HC Deb 02 May 1923 vol 163 cc1359-61
36 and 37. Mr. HANNON

asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware that the practice of paying the sum of 14s. 6d. per diem to the Labour representatives on the unemployment advisory committees attached to the Employment Exchanges is likely to lead to the creation of a class of professional almoners; and, if so, whether he will consider the possibility of arranging that periodical changes shall be made in the composition of such representation;

(2) whether he is aware that the practice of paying fees to the Labour representatives on the unemployment advisory committees attached to the Employment Exchanges is arousing discontent amongst the class of small tradesmen who give their services free at considerable loss and inconvenience to themselves; and whether he will reconsider the necessity of continuing this practice?

Sir M. BARLOW

The members of the local employment committees receive no fees. The only payments made to them consist of (a) actual travelling expenses at third-class rates; (b) subsistence allowance at specified rates if they have to travel more than five miles or have to be away from home more than five hours; and (c) allowance for actual wages lost or other definite loss of remunerative time, subject to a maximum of 14s. a day. These allowances appear to me to be reasonable and I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with them. It is not practicable to change the composition of the committees periodically except so far as changes occur in the normal course, but the work is distributed among the members as far as possible. I should, perhaps, add that unemployed members are not eligible to sit on rota committees dealing with benefit in relation to which most of the work arises at present.

Mr. SEXTON

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in his opinion, the principle embodied in this question does not apply to the hon. Member who put the question, as a Member of this House?

Sir M. BARLOW

That is a matter of argument.

Mr. J. DAVISON

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the imputation contained in the first part of the question, which refers to the distribution of charity? There is no such thing as charity, so far as these people are concerned. They are recipients of benefit for which they have paid. Will he consider the advisability of making the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) Lord High Almoner of Great Britain?