HL Deb 18 June 1947 vol 148 cc1043-52

7.20 p.m.

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the fact that under the Unemployment Insurance (Eire Volunteers) Act of October, 1946, as at present administered, Southern Irish volunteers who were discharged before March, 1945, are precluded from any benefit under that Act, and to ask if that was the original intention of His Majesty's Government; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I make no apologies for again bringing this matter before your Lordships, for I feel you would wish to have your attention called to the situation that has arisen regarding the Unemployment Insurance (Eire Volunteers) Act of 1946—a situation which, I am quite sure, was never intended by the Government in the first place, or by your Lord- ships who gave the Bill a Second Reading, and subsequently passed it. As its title explains, the object of this Act was to enable those men who came from Eire as volunteers and served in His Majesty's Forces during the recent war, to obtain benefit under the Insurance Act of 1935, to which benefit they had become entitled by virtue of the contributions with which they had been credited during their years of service, but which they were debarred from receiving by a clause in that Act which prohibited payment of benefit to residents outside of the United Kingdom.

I know full well that this statesmanlike measure, the Unemployment Insurance (Eire Volunteers) Act was conceived with a genuine desire to be just and generous. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who introduced the measure, it was to give practical expression to the very real debt of gratitude which we in this country feel to those gallant men who served so faithfully in His Majesty's Forces during the war. I should like to emphasize those words "during the war." The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, gave the Bill, in his own words, "an unreserved and enthusiastic welcome." He went on to say: It enables us to pay our tribute, and, indeed, something of our debt, to those men who came from Eire. They were all volunteers, many of whom came in the face of difficulty and discouragement. And the noble Viscount concluded by saying: In all quarters of the House we are delighted that this Bill has come to us, and we shall speed it on its way.

The Bill left this House, then in an atmosphere of generous good will, and it was received with appreciation by the men who were to benefit by it, who had been feeling somewhat neglected and rebuffed—those same men who, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, had "served so faithfully in His Majesty's Forces during the war." Realization, however, does not always come up to anticipation, and unhappily that has proved to be the case in this instance. It was not until February, 1947—everything having been arranged between the two Government, and the necessary Acts passed—that an announcement appeared in the papers of Eire informing those who considered themselves entitled under this concession that they should make their claims. Many men did so at once, as early as they could, and received an official answer telling them that they were not eligible on the grounds that "at least thirty contributions have not been credited to the applicant in the British Unemployment Fund for service in the United Kingdom Forces in respect of the two years immediately preceding the date of their claim."

One of my correspondents, who had served in the Forces since 1939—that is well over five years—was demobilized at the earliest date possible, on account of his age and length of service. He was an old soldier—he had been a sergeant-major in the 1914–1918 war, and a sergeant-major Pioneer in this war. He did not believe that the British Government would treat him in this way, and he wrote to the Ministry of Labour in this country on the subject. He received a reply which referred him back to Dublin, but which supported the Irish decision on the same grounds, that thirty contributions had not been paid in respect of him as an insured contributor in respect of the two years immediately preceding the date on which a claim for benefit was made. To those who are not familiar with the Insurance Act of 1935 I would say that that is the first statutory condition which must be fulfilled to enable a man to apply for benefits in this country—that is, in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. It is, of course, the application of this test, and the date fixed, Which brings about the present condition, and which goes far to nullify the Act of 1946, although it was physically impossible for many of the men to comply with this condition.

After I received the report on this man, I myself wrote to the Minister of National Insurance, and I received from him a courteous but disappointing reply, which I will read to your Lordships: As you are no doubt aware, it has been a condition for the receipt of benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts that not less than thirty contributions have been paid by the applicant as an insured contributor in respect of the two years immediately preceding the date of the claim to benefit. It is true that ex-Service men and women in Eire have to satisfy this condition before becoming eligible for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance (Eire Volunteers) Act, 1946, by virtue of contributions credited to them in respect of service in His Majesty's Forces; but they are in no different position in this respect from ex-Service men or women resident in this country who have also received free credits of contributions in respect of war service. He concludes his letter with the following paragraph: It will be appreciated that the earliest practicable date on which the special concession of paying benefit to persons in Eire could be introduced was February 27, 1947, and that to have modified the above contribution condition in favour of ex-Service men and women resident in Eire who we re among the earlier releases from the Forces would have had the effect of making an unjustifiable discrimination not only against ex-Service men and women in this country but also against other persons here who claim unemployment benefit.

After that answer, it is quite apparent that instead of this Act, administered as it is at present, giving, as was claimed in the first place, expression to "the very real debt of gratitude which we in this country feel to those gallant volunteers who served so faithfully" during several years of war, it fails to do so as regards those men who left prior to August, 1945, for it was not physically possible for them to comply with the necessary conditions. Let me remind your Lordships of some of the dates. May 8, 1945, was V.E. Day; on August 2, 1945, the Prime Minister announced the capitulation of Japan; demobilization started the same month—the war was won, and those bleak years when we so badly wanted volunteers were well behind us. Those very men who fought through practically the whole war are those who became automatically disqualified. I do not believe for one moment that that was ever intended by the Government, or by any of your Lordships who passed this Bill, and I would like formally, to ask His Majesty's Government whether that was their intention when the Bill was brought before this House.

If we examine the Minister's statement, that men or women discharged to Eire are in no different position from ex-Service men and women in this country, it will not hold water. Take the case of two men, one resident in London and the other in Dublin. The Londoner, if unemployed, would be eligible for unemployment benefits; and when he found employment he would be able to continue his contributions to the Insurance Fund—in fact, he would probably be compelled by law to do so. The Irishman, if unemployed, could not draw unemployment benefit, because, in the first place, he would be resident outside the United King- dom, which prevented his doing so; and, in the second place his absence from Ireland for several years would have deprived him of any benefit to which he would be entitled under the Irish Acts. Nor, if he found work, could he send his contributions to the insurance people. It is ridiculous to suppose that he could send his contributions over to this country, even if anybody would receive them when he did.

As to the last paragraph of the Minister's letter, it is difficult to follow how modifying the contribution conditions for these men from Eire would be unjustifiable discrimination against ex-Service men and women in this country. Surely the mere fact that special legislation is necessary shows that they were not on the same footing as the British personnel. Why make them eligible for these benefits, and then introduce this date which precludes them from benefit? I would remind your Lordships that ex-Service men who returned to their homes in Eire were not, in the first place, eligible for any help under the Release and Settlement Scheme; so they were discriminated against from the beginning. In the Minister's own words, the paying of these unemployment benefits is described as "a special concession." Why spoil this "special concession" by so circumscribing its action as to leave out the very men we most wish to benefit?

I have tried to be brief. I have not had the exhilarating audience I should have liked, but I do ask your Lordships to consider this matter. I think it only needs attention called to this failure to implement the good intentions of everybody who had anything to do with the passing of the Bill in the first place to ensure that whatever modifications are required to carry out the original high purpose of the Bill will be made. I beg the Government to let it go out from this House to-night that the matter will be reconsidered, and that everything will be done to make sure that this attempt to give practical expression to the great gratitude we feel to these men will not prove to have been stillborn. I beg to move for Papers.

7.30 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I know how strongly the noble Earl feels about this subject, and I think that perhaps as a result of his feeling he has given a description of the working of this Act which is not altogether fair. Undoubtedly, as a result of administrative difficulties, there have been a small number of hard cases, and I welcome the fact that the noble Earl should have drawn attention to them. They result from the difficulty of bringing the Act into operation in Ireland as quickly as one would have liked. I would remind your Lordships that this Bill received the Royal Assent on November 6, and in order to explain the position I am afraid I have to give one or two dates.

The Act was to come into effect when arrangements with the Eire Government had been entered into and were in force. The complementary Eire Act was passed on December 19, 1946. Following that, it required an Order in Council to be brought into effect in this country, and that was issued on January 29, 1947. Following that, the Eire Commencement Order came into operation on February 24, and the full arrangements came into working effect on February 27 last. As these sort of things go, it was a comparatively short period; but unfortunately it did mean that there was a gap, and it is as a result of that gap that this difficulty to which the noble Earl has drawn attention has arisen. I will say something in explanation as to how that difficulty has arisen and to discuss the extent of it. But before doing so I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this Act has been very successful during the comparatively short period in which it has been in operation.

To take the latest figures which I have been able to obtain, on June 17 last the total number of claims made in that short period had been 2,727. 16,503 payments have been made to claimants, involving a sum of no less than £28,763 from the British Unemployment Fund. In that particular period, ending on June 6 last, some 1,5oo cases were dealt with, averaging payments of 35s. a week. The Act has worked remarkably smoothly. The relations between the Department of Social Welfare in Eire and the Ministry here have been exceedingly good, and I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my right honourable friend, of expressing his very great appreciation for all the assistance that has been given by that Department in Eire.

There have, from time to time since the Act came into operation, been a number of protests from men who were unable to satisfy the contribution conditions which were quite clearly laid down in the Act of Parliament. It has been alleged, I think by the British Legion in Ireland, that some 500 cases of this kind exist. Actually, I understand that the number of applications which have been rejected amounts to some 400, but that quite a large number of those cases were, so to speak, completely outside the ambit of the Act. The Act seems to have been regarded by a number of men in Ireland—perhaps quite naturally—as a kind of additional bonus for service with the British Forces, even as far back as the Boer War. I understand that quite a number of applications have been received from men who fought in South Africa, and from others who took part in the. 1914–1918 war. Others are equally absurd from the point of view of the application of this Act, although no doubt from the point of view of the men who made them they were perfectly genuine applications. The only genuine grievance is on the part of those men whose credit of contributions in respect of their war service is not enough to satisfy the statutory requirement that there must be thirty contributions in the two years previous to the time when the claim was made.

The difficulty arises from this gap in bringing the Act into force. It is quite true that between the time when discharges from the Services first began to take place—which would be about June 18, 1945, about a month after V.E. Day—and a date somewhere between the middle and the end of July, there is a period in which, even though the men had a full credit of contributions, it would not enable them to achieve the thirty contributions during the two years up to February 27, when the arrangements became effective. I understand that the number of men who were in fact discharged during that month is not more than about fifty, and therefore the total number of complaints there could possibly be is in the neighbourhood of fifty. But of those fifty men, it is quite obvious that a number of them, at any rate, went back into employment, and would not, therefore, be in a position to make a claim under the Act in this way. Therefore, the grievance quantitatively is merely a small one. That does not mean, of course, that the particular man whose claim has been rejected—and particularly a man who has rendered such admirable service as that to which the noble Earl has referred—has not a very genuine grievance. Unfortunately, it can be remedied only by passing a new Act of Parliament, because the Statute under which this matter is arranged—the English Statute relating to unemployment—is perfectly clear on this matter, and this particular Act was passed in order to dovetail into the British arrangements.

We do not consider that the extent of the grievance is sufficiently wide to justify the passing of a special Act in regard to this matter. Moreover, as the noble Earl has pointed out during the course of his speech, there are quite substantial groups of ex-Service men in this country who, for one reason or another, are in much the same position; to pass an Act of Parliament to confer a special benefit of this kind upon a handful of men in Eire would be very unfair to the groups of ex-Service men in this country who are affected. It is not really a question of there not being arrangements in Eire for these men to pay their contributions, because they could not have done so. The Act did not come into force until February 27 of this year, and the relevant period, of course, was the period right back from June to July in 1945, immediately after V.E. Day. I am sure that the noble Earl has not quite understood the difficulties of the situation, and I hope that now he realizes how successful this Act has been—an Act for which he himself is entitled to a great deal of the credit—and how comparatively slight are the number of genuine grievances which have arisen under this Act, he will agree with me that the Government can hardly be expected to introduce special legislation to deal with the matter.

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY

My Lords, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord when he gives the number as fifty, because I must have at least fifteen letters from various men on this subject, and I have seen their papers. But even if it is fifteen, why should fifteen of those men who fought for us for five years he neglected? If you cannot include them, then do what any insurance company will do when a policy is surrendered—return a percentage of the premiums paid. You may tell me that these premiums were not paid for the men, but it is part of their pay and if you had not paid it you would have had to give them more pay. I do suggest that it is not right to say that it is difficult to do anything for these men, because it would be perfectly possible to put aside a certain sum of money. The noble Lord says that the number is only about fifty. What a small sum that would involve! These old soldiers in Ireland are our friends. I think the Act is a very statesmanlike Act. It rises above the emotions of the moment to the broad view of the future. But do try to be just and generous to the men who have served us.

I think that to go and spoil it now for a ha'p'orth of tar is—I was going to say stupid, but I should not like to use that word, though it is what I think. It will do no good to save a few pounds and make a lot of our friends in Ireland, with very good reason, discontented. I believe that if only I had an audience in this House, I could have divided the House; but as it is, there is nobody to divide, and in the circumstances there seems to be no alternative but to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eight o'clock.