Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, if the equivalent expressed in weekly contributions of the cost of the two-ninths of the benefits and the local administration thereof payable by the State under the National Insurance Act, based on the estimates of the Government actuaries, is for the year 1912–13 less than ½d. per week and for the years 1917–18 to 1932–3 is about 1½d. per week, he will correct the statement made in the leaflets issued by the Insurance Commissions referring to the subsidy as being equivalent to 2d. per week?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe State undertaking to pay two-ninths and one-fourth of the benefits (ordinary, additional, and extended) and of the cost of local administration has precisely the same effect for the insured persons, as if 2d. were actually added to members' weekly contributions and interest paid on the sum so accumulated. The leaflet states the plain and unvarnished truth, and, therefore, does not require alteration.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSHas the proportion varied since 6th July, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated it was equal to about 1½d. per week?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThat is not the real question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was dealing with quite a different subject. The full argument in connection with this matter is contained in a Paper already presented to Parliament in a report of the actuary, Mr. Watson, and I do not think the hon. Member has ever seen any reply to it.