§ 23. Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if any new instruction has been issued from her Department cancelling or altering in any way the decision of the Umpire, as outlined in the decision by him dated 28th August dealing with persons who have been sick; if so, the nature of such instruction or alteration and her reason for its issue?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThe Umpire's decision referred to was founded upon the regulations in force at the time. On examination of the position, I found that in this particular matter it was within my competence to amend the Regulations so as to restore the practice to what it was before the date of the Umpire's decision. The necessary' amending Regulations were accordingly made and appropriate instructions issued to the Employment Exchanges.
§ Mr. BUCHANANMay I ask if, before this instruction conveying the Umpire's decision was issued to the Employment Exchanges, the Minister of Labour was consulted, and did she give official sanction to the circular taking away the benefit?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThe question cannot very well be answered in that form. The position is that the Umpire's decision must be communicated to the administrative officers. There is no question about that. There was an Umpire's decision; it had to be communicated to the administrative officers, and they had to act upon it until I changed it.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWas the Umpire's decision based on a regulation made by the Department of the Ministry of Labour and under the Minister's authority; and will the right hon. Lady state if, before the issue of any instructions altering that regulation, it was communicated.
§ Miss BONDFIELDThis I suppose is a unique case. It is an instance in which for five years the regulation was under stood to mean a certain thing. Suddenly, the Umpire's decision was that it did not mean that, and I was faced with the necessity of immediately wording the regulation so that it should mean what we thought it meant.
§ Mr. STEPHENWill the Minister of Labour tell us whether her attention was drawn to the Umpire's ruling by her staff and was it sent to the administrative officers?
§ Miss BONDFIELDAs a matter of fact, my attention was not immediately drawn to it, because I was in Bodmin Nursing Home at the time; otherwise, my attention would have been drawn to it, I did not, in fact, see it until a fortnight later.
§ Mr. BUCHANANrose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has had a very full answer.
§ 24. Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour when the insurance officer decided to appeal the case to the Umpire which was the subject of the circular issued on 28th August concerning the week's waiting period for a per son who was sick, and for how long the previous practice had been operated; and if the insurance officer gave any new reason for appealing the case at the time he did so?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThe insurance officer appealed to the Umpire on 17th June, 1929. The previous practice had been in operation for some years. The ground of the appeal to the Umpire was that the insurance officer disagreed with the decision of the Court of Referees. My hon. Friend is perhaps not aware that this appeal was against a disallowance of benefit by the Court of Referees.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWill the Minister of Labour inform me if she has made inquiry into the conduct of the insurance officer in this matter, seeing that for five years he allowed payments to be made, and then at the end of five years he discovered that the case ought to be the subject of an Umpire's decision? Why was not that step taken with the Umpire earlier than five years?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThis is one of those accidental cases that nobody contemplated. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have sifted this question to the bottom, and I am satisfied that I was right.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI beg to give notice that to-night, if possible, I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.