§ Mr. LANSBURYasked whether it is the duty of the Central (Unemployed) Body for London, when taking applications from unemployed men, to obtain at the same time a statement as to the number of persons dependent on such applicants?
§ Mr. BURNSApplications from unemployed persons are made to the Distress Committees, and not to the Central (Unemployed) Body. The Regulations made under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, require the Distress Committees to ascertain by means of a Record Paper certain particulars relating to each applicant, including the number of persons dependent on him.
§ Mr. LANSBURYasked the total number of women and children dependent on the men registered by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London as unemployed; how many women and children are dependent on those men already put to work; and how many women and children are dependent on those men whose cases have been investigated and who have been passed as eligible for work, but for whom no work has been obtained?
§ Mr. BURNSI am informed by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London that the number of persons dependent upon the applicants registered up to the 31st ultimo is 69,518; that the number of persons dependent on those applicants who have been put to work is 8,877, and that the number of dependents on those who have been passed as eligible for work but for whom no work has been obtained is 14,514.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as guardian, councillor and adviser of the Distress Committees, if he can tell the House how it is proposed to find work for men who have wives and children dependent on them?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat hardly arises out of the question on the Paper.
§ Mr. LANSBURYasked how many schemes of work have been submitted for his sanction since 1st October, 1910, by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London; how many of these schemes has he sanctioned, and the number of men these schemes are likely to employ; how many schemes have not yet been sanctioned, and the number of men these would have employed; and how many schemes have been definitely rejected as unsuitable, the reasons for such rejections, and the number of men these schemes, if sanctioned, would have provided with work.
§ Mr. BURNSApart from the women's workrooms and the Hollesley Bay Farm Colony, the Central (Unemployed) Body have submitted to me this winter forty-nine schemes of work estimated to employ 2,467 men. Of these, I have aided by payments out of the Parliamentary Grant thirty-six schemes estimated to employ 1,490 men. The majority of these schemes contemplate the employment of the men for a period of sixteen weeks. In addition, I am assisting a large scheme of work on Hackney Marshes, employing 375 men, and the Central Body have also submitted a scheme of work at the Alexandra Palace, which, however, I am only able partially to assist. I may say that no sanction on my part is necessary to any scheme of work which the Central Body may desire to undertake, but, in assisting any such scheme out of the moneys voted by Parliament, I endeavour to select those which appear to be most suitable.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThen what does the Department propose to advise the Central 680 (Unemployed) Body to do for the large mass of men and women who are at present starving for lack of employment?
§ Mr. LANSBURYI beg to point out——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not entitled to debate this; he can only ask for information.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his Department can suggest to the Central (Unemployed) Body of London any schemes of work which are likely to be sanctioned by the Department as coming within the four corners of the Grant, so that work may be found for the men not employed?
§ Mr. BURNSIt is my pleasurable duty once a week to see the Chairman and consult with him as to schemes. When we reject some scheme we frequently suggest other schemes which often provide more employment than the rejected scheme.