HC Deb 06 November 1930 vol 244 cc1004-7
8. Mr. KIRKWOOD

asked the Minister of Labour whether she will take steps to reduce the waiting period for the receipt of unemployment benefit from six days to the previous period of three days?

Miss BONDFIELD

This is one of the points which will be considered by the proposed Royal Commission.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the present Secretary of State for War, when Minister of Labour in 1924, reduced the waiting period from six to three days by an act of administration; and what is to hinder her from doing the same thing?

Miss BONDFIELD

I think that the hon. Member is in error in saying that it was an act of administration.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Suppose that I have been in error, does not the fact remain that this is a very serious matter affecting the unemployed? Surely it is for the Minister to take up the matter.

Mr. SPEAKER

It seems to be a. matter of legislation and not of administration.

16. Mr. BROOKE

asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that changes in the day of payment of unemployment insurance benefit are taking place at various branch Exchanges and by this means the unemployed person receives only five days' benefit to meet a full seven days' unemployment, thus causing considerable hardship; and does she propose to take any steps to prevent such changes and hardships in the future?

Miss BONDFIELD

Owing to the increases in the unemployed register, it has been found necessary at some Exchanges to have two pay days, on Thursday and Friday, instead of one on Friday only. In the week of the change-over the claimants affected receive five days' benefit instead of six, but one day earlier than usual. I regret the necessity for these arrangements, but I am afraid there is no way of avoiding intolerable congestion otherwise.

Mr. BROOKE

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the Alexandra Exchange over 500 of these men were paid five days' benefit on Thursday instead of six days' benefit on Friday, that that payment brought them below the level fixed by the local committee of distress, and that, consequently, the parish council pay the 500 one day's benefit to make it up; and cannot the Minister make arrangements to see that these men are paid a full week's benefit even if they are going to be paid their benefit on Thursday instead of on Friday?

Miss BONDFIELD

It only applies to the week in which the change takes place. They do not lose a day's benefit; they get every week six days' benefit.

Mr. BROOKE

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that these men were paid five days' benefit instead of six, and cannot administrative arrangements be made to see that that does not take place in the future?

Miss BONDFIELD

I am afraid I cannot undertake to say that, because we are overwhelmed by the work involved on the change-over.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

This is a very serious matter, because there are almost 70 per cent. of the workers unemployed, and it is a very serious matter for them to lose one day in a week.

HON. MEMBERS

Order!

20. Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the official statement that the Amendment to the genuinely seeking work provision of the Unemployment (No. 2) Bill of 1930 was estimated to cost £1,500,000, she can now state what has been the actual expenditure per month to date as the result of the Amendment referred to?

Miss BONDFIELD

Separate account is not kept of the amount of unemployment benefit paid as the result of the Amendment referred to. It would not be practicable to keep such an account.

Mr. SOMERVILLE

How is it possible to state that the excess cost is only 1,500,000 if no details of the expenditure are kept? Answer!

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Order!You shouted "Order" at me.

Mr. SOMERVILLE

May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is entitled to get an answer to the questions that he puts on the Paper, but he cannot expect to get an answer to every supplementary question.

Mr. SOMERVILLE

In view of the unsatisfactory silence of the Minister, I wish to give notice that I propose to raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House on the first possible occasion.

17. Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

asked the Minister of Labour how many recipients of unemployment benefit have been disallowed under the transitional condition since April last, and the number for the same period dealt with at the Dundee Exchange?

Miss BONDFIELD

As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL RETORT.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

Is it now understood that these people will have to fall back on the public assistance committee?

Miss BONDFIELD

Certainly not.

Following is the table:

Claims to benefit disallowed by Courts of Referees under transitional conditions during the period 15th April, 1930, to 13th October, 1930.
Ground of Disallowance. Great Britain. Dundee.*
Men. Women. Total. Men. Women. Total.
Less than 8 contributions paid in past two years or 30 contributions at any time:—
Cases considered 5,136 2,277 7,413 8 4 12
Claims disallowed 4,677 2,086 6,763 8 4 12
Not normally insurable and will not normally seek to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment:—
Cases considered 74,694 74,388 149,082 852 642 1,494
Claims disallowed 51,419 56,056 107,475 738 500 1,238
Totals:—
Cases considered 79,830 76,665 156,495 860 646 1,506
Claims disallowed 56,096 58,142 114,238 746 504 1,250
* The Dundee Court of Referees deals with cases from the following Local Offices:—Dundee, Broughty Ferry, St. Andrews, Tayport, Perth, Auchterarder, Blairgowrie, Crieff, Newburgh and Pitlochry.