§ 86. Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour if the commissioners who are administering transitional payments in Durham will report to him on their work; whether such report will be laid upon the Table; and whether opportunity will be given to discuss it in the House?
Mr. HUDSONThe persons appointed under Article 7 of the Order-in-Council relating to transitional payments to act in the stead of a county council or county borough council have the same duties imposed on them as other authorities under the Order. These duties do not include the submission of a report upon their work, and my right hon. Friend has no power under the Order to require them to submit such a report. The remaining parts of the question do not therefore arise.
§ Mr. LAWSONHave not the elected representatives of the county council and county boroughs been subject to close supervision and regular Ministerial control in these cases, and are we to understand that there is to be no supervision or control now, as there is abundant evidence that there is not? Ought we not to have quarterly reports in order that the House can discuss the matter?
§ Mr. LAWSONIs not the hon. Gentleman well aware that there is absolutely no control and no supervision as long as they cut down the unemployed transitional payments?
§ Mr. C. BROWNMay I ask whether, when the commissioners are making their decisions, inspectors of the Ministry of Health are present?
§ Mr. LAWSONMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Minister will not take this matter into really serious consideration, as he must be well aware that these commissioners are taking advantage of the fact that the Government have repeatedly issued—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERrose—
§ Mr. LAWSONI do not mind Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware, after his repeated statements and the Minister's statements in this House that they have no control over these Commissioners, that they are simply inciting these Commissioners to do their fell work.
§ Mr. LAWSONThe way they are carrying on is a positive disgrace.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONESIn view of the fact that these Commissioners are paid from public funds, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the House ought to have a report on their work?
§ Mr. BATEYIs the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that the Minister of Labour stated in this House that the Commissioners would issue a report up to 17th December, and is it not clear from that that they do supply reports, and cannot we have them?
§ Mr. MARTINWould it not be of great benefit if some information were given, in order that we might be able to rebut inflamatory speeches made by some hon. Members?
§ 87. Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that disabled ex-soldiers who come under the administration of transitional payments in Durham are losing more than half their disability pension in the net award; and whether, in view of the terms of the recent Act, he will inquire into the matter?
Mr. HUDSONMy information is that the rule regarding disability pensions laid down in the recent Act is being duly applied by the Commissioners. If, however, any applicant considers that his needs have not been properly taken into account, his right course is to approach the Commissioners who are always ready to consider such representations.
§ Mr. LAWSONIs the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Act is being broken, and that there is no control of these people by the Minister's Department? They can even flaunt an Act of Parliament.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSHow can the hon. Gentleman justify his previous answer that there is no control over the Commissioners when he now states that his information is that certain things are or are not being done?
§ Mr. BATEYIf I supply the Parliamentary Secretary with a case in which a man receiving light disability compensation has had his allowance reduced by more than 50 per cent., will he take action?
§ 88. Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour if he can state the total cost of the commissioner and his staff since the first commissioner was appointed to Rotherham; the number of cases reduced; the number refused; and the total amount of money saved?
Mr. HUDSONThe estimated total cost of administration under the commissioner in Rotherham up to the 7th January, 1933, was approximately £1,250 apart from non-recurrent charges amounting to approximately £200. From the 17th October to the 7th January out of a total of 5,793 determinations issued, 4,253 were at the full benefit rate, 1,114 were at less than the benefit rate and in 426 cases the applicants were not considered to be in need of relief by means of transitional payments. The review of determinations given by the public assistance committee could not, of course, be completed until some weeks after the appointment of the commissioner, but it is estimated that the expenditure on transitional payments from 13th October, 1932, to 7th January, 1933, was about £2,500 less than if all the determinations current during this period had been given by the public assistance committee in accordance with their practice prior to October, 1932.
§ Mr. THORNEMay I ask whether the salaries and the clerical assistance are paid for out of the local rates or the public Exchequer?
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSIs the hon. Gentleman satisfied that for every pound paid to the unemployed workers at least 10s. should be paid to the commissioners?
Mr. HUDSONI think hon. Members are under a misapprehension as regards the reason for the appointment of the commissioner. The commissioner was appointed because a local authority was unable or unwilling to carry out the law, and the question of saving does not arise. The commissioner would have been appointed whether there was a saving or an increase in expenditure, because the law was not being carried out.
§ Mr. LAWSONIs the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer compared with the answers which he gave last week simply means that the administration in Durham is costing nearly £6,000 a week whereas it cost nothing before the commissioner went in?
Mr. HUDSONI cannot accept that statement. At any rate, we are dealing, not with Durham, but with Rotherham.