HC Deb 13 April 1927 vol 205 cc351-2
20. Mr. PALING

asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed persons have been deprived of standard benefit by reason of the family income being deemed sufficient to support them?


None, Sir.

21. Mr. PALING

asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed women

RECOMMENDATIONS by certain Local Employment Committees for the disallowance of claims to extended benefit in the two months ended 14th March, 1927.
Grounds of Disallowance. Henley. Stoke-on-Trent. Longton.* Burslem.† Total.
Not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment. 6 1 12 9 28
Insurable employment not likely to be available. 7 6 26 17 56
Not reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years. 142 68 129 301 640
Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment or not willing to accept suitable employment. 92 52 38 134 316
Single persons residing with relatives. 61 149 69 145 424
Married women who could look for support from their husbands. 71 56 119 107 353
Married men, who could look for support from their wives. 7 4 4 1 16
Working short time but earning sufficient for maintenance. 88 139 54 165 446
Total 474 475 451 879 2,279
Statistics of the disallowance of claims for standard benefit in these areas are not available.
*Includes Cheadle.
†Includes Biddulph and Kidsgrove.

have been refused benefit because they would not accept canteen work in London?


Records are not maintained in a form which enables the desired information to be furnished.


Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that girls are asked to come from the furthermost parts of the country to work in these canteens at ridiculously low wages; and is he also aware that there are thousands of girls out of work in London?


If the hon. Member will give me any cases, I will inquire into them.

19. Mr. MacLAREN (for Mr. CLOWES)

asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of persons who have been refused benefit at the Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, Longton and Burslem Exchanges, and the reason for the refusal during the two months ending 28th February, 1927?


As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement: