§ 58. Mr. COCKSasked the Minister of Labour the number of individual applications for transitional benefit in the county of Nottinghamshire; the number of individual applicants who have been granted full benefit; the number who have been granted reduced benefit; and the number who have been deprived of benefit altogether for the months of January, February, March, April, May and June of this year, respectively?
Mr. HUDSONAs the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Following is the statement:
1289| Determinations by Public Assistance Committees in respect of applications for transitional payments submitted during the period 21st December, 1931, to 4th June, 1932. | ||||||
| Period. | Applications. | Determinations. | ||||
| Initial. | Renewal, etc. | Total. | Allowed at maximum benefit rates. | Allowed at lower rates. | Needs of applicants held not to justify payment. | |
| Administrative County of Nottingham. | ||||||
| 21st December, 1931– 23rd January, 1932. | — | — | 11,776 | 9,471 | 1,792 | 513 |
| 25th January-20th February | 988 | 7,003 | 7,991 | 6,664 | 1,204 | 123 |
| 22nd February-2nd April | 1,331 | 10,473 | 11,804 | 9,460 | 2,132 | 212 |
| 4th April-7th May | 1,020 | 8,374 | 9,394 | 7,621 | 1,594 | 179 |
| 9th May-4th June | 688 | 6,853 | 7,541 | 5,982 | 1,345 | 214 |
| Nottingham County Borough. | ||||||
| 21st December, 1931–23rd January, 1932. | — | — | 9,972 | 5,594 | 3,348 | 1,030 |
| 25th January-20th February | 998 | 5,855 | 6,853 | 4,270 | 2,256 | 327 |
| 22nd February-2nd April | 1,105 | 8,654 | 9,759 | 6,292 | 2,985 | 482 |
| 4th April-7th May | 964 | 7,045 | 8,009 | 5,021 | 2,639 | 349 |
| 9th May-4th June | 645 | 6,423 | 7,068 | 4,620 | 2,289 | 159 |
| The figures for determinations include renewals and revisions. Statistics on this basis in respect of individual applications are not available. |
§ 56. Major PROCTERasked the Minister of Labour if he will issue a circular to all public assistance committees to the effect that where the delay in granting benefit has been due to the fault of the public assistance committee the unemployed person shall not be prejudiced?
Mr. HUDSONI have no evidence of such delay, but I would point out that any interval should normally be covered by interim payments or by an interim determination by the committee's officer.
§ Major PROCTERIs it a fact that, if an award is made on a Monday but is not communicated by the public assistance committee until the Thursday, the workless man or woman does not receive the award on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday?
Mr. HUDSONThat depends on the particular day on which payments are made at the exchange at which he is registered.
§ Major PROCTERCan circumstances like that be altered?
§ Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSONWhere it can be reasonably anticipated that large numbers of men will be paid off, and where, owing to the smallness of the staff of the local exchanges, it can be anticipated that there will be delay in granting benefit, can the hon. Gentleman give a promise that extra staff will be drafted in from other exchanges?
Mr. HUDSONThat does not strictly arise out of the question, but every attempt is made by the Department to see that as little delay and inconvenience is caused as possible, and we draft extra staff in when there is reason to believe that there will be an emergency owing to the closing down of a particular pit.
§ 59. Mr. COCKSasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the resolution from the urban district council of Hucknall protesting against the action of the Nottinghamshire County Council in superseding the relief committee of the Hucknall district in the administra- 1291 tion of transitional benefit; and what action he proposes to take in consepuence?
Mr. HUDSONMy right hon. Friend has received resolutions on this matter. This relief committee was not suspended by the Nottinghamshire County Council. It declined to carry out its statutory duty in accordance with the directions of the county council, and, in view of the emergency so created, the county council appointed a committee to carry on the work of administration under powers conferred on them by the Order-in-Council. The county council are taking proper steps to discharge their statutory functions, and my right hon. Friend is not called upon to intervene.
§ Mr. COCKSIs it not a fact that the local authority are aware of the local conditions, whereas the committee appointed by the county council are absolutely ignorant of them?
Mr. HUDSONThe local committee would not have been superseded if they had carried out their proper functions.
§ Mr. LAWSONIs it not a fact that the Conservative county council superseded the local Labour committee?
§ Mr. BROCKLEBANKHow many local officials have been superseded?
Mr. HUDSONThey are not superseded by my Department but by the local county council. I could not say how many others in the country have been superseded.
§ 60. Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Labour if he will consider the advisability of making it more generally known that applicants under the means test for transitional benefit have a right to go personally before their local committee and ask for a reconsideration of their case when they are dissatisfied with the decision reached on the report of the visiting investigator, as there are still many in the city of Birmingham who do not know of this regulation?
Mr. HUDSONI do not think I can add materially to the reply given to a similar question asked by my hon. Friend on 2nd June.
§ Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKECan my hon. Friend tell me what that reply was?
Mr. HUDSONIt was replied to by the Minister of Labour. I will send my hon. Friend a copy. It is rather long to read out.
§ Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEDo I understand that the Ministry has not made it known that these persons have a right to go before the local committee if they are not satisfied with the decision arrived at after investigation?