CLAUSE 87.—(Disqualifications for Unemployment Benefit.) (Hansard, 15 December 1911)

§ Mr. MALCOLM
May I ask for an explanation of this from the Government?

§ Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON
This Amendment was inserted in the other House really upon representations made by, I think, the hon. Member for Colchester 2794 (Mr. Worthington-Evans) and for Penryn (Mr. Goldman) in Committee upstairs. Their proposal was not there accepted, but it was felt afterwards there was a certain possibility of miscarriage for lack of this particular check. Strictly speaking, it might be held to be unnecessary. No one can qualify under both parts of the Bill. The benefits of Part I. are for persons incapable of work, and the benefits of Part II. are for persons capable of work. Therefore no one authority would give benefits both for sickness and disablement and for unemployment at the same time. Still, as separate authorities would be working, it did seem possible difficulties might arise, and the Amendments inserted prevent the possibility of a workman getting sickness and disablement benefit under Part I. and at the same time unemployment benefit under Part II.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
The hon. Member said this Clause was owing to something I suggested in Committee, but the Clause is not at all happily worded. It is going to have an effect I am not sure the Government would wish it have, and one I am quite sure I should not wish it to have. As the Clause stands, no one is entitled to receive unemployment benefit while he is in receipt, among other things, of disablement allowance. Disablement allowance may be one of the additional benefits under Part I. It may be payable while a man is partially incapable of carrying on his work. Take the case of a fitter who loses, say, three fingers and cannot go on with his job as a fitter, but who gets a job in an insured trade as a timekeeper. If he were insured under Part I., as he would be, and if he were insured in a society which enabled him to have additional benefits, he might be receiving two or three shillings a week all the time owing to his first partial incapacity. On the other hand, although he is partially incapable of work, he may get into an insured trade as a timekeeper, lose his employment there, and qualify for the unemployment benefit for which he has paid. The Clause, as it stands, would prevent such a man from receiving the unemployment benefit. If the Government wished to meet the point we discussed upstairs, it is quite unnecessary to put in "disablement allowance." It ought to be "or any sickness or disablement benefit," leaving out "disablement allowance" altogether. If the words stand, I shall challenge a Division against this Clause, because you are going to do an injustice.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member in regard to the omission of these words, and if he will move, I shall offer no objection.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
Only by leave of the House can I speak again. The right hon. Gentleman has invited me to move an Amendment of this Clause. I would willingly do so, but I fear I shall be ruled out of order, because I am reducing the disqualification and increasing the charge, and that is why I did not give notice of the Amendment.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Gentleman has given his case away. [HON. MEMBERS: "No—the Government case."] If the effect of his Amendment is to increase the charge, of course he cannot do it now.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
It does reduce the disqualification, and to that extent it increases the charge.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
May I point out this is only a proposal to alter an Amendment introduced in the House of Lords. It does not alter anything done in this House.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
It may be a substituted benefit. It may not increase the charge.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The difficulty is that it cannot be done by the House as the House. It must be done in Committee.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I think I had better challenge a Division.

§ Mr. DENMAN
I rather think the Amendment is merely carrying out the intentions of the Committee, which was to prevent a workman, in the case mentioned by the hon. Member, coming on the unemployed fund.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I understood that the word "disablement" was inserted before the word "allowance" in order to get rid of any ambiguity with regard to the word "allowance." If that is so the House can, if it wishes, strike out the word disablement.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
And "allowance." May I point out it does not really increase the charge. It is the case of an alternative benefit. It does not involve a greater charge on the fund. Indeed, it may decrease the charge.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I do not want to mislead the House. I am 2796 afraid it does increase the charge, because it allows someone to get unemployed benefits. My hon. Friend appears to be arguing that it is a question of an additional benefit. That is not so. If this alteration is made it will enable someone else to get the unemployed benefit. That is all we want to do.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I think as my hon. Friend has swallowed so many camels he need not strain at this.