The House of Commons on Thursday, March 3rd, disagreed with
the Lords' amendments to the new Unemployment Insurance Bill, and as the Lords did not insist upon their amendments, the Bill was passed and received the Royal assent. Dr. Mao. Tamara made out a plausible case for rejecting the conditions which the Lords sought to impose upon the receipt of unemploy- ment benefit. He argued that it was part of a contract between the State and the insured person. Nevertheless, the House of Lords was right in seeking to abate the grave scandal attending this policy of doles. The Lords proposed that a man or woman should not be entitled to refuse " employment on reasonable terms for which he is physically and otherwise fit," whereas the Act only requires him not to refuse " suitable employ- ment "—a term which may be interpreted according to the whim of the Labour Exchange official.
Previous page
