GRANTS RETURNED.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 539, 23 August 1932, Page 7

GRANTS RETURNED.

Explanation Made by City Council. UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF. The necessity for the City Council to plan work which did not exceed the weekly allocation of relief money made to it by the Unemployment Beard, coupled with the fact that as many as fifteen men would not present themselves for work, and thereby caused a drop in the pay-sheet, are among the reasons given by Councillor J. W. Beanland, chairman of the council’s Works Committee, for the return to Wellington of about 12000 allocated lor relief since the beginning of April. Councillor Beanland said to-day that the Unemployment Board's rule that any over-expenditure of the allocation in any one week must become a charge on the local body concerned was in operation in April, May and June. In order that the amount should not be exceeded, strict instructions were given to council officers, when planning their relief work. About the middle of July a variation in the rule was made whereby any over-expenditure would be debited against the following week, which alteration eased the position to a great extent. Men Not Turning Up. In April, May and June the council averaged from £6O to £IOO under the allocation, but in July and August, when working on a better basis, the amounts varied more in favour of the Works Department of the council. Typical weeks were as follows: July 23, allocated £I3OO, spent £1226: August 13. £1350. £1255: August 20, £1371, £l3ll. The slight difference was accounted for in many instances by some of the men allotted by the Labour Department not turning up for their work, the number varying by as many as from twelve to fifteen at one time. The council had agreed to increase its weekly allocation to £ISOO for eight weeks, but the first allocation under that arrangement, instead of being £1550, was £1525. Arrangements not having been made for expenditure of the extra £25, that sum would be quoted against the council. Councillor Beanland added that he had this morning asked the city engineer to endeavour to spend right up to the maximum grant, and that if the Labour Department failed at any time to send sufficient men to absorb the £ISOO a note should be taken of the circumstance. Labour Department’s Letter. A letter received by the council from the officer in charge of the Labour Department at Christchurch states: “ During the past few weeks there has been considerable controversy regarding the question of the expenditure of money allocated to Christchurch by the Unemployment Board, and it has been suggested that the amount has not been allocated to the various local bodies :n order to curtail expenditure. This statement is contrary to fact, and few the information of your council I wish to say that each week the money available is allocated to the local bodies. “ The unexpended amount of £2030 ‘ during the period from April 1 to Juiy 30 would be returned to Wellington, but it cannot be claimed that there was any blame attachable to the Department in Christchurch or the Unemployment Board.'’

CLASSED AS SINGLE. Widower With Several Dependents. The case of an unemployed man who is classed as single, with only one dependent. by the Labour Department, has come under the notice of the Canterbury Trades and Labour Council. The council is collecting information concerning typical cases of distress among relief workers for presentation to the Acting-Minister of Employment, the lion Adam Hamilton. The man in this case is a widower with five children, as under:—A young woman aged 25, who is doing housekeeping and nursing in the home; a young man aged 24, an invalid; another son, aged 21, a bricklayer, who has been out of work for a year and a half, and is now on a farm, earning 10s a week: a youth aged 19, an unemployed apprentice, who is not old enough for relief work; and a son aged 12, who is at school. The man has received only ten days’ relief this year. lie has a house, valued at £llOO, on which there is a mortgage of £BSO. lie owes £29 19s to the store, £9 19s to the baker and £lB 12s 6d to the undertaker.

“INADEQUATE” RELIEF

Statement Prepared by Unemployed. A committee representing the Unemployed Workers’ Movement and the Women's branch has been investigating the Unemployment Board's ration scheme, and has prepared a statement which endeavours to show that the sceme is totally inadequate. It is estimated that the living expenses of the average family dependent on relief work are as follows for a ! month:—Rent £3 19s; coal, 15s; gas, 12s; electric light. Is 6d; life insurance, 6s 8d: levy. Is 8d: newspaper, 3s; a total of £5 12s lOd. No allowance is made for food, clothing, footwear, medical expenses, transport, or other living costs. Against this must be set relief work wages for, say, nine days at 12s fid per day—£s 12s fid, leaving a debit of 4d. The following bare necessities, it is considered, would be required for the sustenance of the typical family mentioned. the quantities given being required weekly: 31b butter, 3s; loaves i bread, 3s 8d; 51b sugar, Is; Mb tea, 9d; 7 quarts milk, 2s 4d; oatmeal, Is; potatoes, 2s: meat, 4s 6d; rice, Is; vegetables. Is; salt- and pepper, 3d; baking powder, 3d; soap, 7d; sundries, 2s 6d; a total of £l 3s lOd, and a monthly total of £4 15s 4d. By adding coal, gas, lighting, insurance, levy and newspaper, a total of £2 2s lOd, the monthly account, without any allocation for rent, clothing and footwear, would amount to £6 18s 2d, leaving a deficit of £l 5s Bd. The rent would bring the total up to £lO 8s 2d, leaving a debit of £4 15s 8d; but against this must be placed rations at, say 4s per week—lGs — still leaving a debit of £3 19s Bd. “ The foregoing very reasonable estimate of bare living necessities would require at least £lO Ss 2d per month, which is still considerably below a basic

wage of £3 6s per week,” concludes the statement. “ We contend that a strenuous struggle must be entered upon by the unemployed for more adequate relief."