§ Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Labour how many persons were refused any benefit during the months of November and December, 1926, at the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange because they were resident with relatives whose joint income was considered sufficient to include the maintenance of such persons; what is the minimum amount of income per head which entitled the Employment Exchange authorities to refuse the grant of unemployment pay; and whether, in fixing this minimum amount, full account is taken of rent and all other expenses incurred by the members of the family who are at work?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe numbers of applications for extended benefit recommended for disallowance by the local committee at the Borough Employment Exchange because the applicants were resident with relatives whose joint income was considered sufficient to include the maintenance of such applicants were 71 in the four weeks ended 13th December, 1926, and 39 in the four weeks ended 10th January, 1927, these figures including 17 oases of married women being maintained by their husbands. No rigid income limit has been laid down below which benefit should always be allowed or above which it should always be refused. Oases are dealt with on their merits, but memoranda for the guidance of local committees have been issued, and copies are in the Library. The memorandum chiefly relevant on this point is L.E.C.82/21, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
§ Major HILLSasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been directed to the case of John T. Crabtree, of 29, Park View, Harrogate, who has been refused unemployment benefit by the Harrogate office of the Ministry of Labour on the ground that he is not unemployed; and whether, seeing that he lost his employment as milk roundsman on 24th January, and now is only following a secondary occupation, namely, an agency with a local firm, which brings him in an average of 6s. a week, and therefore much less than the 3s. 4d. a day maximum earnings allowed, he will have the case reconsidered and unemployment benefit paid?
606W
§ Mr. BETTERTONThe claim was disallowed not by the Harrogate Employment Exchange but by the Chief Insurance Officer, who is the statutory authority. The disallowance was confirmed on appeal by the Court of Referees who, after having the appellant before them and questioning him, considered that the agency work was the appellant's ordinary occupation and not a subsidiary occupation and that he was not unemployed. I have no power to reopen the case.