§ 55. Mr. TAYLORasked the Minister of Health whether, before seeking to compel boards of guardians to reduce the amount of relief paid to unemployed persons and their dependants, he has sought the opinion of his medical advisers as to the amount of food and clothing required to maintain a normal state of health amongst unemployed persons dependent on Poor Law relief?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINNo, Sir, but pressure has not in any case been applied to secure a reduction of scales of relief except on the ground that in other apparently comparable unions relief on substantially lower scales was found sufficient.
§ Mr. TAYLORHow does the right hon. Gentleman justify forcing down scales of 1412 relief which in the opinion of the local guardians are below the amount needed for sustenance?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINIt cannot be said that the scales where they are in operation are to be considered to be below the level of sustenance. I have to compare the scales whore scales are used in one union with the scales actually in operation in other unions, if two unions are comparable. I think I am justified in asking, in cases where the financial position of the guardians is as serious as it is in many of these eases. that they should do something to reduce their expenditure.
§ Mr. TAYLORDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think it a very reprehensible thing to force local bodies to inflict a lower scale of relief?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a debating point.
§ 56. Mr. TAYLORasked the Minister of Health in what Poor Law area the scale of special unemployment relief is as high as or higher than that paid by the Lincoln Board of Guardians?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINIt is difficult to make a comparison of the kind suggested with any certainty since scales of relief are not drawn on any single model and moreover are qualified by variations in the allowances given and by the method of their application to particular cases. It would, however, be safe to say that in the majority of unions in which a scale of relief for unemployed cases is in use, the scale would be no higher if as high as that hitherto adopted by the Lincoln Board of Guardians.
§ Mr. TAYLORWhat are the areas which the right hon. Gentleman regarded as comparable with Lincoln when he compelled the local board of guardians to reduce their scales?
§ Mr. TAYLORI am asking a question arising out of the Minister's answer, and I am asking for information which it is quite easy for the right hon. Gentleman to obtain. Why cannot he give us this information?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has been told that if he puts down a question, the information will be obtained.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI wish to ask a supplementary question. I want to ask the Minister if he has considered this point—that if he does not make a sufficient allowance, over and above what is necessary for sustenance, the recipients will not be able to make any contribution to the guardians. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. TAYLORThis is a Tory board of guardians.
Mr. BECKETTOn a point of Order. Is it in order,, when a Member puts down a question to a Minister, for the Minister to reply that notice roust be given of the question which has already been put down?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member who put down the question has been told that he can ask a further question.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYOn another point of Order. I have taken no part in this controversy, but may I point out that the alleged question of the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) was just as objectionable as any comment made on this side.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf I were to criticise the attempts at humour, I am afraid I should have a great deal of trouble. There are humorous interjections—
§ Mr. MONTAGUEIt is a humorous subject—to the Minister!
§ Mr. SPEAKER—but all these interjections only waste the time of other Members for their questions.