§ 42 and 44. NEIL MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware that hundreds of men in Glasgow who are unemployed are having their claims to unemployment benefit under the fourth special period disallowed on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking employment; whether he is aware that the great depression in trade makes it impossible for those men to find employment; and whether he will give instructions to the local employment committees who are issuing such decisions to reconsider those cases with a view to having those men paid the uncovenanted benefit to which the Act entitles them;
(2) whether he is aware that hundreds of men in Glasgow are having their claims to unemployment benefit during the fourth 1746 special period disallowed by the local employment committees; that no reason is given on the U.I. 503 form which is sent to those men; and whether he will cause the employment committees who have considered those cases to give reasons why those claims have been disallowed, so that the men may have knowledge of what decision they should appeal against?
§ Sir M. BARLOWIt is a condition for the receipt of uncovenanted benefit, which is what I gather the hon. Member is referring to, that applicants must prove that they are genuinely seeking whole-time employment. The local committee, which deals with the applications, is fully conversant with local industrial conditions, and I am satisfied, as the result of local inquiry, that the committee does not refuse to recommend benefit unless it is convinced, after personal interview, that the above condition is not fulfilled. Uncovenanted benefit is, under the Acts, always discretionary. The normal practice is to notify claimants of disallowance and the reason for it by means of a printed form. If the exact ground for disallowance has been omitted in any case, this is exceptional and due to recent pressure of work, and the large number of claims involved. If the hon. Member will bring any cases of this kind to my notice, I will see that the ground for disallowance is furnished.
§ Mr. MACLEANIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these individuals who are refused unemployment benefit on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking employment, are compelled to go to the foreman of their works for a statement that they have been in actual employment? Is it not the case that the Employment Exchanges were started with the object of finding employment for people who are unemployed, and if they cannot do it, how can the unemployed people be expected to succeed? Are they not, under these circumstances, entitled to the benefit?
§ Mr. KIRKWOODWhy do not Ministers answer questions?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member, I think, made a speech rather than asked a question.
§ Mr. MACLEANAs the Minister replied to two questions at once, I was compelled to combine my supplementary 1747 questions to the two. I was doing that, and not making a speech.
§ 48. Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that P. Johnstone, 35, Main Street, Govan, has claimed unemployment benefit during the fourth special period, and has been refused on the ground that he did not prove to the satisfaction of the local employment committee that he was normally employed in an insurable occupation; that the local committee also state that his rights to covenanted benefit, namely, benefit on contributions paid, have meantime been exhausted; whether he can state how a man, whose rights to covenanted benefit, which can only be secured by being employed in an insurable occupation, can be ruled out of benefit on the ground that he is not in an insurable occupation; and whether, in view of the contradictory decisions of this committee, he will cause further inquiry to be made with a view-to the benefit under the fourth special period being paid to this man?
§ Sir M. BARLOWI have made inquiries and find that according to the records of the Department no contributions have ever been paid in respect of this applicant. The question of benefit in respect of contributions has, therefore, never arisen. The man received 44 weeks of uncovenanted benefit, however, up to April of this year. His claim has been considered on more than one occasion since that date, but has been rejected by the Committee. The applicant was not, I am informed, able to prove any employment since 1915. I see no reason to interfere with the recommendation of the Committee in this case.
§ Mr. MACLEANDo not the Committee admit that this man had a right to covenanted benefit which could only be obtained by paying insurance contributions, although the right had been exhausted? Does not that dispose of the statement that he was not normally employed in an insurable occupation?