§ 15. Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mr. Jack Jones, 16, Morley Road, Abertillery (Monmouthshire), has been refused unemployment insurance benefit on the alleged ground that he is not making every reasonable effort to obtain employment, and that Jones has just completed a period of insurable employment which lasted from 8th August of this year to 5th November; and will he have this case investigated with a view to benefit being granted?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARYto the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I assume that the reference is to an applicant of this name living at 18, Morley Road, and not at 16. This applicant, who is 42 years old, has only paid 48 contributions to the Unemployment Fund in his whole life, has drawn over 600 days' extended benefit, and has only done 35 weeks' work in his industry 480 since 1921. The rota committee thought this was not a case for further extended benefit and I see no reason for differing from them.
§ Mr. BARKERIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the colliery at which this man was employed is closed, and that this man has been open for employment ever since the closing of the colliery, and that it is impossible to get work in that district?
§ Mr. BETTERTONNo doubt that fact is well known to the rota committee which came to this conclusion.
§ Mr. BARKERIs the hon. Gentleman aware that this man has been employed for 10 weeks this year and that it is not his fault that he is unemployed? He is not the kind of man described by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. BETTERTONI am only stating the facts as I have been informed they are. The weeks to which the hon. Member referred were weeks in August and September of this year, when he was engaged on road work. It was for the rota committee to consider whether the statutory obligation was or was not fulfilled.
§ Mr. HARDIEHave the Minister or his Department or any of the Exchanges any knowledge or record of any places that could be given to a man in that occupation in the period mentioned? Were there any openings anywhere?
§ Mr. BETTERTONI could not answer a detailed question of that kind.
§ Mr. HARDIEI can tell you. There were not.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODDid the Minister and those who are supporting him not infer that this man was like a criminal? He had been unemployed for so many years and therefore they would have nothing to do with him?
§ 16. Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mr. T. J. Coles, residing at 30, Bishop Street, Abertillery, has been refused unemployment benefit on the ground that he had previously voluntarily left his employment; that Coles had good grounds for believing that he would be employed at another colliery when he tendered notice to leave his employment; that benefit in this case was granted by the rota committee and 481 afterwards refused by the Department; and will he have this case reinvestigated with a view to benefit being granted?
§ Mr. BETTERTONThis case is a year old. The applicant, having voluntarily left one job after another, had only had about nine weeks' work between February, 1924, and April, 1926, a period of over two years. In these circumstances, the rota committee recommended his claim for disallowance in April, 1926. It is true that in November, 1926, they recommended allowance; but nothing had happened in the meantime which appeared to me to justify such a change of view, and I regret that I cannot reopen the case.
§ Mr. BARKERHas the hon. Gentleman considered the fact that this man got employment before he gave notice to leave his former employment, and that in the meantime, before he could transfer from one colliery to another, the colliery was closed?
§ Mr. BETTERTONYes, Sir. This case, as I have said, is a year old. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that anything has happened in the interval which ought to be brought to my notice I will very gladly reconsider it in the light of that later information.
§ Mr. BARKERThank you.
§ 17. Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mr. J. Janes, 18, Gelli Cruig, Abertillery, Mon., has been deprived of unemployment benefit on the ground that he has failed to prove that he has during the two years preceding the date of application been employed in an insurable occupation; and will he take into consideration the condition of trade in the mining industry and have this case investigated with a view to benefit being allowed?
§ Mr. HANNONOn a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether these three questions, relating to individual cases, could not have been dealt with by the Department and the hon. Member opposite instead of wasting Parliamentary time?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a matter for Members themselves to judge, and not for me. It is not for me to lay down such a rule as the hon. Member suggests.
§ Mr. HANNONMay I call attention to the fact that some years ago I raised this point, and you did suggest to the House that it was inadvisable to put the cases of personal matters of this kind on the Paper, when they could be dealt with by the Department?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am always disinclined to exercise a censorship of the kind suggested. It happens sometimes that individual cases raise large questions of principle, and I must ask Members to use their own judgment in matters of the kind.
§ Mr. THURTLEFurther to that point of Order—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis is not the time to discuss the matter.
§ Mr. BETTERTONMy inquiries in this case are still in progress. As soon as they are completed I will let the hon. Member know the result.