§ 65. Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that when L. H. Parks, 113, Bodmin Street, Attercliffe, Sheffield, appeared before the court of referees the chairman stated that the wife's business was bona fide here; and why. under these circumstances, benefit has been refused?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe court recommended in this case that benefit should be disallowed on the ground that the claimant was employed in a business belonging to his wife.
§ 66. Mr. WILSONalso asked the Minister of Labour whether he can explain why, when an unemployed man assists in his wife's business, benefit is refused, 2061 while another unemployed man may assist in the same business and continue to receive benefit?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe decision would depend on the actual circumstances in each case. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of actual eases, I will have inquiries made.
§ 69. Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that extended benefit is not payable, as a rule, to single persons who are residing with relatives to whom they can reasonably look for support, any inquiry is made in such cases to find out whether such relatives are in a position to provide support; and whether applicants, whose relatives are not able to render support owing to sickness or other cause, are enabled to appeal against such decision?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, applicants have no statutory right of appeal against decisions on extended benefit questions, but, in practice, arrangements are usually made for applicants to have their cases reconsidered if there is room for doubt and they are dissatisfied with the first decision.
§ Mr. MONTAGUECan the right hon. Gentleman say why these people are expected to sponge on their relatives?
§ Mr. PALINGIs there any legal compulsion upon those relatives to disclose what their income is?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDNot that I am aware of.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWith reference to the statement in the right hon. Gentleman's answer that in practice a decision may be reviewed, may I ask what is the authority that in practice decides that a case may be re-heard? Is it the managers of the local exchange, the divisional officer, or who, in practice, is the officer who decides that it should be reheard?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDIn practice such cases, in the first instance, would most likely be brought before the officer in charge of the local exchange, and he would make arrangements, in 2062 most cases, though practice differs in different committees, to have the case re-heard by a sub-committee of the local employment committee. If the case presents more difficulty, and is not an easy one to decide, he would refer it to the divisional officer for an opinion. It is all a question of the difficulty of the case.
§ Mr. YOUNGIf there is no appeal, how can the applicant make a statement regarding the reconsideration of his case?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDIt would be reconsidered by the original rota committee.
§ Mr. PALINGIs there any legal compulsion on the relatives to disclose their income; and, in case they resent this inquisition and refuse the information, what happens to the applicant?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThese are all hypothetical questions. If the hon. Member will give me a concrete case in which any difficulty arises, I will consider it.