of the High Court. In that case the Minister has no responsibility.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON
Yes. There is a decision by the High Court judge precisely covering this point.

Mr. SPEAKER
In that case, the Minister has no responsibility.

§ Mr. HAMMERSLEY
Clause 2 of the Unemployment Bill now before the House that was not debated, is intended, in the opinion of many people, to cover—and in fact does cover—this particular point.

Mr. SPEAKER
That is a matter of legislation which is now before the House and cannot be debated now. The hon. Member cannot debate legislation before the House on the Motion for the Adjournment.

§ Mr. HAMMERSLEY
It is to obtain from the Minister a specific assurance on that point.

Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member cannot raise a matter which involves legislation on the Adjournment.

§ Mr. HAMMERSLEY
I was not arguing that the Minister should pledge himself to legislation but that he should give some specific guidance as to the position of groundsmen in urban districts. I have asked questions in the House and there is a great deal of dubiety as to the situation, and because of this doubt I am raising the matter on the Adjournment to-night with a view to getting a considered reply from the Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member cannot raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. The Motion for the Adjournment is to consider questions for which the Minister himself is responsible.

§ Mr. LAWSON
I think this matter was considered on Clause 2 of the Bill, when the Minister said he was going to give it serious consideration with a view to issuing specal regulations.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I submit that the decision in the High Court may not cover every case, and for this reason: You may have a groundsman working under certain conditions whose claim to be an insured worker is disallowed, and another groundsman working under other conditions who is brought within the law. There are constantly differences in the matter. What the hon. Member has asked is that in view of these differences the 1779 Minister should reconsider some method by which he can clearly define these people.

Mr. SPEAKER
That would need legislation.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
No. I do not think so. I do not think it requires legislation. Under the Acts the Minister has power I think, in certain cases, what I might call border-line cases. Under the Bill now being discussed it is possible for the Minister, if he felt that this case or similar cases really came within this insurance, to reconsider the matter. I submit that this man's case is not really covered by the judges' decision.

Mr. SPEAKER
This is one of the cases in which I should like to have the Minister's view before we proceed further.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON
I confess I am at a loss to understand why this case has been raised to-night because I have dealt as fully with it in correspondence and in the House as it has been in my power to deal with it. With regard to the first point raised by the hon. Member, I made it quite clear that this is not a question whether a particular man is entitled to benefit or whether he is not. The question is whether the occupation in which he is engaged is an occupation which is insurable under the existing law. That is the point. Whether a particular occupation like that of a groundsman is or is not agricultural or horticultural and 1780 insurable is a question which, under the existing law, I may refer to a High Court Judge for decision. In this case the High Court Judge has laid it down quite definitely that the occupation is not an insurable occupation. Therefore, it does not come under the present law. That is quite clear. The second point is whether this is a case which will come under Clause 2 of the Unemployment Bill. Let me read part of Clause 2. It says: Where it appears to the Minister that the terms and conditions of service of, and the nature of the work performed by, any-class of persons employed in an excepted employment are so similar to the terms and conditions of service of, and the nature of the work performed by, a class of persons employed in an insurable employment as to result in anomalies in the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the Minister may, by regulations made with the consent of the Treasury,… make regulations which will do away with these anomalies. There are in the report of the Royal Commission—

Mr. SPEAKER
The right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with legislation which is before the House. That is not a proper subject to raise on the Motion for Adjournment and I am afraid I cannot allow it to be discussed.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON
If I may respectfully say so, that was entirely my view when the case was raised. I, of course, accept your Ruling, Sir, at once.