LABOUR EXCHANGES AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.—Class VII. (Hansard, 4 February 1915)

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson)
As this is an emergency Grant some explanation may be desired by the Committee. The Committee will remember that at an early stage of the War there was—happily it did not last very long—a very considerable amount of unemployment. On 24th August the Prime Minister received an important deputation representing the trade unions, the Trade Union Congress, and the Labour party, who set forth the very serious danger that was being run by certain trade unions, especially those in the cotton trade, of an absolute exhaustion of their funds raised for provision for unemployment. As a result of that deputation, and of careful inquiry into the then state of unemployment, an arrangement was made by which Grants were to be made to the associations that were in serious straits in respect to the amount of aid they were granting to unemployed members. The adjustments were made proportionately to the levies made by societies themselves. A number of payments have been made, of which, however, fully 90 per cent. went to unions in the cotton and allied textile trades. In fact, almost the whole went to the cotton trade. Of close upon £60,000 which has been paid in all of emergency Grants under this heading, over £50,000 have gone to the cotton trades. The only other trades that received any considerable sum have been the printing trade, £3,000 odd, and the furnishing trades. The sum indicated in the Estimates for payments made up to the end of January represents substantially the repayments made in the first four months of the War, August, September, October and November. We have thought fit to take credit for another round sum of the same amount to provide for the remaining four months of the financial year.
189 It is true, happily, that the amount of unemployment has considerably fallen, but as the rate of repayment has risen in the majority of cases from one-six paid in the first four months to one-third now being paid, we thought the sum of £60,000 had better be provided to cover the possibilities of the remaining period. In this way the tota1 is a sum of £120,000, but as there are savings amounting to £29,000 in connection with the Labour Exchanges and unemployment insurance, these are deducted, leaving the sum asked for, by way of Supplementary Estimate, at £91,000.

§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURY
I understand from the explanation of the hon. Gentleman that the actual sum which the Government ask for is £120,000. Of that amount £60,000 was spent, practically in the first month or two of the War.

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
Four months.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by observing that the unemployment occurred only in the first month or two. I think it is within the knowledge of almost everybody in this House—and I myself have made special inquiries—and my information is that, at any rate since last October, which was the third month of the War, instead of there having been any abnormal unemployment, there had been a very great amount of employment; that employment, fortunately, as a matter of fact, has been better than it has been for years.

§ Mr. HOGGE
Except in Lancashire in the cotton trade.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Possibly, though I am not even sure that that is correct now. I do not think it is. Under these circumstances I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman two things: First of all, £60,000 is a very large amount of money, if it has been given, as it has, I understand, practically been given to one union; and secondly, as employment is admitted by everyone to be exceptionally good at the present moment, and has been of late, why does the hon. Gentleman, when we are wanting money for other purposes, take another £60,000 in case there should be some further unemployment of which we know nothing at present? I should have thought it would have been much better if this Vote had been confined to 190 the sums which actually had been spent and given over to the trade unions in question to meet the deficiency which had arisen. I do not think it is wise to take a further sum to use in case something should arise. It would always have been open to the hon. Gentleman to come down to the House and say, "We find that unemployment has arisen, and it is necessary that some steps should be taken to meet it." But to come down, when we all know that there is practically no unemployment at the present moment, and to ask the House for this power, is I think a wrong thing to do, and I should like some explanation as to whether the hon. Gentleman thinks it is necessary to take this further £60,000 without knowing in what direction it will be spent, that is to say, in what branch of trade unemployment will arise.

§ Mr. GEORGE TERRELL
The original Estimate, I take it, was based on the expectation that there would be a considerable amount of general unemployment this winter. Instead of that, there is no unemployment. There may be a little in regard to the cotton trades, but, taking the trade of the country as a whole, though there was an expectation of unemployment, we now find employers tumbling over one another to get workers. Therefore there ought to have been a saving. Instead of this extra deficit we ought to have, under this head, a substantial saving, and I think it points to some lax administration. A case came to my notice the other day of a man who applied for a job to the Labour Exchange. He worked for a few hours at his job, but chucked it up, though he was getting good wages. The next that was heard of him was that he was trying to get back on the unemployment fund. It all points to this: the organisation of the Labour Exchanges really wants looking into. They are of very little use at the present moment to the employers of the country. They may have been, and they may be, of some small use at other times to the working classes, but I am afraid there is lax administration some way. Instead of being met with claims for more money, we ought to have had a substantial saving under this head.

§ Sir J. D. REES
I am sorry the hon. Gentleman in his explanation did not put into plain untechnical language what the actual transaction is. As I understand 191 it, and I will not apologise for having doubt on the subject, this money was paid out of the Exchequer, to which it is not going to return. I confess that it is not very clear from the note appended to the Estimate. It says "The repayments will be made from time to time." Why repayments? I think the expression requires explanation. What is repaid? What sum has been paid over that is to be repaid? What is the amount paid by the taxpayer? And is it going to be repaid to the taxpayer? I understand not, but I think that is very doubtful from this note. It goes on to say that the repayments, whatever they may be, will be made "upon the basis of expenditure in advance of the Audit of the Accounts." We will let that pass, although I do not think it is perfectly clear. It goes on to say "The amounts so issued will not be liable to surrender." But why not? I understand if the taxpayer's money voted is not required for any particular purpose it should be liable to surrender. That should be an inherent condition of the payment.
I associate myself generally with what my hon. Friend beside me, with his financial knowledge, has said much better than I could have said. And I also do not understand where the need at present exists. Speaking for such parts of the country as I have lately seen, it is extremely difficult to get any labour of any kind. The hon. Member opposite says there are parts of the country where the case is different, but, generally speaking, it is as I have said. It adds further point to my argument in regard to surrender. The whole system of Labour Exchanges, and so on, was borrowed en bloc from German systems, which, at the present moment, are not enjoying, and are not deserving, particularly great popularity. I think if the hon. Gentleman wants the House to pass this without comment, he would do well if he would very kindly explain further so as to make it clear to the less instructed Members of the House in finance than my hon. Friend beside me particularly, why there should be no surrender if the money is not used.

§ Mr. CURRIE
I should like to ask the hon. Member in charge of this Vote if he would be good enough to tell us whether 192 it is the case that a number of Labour Exchange offices were closed not long ago on the ground that they were useless, and, approximately, what amount of public money has been expended in the meantime upon their operation?

§ Mr. BOOTH
The Board of Trade is a Government Department which takes upon itself the prerogative of examining the accounts of all the accountants, to see that their balance-sheets are right, and so on, and giving their opinions from time to time. And yet their own statement here with regard to this £91,000 is in a form which would not be tolerated in the smallest limited company. Whoever would think of passing an estimate for £91,000, and then explain that it was really £120,000, but that they had made savings on a totally different issue, and therefore put in a net figure of £91,000. If the savings had been made under this identical head, well and good, but, as I understand the statement, £121,000 is wanted for one purpose, but as £30,000 has been saved from a totally different account, we are asked for £91,000. I submit that we ought to have a little more information than is contained in this statement, at any rate by an authority which presumes to dictate in matters of taste concernnig financial statements to the general public. I see one or two members of the Labour party have come into the House, and I would like to ask if one of them can give to us a statement from the Trade Union standpoint with regard to these Grants. I know in some parts there is a great deal of misunderstanding, and I am sure it would be to the advantage generally of the House if one of their official spokesmen could say exactly what the Trade Union view is as to receiving these Grants from the State. It does seem to me that while this may be perfectly good, it is opening the door to the possibility of Government jobbery. I challenge the President of the Board of Trade to say that there ever has been in our history an Estimate of this kind before. It is true it is in the form of a Supplementary Vote, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out that there is no precedent for an Estimate of this kind.
Under these circumstances, seeing that it is a grant of public money to meet trade unions in their difficulty, and I have no 193 doubt it can be defended, does it not open the door to an unscrupulous Government to interfere in labour movements for political ends? That is exactly what they do in the country we are fighting. It is one of the main policies of their programme, but it has not been done here. I merely ask, however, is it not opening the door through which some unscrupulous Government may corrupt labour organisations for political ends? What safeguards has this House in this method? As I understand it, the Government have done this without a vote of the House. I do ask the Board of Trade to suggest some proper safeguard for this House to exercise in the way of control over the Government of the future, so that there may be no misappropriations of moneys under this Act. In conclusion, I would like to ask what is the view of the Board of Trade at the present time with regard to the working of the Labour Exchanges and unemployment insurance generally in the last few months of the War. I am not quite clear whether the savings effected, of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, were owing to the labour experience of that period, or to the natural working of the Act.

§ Mr. HOGGE
Before the hon. Gentleman replies, would he make this point quite clear? I do not agree with a great deal of the criticism urged against this, because it is quite true that in the cotton industries, particularly in cities which depend upon industrial occupation for their livelihood, there is a very considerable amount of unemployment. Apart from that, as the hon. Baronet says, we have not much unemployment. The Parliamentary Secretary will, however, remember that under the unemployment insurance' there had already been accumulated before the War started £1,000,000, if not more, for the purpose of meeting unemployment in those trades which were insured under the Unemployed Workmen's Act, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us how these trades have been affected—I imagine the building trade is a case—by the general unemployment which began with the War, and how far money has been spent on trades not insured under the Unemployed Insurance Act? It is unfortunately true that the printing trade has been almost as hard hit as any industry in the country, and I do 194 not know that an expenditure of £3,000 on that particular trade is comparable with the unemployment in the cotton industry, particularly in Lancashire. Can he tell us what the experience of the Board of Trade has been with regard to those trades under the Act, compared with those not insured and which have therefore got to make their own unemployed arrangements, in order that we can have some guidance in the future?

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Currie) as to Labour Exchanges which have been recently closed, I may say I gave some time ago an answer in the House, giving precise particulars. I do not have them by me, but I should be glad to supply the hon. Member with the statement then made.

§ Mr. CURRIE
Did your answer at that time make any mention as to the expenditure of public money on closed offices?

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
I cannot recollect, but I should be glad to give that information also to the hon. Member. With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) as to certain amounts not being liable to surrender, if he reads the rest of the sentence he will see the explanation, "any readjustment necessary when the actual audited expenditure has been ascertained being made upon subsequent repayments." I need hardly explain to the hon. Member that we are not going to pay out in advance a sum of money that could not be made subsequently good.

§ Sir J. D. REES
The word "repayment," as he points out, means payment to the Government. If the word "repayment" in the first part of the sentence means payment by the Government, why-describe it as a repayment?

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
I think the hon. Member is mistaken. Repayment in both cases means repayment made to these associations—repayments of the portions of the amount they have paid in relief of unemployment. Subsequent repayments are repayments to be made to those associations in clearing up their accounts.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I should like to get this point clear. When the 31st of March 195 comes, supposing out of this additional £60,000 only £10,000 has been expended, will the £50,000 be surrendered as it ought to be in the ordinary way in the payment of debt, or will it be kept for use by the Government as they like on any future occasion, without reference to the House?

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
With regard to the special procedure adopted in this case, I should be sorry to lay down the law, but I should think the money would be refunded. I am sure the hon. Baronet will not expect me to be quite certain as to the precise procedure upon an Emergency Vote.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
This is a very important matter, but I will wait until the hon. Gentleman has finished his speech.

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
The hon. Baronet's main argument was that in view of the comparative scarcity of labour in many quarters such provision as this should not be made. I tried in my opening statement to explain how the case stood, and" I pointed out that the great bulk of this expenditure had taken place among unions in the cotton trade. The applications from one trade union in the cotton trade for assistance amounted to 140, out of which 124 were granted, and they represented a membership of 195,000. Repayments are often made some time after the total has actually been drawn up, and the repayments are to those unions in the cotton trade, which alone amount to £51,795. This is substantially a matter of the special stress of unemployment which has fallen upon the cotton trade in particular. Hon. Members know very well that before the War the cotton trade was in a depressed condition. Of the men employed in the cotton trade, 13.3 per cent. of those employed in June last left their employment, and 9.6 of that total have joined the Forces, leaving a net increase of 3.7 in the number of unemployed. One of the most remarkable features of the present situation is the great abundance of employment in general, accompanied by a very marked stress of unemployment in one or two sections. In the cotton trade, of those employed at the present time, nearly one-third are on short time. I believe distress is being relieved in the cotton trade, and I hope it will be relieved in the other trades. In the printing trade applications have 196 been sent in from eight unions, five of which were granted, and they represent a membership of 20,000. The total expenditure in this case was £3,283, and I trust that in this particular case the distress will also be relieved. Precisely because of the progressive depletion of the funds of the unions it was necessary to increase the rate of assistance. That is why we are asking now for provision for the second four months that come in the financial year, and it is the same sum as that which has been provided before.
As the hon. Baronet knows, it is sometimes a little difficult to make an estimate of this kind, but we proceeded on the general ground that the rate of relief had to be doubled to those who are still suffering in view of the depletion of their funds. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), I believe that the method of book-keeping adopted with regard to these Estimates is the same as has long been laid down by the Treasury, and I trust my hon. Friend will not visit upon my head or my Department any blame for the method of accounting of which he personally disapproves. In this matter I think I should be inclined in the long run to rely upon the wisdom of the Treasury. The hon. Member suggested that it was dangerous to place a procedure of this kind in the power of an unscrupulous Government in the future. It is perfectly obvious that an unscrupulous Government is extremely likely to do improper things, and with regard to safeguards against such a Government, I may say that they are the same as those which have always been applied by this House. I should never despair of the power of this House to protect itself against unscrupulous acts on the part of any Government while we have such Members as my hon. Friend. Nevertheless I deprecate the raising of such an issue in regard to a procedure by which we are giving special urgency Grants on the urgent representations of the leading authorities of the labour world to a certain number of trade unions, which seem to be running the serious risk of being made absolutely bankrupt, more especially when the unions in question have so loyally and independently fought and paid their way for so many years.

§ Mr. WATT
Is this a loan or a gift?

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
These are absolute payments made in relief of those unions and it is not a loan. Such a step taken by the Government in a time of great emergency might possibly be quoted as a precedent in the future, but I do not think that fact should deter the Government from giving what seems to be absolutely necessary assistance to one special set of trades which are suffering very much indeed.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The hon. Gentleman has not answered one of my questions. I asked him why he thought it was necessary to provide a further sum of £60,000 for future gifts to these associations, and he has not said anything about that. If the question of providing a sum for the future had not been raised, I might have been satisfied with what has been said. I do not think there can be any doubt that at the present moment, and certainly for the past month or two, there is no want of employment anywhere in England, and therefore I do not see why it is necessary to make the provision which is now asked for. I think the hon. Member was a little hard on the hon. Member for Pontefract, who has undoubtedly raised a very important point. This expenditure may be a right or it may be a wrong procedure, but, at any rate, it is novel. It may be quite right to give certain trade unions certain Grants of money to preserve them, but it is absolutely new, and if you give money to trade unions, there is no reason why you should not give it to other associations which may be equally good in the eyes of certain people.
I do not think the hon. Gentleman ought to resent criticism upon his administration, because this is an absolutely new feature, new in the history of Parliament. I should like to know why it is necessary to take a sum of £60,000 on this Vote? I think the explanation given with regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) as to the surrender of these surpluses is very unsatisfactory. He stated that he could not be expected to know what the requirements of the Treasury are. I think the hon. Member ought to know, because he is in a responsible position and he has come to this House to ask for a considerable sum. Therefore he ought to know whether he is asking for it in accordance with the usual 198 custom and practice and sanction of the Treasury, and whether the requirements of the Treasury are being carried out. I could not gather whether it was intended that this sum should cover a period after the 31st March, and I think it is important that we should know this. Hon. Members opposite have always said that the expenditure of the year should be met by the payments of the year, and nothing should be carried over. I think we are all agreed upon that point. When we are voting a sum of money which might be badly used for this particular purpose, I think we ought not to leave it in the hands of the Government to say that they need not surrender the balances as they ought to do, but use them for other purposes later on. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case I shall not attempt to divide the House. In the ordinary way I should undoubtedly have moved a reduction on account of the unsatisfactory reply which has been given by the hon. Member opposite. I think I ought to ask for some assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he will look into this matter, and I hope he will give me an assurance on this point. I would like to know under what Act of Parliament there is any authority for this Grant. I have been looking at the Act of 1911, and I have not been able to find any authority there, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to give me some explanation on this point. I doubt whether there is any clear authority in that particular Act for this Grant.

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
I told the Committee in my previous statement that this Vote mainly represents payments of sums actually paid out by the unions within the first four months of the War. That expenditure is still going on, and there are a number of claims outstanding. Some of these payments were made by the association some time before, and they represent payments which they have actually made, and for which repayment will be expected under the arrangements we have made with the unions. I thought I had made that point quite clear.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I did not understand that.

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
The hon. Baronet seemed to indicate that I had rather 199 resented criticism, but I do not think I did anything of the kind. I think, however, I am entitled to express my resentment when the hon. Baronet asks me if I am aware that this Estimate is made in accordance with the usual practice of the Treasury. It is made in a perfectly proper way with the sanction of the Treasury and therefore such issues are perfectly irrelevant. The hon. Baronet desires to know what would be done with the surpluses on the emergency grants at the end of the year. On that point my hon. Friend who represents the Treasury will be able to give a reply.

§ Mr. ACLAND
I think the hon. Baronet opposite was quite justified in his suspicions arising out of the words of the note about these amounts not being liable to surrender. The explanation is that these sums are paid to trade unions on the basis of statements of expenditure in advance of that expenditure being incurred, and it may be found that when the accounts of the trade union are audited they have not, as a matter of fact, expended the whole sum which was given in virtue of the statement of expenditure which was submitted. It is, I think, only to those sums, no doubt, properly paid under the Act to trade unions, that the words of the note apply: "they are liable to surrender any adjustment necessary when the actual audited expenditure has been ascertained being made upon subsequent repayments." If the department has not by the end of the financial year expended the whole sum entrusted to it by this Supplementary Estimate that amount, I have no doubt, will have to be repaid and will go in reduction of debt or be used in whatever way the House may order as in the case of other unexpended Estimates with the financial year.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I hope that no one misunderstands our object in bringing this matter forward. Xo one makes any suggestion of ill use being made of the money, but we are entitled to more explanation than has been given. Look at the extraordinarily unsatisfactory state of affairs. As I understand it, the Government, under the Act of Parliament, can only make a grant to any society in respect of money 200 which they have already paid. This money can only be paid to a society which has already paid it out to somebody else. Therefore, before the money is granted it must have already been paid to somebody else, namely, to the members of the society. Then we are told that some agreements have been made with regard to the future. Surely we are entitled to know what agreements the Government have made. The only power they have got is to repay to trade unions money which has been handed on to their members. What sum has been handed on to their members and what sum has been paid? That question has not been answered, but it is a perfectly simple figure to give if the Government has kept within the four corners of the Act of Parliament. If they have gone beyond the four corners of the Act of Parliament, they have acted improperly and some explanation should be given. The question is not what should be done with some part of this money if it still remains in the hands of the Government at the end of March.

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
That was the point put by the hon. Baronet repeatedly.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I quite agree. Look at the extraordinary way in which this note has been drawn. The amounts so issued will not be liable to surrender, any adjustment necessary when the actual audited expenditure has been ascertained being made upon subsequent repayments. I think that I understand that sentence, and, if I do, see how absolutely misleading it is to the ordinary Member. "The amounts so issued will not be liable to surrender." Issued to whom? I read it as being issued to the trade unions. If I am wrong, the right hon. Gentleman will doubtless correct me. "Any adjustment necessary when the actual audited expenditure has been ascertained will be made upon subsequent repayments." But you have no right to advance money until you are satisfied that it has been paid by the trade union to its members. Have the Government been issuing money to trade unions without it being properly vouched that they have paid at least a very much larger amount than is being advanced? The Government have not got power to advance any amount they 201 like. They are limited, but we have not been told what that limit is. In no case can they exceed one-sixth of the aggregate amount the trade union has paid to its members during the prescribed period. What is the prescribed period? Have you taken four or six months or a year? I am certainly entitled to have an answer to that question. The Statute imposes upon the Government a limit of one-sixth. You cannot pay more, and, if you have paid more, you have acted illegally. You can only grant one-sixth of the actual payments the trade union has made to its members over a prescribed period. You have not told us what is that prescribed period. We are entitled to learn such matters. I might take one broader view. The House of Commons has to watch this and to see it is perfectly rightly done. If this is a proper form of Supplementary Estimate, has not our jurisdiction over it become a farce? The hon. Gentleman told us that £120,000 is really the figure required, and the reason why £91,000 only appears is that there had been a saving of £30,000. Surely that ought to appear on the Estimate, And ought we not to know what has been granted to each society?

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
I did read out certain figures.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I am not complaining of the right hon. Gentleman, but surely it ought to appear on the Estimates so that the House may know. The right hon. Gentleman did not read to us anything like that. He told us what had been granted to certain societies connected with the cotton industry and the printing industry. He did not tell us to what different societies it was allocated, nor did he tell us on what basis it was granted. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman has acted end acted only under the powers conferred upon the Government by Section 106 of the Act of 1911. If I am wrong, possibly he will tell me under what other powers he is acting. Under that Section the only power the Government has is to repay to any society one-sixth of the sum which they have paid out to their members during a prescribed period. It is for them to say what is the prescribed period. I want to know what prescribed period has been taken in this case, what are the sums they have paid out, and whether they have 202 given the whole sixth or only a part of this sixth in these different cases, when one knows that a large amount of these notes is unnecessary? It is the duty of the Treasury to sanction this before the work is done, and, if they do their work properly, then they certainly will not part with any money until they are satisfied that the trade union in its turn has handed at least six times that money to its members. If they have then it is a gift, and there is no question of surrender. There is an objection to anticipating such a large amount of unemployment during the remaining months of the financial year. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was that although he did not anticipate the same amount being granted in the future the agreements made with the trade unions were of such a nature that the sum required would be almost as great. If that is so we ought to know what the agreements are. It certainly looks as if the amount of unemployment will not be anything like as great as it was during the first few months of the year. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me. I do not suggest that there is anything wrong, but it is important that the House should understand the Estimates before passing them.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I thank the hon. and learned Member for his remarks, for a certain portion of them came to me as a great surprise. Do I understand the Government to admit that this is the ordinary procedure under the Insurance Act? I did not understand that it was under the Act of 1911 at all.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
It says so on the Estimate.

§ Mr. BOOTH
We passed a whole lot of emergency legislation, and I have been under the impression that we should get some explanation that this was probably the first amount of money that had been actually used and accounted to the House which came under that heading. The hon. and learned Member has gone on the basis that this is carrying out the Act of 1911.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
Exactly, Section 106.

§ Mr. BOOTH
My view is that it is not that at all. It is under an Act we passed in 1914. There is no power that I know of 203 under the original Insurance Act which enables the Government to make this Grant.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
Oh, yes!

§ Mr. BOOTH
If so, why did the trade unionists come in an emergency to the Prime Minister for special help from the Treasury when there was machinery provided in the unemployment part of the Insurance Act? The provision of one-sixth there is a totally different matter. That is given in normal times, and it is given regularly. It was the inducement given to the trade unions to co-operate with the Government in working this Act. It was a reward for their own thrift and industry. The trade unions which themselves paid unemployment benefit were to get one-sixth assistance from the State, and the better they did for their members the larger the Grant they got From the Government. That was in normal times. Now we are told that there is £120,000 asked for from the Government for an emergency not arising out of the Insurance Act at all in its ordinary working. It only shows the position of the House in controlling this expenditure, when we have been discussing the Vote with interested Members in the House criticising it and thinking it came under the Act of 1911.

§ Mr. DAVID MASON
The Chairman said so.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I do not think the Chairman committed himself in any way at all, and I am perfectly certain that the Government will support me in my interpretation of their own document. I am perfectly certain there is nothing on the Paper to guide the hon. Member.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
It is there.

§ Mr. BOOTH
There is nothing which I pointed it out to me that it was connected with the Act of 1911. I understand the emergency legislation passed last autumn has enabled the Government to make this payment; of £120,000. That was my point as regards the form of the Estimate: £120,000 was asked for but, under the head of Emergency Legislation, £30,000 has come to the Government from unemployment insurance, and my complaint was 204 that the form of the printed matter was misleading to the Committee. The proof of that is to be found in the fact that it has actually misled the Opposition. I wish to ask the Government to say whether this money was not paid under the emergency legislation.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
In the Supplementary Estimate the amount required up to-the 31st March, to pay certain things, including the contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and repayments to associations, pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of 1 and 2 George V., chap. 55, and certain additional repayments to associations was £91,000.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I certainly think we should have some explanation of this. The money was given in subventions to the trade unions as a result of emergency legislation. I will ask the Government if that was not so.

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
It is a fact that this was an emergency Grant in the ordinary course of the working of the Act. As regards the mode of accounting, it was the choice of the Treasury that the Estimate should be presented in this fashion, and I think the Committee will agree with me that this mode of presenting it has given the House the fullest opportunity of discussing it.

§ Mr. BOOTH
Yes, but under a misapprehension.

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
I said at the outset it was a special arrangement made under emergency conditions. Surely the hon. Member will bear me out that that was one of the first statements I made! As a result the House has had the fullest opportunity of discussing the matter. I may add that my hon. Friend is quite right when he suggests that this is an emergency Grant.

§ Mr. DAVID MASON
I did not understand the Chairman to say that.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I did not express an opinion; I simply read out the title.

§ Mr. MASON
But when you were reading it out you did not read "pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of 1 and 2 Geo. 5 c. 55," but "pursuant to the Insurance Act of 1911."

§ Sir J. D. REES
Does the hon. Gentleman repudiate the statement in the Supplementary Estimate that these repayments were under Sections 85 and 106 of George V., chap. 55, Section 106? The National Insurance Act distinctly provides for these payments, and that is set forth in the Note attached to the Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
They are also called Emergency Repayments.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
This clearly purports to be an Estimate authorised by Section 106 of the Act of 1911. If it was not under that Act of Parliament that these moneys were paid, I want to know under what powers did the Treasury act. No Act was passed last year which gave them power to make any such Grant.

§ Mr. BOOTH
There was one which gave them emergency powers.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
If the repayments were made under that Act, why does that fact not appear on the Estimate? Why is not the Section given? I know of no such Act. It is perfectly plain that this has been done under Section 106 of the Act of 1911. There is power to do it under that Act, and there is no reason why it should not be done. But if it has been done under some other Act, I contend that the Committee is entitled to be given the chapter and Section of the Act. This information ought to appear on the Paper, so that hon. Members may check it. I shall move to reduce the Vote, if necessary, in order to get the information under what power the Government has acted in handing over this money to these societies.

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
The arrangement was made by the Government practically in the exercise of their general powers to devote money provided by the House to a great variety of purposes. There can be no doubt the Government have that power.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
Under what Act?

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
Under the Act passed last year which gave them power to appropriate money for the relief of distress. I may say, with regard to the mode of accounting, the desire was to make it quite clear that this expenditure was really on the lines laid down by the National Insurance Act. It has been 206 sought to make it clear that it is emergency expenditure, and the Treasury considered that this was the best way of putting the matter before the Committee. If it is found, however, that special legislation is required to regularise the payments and to bring these emergency Grants under the heading of expenditure under the Unemployment Insurance Act, I can assure hon. Members that the needful steps will be taken to regularise the matter.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I think the hon. Gentleman does not understand the position we took up. I hope my hon. and learned Friend, however, will not move a reduction of the Vote under the circumstances.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I do not propose to press it.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
We only want a friendly discussion. What I think the hon. Gentleman opposite does not understand is this: We have a statement made on the face of the Supplementary Estimate that a certain amount is required to pay the salaries of the staff and other expenses of Labour Exchanges (9 Edward VII., c. 7, and 1 and 2 George V., c. 55), and then it goes on to say "including the contribution of the Unemployment Insurance Fund and repayments to associations pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of 1 and 2, George V., c. 55, and certain additional repayments to associations." Now we are told that the whole thing was carried out, not under the Acts recited on this particular piece of paper, but under some other Act. That is what we want to have explained, and that is what the hon. Gentleman will not, explain. He keeps on saying that if there has been a mistake, it shall be put right. We want to know why these Acts were cited, whereas, as a matter of fact, the payments have been made under some other Act. The Government might just as well have quoted some old Act of Queen Anne as have put in these particular Acts. I do not want to offend the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will realise that I have no desire to say anything offensive to him personally. But if we are to get our Estimates carried through in a friendly manner, we must be treated openly, and must not have Acts of Parliament put on the face of the Estimate as authorising certain payments when they actually do not do so.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I think the hon. Baronet has overlooked the fact that the repayments, at any rate, do come under this Act. The expenditure of £120,000 does not, but the repayment of £30,000, which reduces the £120,000 to £90,000, comes under the Act cited.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
It would have been better if, instead of putting "certain additional repayments to associations" they had put certain other payments under the Emergency Act. I hope I have made my point quite clear. I am glad to see there is a Cabinet Minister present, and I hope we shall get some assurance from him that in future the Estimates to be put before us will be framed in a way in which we can understand them, and will not be open to a suggestion of misrepresentation.

§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease)
Perhaps I may say a word or two on this matter. This really was an emergency payment. It was thought at the time that the expenditure did come under the Emergency Act. It had been found necessary to spend more than the one-sixth which the association were entitled to spend under the Act of 1911. But I think, at any rate, the advantage of putting the Vote down in this form has been that it has given the House of Commons an opportunity of going fully into the matter. I admit the question is now under the consideration of the Government Department concerned, and it is intended by the authorities to regularise the procedure. It will be necessary probably to introduce a measure of one Clause enabling the expenditure of more than one-sixth, which is allowed under the Act of 1911, and that will have to be an Emergency Act, which we shall ask the House of Commons to kindly regard as a non-controversial measure, regularising expenditure which we deemed essential in the interests of the country and of the trade unions.

§ Mr. BIGLAND
I think the right course for the Government is to ask that this Estimate be withdrawn until the necessary legislation has been put before the House. There is plenty of time between now and the end of March to do that. It is quite clear the Government has spent more than the one-sixth allowed under the Insurance Act, and perhaps it would be better for 208 the Chairman to exercise his prerogative, and say that the Estimate is not quite in order, and that it should be brought up another time. If necessary I shall ask leave to move to report Progress.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member can move that if he catches my eye again.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
I hope some such course will be taken. Although the matter is a small one, it is desirable that there should be nothing set in the nature of a precedent in this direction. This gives us a very excellent opportunity to tell the Government that we desire all these things shall be in regularised form. I see the Vote provides for payment of money for the expenditure on Labour Exchanges, and I wish to take this opportunity of stating my opinion in regard to these institutions. We are told that the terrible conflict in which we are now engaged means the abolition of everything in the nature of Prussianism. Our Cabinet Ministers have been going over Germany and have been introducing here German bureaucratic Prussian methods of legislation. I hope that, in connection with our Labour Exchanges, these bureaucratic methods will be either limited or abolished.

§ Mr. BIGLAND
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."