There is considerable uneasiness, which is not confined to the
Labour benches, over the new instruction issued by the Unemployment Assistance Board to its officers. Last autumn the officers were advised to increase the assessments in cases where the unemployment allowance represented more than 5o per cent. of the total household income. The purpose was to obviate the hardship caused by the increased cost of living. Now those increases are to be taken away, apparently on the ground that the winter is over and also that the price-level of commodities has slightly fallen. The Minister of Labour was fiercely heckled on this subject on Monday. Mr. George Hall demanded to know whether the local advisory committees had been consulted. Mr. Brown did not give a specific reply on this point, but the House gathered that no such consultation had taken place. It is certainly unfortunate if the machinery which has been set up in order to obtain the advantage of local knowledge and experience is not being fully used by the Board. In dealing with these subjects the House of Commons finds itself in a serious difficulty. The Minister of Labotir answers questions concerning the Board's activities, but he himself has no control over what it does. There is no one on the Treasury Bench who can be made to accept responsi- bility for its decisions. This position was deliberately created by the Unemployment Act of 1934, but in a demo- cratic State it is certainly an anomaly. * * * *
Previous page
