HC Deb 19 December 1935 vol 307 cc1917-9
3. Mr. GIBBINS

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that large numbers of the unemployed in Liverpool will not be able to receive their unemployment pay for Christmas week until the holidays are over; and will he take steps to adjust this position?

Mr. E. BROWN

The arrangements in this connection were explained in my reply of 12th December to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) and will be the same at Liverpool as elsewhere.

Mr. GIBBINS

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the men who are due for payment on Thursday will be paid on Tuesday, and could not the men who are due for payment on Friday be paid also on Tuesday?

Mr. BROWN

This is the arrangement which, after most careful consideration, was adopted on the last occasion when Christmas fell on a Wednesday. The hon. Member will see that what he is asking means that there might be a gap between the Tuesday and the Friday.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS

Does this arrangement not mean that a great many of these people will have no Christmas dinner at all?

Mr. BROWN

Certainly not. It is the best arrangement, and worked well last time.

11. Mr. STEPHEN

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the need of taking steps to improve the condition of the unemployed during the winter months to prevent the additional hardships resulting from cold and lack of warm clothes; and whether there are any concessions that he proposes to make with regard to a special Christmas allowance?

Mr. E. BROWN

I cannot add to the statements which have already been made to the House on this subject.

16. Mr. GALLACHER

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider amending the present Unemployment Insurance Acts with a view to making eligible to draw benefit on their return all persons who leave the United Kingdom for any part of the British Empire with a view either to taking or seeking employment, provided that the number of stamps to their credit prior to leaving the country fulfil the usual statutory conditions governing payment of benefit had they stayed in the United Kingdom?

Mr. E. BROWN

Section 3 (3) (c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act and Regulations made thereunder already deal with a certain class of persons who work abroad, and I am not aware of sufficient justification for extending these provisions to cases of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mr. GALLACHER

Is the right hon. Gentleman giving consideration particularly to the case that has been placed before him?

Mr. BROWN

I am giving consideration to that case, but the answer, as the hon. Member will see, deals with the general situation as asked by him.

17. Mr. GORDON MACDONALD

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. W. Ainscough, of 23, Queen Street, Orrell, near Wigan, is in receipt of unemployment benefit for himself and dependant's benefit for his wife, but that, owing to the deputy umpire's decision, payment of dependants' benefit to his four children, all of whom are under 14 years of age and living with him, has been stopped; and whether he will take such legislative action as may be necessary to safeguard dependants' benefits in this and similar cases?

Mr. E. BROWN

I am aware of the decision to which the hon. Member refers. I can give no undertaking with regard to legislative action.

Mr. MACDONALD

Since this is a means test for unemployed on standard benefit, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider rearranging this kind of test?

Mr. BROWN

I have gone into the case. As the hon. Member knows, the umpire decided that they were not the applicants' dependants, and that, of course, renders the position a difficult one.

39. Miss RATHBONE

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that in 1934 female contributors to unemployment insurance drew benefits to the value of only two-fifths of the contributions paid by female contributors, whereas males drew benefits to the value of nearly three-fourths of the value of their contributions, he will ask the unemployment insurance statutory committee to report as to the advisability of increasing the scale of female benefits to the same level as that of male benefits; and further, what would be the cost of the said increase?

Mr. E. BROWN

Representations on this matter have already been made to the committee by certain organisations, and I have no doubt that the committee will take them into consideration and in doing so will prepare estimates of the cost of any proposals that seem worthy of examination.

Miss RATHBONE

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to this question and to my previous question concerning the Anomalies Act, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise both questions at the earliest opportunity after the Christmas Recess.

Forward to