CLAUSE 11.—(Determination of claims.)

HC Deb 02 July 1920 vol 131 cc950-2

(1) All claims for unemployment benefit, and all questions whether the statutory conditions are fulfilled in the case a any person claiming such benefit, or whether those conditions continue to be filled in the case of a person in receipt of such benefit, or whether a person is disqualified for receiving or continuing to receive such benefit, or otherwise arising in connection with such claims, shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, be determined within fourteen days by one of the officers appointed under this Act for determining claims to unemployment benefit (in this Act referred to as "insurance officers").

(2) In any case where unemployment benefit is refused or is stopped, or where the amount of the benefit allowed is not in accordance with the claim, the person claiming benefit or in receipt of benefit, as the case may be, may at any time within twenty-one days from the date on which the decision of the insurance officer is communicated to him, or within such further time as the Minister may in any particular case for special reasons allow, require the insurance officer to report the matter within seven days to a court of referees constituted in accordance with this Act, and the court of referees, after considering the circumstances, shall make to the insurance officer such recommendations on the case as they may think proper, and the insurance officer shall, unless he disagrees, give effect to those recommendations.

(6) Where in pursuance of this Section any recommendation made by a court of referees is referred by an insurance officer to the umpire the decision of the umpire in the matter shall be final and conclusive.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "benefit" ["to receive such benefit"], to insert the words "or whether the period for which an insured contributor who has lost his employment through his unsatisfactory conduct or who has voluntarily left his employment without just cause, is to be disqualified, should be some period less than six weeks."

Dr. MACNAMARA

This is necessary to carry out an Amendment which has been made in Clause 8.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1), to leave out the words "within fourteen days."

At the end of Sub-section (1) add the words Every insurance officer shall forthwith take into consideration any claim or question submitted for his determination under the provisions of this Sub-section, and shall so far as practicable give his decision thereon within fourteen days from the date on which the claim or question was so submitted.

In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "within seven days."

At the end of Sub-section (2) add the words Where an insurance officer is required to report any matter to the Court of Referees under this Sub-section he shall so report the matter within seven days after the date on which he is required so to do, or so soon thereafter as is practicable."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Mr. INSKIP

I beg to move, in Subsection (6), to leave out the words "final and conclusive," and to insert instead thereof the words subject to appeal by means of the statement of a special case for the opinion of a judge of the High Court, on any ground involving a question of law or a question of mixed law and fact, and the decision of the judge on any such appeal shall be final and binding on all courts of referees and on the umpire. The Amendment will have the effect of giving a right of appeal from the decision of the umpire. It is desirable that there should be an appeal in very much the same way as there was an appeal under the Munitions of War Amendment Act of 1916. The practice adopted under that Act has been a very useful one, I think, and is one which the workers would be glad to take advantage of here, because they would be able to obtain a decision from a judge of the High Court on many points on which an umpire has given no decision. Of course, it cuts both ways. I could give one illustration of its desirability. There is the question of the definition of a trade dispute. The definition under Clause 46 corresponds exactly to the definition in the Act of 1911, or at least with very slight alterations—and to the definition given in the Trade Disputes Act. Courts of Law have given decisions as to what "trade dispute" means, according to the definition in the Trade Disputes Act, and they have been concerned, I think, to narrow the meaning of "trade dispute," partly because it prevents actions being brought against persons under certain circumstances arising out of the disputes. On the other hand, the umpire has been concerned to give an interpretation of "trade dispute" which is possibly slightly different from that given by the Courts of Law. Both decisions have been given on practically the same definition in the statutes. It would be most undesirable if you found a conflict of opinion between a High Court of Justice and the umpire. The Amendment would preserve the right of the worker to appeal to the High Court on a case stated, so that the decision of the umpire should not be regarded as final. If that right is given I do not suppose it will be exercised in many cases, but the Amendment gives what the workers are entitled to have.

Mr. SUGDEN

I beg to second the Amendment. I do not intend to make any remarks from the legal standpoint, but as a business man I know the necessity of the freedom and liberty for the worker which is provided by this Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I do not think there is any necessity for this Amendment. In its present form the Clause follows the Act of 1911, and that provides for the determination of claims to benefit, by the insurance officers in the first instance, with a right of appeal to a court of referees, and in the last instance to the umpire. That procedure affords to the insured person all the protection that is necessary. The Amendment would undoubtedly mean delay and extra expense. I do not know whether the seconder had that in mind.

Mr. SUGDEN

Under the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act there is a cheaper type of appeal.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Do not let us overdo this procedure. This system has worked very well.

Amendment negatived.