UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT. (Hansard, 27 February 1924)

§ Mr. GAVAN-DUFFY
The matter I desire to raise concerns only an individual, but it does involve a public principle, with which is connected the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I cannot altogether deal with the matter without making reference to the individual who is concerned. The matter deals with the case of a man who made application for unemployment benefit to the Cleator Moor Employment Exchange. At the time, he was the licensee of a public house, and the question which the Committee had to decide was whether he was in receipt of 3s. 4d. a day in holding the licence of the public house. The whole question which had to be decided, first by the unemployment committee, locally, was what was his regular occupation, and it was found that he had been for 22 years constantly employed as an iron ore miner, that he had been during 16 of those years fully employed at Postlethwaite's iron ore mine, at Moor Row, and had worked in that mine until he was thrown out of employment by trade depression. The only question was, what was his regular occupation, and whether he was making 3s. 4d. a day through holding the licence. This matter was brought, in the first place, before the local unemployment committee. It was taken to the court of referees at Workington, and from them to the umpire in London. We have always been told, and I have been told to-day in an official communication from the Minister of Labour, that the decision of the umpire in all cases is final.
If the decision of the umpire in this case had not been final I would not be detaining the House to-night. A curious thing is that the matter was discussed before the umpire in London, and, after the umpire had taken more than three weeks to consider the whole matter, he gave a decision in favour of the applicant. The decision of the umpire was that the man was not making 3s. 4d. a day through holding the licence of the public-house, and, as a matter of fact, his regular occupation was that of an iron-ore miner, and he was genuinely unemployed. The man received a considerable proportion of the arrears which had accrued, 645 but three weeks afterwards the insurance officer in London interfered, and instructed an investigating officer to go down and inspect the premises occupied by this man Watson. It was then reported to the umpire that instead of four rooms, as originally stated, there were actually eight rooms, but by bringing in four dilapidated rooms, quite unfit for a decent man to live in, it was impossible to say that there were eight rooms instead of four. I went so far as to offer to pay out of my own pocket the expenses of the umpire going down and inspecting the premises, because I was sure that if he saw it he would come to the conclusion that the inspecting officer had made a deliberately false report. I did the next best thing, secured photographs of every room in the house, submitted the photographs to the umpire, and, strange to say, without considering the matter for one moment the umpire at once reversed his previous decision. That, to my mind, undermines and destroys any faith we might have in the decisions of the umpire in the future. We have always been led to believe that the umpire's decision was final and binding. We want to know what decision he will make, and when. I submit that the Department of the Ministry of Labour is seriously to blame, if anyone is to blame, for not providing the umpire with the proper information at the beginning. If the investigating officer was necessary after the umpire's decision was given, then surely the report of that officer ought to have been there before the umpire's first decision. We had the original inquiry by the Insurance Committee, and no investigating officer's report. We had report of the referees, and still no investigating officer's report. We had the umpire in London considering the matter for an hour, and still no investigating officer's report. The investigating officer's report was three weeks after the decision was given in favour of the applicant. That is a clear indication of the utterly corrupt and mendacious way in which the Unemployment Insurance Act is managed. Though I do not allege the Minister of Labour would be a party of anything of the kind, I do appeal to him to investigate the matter, because I feel certain that he will send a worthy and honest man from here—

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
You cannot get an honest man here.

§ Mr. GAVAN-DUFFY
Well the nearest approach to it. If any man inspects the buildings there, he must come to the conclusion that a wrong report has been made and this man has been wrongly deprived of unemployment benefit. If the report of the investigating officer was an essential thing, and I think it ought to have been, it ought to have taken place before the umpire had given his original report. I appeal to the Minister of Labour to make an inquiry so that an act of justice may be done to the man and, what is more important, that confidence may be restored in the decisions of the umpire.

§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. S. Webb)
I am very sorry to say that, owing to some mischance—possibly the hon. Member for Whitehaven did not manage to convey adequate notice—the Minister of Labour is not in the House. It falls to me to make, at any rate, an apology to the hon. Member, because I feel sure that the tale he has told is one which must be inquired into. I will communicate with the Minister of Labour, and I think I can undertake that it shall be inquired into. The House will, of course, realise that while the hon. Member has told his tale—

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
Not a tale.

§ Mr. WEBB
When I say a tale, I do not mean an untrue tale—there is always in these matters another side, and I do not think we ought to accept right away the notion that the administration of unemployment insurance is corrupt or mendacious. Accidents sometimes happen, and it may possibly be that there has been a miscarriage of justice here. I think all that can be said is that I will convey to the Minister of Labour what has been represented, and the hon. Member for Whitehaven may rest assured that inquiry will be made, that the matter will be gone into, and that he will be communicated with as to the result.