HC Deb 11 November 1937 vol 328 cc1808-15
3. Mr. Short

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has completed his promised inquiry into the alleged unfair reductions of the Unemployment Assistance Board's allowances to certain applicants residing in Adwick-le-Street, Doncaster; and with what result?

Mr. E. Brown

I am informed that the Unemployment Assistance Board have had several reports on the position in Adwick-le-Street since last July. These reports disclose no unusual features, but, if the hon. Member has any specific cases in mind and will furnish particulars, the Board will be happy to inquire into them.

6. Mr. Ellis Smith

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has given consideration to the requests made by the Stoke-on-Trent City Council and the North Staffordshire Trades Council that unemployed benefit and allowances should be increased, and to the fact that almost all the evidence submitted to the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee was in favour of increasing benefits according to the Committee's 1935 report, and to page 5, item 13, and page 28, item 67, of the Statutory Committee's 1935 report, and the increased cost of living; and, in view of the evidence, will he carry out the requests by an increase in benefits and allowances?

Mr. Brown

I am afraid I can add nothing to recent statements on this subject.

Mr. Smith

In view of the overwhelming evidence of feeling in the country and the large number of resolutions that are being passed by city councils and others closely in touch with the people in the districts, will the Minister offer some hope with regard to this matter?

Mr. Brown

I cannot add anything to my answer.

Mr. Smith

I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. F. Anderson

asked the Minister of Labour whether the whole of the blind pension payable to a wife or dependant of an unemployed person will be taken into account in assessing the means of the household?

Mr. Brown

In no circumstances is any part of a blind pension treated as available for the support of any person other than the recipient. So far as the Unemployment Assistance Board is required to meet the needs of a blind person a pension of which that person is in receipt must necessarily be taken into account, but, in assessing the needs, consideration is given to any special expenses to which the blindness gives rise.

8. Mr. Anderson

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will repay the cost of medical certificates which must be supplied in claims for nourishment allowances under the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. Brown

I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that there is no invariable practice of requiring a medical certificate as a condition of increasing an allowance for the purpose of providing extra nourishment. Where, however, a doctor certifies that his patient is in need of extra or special food as distinct from medicine or drugs the Board's allowance is usually adjusted to meet any extra outlay by the applicant in obtaining such food. The furnishing of the certificate is regarded as part of the medical service rendered by the doctor, any payment for which falls outside the Board's powers by reason of Section 38 (4) of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934.

Mr. Anderson

Is it not possible for special consideration to be given to these types of cases, seeing that the people are advised to get these certificates in order to get the extra nourishment required, and that in some cases they cannot afford to pay the cost of the certificates?

Mr. Brown

There is some misunderstanding. This is not a general requirement, but it is occasionally necessary to establish the need.

Mr. James Griffiths

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be far better to raise the scales generally than to give this extra nourishment?

Mr. Brown

The hon. Member will realise that 230,000 persons did have increases over their previous allowances.

12. Mr. Graham White

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state, as on the last convenient date, the number of unemployed persons in receipt of statutory benefit who are also receiving supplementary allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board?

M. Brown

In the week ended 15th October, 1937, allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board were paid to 2,863 persons in supplementation of payments of unemployment benefit.

Mr. G. Griffiths

In how many cases were there reductions?

Mr. Brown

Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.

14. Mr. Daggar

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the hardship imposed upon unemployed persons because of the increase that has taken place in the cost of living, he will consult with the Unemployment Assistance Board as to the need to revise the provisions of the existing regulations with regard to the reduction of allowances?

27. Mr. Stephen

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the rise in the cost of living since the unemployment assistance scales were fixed; and how far the cost-of-living index will be allowed to rise before he will take steps for the revision of the present scales of allowances?

29. Mr. J. J. Davidson

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the resolution from the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers asking for increases of the Unemployment Assistance Board's scale owing to the increased cost of living; and has he any statement to make?

Mr. Brown

I would refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Members for Doncaster (Mr. Short) and Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 21st October last to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Stephen

Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Unemployment Assistance Board to the fact that the cost of living has been and is imposing hardship generally, and that the provision which they are making is only for dealing with particular cases?

Mr. Brown

I understand that the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) has given notice that he intends to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Gallacher

Is the Minister aware that there has been a rise in the cost of living?

Mr. Stephen

May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Davidson

Is the Minister aware that hundreds of associations and trade unions in this country are circularising Members of all parties with regard to the immediate need of an increase to meet the increased cost of living; and will he, instead of waiting to make prolonged inquiries, deal immediately with this matter?

Mr. Brown

Perhaps I may be allowed to quote to the House the last paragraph of a letter which I sent to the Trades Union Council on 11th October last: The Regulations represent a standard which must remain constant in spite of minor fluctuations in the cost of living figure. Clearly, however, there might be such a change in that figure—upwards or downwards —as to make it necessary for the Board to propose an alteration in their Regulations. That point has not yet been reached. But I can assure the Council that the matter will be kept under the most careful observation and that there will be no delay in acting if and when it appears that the time for action has arrived.

Mr. Stephen

On a point of Order. I put a specific question to the Minister, to which he has given no reply. He said that the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) was raising the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. May I not have an answer to my question now? Is it not the case that the increased cost of living is imposing a burden of a general character, and that the provision made by the Unemployment Assistance Board only deals with particular cases; and will he draw the attention of the Board to the fact that the trouble is general?

Mr. Brown

In the answer which I gave to him I intended no discourtesy to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), but I thought it was only courteous to the hon. Member who had already given notice to allow him to develop the matter in his own way.

15. Mr. Dagger

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the protests that have been sent to him by and on behalf of the men engaged at the Vivian colliery, Abertillery, who were refused allowances by the local office of the Unemployment Assistance Board upon the ground that the wages received by them for a few weeks' employment previous to the period for which application for such allowances was made were sufficient for their maintenance; and what action, in view of the changing circumstances due to the increased cost of living, does he propose to take in the matter?

Mr. Brown

I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that 279 applications for allowances were received from men at the Vivian Colliery who were idle between 16th and 23rd October. The majority of these men had their ordinary wages on 22nd October, so no allowances were paid on that day, but on the following Friday all the men except 47 received allowances. In these 47 cases it was held that they were not in need. I would remind the hon. Member that it was open to any of these applicants who was dissatisfied to exercise his statutory right of appeal, but none did so.

Mr. Daggar

Is the Minister aware that these refusals were made without any investigation into the need of the applicants?

Mr. Brown

If the hon. Member has any definite evidence on that point I shall be pleased to receive it. I find it hard to credit the statement.

21. Mr. W. Joseph Stewart

asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed persons in the county of Durham who have suffered reductions since the standstill allowances were departed from, and the average amount of cut per person per week?

Mr. Brown

I regret that information precisely in the form desired by the hon. Member is not available, but on 17th September in the Unemployment Assistance Board's Administrative District of Durham—which includes Sunderland— there were 456 applicants receiving allowances which had been reduced by way of adjustment of the Standstill arrangements otherwise than on account of personal earnings. The average reduction in these cases is estimated to have been under 2s. per week.

Mr. Stewart

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cuts which have been indicted are causing serious inconvenience to people and are lowering a standard of living which was already too low?

Mr. Brown

I do not agree with that view. The hon. Member must understand that in the same area where these 456 reductions have been made there have been 10,200 increases.

Mr. Lawson

Is it not notorious that the previous Commissioner was cutting these people's allowances down to the bone before these cuts began to operate?

Mr. Brown

I understand that the 10,200 increases meet the need.

Mr. Gallacher

How is it that the Minister can always deal with the increases but never with the reductions?

24. Mr. R. Gibson

asked the Minister of Labour why the average reduction suffered by unemployed in Greenock under the standstill arrangements is 3s. per week, while the corresponding reduction suffered by unemployed in Leith is only 2s. per week?

Mr. Brown

This difference is due to fact that the margin between assessments under the standstill practice and under the regulations was wider in Greenock than in Leith when the process of adjustment began. The hon. Member will have observed in my reply just now to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) that the reductions in that area also were less than 2s.

Mr. Gibson

Does that mean that the previous assessment in Greenock was more generous than that in Leith?

Mr. Brown

It means that the hon. Member must make up his own mind as between the local administrations in Greenock and Edinburgh which he knows well.

28. Mr. Stephen

asked the Minister of Labour, how many men have had their allowance from the Unemployment Assistance Board reduced from 17s. to 15s. per week under the revised regulations; and whether he will take steps to see that the former scale is restored, in view of the great hardships being imposed upon these men?

Mr. Brown

As indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 28th October, the total number of reductions on 17th September last, otherwise than on account of personal earnings, was approximately 18,000, but I regret that information is not available to show in how many of these cases the applicant's allowance was reduced from 17s. to 15s. It is provided by the Regulations that the rate of 15s. is subject to adjustment by way of increase or reduction to meet the circumstances of the particular case, and I have no reason to think that the Unemployment Assistance Board have failed or will fail to pay allowances at more than 15s. in cases where the circumstances warrant.

Mr. Stephen

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Glasgow the Unemployment Assistance Board reported on the basis that in practically all cases 17s. a week in the case of men had to be reduced to 15s., and will he let them understand that that is not the case?

31. Mr. Sexton

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons have suffered reductions by the application of the regulations in South-west Durham; and the total amount of such reductions?

Mr. Brown

In the Unemployment Assistance Board's administrative areas of Crook and Bishop Auckland, which cover the greater part of South-west Durham, there were on 17th September last 83 applicants receiving allowances which had been reduced by way of adjustment of the Standstill arrangements otherwise than on account of personal earnings. The average reduction in these cases is estimated to have been under 2s. a week.

32. Mr. Sexton

asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men have received reductions under the regulations in South-west Durham; and the total amount of such reductions?

Mr. Brown

I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Sexton

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these ex-service men who have been reduced think it a very inopportune time, especially as we have been celebrating Armistice day, for heroes to suffer this reduction?

Mr. Brown

No, I cannot accept the word "many." I have pointed out that the total for all the areas and for all classes was 83, and the hon. Member may be interested to know that in the same area there were increases in 1,050 cases.

Mr. Gallacher

Is the Minister not aware—

Hon. Members

Order.

Mr. Gallacher

On a point of Order. May I point out that it is becoming more and more impossible to give attention to you, Sir, because of the behaviour of Members opposite?

Mr. E. J. Williams

Does not the Minister realise that those persons who have received increases have obviously been below subsistence level before and that is why they have been increased?

Mr. Lawson

Is it not a fact that in that area the previous Commissioner reduced the people by about £300,000 a year, and is not that proof of the criticism that we made at the time, that the people were living far under the means standard?

Mr. Brown

The last regulations were a fair settlement of this difficult problem.