§ 40. Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Labour if the fact that an unskilled labourer has been employed for 26 weeks on relief work would be taken into account by a local employment committee in deciding whether or not such a man had been employed for a reasonable period during the two years of which the 26 weeks formed part?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe performance of relief work is not regarded as having any bearing on the satisfaction of the conditions for the grant of extended benefit, and the employment on relief work in the case referred to by the hon. Member should not be taken into account by the local employment committee.
§ Mr. THURTLEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this relief work involves unskilled labour, and it will have to be done some time or other; and does he not think this should be taken into account in considering whether a man has been employed for a reasonable period during the last two years?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe whole principle on which local employment committees are supposed to judge is whether the amount the man has done is reasonable in view of all of the circumstances and whether he is genuinely seeking work. That is a matter of judgment as regards what he would have done under ordinary conditions, and therefore the performance of relief work cannot be taken as giving any indication one way or 2513 the other. He might quite well be regarded as satisfying the conditions if he had done no other work at all besides relief work. Of course it depends upon the judgment in regard to individual cases.
§ Mr. LANSBURYHas the right hon. Gentleman taken into account that a man ordered by the board of guardians or the borough council to go on to relief work, if he left that work for any reason, his relief would immediately stop and that therefore, during 26 weeks he is really prohibited from looking for other work, and does he not think that that should be taken into consideration?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI have no doubt at all, but I speak subject to verification which I prefer to do instead of misleading the hon. Member. The fact that a man is not able during a certain period of time to look for work is no doubt a factor in the situation that the committee would have in mind.
§ 58. Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour how many claims for unemployment benefit have been rejected during the months of March, April, and May, respectively, of this year, and the corresponding figures for last year?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe numbers of applications for extended benefit which were rejected by local employment committees in Great Britain in the months ended 13th April, 11th May and 8th June, 1925, were respectively 33,039, 27,757 and 27,249, as compared with 19,690, 15,083, and 13,926 in the corresponding periods in 1924.
§ Mr. STEPHENCan the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for the increase in the number of rejections this year as compared with last year?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDCertainly. The increase in the number of rejections was the result of last year's Act, because in the months that followed that Act the number of rejections was pretty much the same per month as at present.