§ 53. Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Minister of Labour how many women have been refused unemployment benefit since the end of September upon the grounds of not genuinely seeking work; and whether he can state the nature of the evidence required in order to rebut a verdict of this character?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDBetween 1st October and 21st November, 20,802 women and girls had their claims disallowed by the Chief Insurance Officer on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking work. In addition, between 14th September and 12th October 2,937 applications by women and girls for extended benefit were rejected by local employment committees in Great Britain on the ground that the claimants were not making reasonable efforts to obtain employment. As regards the last part of the question, the nature of the evidence required must of necessity vary with the individual cases and cannot be specified beforehand.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many of these cases where women do endeavour to secure work, but the employers refuse to give them any notice? Will he ask the Committee to make very particular inquiries?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI have not the least doubt that any local committee that docs its duty will take all the circumstances into account.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that where local committees have given full consideration to cases similar to those quoted, the travelling committee have turned down the Employment Committee's decision, and disallowed unemployment benefit?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDIt is quite clear that the ultimate decision in extended benefit has to rest with the Minister, and I cannot divest myself of the responsibility. If there are any cases where the result is complained of, whether by the local committees or by 1362 any other officials, or arising out of any inquiry or inspection, and the hon. Member or any hon. Member will give me particulars of the cases, I will have inquiry made into them.
§ Colonel DAYWhen the committees receive anonymous communications, will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that such communications are not to be taken into account?
§ 59. Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Minister of Labour whether any account is taken, in examining the claims of married women for benefit, that women's work in factories is usually not of a varied character and that persistent applications for work where the applicant has been told that there is not likely to be work available leads to annoyance and in some cases insults, which such women resent; and whether some method can be devised whereby intimation as to the state of affairs in various works, etc., can be registered at the Employment Exchanges?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDEvery effort is made by the Employment Exchanges to obtain information of the kind suggested, in order that all possible vacancies may be notified to persons on the register. The Exchanges have to rely on the voluntary co-operation of employers in this matter, and while such co-operation, I am glad to say, is commonly accorded very readily, it cannot by any means be said to be universal. There has, however, been a progress in improvement and I have good reason to hope that it will continue.
§ Mr. P. HARRISHave any instructions been sent to the Employment Exchanges to treat married women less favourably than unmarried women?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDNo. Under the Act the Minister exercises his discretion. Where the husband is able to keep his wife under proper conditions, she is not entitled to receive extended benefit.
Viscountess ASTORCan the Minister see some way of making it compulsory on the employers to notify the Employment Exchange that they have no work?
§ Mr. MONTAGUEDoes the Minister consider that a wage of £2 1s. 3d. a week is sufficient to come under the point he mentioned?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLANDI would never answer any hypothetical case without the whole circumstances being known, nor would any group of persons.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask whether the woman who would otherwise be entitled to ordinary benefit may be excluded from benefit because the committee think her husband may maintain her?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDNo; the hon. Member is quite right. The possible-disqualification does not attach to standard benefit at all.
§ 60. Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Minister of Labour if any instructions have been issued to unemployment committees and courts of referees making it. necessary for married women claiming benefit to prove that they have sought work by personal canvassing as charwomen and domestic helpers, failing successful application to firms in the industries to which they have been accustomed; and, if so, whether any minimum standard of payment for such work is taken into account?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDNo such instructions have been issued. Under the general instructions, however, the authorities dealing with claims for benefit would be bound in suitable cases to disqualify a claimant who was not making an effort to obtain domestic work. Claimants would not be required to accept work at rates below those generally current for the class of work in the district.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEDoes the Minister consider it would be reasonable—I am stating a case which is within my own knowledge—for a married woman with a family to look after, who is used to skilled work of a particular kind, to be expected to canvass for charing and be denied benefit because she does not get it?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDLet me repeat what I have said. I have stated and have also given instructions that all the circumstances of a family ought to be borne in mind.