DOLE ABUSED

Hokitika Guardian, 18 July 1933, Page 7

DOLE ABUSED

SOCIALIST GENEROSITY

RELIEF FOR CAPITALISTS

LONDON, July 19

A chorus of indignation was raised by Socialists when three commissioners were appointed to control the transitional payments in Durham County. No sooner were the commissioners a. work than a local M. P., speaking in the House of described' their decisions as “brutal and inhuman.” The commissioners’ report shows how thoroughly the habits of class nepotism and extravagance were adopted by the Socialist Public Assistance Committee of the Durham County Council. Many payments of transitional unemployment .benefit ,to persons who had house property or more than £IOOO banked and invested are disclosed in the report. The commissioners state : “We are satisfied' that : the Public Assistance , council never made any serious attempt to carry out their statutory duties. Case after case has came before us where a rate of transitional payment has .been granted which was justified neither by the circumstances of the household nor by the applicant of the order. We found no evidence of any verification, of wages having being made but siiice these have been undertaken by us the discovery 0 f many thousands of , pounds a year of undisclosed' incomes or increased incomes has resulted.”

FLAGRANT CASES Among 44 typical cases of over-pay-mint are the following:—(I) Household of six persons, four earning between them £l2 a week, a fifth granted 15s 3d transitional payment. (2) Man and three children, owning 12 houses, yielding £250 a year net; 23s 6d transitional payment. (3) Man and wife £IOOO invested; 18s a week transitional payment. (4) Man, wife and two sons, total investments, £2910, income of ~*3 10s a year in addition; 10s a week transitional benefit to each son, (5) Man, wife and daughter, investment £360, income 54s a week; 20s a week transitional payment.

(6) Man owning seven houses, occupying o ne, ren t from remaining six 35s a week, four sons earning 60s from own coal business; transitional payment of 15s a week. (7) Two sons living with father, investments £774 and £1053, father £B2 in bank; sons granted 11s 3d and 10s 3d a week. (3) Father, mother, two sops and child, £4OO in bank, £2OO invested; 30s 6d a week transitional benefit. (9) Man, wife and child, £llß6 invested, 28s a week pension; 20s 3d a week benefit. (10) Man and wife, own bouse, £7OO in bank, £2OO invested; 18s a week benefit.

As to -the causes 0 f the commissioners write: “Partly, no doubt, the appointment of investigating officers who in certain cases had not the qualificaations . . . and of others who endeavoured to combine the dual functions of municipal councillor and investigating officer was responsible. We did not feel that ifche possession of local knowledge bv elected municipal councillors outweighed the ,objections to employing them in their own neighbouring areas, so that we were obliged bo terminate the engagement of such as desired to retain their municipal status.”