ASSISTANCE.

HC Deb 24 November 1938 vol 341 cc1912-5

5. Mr. James Hall

asked the Minister of Labour the reason for the refusal of the district committee of the Unemployment Assistance Board to give assistance to Mrs. E. Lebow, of 41, Nathaniel Buildings, E.1?

Mr. E. Brown

I am informed that the chairman of the appeal tribunal, whose decision on an appeal on such a matter is final, decided that Mrs. Lebow was not within the scope of the Unemployment Assistance Act, and the Board therefore had no power to grant her an allowance.

Mr. Hall

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this woman had completed the maximum period of unemployment insurance, which proves that she had been for years in employment—

Mr. Brown

No, that is not right.

Mr. Hall

—and that when I applied to the local branch of the Unemployment Assistance Board for an explanation, the letter I received was vague and meaningless?

Mr. Brown

There is nothing vague or meaningless about the finding of the appeal tribunal, which confirmed the officer's decision, which was that she was a person whose normal occupation was not one in respect of which unemployment assistance is payable.

20. Mr. Ridley

asked the Minister of Labour how many applicants for unemployment assistance had the means test applied to their application in the most recent week for which the information is available; what was the average amount consequently deducted from normal assistance; how many nil determinations resulted; and what was the total economy involved?

Mr. Brown

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question put by him on 23rd June last. I am not in a position to add to that reply except to say that recent inquiry has shown that in the week ended 4th November the number of nil determinations given in cases where the applicant was adjudged to be not in need of an allowance was 2,797.

Mr. Ridley

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reply which he previously gave did not disclose the answer to the latter part of my question, namely, the total economies resulting from the means test; and may I ask whether that was due to his inability, or to his unwillingness, to give the information?

Mr. Brown

I refer the hon. Member to the replies which I have given to this question, one of which covered nearly a column of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The reasons were there very fully set out, and have been repeated on many occasions.

Mr. Lawson

How is it that the reasons and the amounts were given in the first year of the operation of this matter and cannot be given now?

Mr. Brown

It is not a question of the amount but of the form of the question, which goes far wider than any particular amount, and raises other issues as well.

21. Mr. J. J. Davidson

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has made any recommendations recently to ensure the lengthening of the period of additional winter allowances to the unemployed?

Mr. Brown

No, Sir.

Mr. Davidson

Do the Government or does the right hon. Gentleman intend to re-examine in the near future the whole question of winter allowances?

Mr. Brown

The answer is that the Government have just passed a great reform whereby, over the whole field, winter allowances in terms of need are possible.

Mr. Davidson

Is there any indication in the Government's Measure that they intend to lengthen the term of the winter allowances?

Mr. Brown

Those with material need can get winter allowances between 14th November, 1938, and 15th April, 1939, and if the hon. Member will compare that with the 20 authorities who have done it locally, he will find that the period compares very favourably.

9. Mr. J. Hall

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the disturbances at Islington, Stepney, and Lewisham Unemployment Assistance Board's offices concerning the disagreement between officials of the Unemployment Assistance Board and the unemployed as to winter allowances?

Mr. Brown

I am informed by the Board that on the morning of Wednesday, 16th November, three separate groups of men (30 in all, of whom some were applicants to the Board), gathered in the Board's offices at Camden Town, Camberwell and Shoreditch and demanded a general flat rate for winter allowances irrespective of needs. They barricaded themselves in rooms on the premises and declared their intention of not coming out until their demands were met. Police officers were called in, and at Camden Town the men were persuaded to leave, but in the other two offices entry to the barricaded rooms had to be forced. All the persons concerned subsequently dispersed without further incident.

Mr. Hall

Are not these disturbances symptoms of the dissatisfaction which has been caused by the economies which have been introduced at these exchanges in individual cases?

Mr. Brown

No, Sir, I am not aware of that. All the facts in my possession show careful planning and organisation, not too efficient, and I see no reason why I should do anything to advertise action of this kind.

Mr. Buchanan

In view of the fact that in the matter of winter allowances discrimination as between one man and another is bound to cause discontent, will the Minister see that where allowances are being paid the winter allowances should also be given?

Mr. Brown

That is the general position. In this case the material left behind by the demonstrators, the provisions, the wedges for barricade purposes and the fact that the Press had been informed and that photographers were there, show that this was not a spontaneous demonstration.