Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 20 April 1933, Page 4

Tuk recommendations of the Boynl Commission on Unemployment Insur-

ant o cf Britain which wore given in its final report at the end of last year are •an.parevtly to he nven oO'cci to, The now scheme deals with what the commission called niieinpioyinont a’’ c i -d----artee that is, relief for those wor.r'rs

who have rot been covered hv the insurance sell one f• r I hose who have exhausted il'e benefits to which they were entitled by, reason of their in.*ur--Una; conti ihutions wlnUi in 611ipl*>\-

inent. People so situated have ' not hitherto gone without relief. Their needs have Leon coveted by what lias bet 11 known as transitional benefit, the citsb of which to the Exchequer for the current year, if no change were made, ha s been estimated as £55,500,C00. The ‘'assistance” proposal was not represented by the commission as likely to be cheap. It laid great emphasis on the provision of occupation and training for the unemployed. On this point it said “no solution of the problem. of occupation and training is possible unless the community is willing to spend a good deal of money on this service. For our part we think that expenditure on occupational training for the unemployed is well worth while—that it is indeed an essential part of the provision for unemployed workers. The report was emphatic that in the administration of the new service the assistance of local authorities should be utilised in order to avoid setting up expensive new machinery. It also proposed that local authorities should bear a proportion of the oust, this view being summed up in the two sentences: “The local authorities must have a financial interest in their 'decisions. The continuance of the present system under which they make afise-sments in which they have no financial interest at all cannot be contemplated.” That view has, however, been rejected, the Government .accepting financial responsibility for 'assisting ail able-bodied unemployed.