UNEMPLOYMENT (BENEFIT). (Hansard, 4 March 1936)

§ Mr. GALLACHER
I gave notice some time ago, arising out of the dissatisfaction which I experienced in answer to a question, that I would raise a certain matter at a convenient season, and I have given notice to the Minister of Labour that I would raise the matter to-night. It is the case of a seaman named J. Callaghan, who was refused unemployment benefit at Barry. The case of this seaman is one which I consider to be of the very greatest importance. It is necessary to draw attention to the fact that when the National Union of Seamen was outside the general trade union and working-class movement, when it had withdrawn from the Trades Union Congress, the then secretary of the union, the late Havelock Wilson, was the guest of shipowners at a banquet in the Savoy Hotel, and after the shipowners had dealt for some time with the poverty of the industry, the then secretary of that union got up and proposed a reduction of wages of £2 per month for the seamen. As a result of his readiness to fit in with the desires of the shipowners, the latter came to an agreement with him for the institution of the P.C.5. This is a document which a seaman must have in order to get a job on board a federated ship. The National Union of Seamen has used this document on many occasions as a species of blackmail on men who make their living at sea.
I have always advocated a 100 per cent. trade unionism among seamen. I know the difficulties of organising seamen, but to do that it is not necessary to have a P.C.5. As a matter of fact, it has been the means of hindering very seriously the organisation of seamen. But whatever one may have to say about the P.C.5 from the point of view of organising sea- 1524 men, I cannot understand why anyone on the benches opposite can give any countenance to this refusal to give unemployment benefit to seamen. What is the position? If you go for a job on a ship, you go to the chief engineer, and through him you get a job as a fireman or down below as a greaser. If you want a job on the deck, you get it through the mate, but after you have got the job it is necessary to pass the doctor.
I drew attention the other night, when we were discussing tramp shipping, to the character of the surveying in connection with tramp steamers. but if the surveying is a scandal, the passing by the doctor is a greater scandal still, especially with the federated companies. I want to make this charge, that if two men who have been given jobs by the chief engineer or the mate go to pass the doctor, one, without lungs and a P.C.5, will be passed by the doctor; the other man had the best lungs in the world, but he was not passed by the doctor. Can the Parliamentary Secretary justify that? When the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) was making his masterly speech on tramp shipping, he drew attention to the fact that there was a greater percentage of tuberculosis among seamen than among those in any other industry. Tuberculosis does not suddenly develop after a man has passed the doctor. I have passed a doctor and I know what happens. I say again that the doctor of the federated ships, as a result of this P.C.5, is not concerned with the health or the physical condition of those who come before him. If a man has his P.C.5 with him, he may be almost ready for the undertaker, but he is passed. A man may be a modern Samson, but if he has not his P.C.5 and has not paid something to the National Union of Seamen, the doctor stops him. When such a man is unable to get a job and goes to the Employment Exchange, how is it possible that he can be refused unemployment benefit? He is willing to take a job. He may have been on the docks day after day and to ship after ship, and then have found a mate or an engineer who is prepared to give him a job, but if he has not got his P.C.5—

§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES
May I ask what a P.C.5 is?

§ Mr. GALLACHER
It is short for "port control," and it is an arrangement 1525 between the National Union of Seamen and the federated shipping companies. The National Union of Seamen was for a long time outside the general working-class movement, but it is now in the Trades Union Congress and is trying to find out the correct method of trade unionism. The P.C.5 was introduced in the old days and is still operating. What I am objecting to is the fact that a man looks for a job and gets a job, and then is stopped because he has not paid a certain sum to the trade union that entitles him to the P.C.S. He is, therefore, refused unemployment benefit. I understand that this is an arrangement come to between the National Union of Seamen and the shipowners. Because that arrangement is come to when the man is out of a job, the Ministry encourages the refusal to pay unemployment benefit. In engineering and building, where there is a 100 per cent. trade union membership, if a man who is not in a trade union fails to get a job, nobody would dream of refusing him benefit. I want to know from the Government if this is to apply generally.
Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to lay it down that if an understanding is come to between any union and any employers regarding the trade union character of the labour in a particular establishment, then any man who goes there for a job and does not get it because he is not in the trade union will be refused unemployment benefit? I am not asking for an opinion on the rights or wrongs of the P.C.5—I have very strong views about it—but I protest with all the strength I have against any such agreement being operated by the Ministry of Labour or the courts of referees. If a man looks for a job and cannot get one he is entitled to his unemployment benefit, and I demand for the seamen the same right as is enjoyed by the workers in any other industry. No agreement come to by the National Union of Seamen and the Shipping Federation ought to be allowed to divert the law and the regulations of this land and impose on seamen conditions which are not imposed on the workers in any other industry. I ask the representative of the Ministry of Labour for a clear and definite statement that the Ministry does not approve of this action taken against a seaman who has earnestly sought a job and would have got it but for the fact that he was not 1526 prepared to pay £1 or 35s. for a P.C. 5. I demand that something should be said which will ensure that this case will be reopened.

§ Mr. GUY
Can the hon. Member say whether there is any umpire's decision on the matter?

§ Mr. GALLACHER
It has been before the Court of Referees and turned down, but it has not, to my knowledge, been before the Umpire. But it is a case of a glaring character. Nothing like it has happened before.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead)
I understood from the hon. Member that he was going to, raise a specific case.

Mr. GALLAGHER
I mentioned it at the start.

§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD
There was a certain amount of noise at the beginning and it is possible I missed the name.

§ Mr. GALLACHER
I mentioned at the start that I was dissatisfied with the answer to a question I put concerning the case of J. Callaghan, who was refused unemployment benefit at Barry because of his failure to obtain a P.C. 5 form.

§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD
I thank the hon. Member. It may have been my fault that I failed to catch the name. The arrangement which was come to between the Shipping Federation and the National Union of Seamen was a mutual arrangement regarding employment. It is not a case of the Ministry of Labour having encouraged that agreement. It was an agreement made between the federation and the union, and the case was recognised in a court of law in 1923. It was a case in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, "Reynolds v. the Shipping Federation." There the arrangement is, as it is in existence, the Ministry takes cognisance of it, as it does of anything else. That really is beside the point.
The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) brought a serious accusation against the medical profession; that the doctors give medical decision and certificates not strictly on medical grounds. I am perfectly incapable of accepting that sort of accusation, and indeed it is not 1527 within the province of the Minister of Labour to be responsible for doctor's decisions which they give in the course of their professional conduct. The particular case to which the hon. Member refers, that of Mr. Callagan, was a decision that he should be deprived of his benefit. He appealed through the ordinary machinery to the court of referees, which was properly constituted, and which was unanimous in upholding the decision that he was not entitled to benefit.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
Can the Minister give us the reason?

§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD
The court of referees came to that decision.

§ Mr. T. SMITH
On what grounds?

§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD
The findings of the court were: Fell into arrears by his own default… Only asked to pay 10s. which was not an unreasonable amount…. Disallowed the claim under Section 28 of the 1935 Act (refusal of suitable employment).

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
That is not a decision.

§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD
Never mind.

§ Mr. SILVERMAN
What is the misconduct of which the man is guilty?

§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD
The reason why the man was not employed was on account of the arrangement arrived at between the federation and the union.

§ Mr. SILVERMAN
Was the man a party to that arrangement?

§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD
No. The arrangement was arrived at between the federation and the union.

§ Mr. SILVERMAN
Had the man been guilty of misconduct for not honouring an arrangement to which he was not a party?

§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD
No.

§ Mr. SILVERMAN
Then what was his misconduct?

§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD
Really, either the hon. Member must make the speech or I must. There was an arrangement which was arrived at.

§ Mr. GALLACHER
Why did the doctor refuse to pass him when the man had already got a job from the mate of the ship?

§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD
I cannot possibly say why the doctor refused to give a certificate, or gave a certificate, in any case. It is obviously quite outside my competence to do so. The fact remains that the man in question took his case to the court of referees. A perfectly legal proceeding. The court was properly constituted and upheld the decision that the man was not entitled to benefit. It is well known that the Minister of Labour, whatever his personal opinion may be, is not competent to interfere with the court of referees.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
That is only partly true.

§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD
There is a further technicality. Appeal to the umpire can only be by allowance of the court or at the instance of the insurance officers. As regards the court, leave to appeal to the umpire was neither asked nor given, and the insurance officer has not seen fit to appeal himself, so that there has been no appeal to the umpire. The man subsequently got employment, and has sailed in another ship. Hon. Members may say that that is by the way, but the fact remains that the court was fully constituted, it was unanimous, and the man did not even exercise his right to ask the court for leave to appeal to the umpire. Therefore, no appeal was brought forward. There was the machinery by which these cases are heard, and, as I have said, the Minister of Labour has no power to interfere with that position.

§ Mr. KELLY
This is an astounding statement from the Minister. I have been associated with courts of referees and the umpire ever since their institution in 1911 or 1912, and this is the first time I have known a man to be refused benefit because he had not paid his trade union contribution. That is the decision in this case; I hope note is going to be taken of it. I am amazed that the Ministry of Labour have allowed the case to rest where it is. If this is going to be the policy of the Ministry, insurance officers and courts of referees, we understand the position as it is in a great many cases in this country.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I, too, am amazed at the Minister's statement. If a wealthy man has been treated in this way in a foreign country, there would have been a first-class crisis in the House. The Minister has made no attempt to answer the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). He has only told us part of the law. There are only two grounds on which a man can be refused unemployment benefit—that he has lost his job through misconduct, or that he has deliberately neglected to go to a job. Here is a man who was prepared to take a job, and had got it. No question of misconduct arises, but he is refused benefit because of some other action. Is that misconduct? No one would have dreamt, when the Bill went through, that this was misconduct. What is the legal charge against him?
The Minister is responsible, because, in the first place, it was the Minister's servant, the insurance officer, that did the man down. It is true that the court of referees are not, but the insurance officer is the servant of the Minister. The Minister did not tell us that the man was informed of his right to appeal. Possibly he was in a ship already, but he had never been informed. Surely, in a matter of such vital importance, it is the duty of the insurance officer to see that the decision is either turned down or upheld by the Umpire. This is the first time any trade union official in this country has known such a thing to be done. It is a serious matter, and you have no right to do this to a poor man, who has his legal rights, which it is the duty of the Minister to protect. He is not doing it. I agree that even courts of referees and insurance officers should not be allowed to defy the law, but they are deliberately defying the law.
What misconduct did this man commit? The hon. Gentleman has a duty. The Home Secretary would not hesitate to quash a verdict if proceedings were illegally taken. These proceedings were against the Act and the hon. Gentleman ought to take the necessary steps. What is this going to mean? I get a job from the brother of a man 1530 whom I owe 10s. and, because I do not pay, I do not get the job. I may be refused a job because I have not paid my rent. Where is it going to end? It will put a terrible power into some people's hands, if we let this slip through as we let "not genuinely seeking" slip through. The Minister ought at least to say he is prepared to reconsider the matter and have it sent to an umpire. My information is that some parties were interested in the decision. It would be interesting to know if any interested parties were present in court.

§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD
I cannot accept the insinuation of the hon. Member that the Court of Referees were actuated by any motive other than the ordinary motive of the execution of their duty. I could not accept such insinuations against this or any other Court of Referees. Although it is true that the question of the man's union membership and subscription came into this matter, in point of fact the actual reason in legal terms for the disallowance was under Section 28 of the Act of 1935—refusal of suitable employment.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
He did not refuse it.

§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD
I want hon. Members to be clear on this point. The question of the man's union membership and subscription was among, the matters which the court of referees took into consideration but they made their decision under Section 28 of the Act of 1935 on the ground of refusal of suitable employment.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
The man was prepared to take the job.

§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD
The hon. Member is not the Court of Referees. They were fully constituted, and took all the facts of this particular case into consideration. Having done that, they came to the unanimous decision under Section 28 of the Act of 1935 that he was disqualified for refusing the job.