§ 1. Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a growing number of local unemployment assistance boards are refusing to accept certificates from applicants' own doctors in support of requests for extra nourishment; whether this is as a result of instructions issued centrally; and whether he will assure the House that it is not intended to reflect in any way on the integrity or competence of the members of the medical profession in these centres?
§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown)I am informed by the Board that medical certificates indicating the need for extra nourishment arising from some specific pathological condition are normally accepted without question. In some instances, however, certificates are given in quite general terms to persons who are not otherwise receiving medical attention and in these cases the practice is to make further inquiry before deciding whether the allowance should be increased. In certain other cases where doubt arises, the question is referred to the regional medical officer of the Ministry of Health. The Board have no reason to 653 believe that doctors regard these steps as reflecting on their integrity or competence.
§ Mr. GallacherAre we to understand that the certificate of an applicant's own doctor for extra nourishment is accepted by the Board?
§ Mr. George GriffithsOn what ground can the Board reject a medical officer's certificate? They will not know anything about the man or his wife, or whether they want this extra nourishment or not?
§ 2. Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour whether he will inquire into the circumstances in which the Warwick Unemployment Assistance Board refused to grant an increase over 48s. in the allowance of Mr. H. R. Cole, of 104, Millers Road, Warwick, although the allowance was for a family of nine persons and Mrs. Cole was pregnant; and whether it is intended that the wage-stop clause shall be rigidly applied in cases such as this?
§ Mr. BrownI am informed that the question whether the allowance of 48s. should be increased was referred to the Appeals Tribunal whose decision, as the hon. Member is aware, is final.
§ Mr. GallacherDoes that mean that there is a rigid application of the rule not to go above 48s. in any circumstances?
§ Mr. BrownNo, Sir. There is no foundation for the suggestion in the last part of the question. The facts are these. A weekly allowance of 48s. was paid to Mr. Cole from 20th December, 1938, to 21st April, 1939. This allowance, which was twice confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal, was not subject to wage-stop adjustment, but in view of wage-stop considerations no winter addition was made. On 21st December a lump sum grant of £2 was made to meet exceptional needs partly arising from Mrs. Cole's pregnancy. The area officer used his good offices whereby free milk was granted for the applicant's wife by the Infants' Welfare Department, as well as free milk and travelling expenses to the hospital for a child who had to undergo an operation. Application for a grant to meet the cost 654 of a layette was refused, as this kind of need is also met by the Infants' Welfare Department. When Mrs. Cole was confined the allowance was increased to 62s. 6d. for two weeks from 21st April, which amount is substantially in excess of the applicant's normal wage. Straight assistance is now 49s. 6d., but an allowance of 53s. 6d. is being paid temporarily in order to provide for the special needs arising from the illness of the infant. I have given these facts because I would like the House to understand that the applicant has appealed on 10 occasions to the Appeals Tribunal during the last three years.
§ Mr. S. O. DaviesMay I ask whether free milk was granted by the Board?
§ Mr. GallacherDoes not the right hon. Gentleman agree that an applicant in such circumstances is entitled to appeal 10 times and 10 times more?