Skip to main content

Unemployment Benefit

Volume 154: debated on Wednesday 31 May 1922

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

6.

asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed persons who became disqualified for unemployment benefit after the expiration of the first five weeks of uncovenanted benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922?

The number of persons who up to the 15th May had received uncovenanted benefit for five weeks since 5th April and were, therefore, disqualified under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922, for further benefit for five weeks was about 281,000. As I have already stated, for those who exhausted their previous benefit on 10th May—the first possible date—the next period of eligibility for uncovenanted benefit will begin on Thursday, 15th June, and arrangements are being made so that a half-week's benefit may be paid on Saturday, 17th June.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise now the enormous number, probably amounting to a quarter of a million, who are not in receipt of unemployment benefit at all?

This deals with uncovenanted or free benefit, and 57 weeks of the total allowed by the Act have been paid since the depression came along, and I have 15 weeks now. That is the best I can do, and I am reserving 22 weeks.

7.

asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed persons were in receipt of unemployment benefit upon each of the first six weeks from 17th April for the area covered by the Nottingham Employment Exchange?

The number of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit at the Nottingham Employment Exchange in respect of total unemployment or short time were as follow:

18th April8,619
25th April9,001
1st May8,714
8th May8,588
15th May6,422
22nd May5,775
While undoubtedly there has been an improvement in local employment conditions, the decrease on 15th May and 22nd May was largely due to the temporary exhaustion of uncovenanted benefit.

10.

asked the Minister of Health what action has been taken in regard to men who have discharged themselves from a workhouse or workhouses, have obtained the unemployment dole, and re-entered the workhouse or workhouses after spending the money; how many boards of guardians have reported this matter to him; and what information has been given to any such board or boards?

No boards of guardians have made representations to me on this subject, and I have not had occasion to take any action in the matter.