HC Deb 15 July 1937 vol 326 cc1448-52
4. Mr. White

asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state, as on the last convenient date, the numbers of able-bodied unemployed who have sought allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board and have been disallowed on the grounds that they are out of scope?

Mr. E. Brown

As regards persons in receipt of public assistance prior to the Second Appointed Day who applied for unemployment assistance allowances before that day, the number who were held to be outside the scope of the Unemployment Assistance Act was approximately 44,250. As regards persons who applied after the Second Appointed Day, the number held to be out of scope each week is about 1,000. Information is not available to show how many of the persons in question were able-bodied and are now unemployed.

Mr. Batey

Will the Minister take the necessary steps to remedy the defect in the 1934 Act, as we believed the Unemployment Assistance Board would take over all the able-bodied unemployed from the Poor Law?

Mr. Brown

On that point I have been asked to receive a deputation of local authorities, and I have said I would be glad to do so.

Mr. Thorne

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what day has been appointed to see the deputation?

Mr. Brown

Not at the moment. I will let the hon. Member know.

5. Mr. White

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the frequent delays occurring in the payment of allowances on the accustomed day at Employment Exchanges, on behalf of the Unemployment Assistance Board, in cases where the allowance is varied owing to a change in circumstances; and whether he will examine this difficulty with a view to its removal?

Mr. Brown

I am aware that in some cases payment may be delayed owing to the late receipt of applications for allowances or information as to changes of circumstances which necessitate the reassessment of an applicant's needs. The desirability of avoiding undue delay is, however, fully recognised, and the existing procedure is at present under examination.

7. Mr. A. Jenkins

asked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants for unemployment assistance in the Pontypool Employment Exchange area who have sustained reductions during the current year as a result of the unemployment assistance regulations as compared with the payments made under the standstill agreement?

Mr. Brown

Figures relating to Employment Exchange areas are not available, but in the Unemployment Assistance Board's administrative area of Pontypool in the Newport District there were on 26th June, 213 persons receiving less than they would have received under the standstill arrangements, otherwise than on account of personal earnings of the applicant.

Mr. Jenkins

Is it not possible to take out the figures for the Pontypool Employment Exchange area?

Mr. Brown

I think it would be very difficult, because the two areas do not coincide, but I will have a look at it.

11. Mr. Shinwell

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the reduced expenditure on unemployment assistance, he is now in a position to recommend an increase in the amounts paid?

Mr. Brown

No, Sir; the reduction in expenditure is due to the improvement in the industrial situation and has no bearing upon the adequacy of the allowances paid to persons who still remain unemployed.

Mr. Shinwell

As there has been reduced expenditure, ought not the recipients of unemployment assistance be entitled to share in the prosperity of which the Government are frequently boasting?

Mr. Brown

That is very dangerous doctrine for the hon. Member to urge, because the converse might be urged in time of depression.

Mr. Shinwell

What is the use of talking about prosperity when these people are living on a semi-starvation scale?

Mr. Brown

There is little need to talk about prosperity. It is happening.

Mr. R. J. Taylor

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as more are coming into employment, the amount received by them means a deduction in the applicant's home?

Mr. Brown

The hon. Member had better put a question down. He will find he will have to frame it in a very different way.

Mr. Jenkins

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Special Areas we still have more than 25 per cent. of unemployment, and does he regard that as prosperity?

Mr. Brown

The hon. Member, at least, has no reason to complain with regard to his area.

12. Mr. Shinwell

asked the Minister of Labour the average weekly reduction in relief payments by the Unemployment Assistance Board since the beginning of the present year?

Mr. Brown

During the first 12 complete weeks of the present year to 27th March the weekly expenditure on unemployment allowances fell from £727,000 in the first week to £679,000 in the last week. The scope of unemployment assistance was extended on 1st April and the expenditure in the week ended 3rd April rose to £766,000, dropping during the next 12 weeks to £698,000 in the week ended 26th June.

15. Mr. Malcolm MacMillan

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make regarding the harsh operation of the seasonal regulations relating to unemployment insurance in the Western Isles; what modifications he intends to make in the regulations to end this hardship; and when he intends to take action?

Mr. Brown

I am not aware that these regulations operate harshly. The hon. Member sent me one case about which I hope to let him have a reply in a day or two. If he has other cases in mind, perhaps he will let me have particulars.

Mr. MacMillan

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he is the only person satisfied with these regulations?

Mr. Brown

It was a Labour Government that passed the Act and I have amended it to the advantage of the seasonal worker.

Mr. MacMillan

It is the right hon. Gentleman and his friends who are operating it.

Mr. Brown

As a matter of fact the alterations that have been made as the result of the report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee have made it considerably easier for the seasonal workers concerned.

18. Mr. Leonard

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt of statutory benefit in 1936 who applied to the Unemployment Assistance Board for supplementary allowances; the number of such claims so granted; and the reasons gaining for them the grants?

Mr. Brown

I regret that this information is not available. Generally speaking, such allowances were not payable in 1936. I will, however, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT explaining the present position, which, I hope, will give the hon. Member the information he needs.

Mr. George Griffiths

Does the Minister say in his answer that in 1936 they were not entitled to these allowances? They have been given ever since that Act was put into operation, but they have blinded the people to make them believe that they could not get them.

Mr. Brown

I think the hon. Member has put his supplementary question under a misapprehension. If he will read the answer he will see that I have said that such allowances were generally not payable in 1936.

Following is the statement:

Prior to 1st April, 1937, the Unemployment Assistance Board were not empowered to take into consideration applications for allowances from persons in receipt of statutory benefit under the General Scheme. Since that date the average number of applicants for such allowances on the register has been 3,208, and the average number who have received supplementation payments in addition to statutory benefit has been 2,100 per week. Allowances granted in respect of waiting days prior to the receipt of statutory benefit have averaged 939 per week, the average weekly number of applications being 1,233. The number of separate individuals who have received these allowances since 1st April, is not known. As in the case of all allowances granted by the Board the need of the applicant is considered in relation to all the circumstances of his case.