asked the Minister of Labour under what authority his Department questions applicants for benefit about private income other than that for dependants' benefit; if he is aware that at courts of referees persons who are called upon to show that they are genuinely seeking work are fully questioned as to their private incomes although no notice is given to them that this is to be done; and if any penalty is imposed on persons who refuse to answer questions regarding private income of their relatives?

As I told the hon. Member on 19th December last, the authority is contained in the Unemployment Insurance Acts. The right of the Court of Referees to ask such questions was challenged in an appeal to the Umpire, and upheld by him in a decision of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. Claimants cannot be compelled to answer questions, but in order to obtain benefit they must furnish evidence sufficient to establish their claim.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as to what part of the Acts gives him authority to challenge a man's income?

My Department is bound to see that the qualifications are observed. That follows from the general duty laid upon it by the Act.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the passing of the Act one of the inducements held out to the House and the country was the alleged abolition of the income fest, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that tie income test is still being applied to applicants for benefit?

No, Sir; I have no knowledge of any inducement of that kind being held out, and at present, in fact, there is no income test of any kind. There are questions put in order to get evidence sufficient to decide whether a person is genuinely seeking work or not.

In view of this being termed an Insurance Act, would the right hon. Gentleman say what bearing the income of another member of the family has upon the insurance benefit which a person is entitled to receive for contributions paid?

Sir A. STEEL-NIAITLAND:

In certain circumstances it may very well be that the amount of income enjoyed by the rest of the family may or may not influence the zeal of the person in question in the search for work.

Are we to understand that the position of the Minister is that, if there is a certain family income, it is assumed that the person concerned is not seeking work?

No, Sir. Not at all, and it is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman to give me the opportunity of answering that question in the negative. It is only one among many circumstances which may be considered material in this connection.

Will the Minister kindly tell us what bearing the income or financial circumstances of a person may be on the question of whether that person is genuinely seeking employment?

I have already answered that question.

Are we to understand that the incomes of the right hon. Gentleman's friends behind him prevent them from seeking work?

I cannot be responsible for what the hon. Member understands.

Is it intended to carry on the inquiry as to income after the transitional period?

I cannot say whether the Courts of Referees or the Umpire will put this question after the transitional period is over. So far as the Courts of Referees and the Umpire are concerned, I have no right to interfere with what they consider desirable.

What would be the purpose of the inquiry then?

The same as now.

What standard of income is taken as representing that comfortable position which prevents a person seeking work?

Taken by whom?

Taken by the referees.

And by the umpire.

I have no right to answer for either the Courts of Referees or the umpire. They have to judge by their own discretion. With, in this case, the support of the whole of the party opposite they were put in a position entirely independent of my Department, and they can take their own decisions.

Is the Minister not aware that applicants for benefit are disqualified by his own officials on the ground of income?

Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to take Parliamentary responsibility for the actions of the Courts of Referees; or are we to understand that the Courts of Referees are outside Parliamentary jurisdiction?

I am certanly not going to take Parliamentary responsibility for decisions given by the Courts of Referees or the umpire?

Why?

The independence of the Courts of Referees and the umpire was expressly established with the concurrence, as I have said, of the party opposite, in order that they should not be influenced by my Department. That being so, I cannot accept responsibility for their decisions. They have their own discretion.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims to unemployment benefit at the nearest available date this year; the number of claims rejected; and the corresponding figures for last year at the same time?

As the answer is in the form of a Table I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims by men and women for unemployment benefit under the transition arrangements for the first two weeks of January, respectively, and the number of claims rejected?

These figures are obtained for monthly periods and those for the period ending 14th January will be available about 18th February. They are published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette and those for the period ending 10th December will be found on page 23 of the January issue.