Unemployment Benefit (Hansard, 27 June 1960)

§ 5. Mr. Willis
asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how long under his Regulations a person has to be unemployed before he is entitled to supplementation of his unemployment benefit by National Assistance.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
There is no set period for which a person has to be unemployed before he can get assistance from the Board in supplementation of his benefit. The question of need is decided in the light of the individual circumstances of the person concerned.

§ Mr. Willis
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of hardship is caused to a number of men, particularly lowly-paid workers, because they have to wait three or four weeks before getting unemployment insurance? The right hon. Lady gave reasons why, but should not some payment which they receive before they cease employment be regarded as capital payment?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
Each case is and has to be dealt with on its merits. The points made by the hon. Gentleman—low earnings while in work and the length of time a person has been earning them—are part of the facts which the board has to weigh in deciding whether help by National Assistance Board standards is necessary.

§ Mr. Lawson
Is the Minister aware that I have been informed that there is a general rule practised throughout the country that any person asking for National Assistance may not expect to get it till at least three or four weeks after losing his job? Is there such a regulation, and does the Minister know about it, and if so, what does he propose to do about it?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
As I told the House, there is no firm rule and cases are dealt with on their merits.

§ 7. Mr. Lawson
asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what was the deficit or surplus of National Insurance contributions towards unemployment benefit over unemployment benefits paid in 1959.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
No part of the income from National Insurance contributions is specifically appropriated to expenditure on particular benefits.

§ Mr. Lawson
Will the Minister tell me why it is not possible to tell the House which part of the money paid is allocated to particular services? Is it that the Government have sacked the Government Actuary, or is it that the lump sum payment for a lump benefit disguises the fact that the contributor is being made to pay more and more for his insurance benefit?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
No, it is because Parliament has enacted that there shall be one overall contribution covering all benefits.

§ 9. Mr. Manuel
asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what percentage of average adult male earnings the single adult male unemployment benefit represented in 1938; and by how much the present single adult male unemployment benefit would require to be raised to bring it to the same ratio with present adult male earnings.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
24.6 per cent. and 16s. 8d.

§ Mr. Manuel
The right hon. Gentleman asked me last week to look over the whole field. I was looking back as far as 1938 and he was going back to 1951. Does not the Minister agree, now that we have looked at this wider vista, that there is a compelling case for an upward trend in the benefits about which I inquired? At the Minister's request we 943 have looked at the wider field. If he accepts the evidence which he has said that the House should look at, he will be compelled to agree that we should increase the benefits.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
The hon. Gentleman has cast his eye over the field in a somewhat selective manner, overlooking, for example, the fact that the rate of unemployment benefit at the date he selected was half as much again as the rate of retirement pension, and also that there has been a very considerable increase in the earnings of the working population under a Conservative Government.