HC Deb 11 June 1936 vol 313 cc407-8W

asked the Minister of Labour on what grounds, in the cases of Mr. Albert Edward Evans, residing at 76, Broad Street, Crewe, and Mr. Richard Brookes, residing at 46, Ramsbottom Street, Crewe, a weekly deduction was made by the Crewe appeal tribunal in respect of earnings of the first 5s., or one-half, whichever was the less, instead of the daily deduction of one-sixth, as provided in the transitional payments regulations under the Economy Order, in view of the direction imposed in the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1935 (Standstill Order)?

South-Eastern Division (including London). North-Western Division.
Estimated number of insured persons at July, 1935:
Aged 14 and 15 269,960 151,310
Aged 16 to 64 3,540,500 2,156,420
Insured persons, aged 16 to 64, with claims for unemployment benefit at 25th May, 1936 140,433 157,930
Insured persons, aged 18 to 64, with applications for unemployment allowances at 25th May, 1936 48,442 146,886
Other insured persons registered as unemployed at 25th May, 1936:
(1) With claims under consideration (aged 16 to 64) 8,046 6,572
(2) Others:
Aged 14 and 15 1,960 7,976
Aged 16 to 64 19,396 33,309

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD

The Appeal Tribunal is an independent statutory body of final jursdiction. I may point out however that the deduction in respect of earnings under the transitional payments scheme was not necessarily limited to one-sixth of the weekly rate. Under the Temporary Provisions Act the officers of the board and the Appeal Tribunal have to form an opinion on the facts of each case of the amount of the adjustment which would have been made had the application been one for transitional payment and to determine accordingly.