HC Deb 15 May 1935 vol 301 cc1689-92
9. Captain P. MACDONALD

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officers and men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve, and from the regular, retired, and emergency lists will be ordered to participate in the Jubilee naval review at Spithead?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell)

291 officers of the Royal Naval and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserves have volunteered to take part in the naval review, and most of these will probably do so, together with two chaplains on the retired list of the Royal Navy, who have similarly volunteered. Approximately 3,000 reserve and pensioner ratings will also be invited to take part. None of these officers or ratings has been, or will be, ordered to take part; their participation in all cases will be entirely voluntary.

10. Captain MACDONALD

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty which foreign nations have been invited to send representative ships to the forthcoming naval review at Spithead; and what foreign ships will be in attendance?


As the Jubilee celebrations are essentially domestic in character, no foreign nations have been invited to send ships to represent them.


asked the First Commissioner of Works whether steps have been taken to express to his Department the gratitude of the Members of this House, and all other persons concerned, for the excellent way his Department carried out their duties during the Silver Jubilee celebrations?


The officers of my Department are most grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks, and for the expressions of appreciation which they have received from Members of Parliament.


Will the right hon. Gentleman also express appreciation to the police for the work they have done?

45. Mr. REA

asked the Prime Minister whether he will give instructions for the memorable series of speeches made by His Majesty during Jubilee week to be suitably printed and to be made available to Members of bath Houses of Parliament and the general public?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald)

The speeches to which the hon. Member refers have been fully reported, and I think that any further step, such as is contemplated in the question, is more a matter for the initiative of publishing houses. I understand that no question of copyright will be raised.


Would it be possible for these magnificent speeches to be circulated in the schools through the education authorities?


Is it not a fact that the "Morning Post" is already publishing these speeches?

57. Mr. BAILEY

asked the Minister of Labour whether His Majesty's Government are taking steps to ensure that the financial benefits in respect of His Majesty's Jubilee already enjoyed by other sections of the unemployed shall be extended to those members of the unemployed who are in receipt of statutory benefit?

58. Captain FULLER

asked the Minister of Labour whether it is now proposed to take steps to extend to those unemployed in receipt of statutory unemployment benefit the additional allowances which have been paid to those in receipt of assistance on account of His Majesty's Jubilee celebrations?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley)

I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave on this matter on 2nd May to the hon. and gallant. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Brigadier-General Nation).


Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those on statutory benefit are not receiving any extra payment? Can he give any reason why they should be treated differently from other sections of the unemployed?


In the previous reply, to which I have referred, I said that there were no funds at my disposal out of which such payments could be made.


Is it not the case that if the Act were fully operative those under Part I with statutory benefit claims would have been entitled to have had their money subsidised from those under Part II, but that owing to the delay that cannot happen. Cannot he see that Part II shall apply to statutory benefit claimants?


That is not the position. If the second appointed day had come into force, no doubt those on benefit could have applied to the board, but they would only have been able to receive the second payment on proof of need. As the position was, they could equally well apply to the local authority, and where the local authority was making this extra payment, on proof of need, they would be able to receive the benefit.


In view of the great dissatisfaction felt by certain sections of the unemployed, will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing legislation to put this matter in order?


The matter has received the fullest consideration, and it was felt that the action of the board and local authorities in giving this extra payment to those whose claims were based on need was justified. In the circumstances, the decision of the Government, which has been announced, is not to extend it to other classes of recipients getting allowances under statutory rights.


Is it not the case that those who are getting the extra amount have already had their needs assessed, and that this sum was in addition to the amount assessed. Cannot the same distribution be made to those on statutory benefit since the money comes from practically the same source, that is out of the Government?


Is it not the case that no Income Taxpayer has had any allowance to enable him to enjoy the Jubilee, and will the Government not take some steps to remedy this gross injustice?


It is now five weeks since I put a question to which the Minister of Labour said that he had no funds out of which to make the payment. Since then this House has voted £60,000—


The hon. Member is now making a speech.


I am not making a speech. My question to the Minister of Labour is whether he is aware that if he comes to this House and asks for power to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a grant to meet this demand, I am satisfied that the House will grant it.

14. Lieut.-Colonel MASON

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will commemorate by a brass plate in the floor the spot where His Majesty stood to receive the Addresses at the Joint Session of Parliament on 9th May?


As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Hanley Division of Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Hales) on Monday last, the question of the best form of any commemoration of last Thursday's ceremony will require very careful consideration. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Forward to