§ Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Minister of Labour why, in the light of the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has reported that Ministry Leaflet No. P.L.394 is inadequate for its purpose and that in fact it operated to mislead Mr. N. L. Bach of 2 Enkworth Road, Overcombe, Weymouth, he will not make available to Mr. Bach the appropriate earnings related benefit which he claims.
§ Mr. HattersleyThe Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration found that Leaflet P.L.394 did not adequately explain the conditions for receipt of an earnings-related training supplement but he did not describe it as misleading. The Commissioner also took the view that Mr. Bach was not justified in assuming without specific inquiry that his "reckonable earnings" would be calculated other than206W in the normal way. Consequently I see no reason for making to Mr. Bach a payment to which he is not entitled.