§ Mr. DENNISONasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons refused unemployment benefit in the Birmingham Employment Exchange area since 1st October to date; and the number of vacancies filled by the Birmingham Employment Exchange for the same period?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND, pursuant to his reply [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1925, Cols. 1354–5], supplied the following information:
The number of applications for extended benefit refused by local employment committees in the Birmingham area during the period 13th October to 16th November was 1,313. I am unable to state the number of applications for standard benefit refused. The number of vacancies filled by Employment Exchanges in this area during the period 29th September to 16th November was 4,519.
1857W
§ Mr. ALLEN PARKINSONasked the Minister of Labour how many applications for extended benefits have been made within the area covered by the Wigan Employment Exchange during the months of this year, respectively; how many have been rejected; and how many applications made by disabled ex-service men have been rejected?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDpursuant to his reply [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1925, Cols. 1354–5], supplied the following table, giving the number of applications for extended benefit considered and refused at Wigan in 1925:
Period covered. Cases considered. Cases refused. 13th Jan. to 9th Feb 1,124 117 10th Feb. to 9th March 1,158 139 10th March to 13th April 1,308 127 14th April to 11th May 1,173 175 12th May to 8th June 1,152 139 9th June to 13th July 1,733 200 14th July to 24th Aug 2,976 342 25th Aug. to 14th Sept. 964 172 15th Sept, to 12th Oct. 2,039 355 13th Oct. to 16th Nov. 2,581 385 Total 16,208 2,151 Separate statistics are not available in respect of the rejection of the claims for extended benefit of disabled ex-service men.
§ Mr. BARNESasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons that applied for extended benefit in each month of the present year at the East Ham Employment Exchange; and the number and percentage of cases in which benefit was refused?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDpursuant to his reply [OFFICIAL HEPOKT, 25th November, 1925, Cols. 1354–5], supplied the following table:
1858WApplications for extended benefit considered and refused by the East Ham Local Employment Committee:
Period. Cases considered. Cases refused. Percentage refused. 1925. 13th Jan. to 9th Feb. 795 185 23.3 10th Feb. to 9th Mar. 1,394 196 14.1 10th March to 13th April. 963 171 17.8 14th April to 11th May. 972 204 21.0 12th May to 8th June. 606 141 28.2 9th June to 13th July. 1,043 217 20.8 14th July to 24th Aug. 1,319 361 27.4 25th Aug. to 14th Sept. 545 126 23.1 15th Sept. to 12th Oct. 505 151 29.9 13th Oct. to 16th Nov. 610 102 16.7 Total 8,812 1,854 21.0
§ Mr. BARNESasked the Minister of Labour the number of single girls disqualified from benefit at the East Ham Employment Exchange during the present year on the grounds that they were not genuinely seeking employment?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDpursuant to his reply [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1925, Cols. 1354–5], supplied the following information:
Figures are available only in respect of applications for extended benefit, and separate figures for married and single women cannot be given. During the period 13th January, 1925, to 16th November, 46 applications from women were refused by the East Ham Local Employment Committee on the ground that the applicants were not making reasonable efforts to secure employment.