HC Deb 23 February 1927 vol 202 cc1747-9
31. Mr. T. THOMSON

asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases in the Middlesbrough area in which he was unable to accept the decision of the rota committee as regards applications for extended benefit during the past three months?


During the three months ended 14th February, 1927, out of 14,074 applications for extended benefit considered by local committees in the Middlesbrough area, the recommendations of the committees were not accepted in 61 cases.

36. Colonel Day (for Mr. NEIL MACLEAN)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that R. Thomson, 319, Main Street, Alexandria, Dumbartonshire, has been refused benefit under Clauses 1 and 4 of Form U.I. 503; that this man was employed as caretaker of the Quarter Mines Welfare Society from 24th January, 1924, until 21st March, 1924, when he had to resign owing to ill-health, for which he has a medical certificate; that he started work on 27th March, 1926, as green-keeper with the East Kilbride Bowling Club and worked until 25th September, 1926, when he was dismissed at the end of the season; that he attended two committee meetings and has been informed that on both occasions benefit was recommended; and that the words, the committee consider, have been scored out in Clauses 1 and 4 and the words, it is considered, written in in both clauses; and whether he can state what the recommendations of the committee were, who altered the wording of the clauses, and by whose authority?


The answer to the first part of the question is that benefit should be allowed and to the second that the decision by which the recommendation was not accepted was communicated to the applicant by a letter from the local office, which enclosed a printed form, suitably amended, to indicate the grounds upon which the claim was disallowed and tie fact that the disallowance had not been recommended by the Committee.

Colonel DAY

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether this letter was delivered or returned?


The letter was delivered, but perhaps I should caution the hon. Member, who is asking the question on behalf of the hon. Member who is absent, that the facts do not entirely correspond with those stated in the question on the Paper.

37. Colonel DAY (for Mr. N. MACLEAN)

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the case of five men who were fined at Greenock Sheriff Court on 8th February, 1927, for alleged fraud on the Labour Exchange arising out of their employment as enumerators at the counting of the votes at the municipal election in November, 1926; whether he is aware that these men were sent to the corporation for this work by the Exchange officials and that no intimation that acceptance of the work, which was for one evening only, would disqualify them from receiving benefit; whether he is aware that one of the men charged had done similar work in 1925, and on that occasion had been informed by the Exchange officials that it would not affect his benefit; whether any new Regulation has been issued on this matter since 1925; and, if so, why the men were not informed that acceptance of evening work for one night only would disqualify them from receiving benefit?


I am making inquiries into the circumstances, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.


asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mr. J. M. Bagshaw, 396, Market Street, Shawforth, Lancashire, a cotton spinner, on short time owing to the depressed state of trade in the cotton industry, was refused extended benefit by the Rochdale employment insurance officer on the ground that he had not fulfilled the statutory condition that he was genuinely seeking work, although he produced two certificates from quarry owners stating that he had applied to them for work, which is much more laborious than work in a cotton mill, and that as he was not a member of a trade union or similar society he had no right of appeal from this decision; and will he take the necessary steps to see that right of appeal shall be given to non-trade unionists to put them on an equality with trade unionists in application for extended benefit?


As regards the individual case, I am afraid that I can add nothing to the letter sent on my behalf to my hon. Friend on 11th December last. As regards the right to appeal, Lord Blanesburgh's Committee have made a recommendation on this point which I am considering.