asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware of the hardships inflicted on the unemployed and casually employed owing to the rapid rise in the cost of their food supplies without any corresponding increase in their allowances or unemployed benefits, and if he will, with a view to the granting of an increase, cause a revision into the allowances now paid.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Benefit.
The weekly rates of unemployment benefit payable to a claimant in respect of a dependent adult and a dependent child were increased as from 19th June, 1941, from 5/- and 1/- respectively to 7/6 and 2/6. In addition, the continuity rule was relaxed as from 7th August, 1941. Chiefly on account of these amendments expenditure from the Unemployment Fund exceeded revenue in the year 1941-42 by over £140,000, and in the current year it is anticipated that the deficit will be still greater. In the circumstances it is not proposed to impose further liabilities on the fund.
With regard to the rates of unemployment assistance, since September, 1941, food vouchers have been issued as a supplement to the unemployment assistance payable to applicants with dependents resident in cities or towns having local government. The cash value of these vouchers varies with variations in the cost of the food commodities for which they are exchangeable and represents an addition to the appropriate scheduled rates of unemployment assistance proportionately greater than the increase that has taken place in the cost of living since the outbreak of the war. Provision is being made in the current year for £435,000 to meet the cost of food vouchers, including a sum of £171,000 for food vouchers to be issued to eligible recipients of unemployment assistance. In addition, a sum of £200,000 is being provided to meet the cost of special food allowances which boards of assistance may grant to such necessitous persons as are approved by them over and above the amount of home assistance normally granted to such persons.
These arrangements, in so far as they affect applicants for unemployment assistance, have been adopted as an alternative to increasing the scheduled rates of unemployment assistance.
Having regard to the circumstances of the people referred to in the request, is it not possible for the Minister to remove the means test on those people receiving some allowance from sons and daughters in England at the moment?
That is an entirely different question. The purpose of unemployment assistance was, as the title of the Act implies, to give assistance to those unemployed, in relation to their circumstances. When we framed the Act, it was recognised that we were entitled to take into account the means which the applicant had from other sources. Quite clearly, an applicant who is getting maintenance from a member of the family is not as badly off as an applicant not getting such maintenance; and the amount of unemployment assistance is apportioned accordingly.
Is the Minister prepared to admit that a man who has six dependent children and whose seventh son goes across to England and sends him, say, £3 in four weeks, and who was getting 23/- or 14/- on the dole, is now cut off?
It is not cut off.
It is cut off.
Only if it is assessed that the means of the family are above the limit prescribed in the Unemployment Assistance Act. Persons who have got means above that minimum are not entitled to unemployment assistance under the Act.
I am giving the Minister a concrete case of a man who has six dependent children, and whose allowance was 14/- for himself, his wife and children. His seventh son went across to England, and because he sends him £3 in four weeks, he is cut off the dole. We are about to give an increased allowance for food and fuel, and still we cut off that man's 14/-.
Clearly, there is an obligation on the members of a family to help one another.
That is a poor conception of what family life should be like.