§ The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
§ 54. Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour whether, as a result of his recent visit to South Wales, steps will now be 31 taken to abolish the family means test, seeing that it adds to the poverty existing in the distressed areas?
§ 56. Mr. BEVANasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the widespread feeling which exists in all parts of the House concerning the suffering of the unemployed, he will take steps to suspend the new unemployment assistance regulations where their effect is to reduce existing allowances?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEADI will, if I may, answer numbers 54 and 56 together.
§ Mr. BEVANAs No. 56 raises an entirely different question, may I ask that it should be taken separately?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEADIn answer to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), I would refer him to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) last Thursday.
§ Mr. BATEYThat reply cannot apply to this question. Does not the Minister consider that everything should be done that the Government can do to reduce poverty in the distressed areas? Will he answer that?
§ Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHSIs the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the visit of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour to South Wales has created great expectations, and are we to understand that these are to be disappointed?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEADPerhaps hon. Members will study the reply which I gave last Thursday, and then, if necessary, put down further questions.
§ Mr. SHINWELLHas the Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. Friend seen anything during his tour of South Wales to justify a change?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEADI have not seen my right hon. Friend since he returned from his visit.
§ 56. Mr. BEVANasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the widespread feeling which exists in all parts of the House concerning the suffering of the unemployed, he will take steps to suspend the new unemployment assistance regulations where their effect is to reduce existing allowances?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEADI would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) last Thursday.
§ Mr. A. BEVANThis question was first put to the Prime Minister and was referred to the Minister of Labour. Now the Minister of Labour has referred it to the Parliamentary Secretary. Are they afraid to reply? May I ask whether it is not a fact that unemployment has increased during the last four months, particularly in South Wales, since these Regulations went through the House; and does not that justify a change in the policy of the Government in view of the widespread concern that is felt in the country?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEADAs far as I am aware it is a common Parliamentary custom to collate questions. If the hon. Member studies the reply which I gave last Thursday I think he will see that it is an adequate reply?
§ Mr. BEVANIs not the effect of the reply that the recent visit to South Wales will be followed up by universal reduction in unemployment allowances in that district?