HC Deb 10 November 1936 vol 317 cc697-8
56. Mr. GALLACHER

asked the Minister of Labour, whether he is aware that certain unemployment assistance boards have reduced transitional payments to applicants on the ground that they have secured housing accommodation at lower rents than they have previously paid; and whether, seeing that certain unemployment assistance boards refuse additional payments to claimants in receipt of transitional payment under the exceptional circumstances (pots and pans) clause, he will take steps to remove this anomaly?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown)

The Board informs me that it has no reason to think that, where applicants are receiving allowances assessed by way of transitional payments, its officers have acted otherwise than in accordance with local authority practice, as under the Standstill Act they are bound to do. The Board states that it is not its practice to refuse grants for exceptional needs solely on the ground that the person concerned is in receipt of an allowance assessed by way of transitional payments.

Mr. GALLACHER

Is it the practice to cut down wherever there is an opportunity of making an economy, and to refuse in every case to make an increase even when a case is made out for it?

Mr. BROWN

No, Sir; but the hon. Member wants a "Standstill" to be an escalator always moving upwards.

57. Mr. GALLACHER

asked the Minister of Labour whether it is with the approval of his Department that certain unemployment assistance boards take into consideration the minimum sum, 3s., for those unemployed persons who sublet their dwellings, in the case of a man who sublets half his room for 1s. ld., the total rent of the said room being 2s. 3d., as this means that the claimant is having deducted from his allowance, transitional payment, a larger sum than he received by way of subletting?

Mr. BROWN

Where an applicant's needs are assessed under the Standstill arrangements, the Board's officers are bound to follow the practice of the local authority. The Board informs me that it has no reason to think that its officers have failed to do so.