HC Deb 24 July 1929 vol 230 cc1324-5W
Mr. LANG

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in the borough of Oldham who, during the 12 months ended 30th June, 1929, were deprived of unemployment pay as persons not genuinely seeking employment?

Mr. LAWSON

During the 12 months ended 8th July, 1929, 1,993 applications for unemployment benefit made at Employment Exchanges in the Oldham area were disallowed by insurance officers on the ground that the applicants were not genuinely seeking work. In addition 343 cases were recommended for disallowance on the same ground by courts of referees on review after payment of 78 days' benefit. The number of fresh and renewal claims to benefit made during this period was 127,628.

Mr. O. BALDWIN

asked the Minister of Labour why John Arnold, of 36, Birmingham Street, Dudley, was deprived of unemployment benefit in that borough on 20th June last as not genuinely seeking work when he can prove a daily attendance at the engineers' office of the new local building scheme between that date and the duration of his unemployment benefit.

Mr. LAWSON

Mr. John Arnold's claim to benefit was disallowed by the insurance officer on 20th June last on the ground that he was not genuinely seeking work. He appealed to the court of referees and appeared in person before them on 15th July. The court, however, upheld the disallowance.

Mr. O. BALDWIN

asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that A. Vivian, of 8, Angel Street, Dudley, who was receiving unemployment insurance but decided to open up business on his own account and carried on this business for two years, was refused benefit at the end of that period when his business failed; and if she will explain the grounds for this decision?

Mr. LAWSON

It is one of the conditions for the receipt of benefit that a claimant in respect of whom 30 contributions have not been paid during the previous two years must, during that time, have been employed in an insurable employment to such an extent as was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Mr. Vivian's claim was disallowed on the ground that he did not satisfy this condition, and the court of referees, on appeal, upheld the disallowance.