27. Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Labour whether any instructions have been issued to the managers of Employment Exchanges that a man in receipt of a disability pension with allowances for wife and children shall not receive standard benefit in respect of his wife and children; and, if not, will he make inquiries as to the reason that the manager of the St. Austell Employment Exchange refused to pay benefit to a man in receipt of a pension for a disability assessed at 40 per cent, in respect of wife and three children, for whom he was receiving an allowance of 11s. 10d. from the Ministry of Pensions?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe instructions are that the receipt by a claimant of a pension from public funds shall not affect a claim to dependants' benefit. I am unable to trace the case referred to in the second part of the question, but I shall be glad to make further inquiries if the hon. Member will let me have more particulars.
§ Mr. MACKINDERIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week I received a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary stating that the instructions given to committees to disallow benefit 1367 where an applicant is in receipt of a disability pension only applied to extended benefit?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDNo, Sir; I think there must be some misunderstanding but I will look into that and see if it be correct.
§ Mr. MACKINDERWill the right hon. Gentleman look at the answer given to me last week, and try to square it with the answer which he has just given?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDIf the hon. Member will give me the reference, I will certainly do so.
§ 31. Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Arthur J. Sessions, on making application for benefit at the Wood Green Employment Exchange on 14th November, was informed that his application was refused, that he had already received extended benefit to the amount of 242 stamps, and that his future stamps would go to cover the extended benefit he had received, which would take nearly five years' continuous work; and whether, apart from any alteration in the law provided by the Unemployment Insurance Bill, he will have inquiries made into the accuracy of this statement and into this application for benefit?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI am having inquiries made into this case, and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.
§ 35. Mr. POTTSasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that H. Richards, J. Waylett, M. Pickering, and H. B. Richards, piece-rate workers, employed at the Ferrymore Colliery, owned by the Brierley Colliery Company, near Barnsley, attended work on 12th September last, were instructed officially that working places were in order; that the men walked some two miles to find their places fallen in, returned to the pit bottom after walking out 30 minutes again; that the pit paid two additional days that week, and the men in accordance with the Insurance Act claimed insurance benefit, which was turned down by the Exchange; that an appeal was lodged and the umpire refused payment, dated 20th August, 1927, upon the grounds that while they were walking underground they were acting in the course of their 1368 employment; that the men earned nothing, and had they refused compliance with colliery official instructions to go to their work prosecution proceedings could have been take out and damages could have been claimed by the company under the Coal Mines Regulation Act; and whether he will have inquiry made into this case?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe decision in this case follows rulings given by the umpire in many similar cases. It is a matter for the independent statutory authorities, and I cannot intervene.
§ Mr. POTTSWill the right hon. Gentleman have some inquiry made into the decision of the umpire, having regard to the importance of this question; and may I ask whether, supposing this case had arisen with men working on the surface, the umpire could have given any such decision?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI could not say what the umpire would do in a hypothetical case, but, if the hon. Member will communicate with me afterwards, I will see whether any new facts can be put before the umpire. That is the utmost that I can do. I have no power to interfere with the umpire's decision, but, on the other hand, if there are new facts which can be laid before him, he can take them into consideration. If the hon. Member will put himself in communication with me as to whether there are such facts, I shall be glad to talk the matter over with him.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSMay I ask whether or not the persons referred to would have been liable to prosecution had they not carried out the colliery officials' orders, although, for having carried out those orders, they are apparently being deprived of unemployment pay; and will the Minister investigate this matter thoroughly, so that no similar case may happen again?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI am not at all sure that that comes within my powers, but, if it does, I should require notice of & question of that kind.
§ Mr. POTTSMay I point out that there is a misprint in my question as it appears on the Order Paper? The word "paid" in the sixth line should be "played." I will accept the Minister's statement, and we will go further into the matter.