§ Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that George M'Inally, 17, Fairfield Street, Govan, left, his employment on 26th December, 1921, as the wage he was being paid was £1 35. 2d. less State insurance, while the district rate is if 17s.; that he was disallowed benefit for six weeks and has been informed that this disallowance will be continued for six months; and whether he can state the grounds upon which a claimant has been disallowed benefit for refusing work at a rate lower than the district rate, or upon what regulation or instruction has benefit been refused for six months?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI am making inquiry regarding this case, and will communicate the result to the hon. Al ember.
§ Mr. BROMLEYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the hardship now existing in Barrow amongst unemployed workers who are no longer in receipt of unemployment benefit; and whether he proposes to amend the Unemployment Insurance Regulations so as to ensure that genuinely unemployed workers shall not be deprived of benefit?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI am aware of the general position as regards unemployment at Barrow, but I am not aware that any genuinely unemployed workers who satisfy the conditions laid down by the Statute are deprived of benefit. I shall, however, be happy to inquire into any cases of which the hon. Member gives me particulars.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Minister of Labour if a bricklayer's labourer in receipt of unemployment benefit takes up work as an agricultural labourer, can he receive unemployment relief should he again be thrown out of employment
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe answer to this question depends on the facts of the particular case. If on making a fresh claim the applicant had a balance of contributions to his credit, and had paid at least 20 contributions since the beginning of the last insurance year, he450W would normally be entitled to standard benefit, and the previous period of uninsured work would not be a disqualification, In other cases, the claim would be for extended benefit, and the period of uninsured work would be one of the matters to be taken into account in deciding whether he fulfils the statutory condition that he must be normally employed in insurable employment and will normally seek to obtain his livelihood by such employment. It should be added that a person capable of doing agricultural work and refusing to accept it would not be eligible to receive extended benefit.
§ Mr. EVAN DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the rota committees of Brynmawr and Ebbw Vale, both under the Ebbw Vale Employment Exchange, are withholding unemployment benefit from men who have produced certificates to show they are genuinely seeking employment: and whether he is prepared to issue instructions making it clear that all such persons are entitled to benefit under the amended Act of 1924?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDExtended benefit can only be paid to an applicant who fulfils the conditions laid down in the No. 2 Act of 1924, one of which is that the applicant must prove that he is making every reasonable effort to obtain employment suited to his capacities. While the production of documents showing that an applicant has applied for work at a given firm is a useful indication in some cases it is not necessarily proof that this condition is fulfilled. Each case must be dealt with on its merits, and I cannot issue an instruction that in every case in which documents are produced to show that an applicant has applied for work at certain firms benefit should be allowed.