HC Deb 02 March 1927 vol 203 cc363-6
34. Mr. BARKER

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that G. T. Crisp, of 16, Hyde Place, Llanhilleth, Monmouthshire was allowed unemployment benefit, dated 16th August, 1926, by the court of referees; that the case was appealed against by the local insurance officer and referred to the umpire, who disallowed benefit; that Crisp was never notified to attend before the umpire, and the case was heard and decided in his absence; and will he therefore have the case re-opened so that Crisp can defend his claim to benefit as awarded by the court of referees?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

In the great majority of cases which come before the umpire the facts are estab- lished by the written and oral evidence-tendered at the court of referees which sits locally and to which the applicant is summoned. In such a case it is not the practice of the umpire to hear the applicant orally unless there is a question of principle which has not previously been settled. In the present case the facts were stated by the applicant in his written appeal, he was heard orally by the court of referees and I understand that the umpire held, on the admitted facts, that he was disqualified for benefit. I may add that the umpire has power to reconsider his decision if an applicant brings forward new facts, and he has always been ready to do so in proper cases.

Mr. BARKER

Are we to understand that if a man has got a decision in his favour from the referees, his case can be re-tried by the umpire, and that he receives no notification and has no opportunity of making his case before the umpire?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I understand—but this is subject to verification —that the man in question knew that the case was being taken before the umpire, so that he had the right and the possibility of stating any further facts as he wished. As regards procedure, that is a matter for the umpire himself to determine and I understand that, up to now, the procedure which he has adopted for himself has been generally acquiesced in as being right and proper.

Mr. BARKER

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man was informed that his case was to come before the umpire and that he was waiting for notification of the hearing so that he could appear before the umpire himself and defend his claim, but no such notification was given?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

That bears out what I said to the hon. Member—that the man was informed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] He was informed that his case was going to the umpire. As far as I know, the whole procedure up to now has been meeting, and, I believe, is still meeting, with general concurrence, and the umpire, when he has the full facts before him, does not necessarily require the attendance of the parties at the hearing. I understand that has been the case consistently during the past year. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] In any case, it is a matter for the umpire himself to determine what are the proper rules to apply to the hearing of the cases.

Mr. KELLY

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the practice of the umpire to notify those who have presented claims to be heard and decided by him of the date of the hearing; and, as that is the case, why was this man not notified of the date and time of hearing?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The hon. Member has made a statement of fact. I think I am strictly correct in what I have said, but if the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) and the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) communicate with me, I will look into the matter again, to see if, by any chance, I have been inaccurate in any statement I have made. If I am, and if hon. Members wish to do so, they can raise the point again, but I do not think I have been inaccurate.

Mr. KELLY

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in all the cases, amounting to some hundreds, which have been taken by the Workers' Union notification of time and place of hearing has been given in every instance?

Mr. SPEAKER

This question had better had put down again, when the hon. Member has seen the Minister.

Mr. BARKER

I will put the question down again.

35. Mr. NEIL MACLEAN

asked the Minister of Labour who decided that the recommendation of the Committee to pay unemployment benefit to R. Thomson, 319, Main Street, Alexandria, Dumbartonshire, should be disallowed, and by what authority; whether this man has the right of appeal; arid by what method?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

This case was decided by the Department (for which of course I take full responsibility) under the authority given to the Minister by Act of Parliament. There is no statutory right of appeal by claimants in these cases, but if Mr. Thomson can bring forward fresh evidence in support of his claim, arrangements will be made for his case to be considered.

Mr. MACLEAN

Does the right hon. Gentleman want to put before this House such a statement as that a committee, having found in favour of a man and granted him his case, the manager of the Exchange or the insurance officer can rule out the committee's decision and disqualify the man from receiving the benefit granted him by the committee without that man having a right of appeal?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

In all normal cases of extended benefit, the ultimate decision rests with the Minister, and in the vast majority of cases, as has been again and again stated in this House, I abide by the advice which is contained in the decisions and opinions at which the rota committees have arrived. In a certain number of cases, on review, that has not been done in a certain percentage of cases a decision that benefit should be granted has been disagreed with, as in other cases a decision not to give benefit has been disagreed with. That occurs only in a small number of cases, and this was one of them, but, as I say, at any time the anal decision lies with the Minister, and if a person thinks that injustice has been done and will communicate any facts to nee, I will see that they are carefully examined.

Mr. MACLEAN

Is not this what is being done now? I am asking for a reply, which has not yet been given. Does the right hon. Gentleman defend the disqualification of benefit being given to a man who has been granted it by a committee, without giving that man a right of appeal?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I dissent absolutely. The whole of the action which is taken must have been taken only in the knowledge of facts which were either not apparent or not known to the hon. Member who puts the question.

Mr. MACLEAN

I give notice that on an early evening I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.