NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 10 and 11 Geo. V, c. 30, s. 7.) (Hansard, 27 June 1921)

§ Mr. MILLS
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
4.0 P.M.
On Thursday of last week a portion of this Amendment was moved by one of, the occupants of these benches. It was opposed by the Minister on the ground that it would place on his Department the responsibility of determining a position which might never arise, and, in view of that attitude, the Committee negatived the Clause. The party for which 1850 I speak have made inquiries, and they can find nothing in the Act justifying the Minister's statement. I have before me the recent decision of the Court of Referees, No. 975, which deals with the case of a man living in Bristol. He was offered a job as a skilled man, a pipe fitter, on Salisbury Plain, at the magnificent remuneration of 9½d. per hour. It was understood that the job would last several weeks and that the fare would be paid one way. Owing to the very bad reports which he had heard about the job and the conditions existing between the time that they were asked to work one day and were asked to work another day, he refused to leave Bristol and go to Salisbury Plain. Unemployment benefit was disallowed, and the case went to the Court of Referees. I have their report here. It states that they were of opinion that the work offered was suitable, and they accordingly recommended that the claim for benefit should be disallowed. They did not, however, agree with the insurance officer's decision to impose disqualification for six weeks, or until the workman had made another claim after employment. They then go on to give reasons in support of this, decision, and finally they say: We agree with the Chairman of the-Court of Referees that a specific period of disqualification for refusal of suitable employment is not imposed by the Act. Each case must depend upon its own particular facts and circumstances. At the same time, a workman who has refused suitable employment must, in our judgment, be regarded as not fulfilling the conditions laid down in Section 86. The Report goes on to give more reasons, and then, in another paragraph, it, states: It may be desirable in the interests of workmen that some time should be stated; by the insurance officer, at the end of which, and in the absence of special circumstances, the workman's evidence as to his, inability to obtain suitable employment would be accepted without proof beyond the fact that employment had not been obtained; otherwise, it would probably be thought that the period continued indefinitely. With regard to the further point embodied in the insurance officer's decision—until he has made a fresh claim—normally, a fresh claim after bonâ fide employment should be considered without reference to an earlier refusal of employment, but there might be cases in which the rule should not apply. Therefore, to make it more acceptable to the Minister words have been inserted to make it read, "if he so requests." 1851 That places the burden on the applicant and disposes of the objection of the Minister.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
I beg to second the Motion.
This is one of those cases where the right hon. Gentleman can meet our desires. Originally I thought that cases similar to this, cases of misconduct, and various other cases to which the disqualifying Sections apply were all covered under the one general head; but, to my surprise, I find on inquiry at our district office that it is not so, and that a man who refuses some offer of employment which is looked upon as suitable is to all intents and purposes disqualified during the whole of that period of unemployment.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
Six weeks.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
If the right hon. Gentleman will accept this new Clause, that will be quite clearly stated, but now it is not. I have some samples of recent disqualifications in my pocket, and I can only conclude that, owing to the amount of work that has fallen upon the Employment Exchanges, they have not been able to give exactly the clear terms of disqualification. In the main, they are given in general terms, and the unemployed person usually looks upon ft as covering the whole period of his unemployment and thinks that he cannot reclaim until he has obtained employment and fallen out of work again. If that be so, it is really a cruel form of punishment, because those who decide whether the employment is suitable or not always leave the position open to doubt. A man may be offered employment at the rate for the district, but, owing to the fact that he has to travel some distance from his place of residence and to other circumstances, it may be that he should not be disqualified for refusing suitable employment. The employment itself may be all right, but the circumstances under which that employment is expected to be fulfilled may not be all right. These matters are always open to doubt, and all that we are asking is that at the end of six weeks the man shall have the right of having his case reopened before the Court of Referees if he so desires. Surely, that is not asking too much. If the Minister is going to refuse quite a negligible case of this description, then we can hardly 1852 hold out any hope of arriving at a pacific understanding with regard to any Unemployment Insurance Act. The kindliest view is not always taken on this question of disqualification, especially when you remember that it applies to people who have suddenly had an Act thrust upon them, have had little opportunity of reading the explanatory leaflets, and many of whom err quite ignorantly. A man with a family may find that in the opinion of the Exchange, or the insurance officer, or the Court of Referees he has committed some slight error in refusing what they consider to be suitable employment, and that he and his family are to be penalised throughout a long period of unemployment. Unless it be made known that there is some opportunity to reopen the case at the end of six weeks, a man who lost his employment in March and who has had no opportunity of getting employment, may still believe that the embargo remains upon him and that his punishment must continue for the rest of the period that he happens to be unemployed. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot in cases like these give an opportunity for review at the request of the disqualified person.

§ Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY
Might I be allowed to say a very few words upon this proposed new Clause from the point of view of one who has often sat as assessor in these cases. The suggestion underlying the Clause is that there shall be regularity of appeal, and that it shall be made known to all, assessor, officers, Employment Exchanges, and applicants that there is this right of appeal. I desire in the heartiest manner to support the suggestion contained in the Clause. I believe that many assessors themselves are not fully advised of the provisions of the principal Act in this matter, because, after all, one cannot read the whole of the circulars that come out with all the attention that they ought to have, and, as for the extra labour referred to by the, previous speakers, I can assure my right hon. Friend that an average of about ten minutes is all that is necessary as a rule fairly to sift the applications and to deal with them justly. Some, of course, take longer, but some take less. That being so, the labour entailed upon the Court of Assessors will not be increased to an overwhelming degree, and the whole policy of legislation in the last three years has been to establish oppor- 1853 tunities for appeal so that anyone who feels himself aggrieved will have an opportunity given him by a re-hearing. Therefore, I believe that it would be in the interests of justice and fair play and not unduly burdensome upon the organisation if my right hon. Friend could see his way to accept this Clause either in the form in which it has been moved or with some reasonable modifications such as his advisers and himself may think fit.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I am not sure whether the last two speakers have not read more into the Clause than there is. It has nothing to do with the case of the man who is disqualified by misconduct. We are merely dealing with the case of the man who is disqualified because he has refused to take up what someone else thinks is suitable employment. As a rule, if that be established, he is disqualified for six weeks. Upstairs in Committee my hon. Friends asked that at the end of the six weeks the Ministry should take up the case and see whether the penalty, having been fully carried out, the man ought not to enter into benefit. I then said that that would be an impracticable task. We should have to watch every day, because somebody or other would be coming to the conclusion of their six weeks, and it was right for the man at the end of the six weeks to make his own arrangements. I observe that, as the result of my kindly counsel upstairs, if I may say so, the Clause has assumed a different form and that my hon. Friends have tried to meet me by putting in the words, "if he so requests." If the hon. Member will use the words, "if he renews his application," that is the formal way to proceed. The man might say, "I called at the Labour Exchange, and that is my request," but where is the man's form? I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should alter the words as I have indicated, and then I shall have great pleasure in accepting them.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
I beg to move to leave out the words "so requests," and to insert instead thereof the words "renews his application."