§ 17. Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that at the Glasgow South Side Exchange last week applicants were paid one day less in benefit than was due; that no notice was given of any change in practice; that this loss of income, varying from 2s. 10d. to 4s., has caused hardship to persons unemployed.; and if she will take steps to have the money refunded?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThere are two pay-days at this Exchange, Thursday and Friday. It was necessary recently to make certain rearrangements as a result of which certain claimants, previously paid on Friday, were paid a day earlier, on Thursday, but on the first pay-day after the change drew one day less. They will, of course, suffer no ultimate loss and were informed of the proposed change in the previous week.
§ Mr. BUCHANANDoes the Minister of Labour consider it is fair to deduct a day from the pay, and is it not a cruel hardship upon those people?
§ Miss BONDFIELDNo, it was just an adjustment of the week from the pay day on Friday to the pay day on Thursday.
§ Mr. BUCHANANIs the right hon. Lady aware of the great hardship caused, and what is the reason why this pay was deducted, seeing that they are all paid up to Wednesday; and why could they not have been paid a week in full, making it a Saturday payment instead of inflicting the fearful hardship of this disallowance?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThose whose pay day was on Thursday are paid up to Tuesday night.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWhy not pay them for the full week? Is there any reason why 5s. should be deducted from the income of these poor people?
§ Miss BONDFIELDIt must be clear to the hon. Member that it is very largely a question of convenience in dealing with the applicants, and I think it is better, instead of letting it go on from week to week, to do it at the moment.
§ 18. Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if when the present chairmen of the Glasgow courts of referees were reappointed, she consulted before doing so any local opinion; if so, what was the 1455 nature of such opinion; if any steps were taken to consult trade union opinion of any kind; and if she can state its nature?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThese were not new appointments. There was no ground on which I felt justified in departing from the practice of re-appointment and therefore no consultation of the kind mentioned took place.
§ Mr. BUCHANANDoes the Minister of Labour not consider that she ought to consult local opinion as to whether the appointments which were being continued were satisfactory or not? May I take it from the reply of the right hon. Lady that no effort is made to find out whether there are suitable local people who can carry out these duties properly and whether local opinion is satisfied that these duties are being properly carried out?
§ Miss BONDFIELDWherever there is reason to suppose that the duties are not being carried out satisfactorily, the matter will certainly be investigated.
§ Mr. BUCHANANIs the right hon. Lady not aware that large sections of opinion have been constantly dissatisfied with those appointments, and even men holding political posts have been re-appointed?
§ Mr. MAXTONWill the Minister of Labour agree to examine specifically the case of the chairman of the court of referees in my Division who displays political bias in his judgment.
§ Miss BONDFIELDI am quite prepared to examine any complaints.
§ Mr. BUCHANANIs the right hon. Lady aware that, according to her own statement, people with strong political views are not supposed to have these appointments, and yet she is continually re-appointing people with strong political views?
§ Miss BONDFIELDPerhaps the hon. Member will give me evidence of that.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI have already given the evidence.
§ Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether this badgering of the right 1456 hon. Lady by her alleged supporters is in order?
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo point of order arises on that question.
§ 22. Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that a very large proportion of claims have been heard by incomplete courts of referees at Bridgeton Exchange, Glasgow; why this has been the case; and whether there has been any improvement in this respect recently?
§ Miss BONDFIELDI am aware that a large proportion of cases have been heard by incomplete courts of referees at Bridgeton, Glasgow. This is due to the fact that representatives of employers and workpeople have failed to attend when summoned. I am considering what steps I can take to effect an improvement.
§ Mr. STEPHENWill the right hon. Lady, in considering what steps she can take to effect an improvement, also take steps to have the cases of those who have been disqualified re-heard?
§ Miss BONDFIELDI cannot do that if the insured person has chosen to be heard by a single member of the court. If they do not want to be heard by a single member, they are fully entitled to ask for a full court.
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWNIs the whole court summoned in each case?
§ Miss BONDFIELDYes, certainly.
§ Mr. STEPHENIs the right hon. Lady aware that she promised me a month or six weeks ago to inquire into this matter, and to try to get an improvement; and is she also aware that there is great local discontent in connection with this matter?
§ Miss BONDFIELDI shall be very glad indeed if the matter can be taken up with the local people who are responsible.
§ Mr. BROWNWill the right hon. Lady ask the hon. Member to bring pressure to bear on his local workers' representatives to do their duty in this matter?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDDid not these failures to attend occur more on the part of the employers than of the workmen?
§ Miss BONDFIELDI will have that point inquired into.
§ 19. Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour the reason that the refusals of benefit to applicants in Glasgow under the new Act are higher than the average of other parts of Britain; if she has made any inquiry into this state of affairs; if she can state the reason; and, if not, does she intend taking any steps to see that refusals of benefit in Glasgow are no higher than in other parts?
§ Miss BONDFIELDIt is not possible, I am afraid, to draw any conclusion from the gross number of disallowances, or even this number as compared with the gross number of claims. I have, however, had a comparison made between the numbers of claims estimated to have been made as a result of the passing of the new Act and of the disallowances under the two special conditions now applying to transitional benefit. For
| Claims to Benefit considered by certain Courts of Referees 13th March—12th May, 1930. | |||||||||
| Area of Court. | Number of claims considered. | Number allowed. | Number disallowed. | ||||||
| Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | ||||
| Bridgeton | … | … | … | 1,532 | 854 | 246 | 90 | 1,286 | 764 |
| Parkhead | … | … | … | 451 | 615 | 81 | 95 | 370 | 520 |
| Birmingham | … | … | 736 | 919 | 180 | 211 | 556 | 708 | |
| Newcastle-on-Tyne | … | 1,769 | 894 | 588 | 213 | 1,181 | 681 | ||
| Leeds | … | … | … | 1,277 | 855 | 368 | 350 | 909 | 505 |