asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the hardship inflicted on unemployed widowers who are deprived of dependant benefit where their daughters are acting as housekeepers, he will consider an early Amendment to Section 4, Sub-section 2 (b), of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927?

The limits within which dependants' benefit ought to be granted under an unemployment insurance scheme, under which persons with dependants pay the same contributions as those without dependants, were carefully considered by the Blanesburgh Committee. The existing law gives effect to the unanimous recommendations of the Committee, and I do not think a case has been made out for reopening the question.

The Blanesburgh Committee is not Parliament, and I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary whether, in view of the experience which has been gained since this Act was put upon the Statute Book, it is not time the Amendment which I now suggest was made?

It is true that the Blanesburgh Committee is not Parliament, but Parliament legislated on the lines of the unanimous recommendation of that Committee, and this is one of those recommendations.

Will the hon. Gentleman mind answering the question on the Paper?

That I have already done.

Will the Minister tell us how it is they are always sheltering themselves behind the Blanesburgh Report?

Can the hon. Gentleman not stop sheltering behind this very stupid and foolish Report?

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that unemployed men have been deprived of the dependant allowance in respect of their wives in consequence of the latter earning, in some instances, only a few pence per week; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the law in this regard?

The statutory provision, which has been in force since dependants' benefit was firs; instituted in 1921, is that such benefit is not payable in respect of a wife who is in regular wage-earning employment or is engaged in any occupation ordinarily carried on for profit. Any question arising with regard to it is decided by the statutory authorities. In accordance with the decisions of the umpire, employment averaging less than five days a month or less than eight hours a week is not, for this purpose, regarded as regular wage-earning employment. It may occasionally happen that dependants' benefit is disallowed when the wages or profit earned is small, but I am afraid I do not see how legislation to remedy this could be framed without creating other difficulties.

In view of one or two recent cases where an unemployed man has been deprived of his wife's allowance in consequence of the wife earning as little as 3d. per week, is it not time the Amendment was made?

I am perfectly well aware that the point put by the hon. Member is really a substantial one, but all I can say is that it has been considered both by the Ministry and by the Blanesburgh Committee, and we can see no way of avoiding these difficulties without creating other and worse difficulties.

But if eight hours per week are the minimum, why is it that women have been struck off and refused benefit because they have undertaken two days' charing a week, in the course of which they have worked for only four hours?

I have not that particular case in mind, but the construction of the Act is, of course, subject to the umpire's decision, and I can send to the hon. Member the umpire's decision bearing on that point.

Does it not follow, then, that the Act is operating mere harshly towards women than towards men?

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been transferred from the depressed areas to the Borough of Southwark and obtained employment through the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange?

The number of men and boys who have been transferred direct from the depressed areas into employment in the area of the Borough Employment Exchange under the Industrial Transference Scheme is 64.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that among the thousands of unemployed in Southwark there are sufficient men and boys to fill these jobs without going to other areas to find them?

I cannot think that this small number would have any appreciable effect. It amounts to less than one in 1,000 of the insured population.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that even 64 people in Southwark could be found work at the Employment Exchanges without bringing in these men from outside areas?

That is really a question of policy, which we have often discussed in debate, and I cannot go into it in answer to a question.

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons have been found employment at the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange for a period of two weeks or longer during the six months ended 31st January, 1929?

I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.