§ 3 and 4. Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware that at Stanningly Exchange, on or about 10th January, 1935, a claimant to standard benefit named Simpson, who claimed through the Patternmakers' Association, was questioned as to what he contributed to his home when working and what were the earnings of two members of the family, and these were put in order to determine the applicant's right to benefit for his wife; and whether he will take steps to see that no test as to means is applied to persons on standard benefit;
(2) whether he is aware that at the Dudley Exchange a claimant to standard benefit named W. H. Sanders, who made his claim through the United Patternmakers' Association, was questioned as to the income of his family, consisting of two sons and two daughters, and the amount that they paid into the home; that this information was required in order to determine as to the applicant receiving benefit for a child; and whether he will take steps to see that no means test shall apply to persons on standard benefit?
Mr. STANLEYIn both cases the inquiries to which the hon. Member refers were put in connection with a claim for dependants' benefit in respect of the claimant's children; and the hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that the inquiries in Mr. Simpson's case related to the claim for his wife. A claimant for dependants' benefit in respect of his children has always been re- 2060 quired by the terms of the Acts to show that he wholly or mainly maintains them, and there are numerous decisions by the Umpire governing the existing practice which I have no power to vary. I may add that the purpose of the inquiries is not to ascertain the earnings of members of the household but only the amount which they contribute from their earnings to the support of the family.
§ Mr. BUCHANANIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Leeds man was definitely questioned as to his wife and that he has submitted a sworn statement to that effect? Is he also aware that if the children reside with their father and mother no other person's income has ever been taken into account and that automatically the father is paid for the children if he is on standard benefit?
Mr. STANLEYThat is not the case. There is no change whatever in the practice which has grown up as a consequence of umpires' decisions. There are umpires' decisions of many years standing on the exact point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
§ Mr. BUCHANANIs the right hon. Gentleman aware, in spite of what he has said, that on a claim for standard benefit, if a man resides with his wife and family, he is automatically taken as maintaining his child apart from any other income in the house; and, if that be so, will he take steps to see that the practice is stopped?
Mr. STANLEYNo change whatever has been made in the practice that has persisted for some years, including the time when my position was occupied by a Member of the party opposite. All I do is to obtain the information which the umpire has laid down as essential to decide the facts of the case.
§ Mr. BUCHANANIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of any case where the father and mother and child were residing together and where the child's benefit was stopped because some other member of the family had an income?
§ Mr. LAWSONIs not a person entitled under the law without qualification, both for himself and his dependants to 2061 standard benefit for 36 weeks, and has that not been emphasised by the policy of the Government in the 1934 Act?
Mr. STANLEYThe practice under employment insurance has always been that a man can only receive dependants' benefit in respect of children who are wholly or mainly maintained by him, and the hon. Gentleman himself was responsible for a form of application which included this question: "Have you any other children living at home who earn wages? If so, state names and amount paid towards household expenses."
§ Mr. TINKERAs this is an entirely new point, will the Minister give us an opportunity of discussing the matter?
§ Mr. BUCHANANI beg to give notice that I shall ask leave to move the adjournment of the House at the end of Questions, as this is a complete departure and is against the law.