Skip to main content

Unemployment Benefit

Volume 931: debated on Thursday 12 May 1977

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the use of the word "normally" in the reply of the Minister of State for Social Services, Official Report, 25th April, c. 252, means that in certain cases someone who is suspended from work for misbehaviour will not be considered for disqualification from receiving unemployment benefit for up to six weeks; and, if so, what sort of cases will not be considered by the independent adjudicating authorities.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, all claims for unemployment benefit are decided by the independent adjudicating authorities. The use of the word "normally" in the reply given to the hon. Member for Aberdeen. South (Mr. Sproat) on 25th April—[Vol.

national health contribution, means-tested benefits and travel expenses, & c, of a widow with two children in April 1976 and in April 1977, that is before and after introduction of child benefit, assuming ( a) that she is solely dependent on widow's pension and ( b) that she also earns £30 per week.

The tables below show the net weekly spending power of a widow with two children aged four and six, on the basis of the following assumptions:930, c.

252]—was intended to convey that, as a matter of standard practice, where a claimant is suspended from work because of alleged misbehaviour the question whether his loss of employment is due to his misconduct is one of the matters which the adjudicating authority will consider; but that it does not follow that disqualification for the receipt of benefit will necessarily result in every case. For instance, disqualification would not be imposed if, upon full consideration of the facts, the evidence was judged insufficient to prove that misconduct had taken place.