58. Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour what is the amount of unemployment benefit to which a married man with two children would be entitled in a week in which he only did three days' work, and what benefit he would receive if he did four days' work; and whether the present scale of benefits is such as to make it to the advantage of, for instance, a miner to do only three days' work a week?
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONBefore this question is answered I would draw attention to the last line which states that the present scale of benefits is such as to make it to the advantage of a miner to do only three days' work a week instead of four days' work. The miners have no 1301 control whatever over the time they work, and this part of the question is a direct insult to the miners of the country.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think that what the hon. Member has said is enough to show that they have no control.
§ Mr. RICHARDSONNo control whatever.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDAssuming that a waiting period of three days had been served within the preceding six week, a married man with two children would be entitled to 13s. 6d, benefit in a week in which he did only three days' work; if he worked four days he would not be entitled to any benefit unless he was unemployed on subsequent days so as to have three days of unemployment within six consecutive working days. This is one of the marginal cases which inevitably arise as a consequence of a waiting period and a continuity rule. It has not so far been found possible to devise any means of avoiding the anomaly indicated without creating as great or greater anomalies in its place. As regards the last part of the question, I would point out that a miner would disqualify himself for benefit by refusing to work on any day, on which the pit was open to him.
§ Mr. MAXTONArising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANIt is a base lie; yes, a black lie. Apologise and play the game! The miner does not deserve this.
§ Mr. HARDIE (to Sir F. Hall)Go into the mine yourself. Go down a pit yourself.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWill hon. Members please allow me? The two hon. Members by the Gangway (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan and Sir F. Hall) must not address one another in that way. I saw what was going on.
Sir F. HALLOn a point of Order. Is one hon. Member entitled to call another hon. Member a liar in this House, and, if so is not the other 1302 Member entitled to justify his position? I always shall; I do not allow anyone to call me a liar.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is exactly what I was reproving. Hon. Members must not address one another across the Gangway in that way. I do not attribute particular blame to the one or to the other.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANI did not call the hon. Member a liar. I asked him to apologise, and said that the last part of his question was a lie.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat shows the wisdom of the ancient rule that everything should be addressed to me.