§ Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the case of an ex-soldier named William Henry Wilson, of 50, Croydon Street, Easton, Bristol, who is in receipt of a 50 per cent. pension for valvular disease of the heart; whether he is aware that a number of communications and other documents were submitted to the Ministry of Labour in October last to prove that Mr. Wilson had made serious efforts to obtain employment; that Mr. Wilson's claim to benefit was disallowed on the ground that he had not made 1050W sufficient efforts to obtain employment, whilst at the same time the committee expressed the view that in future Mr. Wilson was not likely to be able to obtain work other than that of an exceptional and occasional nature; and whether, seeing that proof of Mr. Wilson's efforts have been submitted to the Ministry, he will authorise payment of benefit?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThis case has been carefully considered on several Occasions. I regret I can see no ground for revising the decision which was communicated to the hon. Member on 22nd December last.
§ Mr. WINDSORasked the Minister of Labour whether, arising out of the recent decision that men who have been engaged upon relief work shall not be prejudiced in their claim for unemployment benefit, any decision has been made with respect to men who had already been disqualified on this ground; and, if not, whether he will consider the position of these men?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDApplicants previously disqualified may make fresh applications and their cases will then be considered as from the date of the fresh applications. I am afraid I cannot undertake to make any payments retrospectively.
§ Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour why the Stepney Employment Exchange has refused, and continues to refuse, benefit to Marie Slotine, who is entitled to standard benefit, having been a contributor for approximately three years, during which time she appears to have drawn only very slightly on the fund; will he give the same information in the cases of Cissie Cyviak, Rose Buckman, Ray Glantz, Fanny Magnus, Jessie Brill, and Leah Reuben, who have been treated in a similar manner; and what instructions have been given to the manageress of the Stepney Exchange as to her dealings with women entitled to standard benefit?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDAll these claims have been disallowed by the Chief Insurance Officer on the ground of failure to satisfy the statutory condition "genuinely seeking work." There has been an appeal to the Court of Referees in each case, and all the appeals, except that of Marie Slotine, have been dis- 1051W missed. The appeal of Marie Slotine is to be heard this week. No special instructions have been given to the Stepney Exchange regarding women applicants for standard benefit.
§ Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour why the Stepney Employment Exchange has refused unemployment pay to Dora Mattison, Rachel Cohen, Cissie Marks, Rebecca Cohen, Rachel Landsman, and Sarah Flurren, all of whom applied for standard benefit and all were refused; how many years each of these women have been contributors to the fund; the total amount each has received during their period of membership; the number of stamps on the cards of each applicant; and have any instructions been issued to Exchange officials dealing with women that, before benefit to which women applicants are entitled is paid, inquiries shall be made as to whether they are single or married, or living at home with parents or other relatives able to maintain them?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI am having inquiries made and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.
§ Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour the number of applications from women for standard benefit which have been registered at the Stepney Employment Exchange during each of the last six months; how many of these have been refused any benefit at all; how many have been stopped benefit after two or three weeks' payment; the main reason for such refusal; is he aware that when pay slips come through, instead of these being handed to the applicant, they are taken to the chief officer, and by her destroyed in the presence of the applicants; is he aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists in the district owing to the treatment of women at this Exchange; will he cause a public inquiry to be held, and allow evidence to be given by the women concerned as to their treatment; will he also inform the House whether it is the duty of the Exchange officers to refuse standard benefit to women because they are married or are living at home with parents; and is it the duty of such officers to make inquiries as to the means possessed by parents or other relatives of applicants entitled to standard benefit?
1052W
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe information asked for in the first four parts of the question is not available, as the statistics do not distinguish between standard and extended benefit claims. The reference to "pay slips" is presumably to forms of receipt, which are occasionally destroyed, mainly owing to errors of computation, fresh ones being substituted in such cases if benefit is payable. As regards the sixth part of the question I am not aware that any reasonable ground for dissatisfaction exists at Stepney, bat I will make inquiries. The answer to the last two parts of the question is in general in the negative, but it has been necessary occasionally to make inquiries to test the genuineness of an applicant's search for work.