DOLE SCANDAL

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 25, 29 July 1933, Page 10

DOLE SCANDAL

COIJNTY OF DURHAM

COMMISSIONERS' REPORT

'' (From "The Post's" Representative.) LONDON, June 9.

A chorus of indignation was raised Iby Socialists when three Commissioners 'were appointed to control the transitional payments in Durham County. No sooner were the Commissioners atwork [than a local' M.P.,' speaking in the Houso of Commons, described their decisions as "brutal and inhuman."

A report' by the Commissioners now published 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 houso property, or more than £1000 banked and invested, are'disclosed in the ..report. The Commissioners state: —.. .-' "Wo, are satisfied' by the evidence before us that the Eublie Assistance Committees of the Durham County Council never made any serious attempt to carry out their statutory duties. "Case after case has como before us where a rate of transitional payment has' been granted which was justified neither by the circumstances' of the household nor by-any applica-1 tion of the order. • • '• . , "We found rib evidence of any | verification of wages- having, been made, but since these have been undertaken by us the discovery of many thousands of pounds a year of undisclosed incomes or increased incomes has resulted. 1' TYPICAL CASES. Among 44 typical cases of over-pay-ment arc the following.:— Household of six persons; four earning between them -£12 per week; a fifth granted 15s 3d transitional payment. ' '" Man-and three children, owning twelve houses, yielding £250 a year net, 23s Gel .transitional payment. Man and wife, £1000 invested; 18s a week transitional payment. Man, wife, and two sous, total investments £2910, income of £13 10s a year in addition, 10s a week transitional benefit to each son. . . : Man, w^ife, and daughter, investment £360, income 54s a week; 20s a week transitional payment. Man owning seven houses, occupying one, rent from, remaining six 35s a. week, four sons earning (iOs from own coal' business, transitional payment of los a week. Two sons living with fatWr, investments £774 and £1053, father £82 'in bank; sons granted 11s 3d and 10s 3d a week. Father, mother, two sons, and child, £400 in bank, £200 invested; 30s (id a week transitional benefit. Man, wife, and child, £1196 invested, 28s week pension; 20s 3d % week benefit. . ' Man and wife, own house, £700 in bank, £200 invested; 18s a week benefit!. As to the causes of over-payment, the Commissioners write: "Partly; no doubt, the appointment of investigating officers who in certain cases had not the qualifications . .' . and of others who endeavoured to combine-' the dual functions of municipal1 councillor and investigating officer were responsible. We did hot feel that the possession of local knowledge by elected municipal councillors outweighed t ho objections to employing them in their own or neighbouring areas, so that we were obliged to tcrinimito the engagement, of such as desired to retain their municipal status."