CLAUSE 37.—(Application of Part 11 of Act.) (Hansard, 9 May 1934)

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The first Amendment which I call is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey).

§ Mr. BATEY
I beg to move, in page 33, line 9, to leave out "officers of."
The duties which are to be performed by the officers are specified in Sub-section (1), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). This part of the Bill is to apply to any person in whose case certain qualifications are fulfilled : (a) that he has attained the age of sixteen years and has not attained the age of sixty-five years. It ought not to be difficult to decide that point. (b) that he is either— (i) a person whose normal occupation is employment in respect of which contributions are payable under the "Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1925 to 1932; That cannot be a very difficult matter for the officer to decide, nor can the next condition set out in (b, ii), but when the officer has to decide : (c) that he is capable of and available for work, he has to decide a most important question—far too big a question for one man 1100 to decide. We do not think that an officer should be left to decide so important a matter. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary promised that he would consider this matter before the Report stage, and we expected that he would be prepared on Report to move an Amendment making it clear that the board would take the responsibility for the decision of the officer. We are disappointed that there is no Amendment on the Order Paper. As far as we can see, the matter is to be left where it is. If the Parliamentary Secretary has omitted to put down an Amendment in order to meet the promise that he made in Committee, I would ask him to consider the matter so that it may be put right in another place. The decision as to who comes under Part II is far too important a matter to leave to one man, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give the Amendment his serious consideration.

§ Mr. T. SMITH
I beg to second the Amendment.
I remember the discussion which took place on 19th February when the Parliamentary Secretary said : We wish to make it quite clear that the board are responsible for the acts of those who make these decisions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19tlh February, 1934; col. 136, Vol. 286.] 1101 We expected to see an Amendment on the Paper dealing with this point, and if the hon. Member cannot accept our proposal, I hope that he will give us an assurance that the matter will be put right in another place.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson)
As hon. Members have said, I did promise in the course of the discussions in Committee to go into this matter and make sure whether the words in the Bill carry out our intentions. We have gone carefully into the matter again, and the upshot of it is that we think the words in the Bill do carry out our intentions, and also the desires of hon. Members opposite. It is clear that the officers of the board will be civil servants, and, like all civil servants, they will be liable to summary dismissal if they do not carry out their duties properly. It will be part of their duty to make themselves acquainted with the regulations and the decisions of the board, and to see that their conduct reflects the intentions and decisions of the board. It is clearly not necessary to put in the Amendment. There is no doubt that they will carry out the decisions of the board, which will accept full responsibility.

§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
I beg to move, in page 33, line 9, after "Board," to insert "on an application made in the prescribed manner."
I am afraid that the intention of the Amendment is not clearly conveyed in the actual words. The responsibility of deciding whether a man comes under this part of the Bill rests entirely with the Unemployment Assistance Board, but there is no provision that a man shall apply to the board for his case to be considered, and it is possible that a man may neglect to make any application, or he may be too ignorant to know that he should make an application, with the result that he will remain a charge on the local authority. I want to be sure that the public assistance authority has the right to make an application to the Unemployment Assistance Board in a case of that sort, where a man fails to make an application himself. Under Clause 53 1102 certain regulations are to be made for carrying out the provisions in this Clause, and if these words are inserted we shall be sure that the public assistance authority has a right to make an application to the board in proper cases.

§ Sir JOSEPH LAMB
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. HUDSON
We propose to accept the Amendment, because we think it is reasonable and very desirable that the public assistance authority should have power to ask for a decision from the board in a particular case, although the man himself has not made an appeal. I should like to assure the hon. and gallant Member that we will take steps to see that the rules when made make it clear that the public assistance authority will have the right to obtain a decision, although no application has been made by the man himself.

§ Mr. LAWSON
I take it that when a public assistance authority makes an application to the board in a particular case it will be considered on its merits, irrespective of the fact that the man himself has made no application. Then comes the question of the standard which the Unemployment Assistance Board will set up, as to how they will decide whether a man comes within the scope of this part of the Bill or not; or is it the case that, if a public assistance authority makes a request, automatically the Unemployment Assistance Board accepts the man?

§ Mr. HUDSON
The position will be that if there is any doubt and the public assistance authority are of opinion that a particular man ought to be within the scope of the board, although the man himself may not agree, they will have the right to go to the appeal tribunal and get a decision from the tribunal which, of course, the board will accept.

§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
I beg to move, in page 33, line 33, after "determined," to insert : subject to the right of the public assistance authority to make written or oral representations thereon. It is only right that a public assistance authority should have the right to make 1103 representations in a case. They may be gravely prejudiced by the finding if they are not allowed to make any representations, and there is no provision in the Bill to enable them to do so.

§ Sir J. LAMB
I beg to second the Amendment.
This is only a matter of precaution, to make sure that the public assistance authority shall have a right to be heard when there is a particular point they wish to put.

§ Mr. HUDSON
The Amendment has been moved, I think, under a misapprehension. There is a subsequent Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to limit the rights of public assistance authorities to bring appeals. Certain rights' of appeal have slipped into the Bill by mistake—a mistake which we propose to put right in the official Amendment which I propose to move directly.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
Why "mistake"?

§ Mr. HUDSON
I will explain it when we come to the Amendment. The effect of the present proposal would be to increase still further the rights of public assistance authorities, which we propose to curtail by the Government Amendment. Therefore, I cannot accept it.

§ Sir J. LAMB
Suppose the mistake is not rectified, what will be the position of public assistance authorities then? Cannot we safeguard ourselves now, irrespective of something else which may be done at a later stage?

§ Sir PERCY HARRIS
I am disturbed at a change of front on the part of the Minister which may have serious repercussions on the local authorities. I took part in discussions, before the Bill was formally introduced to Parliament, between the local authorities, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary was present on that occasion, but I have no doubt that there are other Members in the House who had the advantage of taking part in those discussions. They will remember that part of the bargain, as a result of which local authorities, generally, were 1104 persuaded to support the principle of the Bill, was an undertaking that financially they would be the losers.
A great number of border-line cases will arise in which there will be a dispute as to whether or not they come within the definition of "able-bodied unemployed" as laid down in the Bill. There is danger of serious controversy between the public assistance committees and the new authority, which is to be set up under the Bill, as to these border-line cases. The authorities naturally are concerned, from the point of view of the rates, to get as many men and women as possible off the rates and to make them chargeable to the fund under the terms of the Bill. But it is not only that. It is a serious matter for the men themselves. When the Bill becomes an Act, the only way of giving relief to these persons will be to send them to institutions. It will be difficult, under the terms of the Bill for these men to get out-relief as at present. Therefore, it is an important matter of policy that the public assistance authority should have the right of appeal against the arbitrary decision of the new board. We do not know what the constitution of the new board is going to be, or who will be its members. They may be imbued with a desire to push as many people as possible on to the public assistance authorities and the local rates.
I have no doubt that the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment have been inspired to submit it by the local authorities, and especially by the County Councils' Association. It represents a natural fear that the Government are seeking to get out of the contract made as between the local authorities, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour. Cases of dispute are inevitable, considering that we are to have these two parallel authorities giving what is, after all, out-door relief to many people. There will be cases of men who are nearly able-bodied but regarding whom technical questions will arise as to health insurance, old age pensions and so on, and there will be disputes as to whether they are properly chargeable to the fund or to the local rates. Particularly in the early stages of the administration it is more than likely that there will be disputes of that kind, and it is not right that these should be left to the arbitrary decision of the board 1105 or the board's officials. There should be a means of settling disputed cases by appeal to an independent tribunal. I am sorry that the Minister has not only given an unsympathetic reply to this proposal but has threatened a still further limitation on the rights of appeal of the local authorities concerned.

§ Mr. HUDSON
The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) appears to be confusing two parts of the Clause. There is no question here about an appeal from an arbitrary decision of the board or of the officers of the board. The decision in this class of case will be given, in the one instance by the Minister of Health with a reference to the High Court, and in the other instance by the court of referees with an appeal to the Umpire. The words of the Amendment do not refer to the first part of Sub-section (3) which deals with the case where the question of scope is a matter of dispute between the board and the applicant. It applies to the latter part of the Subsection which deals with the case where the sole question is whether the man is a person in respect of whom contributions are payable under the Contributory Pensions Acts or whether he has been involved in a trade dispute, and in neither of those cases will any matter arise for decision by the Unemployment Assistance Board.

§ Mr. LAWSON
I gather that what the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) desires is that the public assistance authority shall have the right to make written or oral representations on these cases. The words of the Sub-section at present are to the effect that the question shall be referred to the insurance officer and be determined by the same person and in the same manner as if it had arisen on a claim for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. The hon. and gallant Member wishes to insert in that provision the words : subject to the right of the public assistance authority to make written or oral rep resentations thereon. I understand that that is what the Parliamentary Secretary is refusing. But surely that is a right which ought to be given to 1106 the public assistance authorities. Surely, they ought to have a right to put their case.

§ Mr. HUDSON
I think that the hon. Member is under the same misapprehension as the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). The decision in these two cases will not lie with an officer of the board. In the one ease it will be a decision by the Minister of Health, and in the other case a decision by the court of referees or the umpire. These two types of cases are taken out of the purview of the appeal tribunal and the Unemployment Assistance Board.

§ Mr. LAWSON
In the ease of a decision by the court of referees would it not be possible for the public assistance authority to put their case, either in writing or orally? Surely the public assistance authority should have the right to put their case either to the Minister of Health or the court of referees. If that is not to be the case, then one of the chief parties to the decision is being left out of consideration, and given no voice in the matter. The applicant would have the right to put his case before the court of referees or the umpire, and the public assistance authority is just as much concerned as the man. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to get a balance in this matter, but I do not think he is meeting the case if he ignores the local authority in connection with decisions by the Minister, by the court of referees, or by the umpire.

§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
I do not think that my Amendment and the Amendment in the name of the Minister which follows it on the Paper are, necessarily, contradictory. There seems to be no reason why both should not be adopted. All I am asking is that the local authority should be allowed to make "written or oral representations." The Minister's Amendment provides that an appeal shall not lie at the instance of a public assistance authority, but that would not prevent them from making representations. It is not a matter to which I attach very great importance though I should like these words to be put in and if I understand that the matter will be considered further and that the 1107 Minister will see if he cannot meet us in regard to it, I have no objection to withdrawing the Amendment.

§ Mr. HUDSON
indicated assent.

§ Mr. HUDSON
I beg to move, in page 33, line 35, at the end, to insert : so, however, that an appeal from the decision of an insurance officer or a court of referees upon any such question shall not lie at the instance of a public assistance authority. As I explained briefly on the last Amendment, we never contemplated when we drafted the Bill that the public assistance authority would have any locus standi in the decision of these questions. The whole object of Sub-section (3, b), namely, that where the question is whether a person comes under the trade dispute disqualification, the matter shall be referred to the court of referees, was to provide that a man who was not insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts should have the same right of appeal in a trade dispute case as the man who was insured under that Act. A trade dispute, as the House knows, is one of the most difficult questions that arises in the administration of Unemployment Insurance. A considerable body of case law has now been built up. I do not say that it gives entire satisfaction everywhere, but on the whole it gives reasonable satisfaction, and we thought that, as this was satisfactory procedure for the 12,500,000 persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the fairest way was to extend those rights to the 5,000,000 who are not insured but who come conditionally under Part II.
Under Part I, affecting those who are insured, there is no question at all of the public assistance authority intervening in the case, which is decided on its merits. Obviously the local authority is not the body which has any knowledge, and there is no reason why it should interfere or be heard. If that is true in the case of the insured person it is true equally with regard to the non-insured person. That is the reason why we want to put right what was really a slip in the original drafting of the Bill, namely, this loophole for local public assistance authorities to intervene. The same thing, of 1108 course, is true to a different extent in the question of scope whether a man is or is not liable to pay for Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions.

§ Mr. LAWSON
Would this Amendment apply in the case of a trainee, where a man had refused certain classes of work under the board? Certain classes of work may be offered to a man by authorities outside, such as the voluntary associations. Would such a man be involved in this particular Amendment?

§ Mr. HUDSON
Quite definitely no. That would be a case where the question was whether the employment was suitable.

§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
I think this is an excellent Amendment. It would be utterly wrong for a public assistance authority to have this right of appeal in these questions of trade disputes, for it is quite possible that they might be indirectly or directly connected with such disputes. I am very glad that the Minister is dealing with the point.

§ Mr. LAWSON
I beg to move, in page 33, line 43, at the end, to insert : Provided also that any question of law may be referred by the chairman of the appeal tribunal direct to the High Court and shall be dealt with in conformity with such rules of court as may be made for the purpose. This matter was raised during the discussion of the Bill in Committee. It explains on the face of it that any difficulty there may be in the matter of law shall be referred direct to the High Court. It is quite clear that the operation of the Bill, and particularly the operation of this part of it, may throw up cases that require to be dealt with, in spite of the fact that there are multitudes of particular cases to which one can refer and precedents which almost have the effect of law. There will undoubtedly be new phases appearing and questions arising that cannot be settled by the experience that we have already had. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. If adopted I do not think it would call for wide use.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell)
As was promised, I think by me, on the Committee stage, we have looked into this matter because we have every sympathy with the object behind this Amendment, which is to prevent, if possible, the multiplicity of proceedings or appeals. I have looked into the question very carefully with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and for the reasons I shall give we have come to the conclusion that so far from minimising proceedings the Amendment might tend, in so far as it is used, to increase them. Under the Bill as it stands if any question arises as to whether any employment is employment in respect of which contributions are payable under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, that question is referred to the Minister of Health. It is a matter with which the Minister is accustomed to deal. I am informed that out of some 3,000 cases which he has decided there have been only nine appeals and that only four of these have been successful. That machinery is obviously working to the general satisfaction of the people. Under the Bill if that sort of question arises the chairman of the appeal tribunal hands it over to the Minister.
If the Amendment were accepted he would have to consider whether a question of law arose. He would not have anything like the specialist knowledge of the Ministry of Health, If a case is sent to the Ministry it may be quite obvious to them that there really is no question of law. They would give their decision and it would be accepted in 1,990 out of 2,000 cases. If this power is to be used at all, it might well result in the chairman stating a case—it would be necessary to state a case before any decision is come to—whereas if we leave the Bill as it is the case goes to the Ministry of Health, who will give a decision acceptable to everyone and there would be no need for the matter to go to the High Court at all. So costs and trouble would be avoided.
I agree that the Amendment was intended to produce simplification, but it might end in the difficult position of having to go into a matter on which the Ministry is so well informed, and it might lead to the stating of a case when under 1110 the Bill the matter never has to go to the High Court. I think I suggested also in Committee that in the rare cases to which it is desirable to go to the High Court it is also desirable that the case should be stated by the Ministry of Health. Stating a case is a matter in which people can quite easily go wrong, and it is a great advantage to every one concerned that the Ministry, with its long experience in dealing with this matter and in stating cases in a uniform way, should state them. For these reasons I hope that the hon. Member will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
Although I have no doubt that this Amendment was moved with the idea of alleviating the position, when it is looked into carefully we see that in all probability it would complicate things and bring a large number of jobs for lawyers. I can see the extraordinary discretion in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), whose name is attached to this Amendment.

§ Mr. COVE
Give it up.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I do think, when we are discussing Amendments on an important Bill of this sort, it is just as well that we should look into the whole thing. It is essential that we should make the proceedings under this Clause as simple as possible.

§ Mr. LAWSON
The explanation of the learned Solicitor-General is on the whole satisfactory, but I think he will agree that when we discussed this matter in Committee he himself did not state exactly what was the best course to pursue. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) will perhaps learn in time that we on the Labour benches do our work thoroughly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.