§ 7. Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the money to be collected through pilgrimages to cathedrals is intended to be of benefit to the unemployed, he will take steps to see that no money distributed to unemployed persons under this scheme shall be taken into account under the means test?
Mr. STANLEYI have no power to apply any special rules in this connection, but, having regard to the manner in which I understand this money is to foe allocated, I see no reason to anticipate that difficulties in connection with the assessment of transitional payments are likely to arise.
§ Mr. BATEYDoes the Minister of Labour realise that unless he takes some steps in the matter of this organised effort for the unemployed the amount they receive will be deducted from any benefit they get under the means test?
Mr. STANLEYIn view of the particular allocation indicated for this money, I think that is a difficulty which is not likely to arise.
§ Mr. BATEYAre we to understand that this money to be given to the unemployed will not be deducted from them under the means test?
Mr. STANLEYThe hon. Member is assuming that the intended allocation of the money is to the individual unemployed man or woman.
§ Mr. BATEYAre we to understand that that is not the case; that this organised effort is a fraud? In their advertisement, they say that the money is being received for the benefit of the unemployed.
Mr. STANLEYI understand that the actual allocation is 50 per cent. to the Personal Service League, 25 per cent. to the National Council of Social Service, and 25 per cent. to cathedrals cooperating.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODDoes it follow that these organisations will disburse that money to the different individuals? I have a case where 5s. was deducted—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must ask his question.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to protect an unemployed man who gets a sum of money from this organisation from having that sum deducted under the means test?
§ Mr. BATEYThis is so important a matter and the answer of the Minister of Labour is so strange, that I beg to give notice that if there be an opportunity to-night I shall raise it on the Adjournment.
§ 8. Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that certain applicants for transitional payments in the County of Durham, who have been receiving the maximum amount to which those in benefit are entitled, have been refused the 1s. 9d. per week increase in their allowance; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
Mr. STANLEYI understand that the Commissioners for County Durham have revised their scale as from 1st July, but it must be borne in mind that transitional payments are determined with reference to an applicant's needs and there are, no doubt, cases in which the applicant's circumstances do not justify an increase in the amount previously allowed.
§ Mr. LAWSONDoes that mean that a man may be on transitional payment, receiving the full amount, and that he does not get the 1s. 9d., the 10 per cent. cut, restored to him automatically?
§ 9. Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Newcastle-on-Tyne Public Assistance Committee has refused to increase assessments of need for transitional payments by amounts corresponding to the increase in standard benefit, on the ground that such increases would be illegal, as they are bound by the Order in Council, 1931, to assess transitional cases on exactly the same standard as that applying to ordinary able-bodied relief; that the public assistance committee claims that this interpretation has been confirmed by the Ministry of Labour; whether he confirms such interpretation; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to remedy the matter?
Mr. STANLEYI understand that the Newcastle Public Assistance Authority have, except in one limited class of case, restored the scale which they had in operation prior to the "cuts" made in November, 1931. The Order in Council of 1931 does not prescribe any scales, but it expressly requires public assistance authorities to deal with applications for transitional payments as if they were estimating the need of an unemployed able-bodied person who had applied for public assistance. I have no power to dispense with this requirement, which must therefore regulate the position, as it has done for the last two or three years, until the new arrangements under the Unemployment Act which has just been passed come into force.
§ Mr. LAWSONAm I to take it that the public assistance committee have deliberately refused to restore the 1s. 9d. on transitional payment?
Mr. STANLEYI do not think the hon. Member is justified in reading all that into the answer I have given.
§ Mr. LAWSONWe really must have an answer to this question, because I have the case of a man in Durham who is only receiving 9d., and there is another case at Newcastle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a plain answer on this matter, because the report and the correspondence issued shows that the public assistance committee have refused to restore the full 10 per cent. to people 2046 on transitional payment and rest their decision upon the Order-in-Council. Has it been confirmed by the Minister of Labour?
§ Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEMay I ask whether, in view of the contradictory interpretations with regard to this Order, my right hon. Friend will once for all lay down a rule by which various organisations and societies will be guided?
Mr. STANLEYIn answer to the last question, a circular wes seent out on the 24th May and a copy of it is in the Library. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) will find all the information he requires set out in the answers I have given.
§ Mr. LAWSONDoes that mean that the public assistance committee were within their rights in refusing to restore the 10 per cent. to people on transitional payment?