§ 28. Mr. FORRESTasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases during the last 12 months in which extended unemployment benefit has been refused on the ground that the applicant has failed to prove that in normal times insurable employment suited to his capacities would be likely to be available for him?
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)During the period 14th October, 1924 — 12th October, 1925, 22,854 claims to extended benefit have been disallowed in Great Britain on the ground that in normal times insurable employment suited to the claimants' capacities was not likely to be available.
29. Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the recent Regulations governing the administration of extended benefit operate so as to throw a large number of the unemployed on to Poor Law relief, thus increasing the local rates; and can ho sec his way to modify these Regulations in view of the already heavy burden of local rates?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe point raised by the hon. Member is among those to be brought up in to-morrow's Debate and I propose to deal with it then more fully than would be possible in a Parliamentary answer.
30. Mr. THOMSONalso asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware 1351 that hardship accrues in the administration of extended benefit owing to the fact that his Regulations prevent employment on any sort of relief work being taken into account when considering whether an applicant is genuinely seeking work and the amount of employment during the previous two years; and will he consider the revision of these Regulations?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Thursday last to the hon. Members for Lincoln and for Plaistow.
Mr. THOMSONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that much of this work which is disqualified would in ordinary conditions be work which the local authorities would put in hand? Simply because they get a grant from the unemployment committee, why should they be disqualified?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI am going into the whole question of disqualification. I think the proper condition is this, that so far as a test is imposed by the guardians, that test is not to reckon towards the person's qualification. On the other hand, if he is taken on to relief work, then I admit at once there is a case for that being taken as disqualification. I am considering the whole matter.
Mr. THOMSONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities are not acting in accordance with that suggestion?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDWhen a conclusion is arrived at, it will, of course, be brought before the local committees.
§ Mr. TAYLORCan the right hon. Gentleman explain why the term "relief work" was used, instead of "test work," in the Regulation issued by his Department?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDPerhaps the hon. Member will put down a question on that point?
§ Mr. TAYLORIs it not a fact that the Parliamentary Secretary received a deputation as long ago as 26th October and promised to issue amending directions to the local Exchange committees? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local committees are interpreting these Regula- 1352 tions as meaning relief work? Does it take a month to issue instructions of that kind?
§ 51. Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that extended benefit has been refused to R. Keech, of 39, Rose Heyworth Road, Abertillery, upon the grounds that his parents, with whom he lives, can be reasonably expected to provide for him; that the collieries in this area have worked short time during the last 12 months and the average earnings have been very low; and will he therefore allow benefit in this case?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI am having inquiries made into this case, and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.