§ 4. Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the total number of determinations made by the officials of the Unemployment Assistance Board in the County of Durham from 7th January, 1935, until the standstill agreement; the number of determinations where rates of benefit were increased; the number where lower rates of benefit were made; and the number of nil determinations?
Mr. STANLEYThis information could not be obtained without detailed inquiry, and, in view of the present pressure on the staff, I hope the hon. Member will not press for it.
§ Mr. BATEYIs the Minister aware that this is important information which we really ought to have and which ought to be in the possession of the Minister. If I put down the question again, will he give me an answer?
Mr. STANLEYTheir investigations are proceeding on a plan. If they were to set about publishing information in regard to any particular district, it would only hinder the preparation of the general scheme.
§ Mr. SPEAKERMr. Thorne.
§ 28. Mr. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the supplementary grants that he intends paying to the various local authorities, and as to the amount that each local authority will receive, in consequence of the Unemployment Assistance Board not being able to take over the able-bodied unemployed on 1st March, 1935?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain)Agreement has now been reached with representatives of the Associations of Local Authorities on the basis set out in the reply I gave on the 5th March to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward). I am afraid that it will not be possible for some time for me to give even provisional figures of the amounts which will be payable to individual authorities.
§ Mr. THORNEHas the right hon. Gentleman any considered views as to whether the local authorities will gain or lose financially while this arrangement is being conducted?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI have no absolute proof, but the endeavour has been to put the local authorities in the same position as they would have been in had it come into operation on the appointed day.
§ 33. Mr. CLEARYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider receiving a deputation representing the Liverpool Corporation in view of the serious financial position fully outlined in the memorandum, dated the 22nd ultimo, sent to him by the town clerk of Liverpool?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINNo, Sir. As I have already informed the Liverpool Corporation, it is not possible for me to receive deputations from individual authorities on this subject.
§ Mr. CLEARYMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider receiving a deputation of Members of this House who represent the city of Liverpool?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI should be very pleased to see Members of the House who represent Liverpool, if they desire to see me.
§ Mr. LOGANIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a special meeting of the Liverpool City Council yesterday, comprising all parties, it was unanimously agreed that a request again be made to the right hon. Gentleman in view of the unfortunate position of Liverpool, and, seeing that another deputation has already been received from elsewhere and special treatment has been accorded, the Liverpool Council think that there should be consideration of Liverpool's claim by the right hon. Gentleman?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI am not aware of that, but I cannot hold out any hope that any fresh representations that may be made to me will make any difference to the answer that I have given.