HC Deb 04 March 1925 vol 181 cc417-21
38. Mr. JOHN BECKETT

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons in Gateshead have been disallowed unemployment insurance benefit since 1st February; and how many of these are due to the new regulations issued by him?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)

The number of applications for extended benefit disallowed at the Gateshead Employment Exchange between the 1st arid 27th February was 259; of these. 105 were in respect of persons who had failed to satisfy the new regulations.

Mr. BECKETT

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the new leaflet, No. 21563, is being sent out to applicants, and the benefit automatically stops without further consideration?

Mr. CONNOLLY

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to draw the attention of committees and their chairmen to the fact that there is a Central Advisory Board in London which gives advice on border-line cases, and will he have the attention of these committees drawn to the fact so that they can obtain advice?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I do not think that arises out of the question at all, but I think local committees are perfectly well aware that they can get advice whenever they wish it, but I am perfectly ready to bring it to their notice if there is any doubt.

Mr. CONNOLLY

The reason I am asking is that I know the chairman of one of the committees who is in comparative ignorance.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this large number who have been thrown out at Gateshead are largely composed of married men, and that it is throwing a serious burden on the Gateshead authorities?

Mr. BECKETT

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this leaflet issued by him is being sent to applicants, and their relief stops without any further notification? I do not think that was his intention?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I was not aware that it was being sent, but I will inquire into it.

49. Mr. ROBERT HUDSON

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a claim for unemployment benefit by Mr. F. Barker, of the "Golden Fleece" Inn, Calderbridge (Cleator Moor 3181). was disallowed by the umpire, in spite of the fact that the local court of referees went most fully into his case and decided that the man's alternative income did not reach the statutory limit; and whether, in these circumstances, he will take steps to have the case reopened?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I am informed that the umpire had before him the recommendation of the court of referees and all the facts of the case. The umpire is an independent authority whose decisions are not open to review by me. He may revise a decision on new facts being brought to his notice, but so far as I am aware there is no suggestion here that there are new facts to be brought forward.

Mr. HUDSON

In view of the undoubted hardship caused in many cases by the existing limit on alternative income, will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking steps to increase that limit somewhat?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

If that would need fresh legislation it would have to be considered together with other proposals.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

What is the reason for this umpire being outwith the jurisdiction of this House?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The reason for the umpire being outside the jurisdiction or rather his decisions being beyond my review was that he was purposely set up in order that he might look at the cases in as fair and impartial a way as possible, without any bias by anybody.

53. Colonel DAY

asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons. respectively, whose unemployment benefit has been stopped by the Walworth Employment Exchange since the 1st January, 1925, on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking employment and were not likely to be absorbed into industry; how many of these were over 60 years A age; and how many were ex service men?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

At the Borough Employment Exchange, which covers the area of Walworth, the number of applications for extended benefit rejected between 13th January and 9th February on the ground that the applicants were not making reasonable efforts to secure employment was 179, while 13 others were refused benefit on the ground that insurable work was not likely to be available for them. I regret I am not able to state how many of these were over 60 years of age and how many were ex-service men.

Mr. MACKINDER

Is it not possible for the Minister to make some provision for men who are too old to work at 60, and are too young to receive the Old Age Pension?

Mr. LANSBURY

Would it not be possible to allow the clerks at the exchange to take down who are and who are not ex-service men who have been struck off?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

If need be I shall try to get statistics. The real trouble is that. the clerks at the exchange are very fully occupied at present, and the more returns of information of different kinds one sends for the greater the burdens placed upon them. I always try to get anything which is humanly possible that is of interest to Members, so far as it can be obtained.

Mr. J. JONES

Seeing the large number of clerks who are out of work as well as other workers, will the right hon. Gentleman try to get this information and have more men taken on?

55. Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that, through the operation of L.E.C. 82/13 in age groups, nearly 100 Brechin workers, mostly women, in the textile trade have become disqualified for receiving unemployment insurance benefit; and, is it was not until the passing of the 1920 Act that most of these people became insured persons, although engaged in an industry in which they would now be insurable, will he make such alteration in the new regulations as will secure a, continuance of benefit to these unemployed people

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The rule to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was announced and explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Bury on the 11th February. The requirement is imposed in exercise of the power given to the Minister of Labour to suspend temporarily the full effect of the condition imposed by the Act of last August, namely, that 30 contributions must have been paid since the beginning of the last insurance year but one. Those who have been disqualified in the Brechin district have been in receipt of benefit out of the Unemployment Fund for so long that I fear that it is impossible to restrict the recent order and allow them to remain on benefit for a further indefinite period.

Sir R. HUTCHISON

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these women are quite unable to find the necessary number of payments towards the insurance in order to get into benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

That must he so in certain of the cases under the new Order, and it must be so in the case of any Insurance Act which is worked as an Insurance Act.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Will the right. hon. Gentleman see his way to change that. Act.!

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

May I ask who passed that Act?