HC Deb 10 December 1929 vol 233 cc215-7
11. Mr. HERRIOTTS

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many men have been employed in Durham county on work schemes sanctioned and assisted financially by his Department and other Government Departments; and whether he can give an estimate of the number of workmen indirectly employed in the manufacture and distribution of the materials required for these schemes?

Mr. THOMAS

According to reports submitted by local authorities in the County of Durham, the number of men employed on 25th October, the latest date for which figures are available, on schemes assisted by grants from the Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Agriculture, and from the Unemployment Grants Committee, was 1,744. As regards the last part of the question, no estimate is possible.

Mr. BATEY

Does the Lord Privy Seal expect to be able to employ any more men, and is he aware that there are 30,000 men unemployed in the County of Durham?

Mr. THOMAS

I have no idea as to what further applications have been sent in from Durham. I have reason to believe that there are some. It would be wrong for me to assume that there were not more schemes—I believe there are some—but I do not know the details.

18. Mr. HALL-CAINE

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, seeing that the Liverpool City Council has submitted unemployment relief schemes totalling £2,800,000 in respect of roads, and £2,365,000 under the unemployment grants scheme, and that none of the schemes involved has yet been approved, he will say what is the reason for the delay in approving schemes which should provide work for a large number of men?

Mr. THOMAS

I cannot agree that the situation is as suggested in the question, but, as the answer is a long one and involves figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SANDHAM

In view of the fact that we have 57,000 people on the unemployed register in Liverpool, and 69,000 people receiving Poor Law relief, can the right hon. Gentleman allocate responsibility for the delay?

Mr. THOMAS

It would be unfair for me to say to the Liverpool municipal authorities what they should do. They know perfectly well the terms which have been offered, and they know the position with regard to the unemployed in their district, and I not only await but shall welcome an application from them.

Mr. SANDHAM

Has any application for grant been made in connection with any of the schemes submitted?

Mr. THOMAS

There have been a number of schemes. As the answer is so long I am circulating it. When he reads it, the hon. Member will then see the details of the schemes.

Following is the answer:

The Ministry of Transport gave approval in principle to certain schemes, estimated to cost over £800,000, as long ago as 14th October, and on the 25th of that month the city council informed that Department of the schemes they were prepared to put in hand. Since then the necessary details of some of the schemes have been submitted and these are being examined. On the 5th instant the city council were informed that no objection was raised to commencement of these works without prejudice to the question of grant. The total value of the schemes so far submitted to the Unemployment Grants Committee is some £260,000. This figure includes schemes totalling £80,000 which it was not found possible to approve for grant. Of the balance of £180,000 now under consideration schemes totalling £150,000 were not submitted until the latter end of November. In the time available it has therefore not been possible for their examination to be completed.