asked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for the figures of employment and unemployment for the mining areas of Adwick-le-Street and Bentley, respectively, to be separated from those of the town of Doncaster?

The statistics of unemployment regularly compiled by my Department necessarily relate to Employment Exchange areas. There is no separate Employment Exchange at Adwick-le-Street or Bentley, which are both served by the Doncaster Employment Exchange. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to do as the hon. Member suggests.

asked the Minister of Labour the reason for the increase in the numbers of unemployed recorded in the present week; and whether there is any likelihood of a further increase during the winter months?

The increase in unemployment between 13th September and 18th October is accounted for almost entirely by increases in industries which are usually subject to a seasonal decline in employment at this time of the year. As the hon. Member knows, the total in October was about 166,400 lower than in October of last year. In the normal course the seasonal decline is accentuated in November and in the early months of the year, but I cannot say how far this tendency will be counterbalanced by other factors in the coming winter months.

Is it not a good job for the Front Bench that the figures came out a fortnight too late for the King's Speech?

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has completed his promised inquiry into the alleged unfair reductions of the Unemployment Assistance Board's allowances to certain applicants residing in Adwick-le-Street, Doncaster; and with what result?

I am informed that the Unemployment Assistance Board have had several reports on the position in Adwick-le-Street since last July. These reports disclose no unusual features, but, if the hon. Member has any specific cases in mind and will furnish particulars, the Board will be happy to inquire into them.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has given consideration to the requests made by the Stoke-on-Trent City Council and the North Staffordshire Trades Council that unemployed benefit and allowances should be increased, and to the fact that almost all the evidence submitted to the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee was in favour of increasing benefits according to the Committee's 1935 report, and to page 5, item 13, and page 28, item 67, of the Statutory Committee's 1935 report, and the increased cost of living; and, in view of the evidence, will he carry out the requests by an increase in benefits and allowances?

I am afraid I can add nothing to recent statements on this subject.

In view of the overwhelming evidence of feeling in the country and the large number of resolutions that are being passed by city councils and others closely in touch with the people in the districts, will the Minister offer some hope with regard to this matter?

I cannot add anything to my answer.

I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Labour whether the whole of the blind pension payable to a wife or dependant of an unemployed person will be taken into account in assessing the means of the household?

In no circumstances is any part of a blind pension treated as available for the support of any person other than the recipient. So far as the Unemployment Assistance Board is required to meet the needs of a blind person a pension of which that person is in receipt must necessarily be taken into account, but, in assessing the needs, consideration is given to any special expenses to which the blindness gives rise.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will repay the cost of medical certificates which must be supplied in claims for nourishment allowances under the Unemployment Assistance Board?

I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that there is no invariable practice of requiring a medical certificate as a condition of increasing an allowance for the purpose of providing extra nourishment. Where, however, a doctor certifies that his patient is in need of extra or special food as distinct from medicine or drugs the Board's allowance is usually adjusted to meet any extra outlay by the applicant in obtaining such food. The furnishing of the certificate is regarded as part of the medical service rendered by the doctor, any payment for which falls outside the Board's powers by reason of Section 38 (4) of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934.

Is it not possible for special consideration to be given to these types of cases, seeing that the people are advised to get these certificates in order to get the extra nourishment required, and that in some cases they cannot afford to pay the cost of the certificates?

There is some misunderstanding. This is not a general requirement, but it is occasionally necessary to establish the need.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be far better to raise the scales generally than to give this extra nourishment?

The hon. Member will realise that 230,000 persons did have increases over their previous allowances.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state, as on the last convenient date, the number of unemployed persons in receipt of statutory benefit who are also receiving supplementary allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board?

In the week ended 15th October, 1937, allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board were paid to 2,863 persons in supplementation of payments of unemployment benefit.

In how many cases were there reductions?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the hardship imposed upon unemployed persons because of the increase that has taken place in the cost of living, he will consult with the Unemployment Assistance Board as to the need to revise the provisions of the existing regulations with regard to the reduction of allowances?

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the rise in the cost of living since the unemployment assistance scales were fixed; and how far the cost-of-living index will be allowed to rise before he will take steps for the revision of the present scales of allowances?

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the resolution from the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers asking for increases of the Unemployment Assistance Board's scale owing to the increased cost of living; and has he any statement to make?

I would refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Members for Doncaster (Mr. Short) and Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 21st October last to which I have nothing to add.

Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Unemployment Assistance Board to the fact that the cost of living has been and is imposing hardship generally, and that the provision which they are making is only for dealing with particular cases?

I understand that the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) has given notice that he intends to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Is the Minister aware that there has been a rise in the cost of living?

May I have an answer to my question?

Is the Minister aware that hundreds of associations and trade unions in this country are circularising Members of all parties with regard to the immediate need of an increase to meet the increased cost of living; and will he, instead of waiting to make prolonged inquiries, deal immediately with this matter?

Perhaps I may be allowed to quote to the House the last paragraph of a letter which I sent to the Trades Union Council on 11th October last:

"The Regulations represent a standard which must remain constant in spite of minor fluctuations in the cost of living figure. Clearly, however, there might be such a change in that figure—upwards or downwards —as to make it necessary for the Board to propose an alteration in their Regulations. That point has not yet been reached. But I can assure the Council that the matter will be kept under the most careful observation and that there will be no delay in acting if and when it appears that the time for action has arrived."

On a point of Order. I put a specific question to the Minister, to which he has given no reply. He said that the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) was raising the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. May I not have an answer to my question now? Is it not the case that the increased cost of living is imposing a burden of a general character, and that the provision made by the Unemployment Assistance Board only deals with particular cases; and will he draw the attention of the Board to the fact that the trouble is general?

In the answer which I gave to him I intended no discourtesy to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), but I thought it was only courteous to the hon. Member who had already given notice to allow him to develop the matter in his own way.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the protests that have been sent to him by and on behalf of the men engaged at the Vivian colliery, Abertillery, who were refused allowances by the local office of the Unemployment Assistance Board upon the ground that the wages received by them for a few weeks' employment previous to the period for which application for such allowances was made were sufficient for their maintenance; and what action, in view of the changing circumstances due to the increased cost of living, does he propose to take in the matter?

I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that 279 applications for allowances were received from men at the Vivian Colliery who were idle between 16th and 23rd October. The majority of these men had their ordinary wages on 22nd October, so no allowances were paid on that day, but on the following Friday all the men except 47 received allowances. In these 47 cases it was held that they were not in need. I would remind the hon. Member that it was open to any of these applicants who was dissatisfied to exercise his statutory right of appeal, but none did so.

Is the Minister aware that these refusals were made without any investigation into the need of the applicants?

If the hon. Member has any definite evidence on that point I shall be pleased to receive it. I find it hard to credit the statement.

asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed persons in the county of Durham who have suffered reductions since the standstill allowances were departed from, and the average amount of cut per person per week?

I regret that information precisely in the form desired by the hon. Member is not available, but on 17th September in the Unemployment Assistance Board's Administrative District of Durham—which includes Sunderland— there were 456 applicants receiving allowances which had been reduced by way of adjustment of the Standstill arrangements otherwise than on account of personal earnings. The average reduction in these cases is estimated to have been under 2s. per week.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cuts which have been indicted are causing serious inconvenience to people and are lowering a standard of living which was already too low?

I do not agree with that view. The hon. Member must understand that in the same area where these 456 reductions have been made there have been 10,200 increases.

Is it not notorious that the previous Commissioner was cutting these people's allowances down to the bone before these cuts began to operate?

I understand that the 10,200 increases meet the need.

How is it that the Minister can always deal with the increases but never with the reductions?

asked the Minister of Labour why the average reduction suffered by unemployed in Greenock under the standstill arrangements is 3s. per week, while the corresponding reduction suffered by unemployed in Leith is only 2s. per week?

This difference is due to fact that the margin between assessments under the standstill practice and under the regulations was wider in Greenock than in Leith when the process of adjustment began. The hon. Member will have observed in my reply just now to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) that the reductions in that area also were less than 2s.

Does that mean that the previous assessment in Greenock was more generous than that in Leith?

It means that the hon. Member must make up his own mind as between the local administrations in Greenock and Edinburgh which he knows well.

asked the Minister of Labour, how many men have had their allowance from the Unemployment Assistance Board reduced from 17s. to 15s. per week under the revised regulations; and whether he will take steps to see that the former scale is restored, in view of the great hardships being imposed upon these men?

As indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 28th October, the total number of reductions on 17th September last, otherwise than on account of personal earnings, was approximately 18,000, but I regret that information is not available to show in how many of these cases the applicant's allowance was reduced from 17s. to 15s. It is provided by the Regulations that the rate of 15s. is subject to adjustment by way of increase or reduction to meet the circumstances of the particular case, and I have no reason to think that the Unemployment Assistance Board have failed or will fail to pay allowances at more than 15s. in cases where the circumstances warrant.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Glasgow the Unemployment Assistance Board reported on the basis that in practically all cases 17s. a week in the case of men had to be reduced to 15s., and will he let them understand that that is not the case?

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons have suffered reductions by the application of the regulations in South-west Durham; and the total amount of such reductions?

In the Unemployment Assistance Board's administrative areas of Crook and Bishop Auckland, which cover the greater part of South-west Durham, there were on 17th September last 83 applicants receiving allowances which had been reduced by way of adjustment of the Standstill arrangements otherwise than on account of personal earnings. The average reduction in these cases is estimated to have been under 2s. a week.

asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men have received reductions under the regulations in South-west Durham; and the total amount of such reductions?

I regret that this information is not available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these ex-service men who have been reduced think it a very inopportune time, especially as we have been celebrating Armistice day, for heroes to suffer this reduction?

No, I cannot accept the word "many." I have pointed out that the total for all the areas and for all classes was 83, and the hon. Member may be interested to know that in the same area there were increases in 1,050 cases.

Is the Minister not aware—

Order.

On a point of Order. May I point out that it is becoming more and more impossible to give attention to you, Sir, because of the behaviour of Members opposite?

Does not the Minister realise that those persons who have received increases have obviously been below subsistence level before and that is why they have been increased?

Is it not a fact that in that area the previous Commissioner reduced the people by about £300,000 a year, and is not that proof of the criticism that we made at the time, that the people were living far under the means standard?

The last regulations were a fair settlement of this difficult problem.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, as a result of his visit to South Wales and other Special Areas during the Recess, he has developed any new plans for dealing with the situation in those areas as it now exists, and particularly if he has any proposals to deal with the problem of the unemployed men who are over 45 years of age?

No, Sir, but as I have already stated, I have not yet completed my inquiries into these problems. In regard to the last part of the question, I would refer to the reply which I gave on 4th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington (Major Procter).

In view of the fact that on his visit to South Wales the right hon. Gentleman gave interviews to the Press which raised the hopes of these men, will he inform the House when we shall have plans for dealing with this situation?

I have visited seven of the Ministry of Labour divisions, I have two more to visit—which I hope to do shortly —and then I propose to survey all the evidence put before me. As the hon. Member knows, these tours are administrative.

In view of the surplus of labour in South Wales and other areas, who is responsible for plans to meet the situation? This is going to be a very serious matter.

That is a matter for debate.

Will the Minister keep in mind the fact that in several semi-depressed areas, there are thousands of men over 45 who are out of work and who never expect to get back to work?

In one or two areas, including Yorkshire, I have myself called attention to difficulties of that kind.

Is anybody in the Government responsible for plans?

The measure of success we have recently obtained is a very remarkable tribute to the activities of the Government.

Has the right hon. Gentleman paid any attention to the position in those mining districts in Yorkshire, and will he intimate to the area officers there that there is room for more benevolent treatment than has been given in the past?

I get regularly a list of areas in which there has been little or no improvement, and I am happy to say that the list becomes shorter every time it is revised.

asked the Minister of Labour the amount of direct employment provided in each of the main groups of Special Areas as a result of financial assistance from the Special Areas Fund?

It is not possible to give details of the amount of employment provided in the Special Areas as the result of assistance from the Special Areas Fund. I would remind the hon. Member that the purpose of the Special Areas Acts is not to provide direct employment, but to stimulate the economic recovery of the areas and thus to improve the employment prospects.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to say what has been the result of his appeal to employers to engage unemployed persons who are over 50 years of age; and will he try to get a statement from the employers of how many they have engaged during the last three months?

The employment of persons over 50 years of age is one of the subjects under discussion in the inquiries in which I am still engaged, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) on 28th October.

If I put down a question in a fortnight's time, will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to answer it?

I think not so soon.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has completed his inquiries regarding the employment of sandwichmen during the recent municipal elections in Glasgow at 4s. per day; and whether he has now any statement to make?

Yes, Sir. I am informed that: vacancies were notified for boys aged 16 to 18 years, at a wage of 4s. a day, to carry sandwich boards. It was not mentioned that the vacancies were in connection with the municipal elections. The vacancies were not pressed on applicants, but six boys volunteered to accept them. No suggestion was made by the exchange that refusal of the vacancies would entail loss of benefit.

Is the Minister aware that the majority of these sandwichmen were employed for the Progressive party in Glasgow and were married men; that on their own statement they were informed at the Employment Exchange that they must take this employment or forfeit their unemployment allowances; and will he ascertain who were the real employers of these men?

I do not accept either of those two statements. I have made the closest investigation into this matter, and I am informed that this was an order from an advertising agency. As to the suggestion made in the previous question about the men, I can find no ground for it. The facts are as stated in the answer.

In view of the necessity of having the facts of this case made clear to the House, I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the number of employers who were prosecuted during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date for failure to stamp and also for unlawful detention of unemployment insurance books; and will he also give, separately, for the same period the number of persons prosecuted for affixing previously used stamps to unemployment books?

During the 12 months ended 30th June, 1937, 1,642 employers were prosecuted for failure to stamp unemployment books of their employes, and 442 employers were prosecuted for unlawful detention of unemployment books. The number of persons prosecuted during the same period for affixing previously used stamps to unemployment books was 74.

Will the Minister consider introducing amending legislation to make the penalties heavier in these cases?

asked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended to open a non-residential training centre in Sunderland?

I have this under consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when be will be able to come to a decision?

I will let the hon. Member know.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons aged 16 years and upwards that have been transferred from Northumberland county and county boroughs to other areas each year since 1932?

I will, if I may, circulate a table giving the available figures.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered, permanent and temporary, unemployed at the Employment Exchanges of South Wales for 1935, 1936, and to date, respectively;

(2) the number of unemployed persons registered at the Maesteg, Pontycymmer, Ogmore Vale, Aberkenfig, and Bridgend Employment Exchanges for 1935, 1936, and to date, respectively?

I am having the figures extracted and will circulate statements in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as they are available.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Alfred Marsh was sent to the Haldon training centre after an interview with officers of the Warwick Employment Exchange, in spite of the fact that he had undergone two operations for a serious internal complaint, was still receiving attention from his doctor, and had been declared unfit to enter a training centre though fit for light work where he could receive the regular medical attention he has had for some years; that pressure was brought to bear upon Marsh by a threat that his allowance might be stopped if he did not agree to enter the training centre; and that he was discharged from the centre by the doctor as unfit within a few days and had to be taken directly to hospital; and what steps he intends to take to make a repetition of such incidents impossible?

Mr. Marsh was interviewed at the Warwick Branch Employ-

below shows the number of men and women over i8, and boys and girls of 14 to 18 transferred by the Department from Northumberland county and county boroughs each year since 1932 to the end of September of this year:

ment Office by an officer of the Unemployment Assistance Board on 11th May in the presence of the branch manager. The advantages of training were put before him, but no pressure was brought to bear, and no threat was made of the stoppage of his allowance. Mr. Marsh voluntarily applied for training. The medical officer who examined him was aware of Mr. Marsh's hernia, and certified him as fit for admission to a residential centre for training in light manual labour. He was admitted to the Haldon Instructional Centre on 10th June. After arrival, he complained of stomach pains, and was examined on 12th June by the centre medical officer, who recommended discontinuance of training. He was accordingly discharged, and returned to Warwick on the same day, where he entered hospital. All possible precautions are taken to prevent the admission to centres of persons who are not fit for training. While I regret that the efforts to provide training in this case proved abortive, I am satisfied that the precautions taken are effective, as indeed is shown by the history of this case. The hon. Member will appreciate, I am sure, that if the admission of cases of this kind were prohibited in all circumstances the effect would be to withhold the benefits of the training scheme from a whole class of applicants, many of whom would derive advantage from it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, that this Mr. Marsh says in a letter which I have in my possession that it was pointed out to him that if he did not accept training, it would affect his allowances, and will the right hon. Gentleman give his personal attention to further facts that I have in my possession in order that the training centres may not be brought into bad repute by cases of this kind?

I shall be glad to do that, but I make very careful inquiries in these cases, and I am informed that that was not the case. However, I shall be glad to investigate any case brought before me by the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the official announcement on 13th September that there were 20,097 agricultural workers between 14 and 64 years of age reported as unemployed, he can state the exact sub-division of these figures by counties?

I am having the figures extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as they are available.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the 20, 000 agricultural workers included private gardeners?

They were registered on 13th September and, of course, are spread throughout the whole register.

In view of the figures given in this question, is it not clear that the real reason why the farmers cannot get agricultural labour is that they will not pay fair and reasonable wages?

Obviously I could not debate that at Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the total number of motorists convicted by the Swindon magistrates for exceeding 30 miles per hour; and what proportion of these had their licences suspended during 1936 and 1937?

During 1936 the number of persons who were convicted by the Swindon magistrates of exceeding a speed limit of 30 miles per hour was 182, of whom two were disqualified from holding a driving licence. During the first nine months of this year the corresponding figures were 86 and none.

How often can a motorist have his licence suspended and still keep on?

asked the Home Secretary whether in those streets in Central London that are restricted in regard to waiting motor vehicles, the Chief Commissioner of Police will allow some relaxation of the rule in the case of motor cars of physicians and surgeons visiting nursing homes?

I am advised that there is no power to authorise a relaxation of the regulations in favour of special classes of the community.