HC Deb 30 December 1912 vol 46 cc14-5
37. Sir J. D. REES

asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of workpeople, male and female, affected by the arrangement under Section 99 of the National Insurance Act operating in South Wales, the number of offices opened at the docks specially assigned to the scheme, giving the cost of any new buildings and the rents paid; the average weekly amount collected from employers and workpeople in respect of contributions under Parts I. and II. of the National Insurance Act for the first three months; the average weekly payments for the same period made by employers to the Board of Trade towards the administration of the Act, and the stamping of the workpeople's insurance cards; the number and status of, and the salaries paid to, the permanent staff engaged at the dock offices; the number of, and weekly salaries paid to, the temporary staff engaged at the dock offices; and the nature of he work performed?


I assume the hon. Member to refer to an arrangement under Section 99 of the Act, made between the Board of Trade and certain firms of ship-repairing employers at Cardiff, Barry, Newport, and Port Talbot, and covering between 8,000 and 9,000 persons. None of the Labour Exchanges affected is at present devoted exclusively to the work involved by the scheme and it is not possible to separate the cost of the premises and the staff required from the total vote for Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance. The average weekly amount of contributions collected under the arrangement, during the quarter ending 12th October was £241 6s. 7d. The average weekly payment made by employers in respect of the keeping and stamping of the Health Insurance cards of the men employed by them was £2 16s. 6d. The work undertaken by the Board of Trade under the scheme includes, in addition to ordinary Labour Exchange work, the stamping of the contribution cards and unemployment books of the workpeople affected, and the keeping of the necessary records for this purpose.

Sir J. D. REES

Are the small sums mentioned the whole of the expense to which the State has been put by this scheme?


As I have explained, it is impossible to distinguish or to separate the expenses under that head from those of the general work of the office?

Sir J. D. REES

Will the hon. Gentleman try to so distinguish them, because the object is to find out what is the cost to the State of this scheme in South Wales and also a similar scheme at Liverpool, which is said to be extremely expensive?