HC Deb 22 July 1925 vol 186 cc2192-5
42. Mr. MORRISON

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that when applications for extended benefit are rejected by the claims officer against the decision of the rota committee, Form 503 A is sent to the applicant stating that the committee has rejected his claim; and, in view of the fact that this statement is incorrect, will he take steps to see that Form 503 A is not used in cases where the rota committee's decision has been overturned?

Mr. BETTERTON

I find that on some occasions when the Department has not accepted the recommendations of a rota committee a form (503 A) has been sent to the applicant which is only applicable when the rota committee has recommended disallowance. An instruction is being issued to Exchanges calling attention to the proper procedure.

43. Mr. GRIFFITHS

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. Bellringer, of 29, Veyvyan Street, Camborne, Cornwall, has been refused unemployment benefit, although he has given ample evidence that he is genuinely seeking work, and despite the fact that he has 455 stamps to his credit, having paid contributions since 1912: and whether, in view of these facts, the case will be referred back to the local committee?

Mr. BETTERTON

I am having inquiries made into Mr. Bellringer's case and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

34. Mr. W. BAKER

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men over 60 years of age, whose claims to unemployment benefit have been supported 'by the local rota committees in Bristol, are being denied benefit; and, seeing that these decisions are being taken on the ground that the men are not likely to be able to obtain further employment having regard to their age, will he, in view of the hardship involved, reconsider the grounds upon which such decisions are based?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir A. Steel-Maitland)

Applicants are in no case refused unemployment benefit solely on the ground of their age; but it is a condition for the receipt of extended benefit under the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924, that the applicant shall prove, among other things, that in normal times insurable work suitable to his capacities would be likely to be available for him, and my right hon. Friend is not authorised to grant payment of such benefit to any applicant who cannot satisfy this condition.

Mr. MARCH

Is it necessary for a man to prove that, he is likely to be engaged in an insurable trade if hitherto he has been engaged in an insurable trade?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

He has to show that it is employment suitable to his capacity, that he will be capable of taking employment suitable to his capacity.

Mr. MARCH

The right hon. Gentleman do? not understand what I mean. We know of instances of men who have been engaged in insurable trades up to 60 years of age and have then obtained benefit, and then you toll these men they are not likely to be engaged in an insurable trade, and yet they have been in one ever since the Ant has been in operation.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

That is what I intended to convey by my answer. The fact that a person has been engaged in an insurable- trade is always a strong presumption in his favour that he would be likely to be employed in it again, and, as I have said, the mere fact of age is not by any manner of means a disqualification.

52. Mr. MAXTON (for

asked the Minister of Labour the number of women's claims for insurance benefit which have, been rejected under Section 10 (1) of The Unemployment Act, 1921, during the three months from August, 1924, and the corresponding figures for the three months beginning 1st January, 1925?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I regret I have been unable to trace the Section quoted in the question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a further question explaining in detail the nature of the information he desires to obtain

53. Mr. MAXTON for

asked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants for insurance benefit whose claim was rejected under Clause 1, Sub section (3) (a), (b), (c) and (d), of the 1924 Unemployment Insurance Act, respectively, during the three months August, September and October, 1924; and the corresponding number of claims rejected under each of those Clauses in the three months beginning 1st January, 1925?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The reply has been prepared in the form of a tabular statement, which, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the statement:

APPLICATIONS for Benefit rejected under Section 1 (3), (a), (b), (c and (d) of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924.
— 1st Aug., 1924 to 10th Nov., 1924. 13th Jan., 1925, to 13th Apr., 1925.
Section 1 (3) (a) 13,860 13,749
Section 1 (3) (b) 3,657 6,355
Section 1 (3) (c) 34,428 36,000
Section 1 (3) (d) 25,899 38,328