HC Deb 24 November 1926 vol 200 cc387-9
29. Mr. RAINE

asked the Minister of Labour the number of applications for extended benefit in the Sunderland area received during the six months ending 31st October; and how many were granted and how many were declined?


During the six months ended 15th November, 1926, the number of applications for extended benefit considered by the Sunderland Local Employment Committee was 43,182, of which 40,096 were recommended for allowance and 3,086 for disallowance.

35. Mr. SEXTON

asked the Minister of Labour if, in the case of Mr. McCormick, of 33, Longtree Street, St. Helens, an ex-service man of 12 years' standing, whose claim for unemployment benefit, had been granted by the local unemployment committee, has been cancelled by the divisional officer on the grounds that he has failed to satisfy the statutory conditions requiring him to show that he is normally employed in an insurable employment, but, in view of the fact that McCormick is continually seeking work and finds it, owing to a physical defect, a damaged hand, exceedingly difficult to secure work, he car: see his way to vary the regulations in this case; and if there is any appeal from the veto of the divisional officer?


This case has already formed the subject of inquiry on three occasions, and I am afraid that I have little to add to the information contained in the letter sent to the hon. Member in October last. Mr. McCormick has had no work at all since 1922, and there seems little chance that he will get regular insurable work in the future. In the circumstances, I am afraid it is impossible to regard him as satisfying the 3tatutory condition of being normally employed in insurable employment and likely to obtain his livelihood by means of insurable employment. I will see, however, whether anything can be found for him through the local King's Rofl Committee. Perhaps the hon. Member 'will speak to me about this case.

36. Mr. SEXTON

asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the case of T. Blaycock, of St. Helen's Lane, who after 44 years' service with his employer has been compulsorily re_ tired with a pension of 9s. 9d. per week, and who, though 66 years of age, is physically fit to do ordinary labouring work; whether he is aware that this man was passed and certified by the local rota committee for extended benefit, but this was vetoed by the divisional officer on the grounds that insurable work other than of an occasional character was not likely to be available for him; and if, in view of Blaycock's physical fitness, and his earnestness to submit himself to the test, and the fact that he is denied the opportunity, he will grant extended benefit if there is any appeal from the divisional officer's ruling?


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