§ 2. 2. Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that unemployed married men with families in the Abertillery Unemployment Assistance Board's area, receive no financial benefit from the recent 1s. per week increase made to children, because if the applicant or his son applies to the local office of the Unemployment Assistance Board for an allowance, that amount is reduced by an equivalent to the increase made in the case of children, with the result that no regard is had either for the increase in the cost of living or the object for which such an increase in dependants' benefit was made; and will he take action to see that unemployed people shall receive those advantages agreed to by Parliament?
§ Mr. AsshetonI understand the hon. Member to refer to cases where an unemployment allowance is payable in sup- 871 plementation of unemployment benefit. In such cases the unemployment benefit is brought up to a sum determined in accordance with the Board's regulations as revised in December last on account of the increase in the cost of living. It follows that the greater the sum received as benefit the smaller will be the amount payable by way of supplementation. I can see nothing in this which is inconsistent with the arrangements approved by Parliament.
§ Mr. DaggarDoes not the hon. Gentleman appreciate the point of the latter part of my Question? Is it not perfectly clear that the advantages which, otherwise, would automatically accrue to a person in receipt of unemployment standard benefit are denied to him and that he gets no benefit as a result of the regulations passed in this House?
§ Mr. AsshetonI think if the hon. Member studies my answer carefully he will see that that is not the case.