HC Deb 04 July 1923 vol 166 cc417-9
21. Mr. HAYDAY

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the case of R. Carter, of Barrow-in-Furness, who refused employment in Kendal, 43 miles away, and where the rate is 3½d. per hour less in Barrow, because he would be unable to keep his family in Barrow and himself in Kendal on the wages offered; whether he is aware that, in addition to being convicted at the instance of the guardians, his claim to unemployemnt benefit has been disallowed by the umpire in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Unemployment Insurance Act; whether the umpire has admitted on several occasions that the operation of Section 7 in such cases has inflicted hardship; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending Section 7 or referring the matter for consideration to the Committee which is inquiring into the operation of the provision relating to persons who are thrown out of employment in consequence of a dispute in which they are not directly concerned?

Sir M. BARLOW

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The decision in the class of cases referred to is arrived at, I believe, after full consideration of all the circumstances, and although the Umpire in one or two cases in which he has disallowed benefit has said that living away from home in such conditions may involve some hardship, this does not necessarily indicate a view that benefit ought to be allowed. I do not think a case has been made out for the amendment of Section 7 in this respect, nor would it be advisable, in my opinion, to add this problem to that already before the Committee to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. HAYDAY

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Minister of Health, with a view to joint action on the question of this disqualification leading to prosecution by boards of guardians and terms of imprisonment being imposed in these cases, the number of which is increasing?

Sir M. BARLOW

I think the best course would be for my hon. Friend to put down a question to the Minister of Health on this point. If there is any further difficulty, I will gladly do anything I can by joint action.

23. Mr. SHORT

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Joseph Page, 12, New Place, Penfold Street, Darlaston, recently had his unemployment benefit disallowed by the Darlaston Employment Exchange: that he served the customary six weeks and then renewed his application for benefit: and that his application was refused; and, if so, whether he will explain under what Regulation or Section of the Unemployment Act benefit was refused?

Sir M. BARLOW

In the case of covenanted benefit a disqualification for a six weeks' period is followed in accordance with the Act by resumption of benefit. But where uncovenanted benefit is in question, as in this case, the claimant has, in addition, to satisfy the local employment committee that benefit ought to be resumed after the termination of the six weeks, and Mr. Page was unable to do this.

25. Mr. GROVES

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will inquire into the circumstances attending the stoppage of unemployment insurance money to Mr. J. Preston, 184, Chobham Road, Stratford, who on 30th May was offered a job as painter in Lancashire, and declined to accept such because he could not keep his wife and family in Stratford and maintain himself in Lancashire on £2 16s., and moreover pointed out that there were painters signing the unemployment register in the county of Lancaster; and whether he will see that the man is not penalised?

Sir M. BARLOW

I am having inquiry made into the circumstances of the case referred to by the hon. Member, and will let him know the result as soon as possible.

30. Mr. SHORT

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the unemployment benefit of Mr. Weaver, 12a, Tudor Street, Tipton, has been disallowed by the Tipton Employment Exchange; that the disqualification was on the ground that he was not genuinely seeking employment; that he was willing to take any situation the Exchange offered; that his wife was recently the victim of a stroke and is now bedridden; that because he gave some attention to the care of his wife it was concluded he was not genuinely seeking employment; and will he cause inquiry to be made with a view to his benefit being restored, as the family is without income from any source?

Sir M. BARLOW

I am having inquiry made in the case referred to, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.