§ 16. Mr. MOSLEYasked the Minister of Labour why Mr. Thomas Johnson, of 37, Church Street, Smethwick, has been refused unemployment extended benefit on the grounds that an average of one application a day for work does not constitute a reasonable effort to secure employment?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe local employment committee considered all the circumstances of this case, one of which was the extent of the effort made to find work, and recommended the disallowance of extended benefit, and I see no reason to differ from them.
§ Mr. MOSLEYCan the right hon. Gentleman state how many calls must be made each day to avoid this disqualification?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDNo, because that is only one among all the different circumstances which the committee take into account, and, therefore, obviously no definite rule can be laid down and no general rule drawn by inference from this case.
§ Mr. HANNONOn a point of Order. Could not a question of this kind, involving an individual case, have been dealt with by correspondence instead of taking up the time of the House at Question time?
§ Mr. MOSLEYFurther to that point of Order—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think the hon. Member need say anything further. It is in the hands of hon. Members, a good many of whom use the Order Paper for Individual cases, and I am not proposing to interfere with them.
§ Mr. MOSLEYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this case was refused on the specific ground that only one call had been made each day, and was any instruction to this effect given from his Department?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDNo. There was no instruction at all to that effect given by my Department. That was a ground specified, but the committee has always in front of it the whole of the circumstances on which it bases its decision.
§ Mr. MOSLEYIn order that the unemployed may know where they stand, will the right hon. Gentleman give some instructions and some guidance?
§ Mr. MARDY JONESDoes not the right hon. Gentleman get numerous complaints of this character from all parts of the country, and is it not a fact that the unemployed themselves, who are repeatedly, day after day, seeking work and unable to get it in the districts where there is abnormal unemployment, are deprived of their benefit despite their efforts?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDNo, I am not aware of that, and the whole reason
§ I & II.—TIME LOST OWING TO DISPUTES: GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND.
§ Note.—The figures relate to time lost by workers at the establishments where the disputes occurred only. For years prior to 1910 they relate to the United Kingdom including the area of the Irish Free State, the separation of the figures for the latter area not having been carried back beyond 1910.
| Table I.—Disputes in all Industries. | ||||
| — | 1896–1905. | 1906–14. | 1915–18 | 1919–26 |
| Millions. | Millions. | Millions. | Millions. | |
| Total number of working days lost owing to disputes. | 49.0 | 99.4 | 16.9 | 356.5 |
| Per cent. | Per cent. | Per cent. | Per cent. | |
| Estimated percentage which such days lost formed of the aggregate working time of the employeé population. | 0.10 | 0.21 | * | 0.79 |
| Included in the foregoing percentage as due to— | ||||
| (a) Disputes principally or solely for increases in wages. | 0.05 | 0.03 | * | 0.11 |
| (b) Disputes principally or solely against reductions in wages. | 0.01 | 0.03 | * | 0.56 |
§ for the appointment of the rota committees was that they should be able to take into account all the circumstances in each case before them and to reach a conclusion in each case on its merits.
Mr. BECKETTCan the right hon. Gentleman say how many rota committees have asked for a definition of what he considers to be genuinely seeking employment, and how many times he has been asked in this House to give such a definition?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis is becoming a debate.