HC Deb 16 February 1920 vol 125 cc562-3W
Mr. F. ROBERTS

asked the Minister of Labour, whether he is aware that Mr. Roger Halliwell, of Cheltenham, a bricklayer and insured person under Part II. of the National Unemployment Insurance Acts, was prosecuted at the instance of his department for the alleged offence of endeavouring to obtain out-of-work donation benefit under false pretences with intent to defraud on 28th July, 1919; that the case was subsequently adjourned to 31st July, 1919; that the Cheltenham Police Court held that there was a primâ facie case; and that the person in question was committed for trial to the Gloucester Quarter Sessions; whether he is aware that the case was withdrawn from the jury; that Mr. Halliwell left the court without a stain upon his character; and that it was stated in court that the Ministry of Labour could be better engaged than in instituting prosecutions upon such slender evidence; and whether he is prepared to recommend an ex gratiâ payment to this workman to enable him to meet solicitors' costs of £50 which he was forced to incur to protect his honour and compensation for loss of employment and travelling expenses?

Sir R. HORNE

I am aware of the facts relative to the case of Mr. Roger Halliwell. In my opinion the evidence before the Department justified the institution of a prosecution, and this view is supported by the action of the magistrates in sending the case for trial. The statement that the Ministry of Labour could be better engaged than in instituting prosecutions on such slender evidence was made by Counsel for the Defence, and was not an opinion expressed by the Court. I regret that I am unable to recommend anyex gratia payment.

Mr. F. ROBERTS

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in the case of an insured person who is compelled to pay contributions under the National Insurance Unemployment Acts, 1911–19, and who rightly claims benefit in conformity with the umpire's decision, and such claim is disallowed by a court of referees, such person thereby renders himself liable to prosecution for endeavouring to obtain money under false pretences?

Sir R. HORNE

A prosecution would not be instituted in such circumstances unless there was clearprima facie evidence of fraudulent intent.