§ Captain PEAKEasked the Minister of Labour the total number of applications for unemployment benefit in the city of Leeds to the latest available date, and the number of claims rejected and upon what grounds?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThe following Table shows the number of disallowances of claims to benefit made at Employment Exchanges in the county Borough of Leeds during the period 11th June, 1929, to 8th July:—
(a) Claims disallowed by Insurance Officers.*
Reasons for disallowance. No. Permanent provisions. Not unable to obtain suitable employment 21 Not genuinely seeking work 336 Employment lost through misconduct 79 Employment left voluntarily without just cause 99 Other grounds 25 Transitional provisions. Not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment 3 Not a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years 122 Total claims disallowed 685 (b) Claims recommended for disallowance by Courts of Referees on review after payment of 78 days' benefit.
Not genuinely seeking work 127 Other grounds 1 Total recommended for disallowance 128 Total number of fresh and renewal claims to benefit made during the period 9854 * In a number of these cases the decisions were reversed on appeal to Courts of Referees.
§ Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Labour if her attention has been called to the employment of John William Close and James Wild as lamplighters 1112W and cleaners by the Disley rural district council; if she is aware that, for two years or more, the council have been pressing for a decision as to whether they were employed in an insurable occupation; and if she can explain why one of these men, since the decision of her Department on 18th June, has received his arrears of unemployment pay and the other has not?
§ Miss BONDFIELDI regret the delay which took place in deciding the question of insurability in this case. A formal decision to the effect that the employment of these mea as lamplighters was not insurable was sent to the Council on 18th June. This decision did not necessarily mean that the men are not entitled to unemployment benefit, and the Chief Insurance Officer on further consideration has allowed the claims in both cases.
§ Mr. F. RILEYasked the Minister of Labour if she will reconsider the practice of refusing unemployment benefit to an unemployed insured worker who declines uninsurable employment?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThe decision is given by the special authorities appointed under the Act, and I have no discretion in the matter. Benefit is not refused unless the employment offered is regarded as suitable for the applicant.
§ Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour the average number of workers who were in receipt of unemployment benefit during the year 1928; and the total sum paid for unemployment benefit in that year?
§ Miss BONDFIELDDuring the year 1928 the average weekly number of persons to whom payment of unemployment benefit was made was about 954,000 and the total amount of benefit paid was £44,260,606.