§ 24. Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Labour the number of men registered as 410 unemployed at the Newcastle-on-Tyne Employment Exchange who have been refused benefit during the last three months on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking employment?
§ Mr. BETTERTONDuring the period 15th December, 1925, to 8th March, 1926, 353 applications by men for extended benefit were recommended for disallowance by the Newcastle-on-Tyne Local Employment Committee, on the ground that the applicants were not making every reasonable effort to secure suitable employment. I am unable to state how many applications for standard benefit were rejected on the ground that the applicants were not genuinely seeking work.
§ Colonel DAYIs the hon. Gentleman aware that a very large body of Teen are daily marching through the gates of the Tyneside shipbuilding and engineering works for work they cannot get, and still they are being refused benefit on that ground?
§ Mr. BETTERTONNo doubt all those questions are taken into consideration by the local committees.
§ 25. Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour why Mr. E. Shiers, of 77, Rippoth Road, Bow, has been refused unemployment standard benefit by the Hackney Employment Exchange?
§ Mr. BETTERTONThe applicant, who is 20 years of age and single, had no title to standard benefit, having already received more than all the benefit for which he had paid contributions. The claim to extended benefit was disallowed by the committee under the administrative rules relating to persons living at home with relatives.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWill the hon. Gentleman go into the ease again, because the information I have is that he had 30 stamps on his card.
§ Mr. BETTERTONMy right hon. Friend went into the case, and it appears he had 90 days' benefit since 1923.
§ 26. Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour on what evidence the Exchange authorities decided that Mr. A. Danby, of 35, Candy Street, Bow, was not genuinely seeking work; is he aware that when summoned before the committee 411 the main question asked this man was how old he was, and that the investigation lasted only three minutes; and whether, in view of the man's declaration that he has proof of his diligent search for work, he will allow an appeal to the Umpire?
§ Mr. BETTERTONI assume the reference is to Mr. A. Davey. His claim which was for extended benefit, was disallowed by the Committee on the ground that he could not show a reasonable period of employment in the last two years. There is no provision for appeal to the Umpire in such cases. As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member by letter on 25th February, he has looked into this case and sees no ground for disagreeing with the recommendations of the Committee.
§ Mr. W. THORNEIf they are seeking work and give the time and date and place where they made application, will that be taken into consideration?
§ Mr. BETTERTONWith regard to this particular case, the disallowance was not on the ground stated in the question, that he was not genuinely seeking work, but on the other statutory ground, that he had not had a reasonable amount of employment, under Section 1, Sub-section (3) of the Act.
§ Mr. LANSBURYHas there been a new order issued that unemployment benefit paid, say, two years ago is taken into consideration, say, for this last year—that you set against the payments paid out the payments the man pays in during the current year?
§ Mr. BETTERTONI think the hon. Member is referring to the question before this. That, I think, has always been the rule.
§ 32. Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour the total number of separate individuals who have been disallowed benefit since the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925, came into operation; how many of these persons are now in employment; how many are now on the live register; and how many are not on the live register and are not believed to be in employment?
§ Mr. BETTERTONStatistics do not exist with regard to the number of 412 separate individuals whose claims to benefit have been disallowed. The only statistics in this connection are for numbers of applications disallowed, and as the same person may have repeated claims disallowed, these numbers are considerably larger than the numbers of separate individuals concerned. On 8th February, 81,450 persons, whose claims remained disallowed at that date, were still on the registers of Employment Exchanges. It is calculated that at the end of January the number of disqualified persons not on the register though remaining unemployed was approximately 10,000 greater than at the end of the previous July.
§ Mr. MARDY JONESCan the hon. Member tell us whether his Department keeps any record of the number of those who were refused benefit solely on the ground of not genuinely seeking employment?
§ Mr. BETTERTONI am not sure, but I will let my hon. Friend know. I think we have a record, but I would not like to trust to my memory.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member had better put down a Question.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSAm I accurate in assuming that the difference between the total number of unemployed and the number on the live register is not more than 10,000?
§ Mr. BETTERTONI said in my answer that at the end of January it was calculated that the number of disqualified persons not, on the register, though remaining unemployed, was, approximately, 10,000 greater than at the end of the previous July.
§ 34. Mr. ROSEasked the Minister of Labour the actual number of disabled ex-service men who have been refused extended benefit in Aberdeen for the period 1st July, 1925, to the 18th March, 1926?
§ Mr. BETTERTONSeparate statistics of the disallowance of claims for extended benefit made by disabled ex-service men are not available.
§ Mr. W. THORNEIs the hon. Member aware of the universal discontent about this matter, and will not his Department and the Ministry of Health make some effort to try to deal with it?
§ Mr. BETTERTONThat matter is now under the consideration of my right hon. Friend, as he stated the other day in the House.