§ 7. Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Minister of Labour why the Ministry bases its cost-of-living index on part, and not the whole, of a household budget; why the selected household's weekly income should be assumed as 36s. 10d., and why the assumed year should be 1904; and will she now discard these factors and in future compile the index number upon prices and the standard of living applicable to 1931 with frequent re-tests of commodity prices and adjustments of weightings, so as to provide a measure of, and show the changes in, the average level of retail prices?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThe memorandum on the cost-of-living index number, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, gives the answer to the first two parts of this question. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 19th February to the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUELIs the Minister aware that the existing system is now 27 years old and that it is calculated on a very narrow basis? Does she not realise that she ought to revise the weighting and bring it out on a correct system, so that we may have up-to-date and accurate cost-of-living indices?
§ Miss BONDFIELDI have nothing to add to the reply that I gave in February, that the question is still under consideration.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUELWill the Minister ask the Institute of Actuaries and the Life Assurance offices to advise and assist her?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThe matter is in the hands of a special committee for report.
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWNIs the Minister not aware that this was never meant to apply to millions of people's wages, and that it really is causing a great deal of public uneasiness because in some cases, as between man and man, it works out so very unfairly?
§ Miss BONDFIELDA sliding scale method of fixing wages was adopted after the cost-of-living index was in operation.