§ 43. Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour whether he will put in the Library copies of all circulars, rules and Regulations, secret and otherwise, that have been issued to Employment Exchange officials, committees, and others during the period the Minister has held office; will he inform the House whether any fresh instructions of any kind have been issued in respect of payment of standard or extended benefit to single or married women; whether he is aware that in East London a number of women of all 509 sorts and conditions have been refused payment of benefit, and that in many cases the women have been contributors for many years to the fund; and what steps he proposes to take in order to secure that these women shall receive the benefits they are taxed to provide for?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDIt has been the practice hitherto not to publish the instructions issued to the staff of the Ministry. I think this practice is sound and do not see my way to depart from it. All administrative changes in the conditions for the receipt of benefit are made or announced in Orders. Regulations or Directions to Committees, copies of all of which are placed in the Library. With regard to the last two parts of the question, I have made inquiries into cases cited by the hon. Member. I have only just received the full report and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I have been able to consider it.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a very considerable number of women who have paid for standard benefit and who are not asking for extended benefit are not getting any unemployment pay at all from the Mansell Street Exchange?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI am going through the report with the greatest speed that I can, but I only got it at 11 o'clock this morning and it runs into about 12 pages of close typewriting with single spacing. I hope to deal with it before the day is out, but I cannot do so much quicker than that.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that these women have contracted for unemployment pay with the State under the Statute and for some reason they are not getting it, and this kind of thing has been going on since the beginning of January?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI am aware that they have, and I am aware that their claim was disallowed, and that the hon. Member questioned the disallowance. After that I had an inquiry made and that is the best I can possibly do subject to the fact that I will deal with any report with the utmost speed possible.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI want to ask what instructions have been given to this Exchange to prevent women getting even 510 the first week's unemployment pay? How can you charge women with not having genuinely sought work when they have only been out of work a day or two? You are just starving them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
§ 44. Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the reason unemployment pay has been refused Elizabeth Grant by the Mansell Street Exchange; by whose authority this woman was served with a notice, dated 14th January, 1926, that she was not genuinely seeking work, during the time she was actually engaged in work; has any authority been given to the officials at this Employment Exchange to inform women that the law respecting payment of unemployment pay to married women has been changed, and that these are now to be refused; the reason Martha Jones, Annie Best, Esther Kerntiff, Marion Masters, and Mary MacDermott have been refused unemployment pay; how long a period these women have paid into the fund; and the sort of employment, if any, that has been offered them?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDAs regards Elizabeth Grant, I have had a report. The fact that she obtained temporary work after the disallowance dated 14th January was before the Court of Referees, to which she appealed against the disallowance. The court nevertheless upheld the disallowance, and I cannot intervene. I know of no ground for the suggestion in the second part of the question. As regards the last five cases mentioned, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of 18th February.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the very time this woman was accused of not genuinely seeking work she was at work, and that those women whose names are given here were compelled by the State to pay contributions out of their weekly earnings and now through some secret instruction to the Employment Exchange officials—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—it is a question of starvation—some secret instructions to the Exchange officials, these women are denied what the State contracted to pay them?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe facts are not as stated by the hon. Member.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThey are.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe case in question came up, first of all, on the 3rd December. It came up again, and the disallowance dated from the 14th January. The disallowance was appealed against to the Court of Referees. The Court of Referees sat later, when the woman was in employment; they had all the facts in front of them, as well as the disallowance, and they held to their opinion. I ought to let the hon. Member know that in this particular case, where the woman had employment, it was found for her by the Exchange after two disallowances. I do not draw any inference from that, but the Court of Referees had the whole case in front of them, and were perfectly able to judge.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThe statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the statement I previously made was inaccurate, is untrue. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the time this woman's case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—it is not a speech—was being investigated, and when she was charged with not being genuinely seeking work, she was at work; and, further—[Interruption."]
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe cannot continue this discussion.