HC Deb 18 November 1925 vol 188 cc368-73
33. Major CRAWFURD

asked the Minister of Labour how many applicants have been refused benefit in consequence of the passage of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925; and what is the total amount of benefits so withheld?

39. Mr. FORREST

asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons to whom uncovenanted benefit has been refused as a result of the new Regulations in the Act of 1925; and how many persons have received such benefit as a result of special consideration given to their cases?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Between 25th August and 12th October, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of applications for extended benefit rejected by local Employment Committees in Great Britain under the provisions of Section 1 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925, was 31,126. I cannot state the amount of benefit which would have been drawn by the claimants concerned if benefit had not been so disallowed.

Mr. MACKINDER

Does that include the number of cases against which the insurance officer has a claim after the committee has made its decision to grant benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

That is quite a different question. The difference between the insurance committee, the official, and the rota committee may be in regard to the demand, whether allowed or disallowed, or for many different reasons. This figure only refers to the Act of last year. If the hon. Member will put down a question or speak to me, I shall be glad.

Mr. HARMSWORTH

Are there any disabled ex-service men among the 31,000?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I do not think an appreciable number, but perhaps

APPLICATIONS FOR "EXTENDED" BENEFIT CONSIDERED AND REJECTED BY LOCAL EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEES IN GREAT BRITAIN.
13th January to 12th October, 1925.
Period. Applications Considered. Applications Rejected.* Percentage Rejected of Application Considered.
1925.
13th January—9th February … 276,701 43,643 15.8
10th February—9th March … 262,997 41,062 15.6
10th March—13th April … 295,719 45,636 15.4
14th April—11th May … 247,828 40,028 16.2
12th May—8th June … 224,038 38,808 17.3
9th June—13th July … 293,932 50,723 17.3
14th July—10th August … 242,821 41,113 16.9
11th August—24th August … 135,736 24,877 18.3
25th August—14th September … 194,144 36,627 18.9
15th September—12th October … 284,981 54,919 19.3
Total … 2,458,897 417,436 17.0
* Including failure to appear and adjourned cases.
76. Mr. LANSBURY

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons were refused covenanted benefit and how many uncovenanted benefit during the period from 1st January to 7th November, showing men and women separately, on any of the following grounds: not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment, insurable employment not likely to be available, not a reasonable period of insurable employment during preceding two years, not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment, or not willing to accept suitable employment, because applicant was living at home with

the hon. Gentleman will put down a question.

78. Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons applied for extended benefit in each month of the present year and the percentage of cases in which benefit was refused?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

During the period 13th January, 1925, to 12th October, 2,458,897 applications for extended benefit were considered by local employment committees in Great Britain, and in 417,436, or 17 per cent., of these cases the application was refused. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing figures for each month.

Following is the statement referred to:

parents or other relatives whose earnings were deemed sufficient to maintain applicant, and other reasons (failure to attend hearing, etc.)?

80. Mr. HAYDAY

asked the Minister of Labour how many applicants for unemployment benefit during the first six months of this year and during the period from 1st July, respectively, have been refused benefit on the grounds that the applicants were not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment; that insurable employment was not likely to be available; that the applicants had not had a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years; and that the applicants had not made every effort to obtain suitable employment, and were not willing to accept suitable employment?

ANALYSIS OF REASONS FOR REJECTIONS OF APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENDED BENEFIT BY LOCAL EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEES IN GREAT BRITAIN.
Reasons for Rejection. Rejected during Period 13th January— 13th July, 1925. Rejected during Period 14th July— 12th October, 1925.
Males. Females. Males. Females.
General Reasons:—
Not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment 11,876 12,777 5,932 4,322
Insurable employment not likely to be available 7,590 5,113 4,342 1,767
Not a reasonable period of insurable employment during preceding two years. 52,203 18,362 40,522 8,130
Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment or not willing to accept suitable employment. 40,616 35,675 21,438 13,229
Total 112,285 71,927 72,234 27,448
Reasons (Operative under Ministers discretion as from 25th August, 1925):—
Single persons residing with relatives to whom they can look for support—
(a) Age under 25 years — — 11,152 5,178
(b) 25 years and over — — 1,018 741
Married women living with husbands to whom they can look for support. — — — 6,688
Married men living with wives to whom they can look for support. — — 372 —
Short-time workers earning sufficient for maintenance. — — 3,969 1,885
Aliens — — 107 16
Total — — 16,618 14,508
Total Rejections 112,285 71,927 88,852 41,956
As the conditions mentioned relate only to extended benefit, the Table contains no cases of application for standard benefit.
Figures are not given for rejections on account of failure to attend the hearing, because in such cases it frequently happens that the applicants attend a later hearing and their cases are then included in the Table if their claims are rejected.
79. Mr. A. GREENWOOD

asked the Minister of Labour in how many cases since the beginning of this year have the decisions of rota committees been referred back to the committees by his Department; in how many cases the rota committees have re-affirmed their previous decisions; and in how many cases applicants have been deprived of benefit notwithstanding the decisions of the rota committees?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The only figures available on this subject relate to

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

With the permission of the Hon. Members, I will circulate a Table in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the information desired.

Following is the Table:

recommendations by local employment committees which have been reviewed by the Department between 25th August and 12th October, 1925. Out of 1,694 cases reviewed in this period, 89 cases recommended for disallowance by local employment committees were subsequently allowed by the Department and 1,605 cases recommended for allowance were disallowed. During the period the committees dealt with 479,125 claims.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Under what Section of the Act are the special committees being set up which are exercising a right of veto on the decisions of the local committees?

Mr. SPEAKER

I should like to see that question on the paper.

81. Mr. SEXTON

asked the Minister of Labour the number of young men unemployed and living with their parents who have been disqualified on the grounds of family income during the past six months?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The number of single male persons, whose claims for extended unemployment benefit had been rejected by local employment committees in Great Britain between 25th August and 12th October last on the ground that they were residing with relatives to whom they could look for support was 12,170.

Mr. SEXTON

In view of the notorious list just read by the right hon. Gentleman, does ho consider it advisable to continue the demoralising system of young men sponging on their parents, and will he reconsider the matter?