HC Deb 03 March 1926 vol 192 cc1417-9
43. Mr. GIBBINS

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been refused benefit in Liverpool during the last three months; and the reasons why they have been refused?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I am unable to state the number of applications for standard benefit which were disallowed, but during the period 17th November, 1925, to 8th February, 1926, the number of applications for extended benefit recommended for disallowance by the Liverpool Employment Committee was 5,555. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the reasons for such disallowances.

Mr. LANSBURY

Cannot we know the reason why standard benefit should not be granted?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Because the figures are not there to be given to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. LANSBURY

How is it possible to give the number of applicants for extended benefit that are refused, and not possible to give the number of standard benefit applicants who are refused? It is much more important to know about those who are entitled to benefit rather than the others.

Colonel DAY

Is that a decrease or an increase on the week?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I could not say without notice. I hesitate to speak of figures from memory.

Mr. LANSBURY

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why we cannot have the figures that I have mentioned?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

It is all a question of the amount of extra labour involved in proportion to the value of the information gained.

Mr. LANSBURY

Is it not much more important that those people who are entitled to benefit should know the reason why they are refused it, and the number that are refused rather than those who are applying for extended benefits?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I would not like to say off-hand, but I will consider the matter if the hon. Gentleman wishes it.

Mr. MARCH

The information asked for is much more important.

Following is the statement referred to:

Disallowances by the Liverpool Employment Committee of applications for extended benefit in the period 17th November, 1925, to 8th February, 1926:

Reasons for disallowance. Number of cases disallowed.
Not normally insurable 742
Insurable employment not likely to be available 45
Not a reasonable period of insurable employment 2,832
Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment 1,047
Single persons living with relatives 743
Married women looking for support from, their husbands 33
Short-timers earning sufficient for maintenance 77
Aliens 9
Postponed for a definite period 27
Total 5,555

44. Mr. GIBBINS

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been refused unemployment benefit in Liverpool since the first week in October on the ground that it would not be in the public interest to grant it?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

During the period 13th October, 1925, to 8th February, 1926, 1,448 applications for extended benefit were recommended for disallowance by the Liverpool Employment Committee on the ground that it would not be in public interest to grant them. I am unable to state the number of separate individuals included in this number.

Mr. T. SHAW

Is there any record of the number of those for whom work was found?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I cannot give the number of those for whom work was found, except to say that the proportion who found work in the Exchanges has been steadily rising during the past 15 months.

Mr. MACLEAN

Can the Minister state how many of those people who were refused extended benefit were thought to be entitled to extended benefit when in reality they had stamps sufficient to guarantee them standard benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I could not say off-hand.

51. Mr. MACLEAN

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Andrew Cunningham, 32, Logie Street, Govan (Govan Exchange /317, Class L26), 23 years of age, who is the only support of a widowed mother, was offered a situation at 10s. per week, which he refused; that he was refused benefit on 28th January on the ground that he was not genuinely seeking employment; that, after two letters had been written to the manager of the Govan Exchange, his case was reconsidered on 22nd February by the committee and again refused, without Cunningham being present to put forward his case; and whether, in view of the domestic circumstances and the low wage offered, he will have this case reviewed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I am having inquiries made and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.