INSTANCES OF ABUSE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 40, 17 February 1931, Page 9

INSTANCES OF ABUSE

A glaring instance of abuse of the dole was given by Mr. James F. G. Price, assistant principal secretary to the Ministry of Labour, at the second public meeting of the Unemployment Insurance Commission at Westminster, says the "Daily Mail." Mr. Price, who is in charge of the Unemployment Insurance Department at the Ministry, informed Judge Holman Gregory, the chairman of the Commission, that the management of a colliery telephoned to the local Labour Exchange and asked if it was correct, as it' had been told, that if its men. worked that afternoon shift they would lose benefit for two days on which they had been unemployed in the previous week. As it was the sixth day of the period within which those ■ two days could count for benefit, the management was told that its information was correct. The Ministry was informed that the colliery management decided to close its pit that afternoon and tho men qualified for benefit for three days. Judge Holm an Gregory (putting questions to ijT-r. Price with regard to dole payments): A man may receive 35s a week wages when in work, and when out of work, if he has a large family, receive more benefit than he receives in wages when working?— That is a possibility. A man who is earning 35s when working receives exactly the same benefit a-s a man who earns £Si week? —Yes. The answer to that may be that both contribute the same amount to the fund.

Judge Holman Gregory: "That is a matter we shall have to consider. Is it a fact that persons who are on holiday claim benefits under the Act?" — "They cannot receive benefits in respect of customary holidays, but a period of closing down the works is sometimes extended beyond the customary period. If an extension of»the holiday is for more than 12 days, the benefit is paid for the whole period, including the customary holiday. In that case the extension, speaking generally, is regarded as having been sufficiently long to enable the workpeople to be classed as discharged and not merely'as put off for a holiday." The term "unemployment," said Mr. Price, was nowhere in. the Act defined affirmatively. It was only defined negatively. The average amount paid each week to tlioso in receipt of benefit was ISs 4d per person.