HC Deb 26 March 1929 vol 226 cc2256-7
52. Mr. JAMES HUDSON

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. John Allen Bentley, of 8, West View, Paddock, Huddersfield, was denied dependant's benefit for his wife on the grounds that she was engaged in an occupation ordinarily carried on for profit; that this profit was said to be the 3s. which she made by having her husband's brother as boarder in the house; and what are the grounds of the withdrawal of 7s. benefit on account of the wife?

Mr. BETTERTON

The ground was the statutory ground stated by the hon. Member, namely, that the wife was engaged in an occupation ordinarily carried on for profit. A decision to this effect was given by the umpire in Mr. Bentley's case and this decision is final.

Mr. HUDSON

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this case the umpire's decision was taken in connection with a former decision in which he held that 22 shillings was to be the figure by which this profit was to be computed; that only three shillings profit was made, and that the person in question lost seven shillings benefit; and does the hon. Gentleman agree that the umpire should be left unimpeded to carry on injustice of that sort?

Mr. BETTERTON

The umpire's decision is final under the Act of Parliament of 1927.

Mr. HUDSON

But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that he has power to make recommendations of a general character which might guide the umpire in his decisions?

Mr. BETTERTON

No, Sir, I am not aware of any such power. No such power is given by the Act.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it was agreed that the umpire should have this power and that, if cases similar to this arose, there should be no consideration of any Amendment of the Act?

Boot and Shoe Industry, Great Britain. Unemployment among Insured Persons.
Date. Wholly unemployed. Temporarily stopped. Total.
Number. Per cent. Number. Per cent. Number. Per cent.
20th February, 1928 … 5,744 4.2 2,274 1.7 8,018 5.9
25th February, 1929 … 10,005 7.5 9,201 6.9 19,206 14.4