§ 9. Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Labour what is the number of unemployed whose benefit has been disallowed at the Darlington Employment Exchange because of refusal to go to a training centre during each of the past six months; and what is the number of unemployed who have accepted training and proceeded to a centre during the same period?
§ Miss BONDFIELDAs the answer is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. SHEPHERDWill the right hon. Lady watch very carefully that only 673 those who would be better off at a training centre are sent, as in many cases those who are better off at home are sent away, to the disadvantage both of themselves and the nation?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThat is one of the points that are being considered.
§ Following is the reply:—
§ The procedure under which men are required to attend a Course at a Transfer Instructional Centre as a condition for the continued receipt of unemployment benefit came into operation on 5th March, 1930. Since that date the number of unemployed men registered at the Darlington Employment Exchange who have had their benefit disallowed by reason of refusal to comply with a requirement to proceed to a Centre, during each month, is as follows:—
| During March | Nil. |
| During April | Nil. |
| During May | 4. |
| During June | Nil. |
| During July | 28. |
§ During the same period, 12 unemployed men, registered at the Darlington Exchange, have proceeded to Government Training Centres and 70 to Transfer Instructional Centres.
§ 10. Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if she has made inquiry into the case of Mr. Early, residing at 80, Rose Street, Glasgow, and signing at the South Side Employment Exchange; to what address the notice asking him to appear at his first court of referees was sent if she is aware that this man has constantly resided at 80, Rose Street for over 18 months; and if any steps are to be taken to pay benefit for the weeks which he is now due?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThe first notice to attend a hearing by the court of referees was addressed to 34, South Shamrock Street, which was, according to the Employment Exchange records, Mr. Early's address while he was registered as a non-claimant, though I understand he states that he has never resided there. I now find that he gave the address at 80, Rose Street, when he made a fresh claim on 13th March, and I very much regret that the notice to attend the hearing was sent to the wrong address. As my hon. Friend is aware, as soon as the 674 mistake was brought to the notice of the Exchange, steps were at once taken to give him a fresh hearing. With regard to the last part of the question, I am making further inquiry.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWill the right hon. Lady give the facts? This man has no means and is now entitled to get benefit. There is no doubt that under the Statute a man must be taken before a court of referees before his benefit can be stopped, and will she not therefore restore this man's benefit and carry out the Act?
§ Miss BONDFIELDObviously, it is not within my power to restore benefit.
§ Mr. BUCHANANBut it is in her power to see that the Act is carried out. In view of the fact that benefit was stopped to this man before he got his court of referees, will she not see that benefit is paid until the Act says that it has to be stopped—until he got his court of referees?
§ Miss BONDFIELDHe has had a second court, and, with regard to the latter part of the question, I am making closer inquiries, but I have not yet got the information.
§ Mr. BUCHANANOn that point, is the right hon. Lady aware that it is established that the man's benefit was stopped before he got his court of referees, that on the first court of referees it was stopped, and will she not therefore see that the benefit is paid for the period until he got the court of referees?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThat is the point into which I am making further inquiries.
§ 12. Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour why benefit is not being paid to Mrs. Logue, of No. 822, Rutherglen Road, Glasgow, and signing at the South Side Exchange; if she is aware that the umpire decided that, in view of this woman being over 30 years in her previous employment, and that she had gone to the United States to get work and was solely dependent on her own earnings to keep herself, if she could secure one week's work benefit was to be paid; and, seeing she was able to get several week's work, who is interfering with the umpire's decision?
§ Miss BONDFIELDI am making inquiry and will let my hon. Friend know the result.
§ 13. Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants in the county of Durham who have been refused unemployment benefit since the passing of the 1929 Act on the grounds that they were not normally employed in insurable employment?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThe statistics desired are being tabulated, and as soon as they are completed, I will send them to my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. BATEYHas the right hon. Lady got tables for the boroughs as well as the counties, and when she makes the calculation could she divide them?
§ Miss BONDFIELDI will see.