§ 38. Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to inform the House on what information or evidence the authorities at the Stratford Employment Exchange informed Mr. E. Peart, of 517, Old Ford Road, Bow, that he was not genuinely seeking work after he had received six weeks' unemployment pay; and will he give the House this man's industrial history up to the time he fell out of regular employment?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDHaving regard to the statements furnished by Mr. Peart as to his efforts to get work, the insurance officer came to the conclusion that he did not fulfil the conditions for benefit, and Mr. Peart did not appeal against this decision. I have no knowledge of Mr. Peart's industrial history beyond the fact that he was employed on and off as a fish curer by various firms last year.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIs it not the duty of the officer before telling a man that he is not genuinely seeking work to find out the man's industrial history? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man was 16 years in one situation?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDAs I have repeatedly explained to the House, these claims are not settled by my Department. They are settled by the statutory courts, and the chief insurance officer is an independent officer for this purpose. I have no doubt that he obtains and satisfies himself as to the man's industrial 1954 history so far as it could affect his decision.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware, as a result of this decision, that this unfortunate man went out and took his life? Is he not also aware that there is complete evidence that the officer, whoever he is, gave this decision in the face of evidence exactly contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has given? These Regulations and the officer's decision have murdered this man.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI must entirely demur to that statement. I do not do so because my Department is responsible, because, as I have said, it is the decision of the statutory officer. I should demur to it being said either that the chief insurance officer or any Judge of the Realm was responsible for murder as the result of a decision he might give, but at the same time everyone regrets, if it was the case, that as a result of the decision this man was found drowned. On the other hand, if the facts were as clear as the hon. Member states, it was open to the man to appeal to the court of referees.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI only want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly simple question; I want him to inquire from the officer who gave this decision on what evidence he based it, because it is in the teeth of all the evidence in the case.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDIt was for the Man, as he had every notice, to appeal to the court of referees.