§ Considered in Committee.
§ [Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law in respect of insurance against unemployment, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of a contribution towards the cost of unemployment benefit and any other payments to be made out of the Unemployment Fund established under the Act, and also of such other sums as may be required for making any other payments (not being payments in respect of the cost of unemployment benefit or of benefits payable under any supplementary scheme) as may be authorised under the Act:
796
Provided that the contribution towards the cost of unemployment benefit and other payments aforesaid shall not exceed one-third of the aggregate amount of the contributions which would be received from employers and employed persons in any year if those contributions were at the rate in the case of men of six pence, and in the case of women of five pence per week, or at such higher rates not exceeding in the case of men eight pence, and in the case of women seven pence, as may be fixed under any provisions of the Act for securing the solvency of the Unemployment Fund, or relating to the periodical revision of the rates of contribution.
The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. say it only requires a few words of ex-Horne)In moving the Resolution I may planation. The first part provides for a contribution towards the cost of unemployed benefit, and the second part defines the limit within which the State shall be responsible. It will be recollected that under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act the amount of the contribution the State made was limited to one-third of the whole of the contributed amount of the employers, workmen, and the State. It is provided in the second part of this Resolution that the State shall be liable for only one-third of the aggregate amount of the contribution which would be received from the employers and employed persons in any one year if those contributions were at the rate in the case of men of 6d. and in the case of women of 5d. per week.
Under the Act the provision is that in the case of men, 3d. shall be provided by the employer and 3d. by the worker, these sums representing the 6d. here described, and in the case of the women 5d. In this case the contribution of the State is limited to one-third of the 6d. in the case of the men, and one-third of the 5d. in the case of the women. I would point out to the Committee that in addition, the effect of the Resolution is to limit the liability of the State to one-third of the 6d. and of the 5d., whatever might be the amount the Committee might afterwards determine should be the amount of the benefit. That is, if the Committee should determine that the amount of the benefit should be more than 15s. in the case of men and more than 12s. in the case of women, that the additional contributions to produce that benefit would require to be provided by either the employer alone or by the employer and workman together. The result of the Resolution is to alter 797 the contribution of the State to one-third of 6d. or one-third of 5d., as the case may be, but it goes on to provide, as the Committee will observe, that the State shall pay one-third of such higher rates, not exceeding in the case of the men 8d., and in the case of the women 7d., as may be fixed under any of the provisions of the Act. It is provided by Clause 16 of the Bill that if it is found that the fund is insolvent there may be a modification of the contribution, but in any case so as to make the contribution in the case of a man not more than 4d. from the man and 4d. from the employer, and in the case of the woman not more than 5½d. from the woman and 5½d. from the employer. In case the fund became insolvent you could have contributions to that extent. If the contributions were raised the liability of the State would be raised to the extent of making the contribution one-third of 8d. in the case of a man and one-third of 7d. in the case of a woman. That represents shortly the meaning of the Resolution which is before the Committee.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI bog to move, after the word "sums" to insert the words "not exceeding five hundred thousand pounds in any one year."
The fact that the Eleven o'clock Rule has been suspended rather indicates that the Government anticipate a certain amount of discussion on this Resolution. I do feel that we ought to have rather more explanation in regard to the expenses of the Bill in respect to the administration and payment of officials. On Tuesday a blue paper came round to every Member and No. 4 was "Unemployment Insurance Bill; copy presented with memorandum of financial Clauses" and I was full of hope that we should have a proper financial explanation. I went to the Vote Office the same day and asked for the financial memorandum. Nothing has been printed although it is a command paper and I got a typewritten copy on a sheet of paper absolutely the same as the memorandum on the Bill itself, word for word. I think it is a farce to go to the trouble of issuing a command paper for the purpose of explaining these financial Clauses and merely having a fac-simile of what has appeared on the face of the Bill. I feel that the Government ought to offer some explanation as to what really they are going to spend in administrative 798 expenses. I think we ought to know what the Government intend to spend upon officials throughout the length and breadth of the land.
§ Under Clause 12 of this Bill payment towards the officials apparently is going to be practically absolutely unlimited, and I therefore propose to insert the limiting words "not exceeding £500,000 in any one year." In Clause 12 there is a proviso that one tenth of the whole of the income payable into the Unemployed Fund is to go in payment of administration expenses. One-fifth of the whole of the income is to come out of State funds. One-third of one-tenth is all that the Government ought to pay towards administration expenses. One-tenth of the income, according to the report of the Actuary—Sir A. Watson—comes to £1,214,000. The Government share is just over £400,000 My Amendment will give another £100,000 to it, and I submit that that is the utmost the right hon. Gentleman ought to ask the House to pay in regard to the administration of this Act. Under Clause 17 the right hon. Gentleman is going to allow the Trades Unions 5 per cent. of the Unemployment Fund for administering the benefit—or about one-twentieth of the amount of the expenditure on benefits. Surely the Minister, who is going to have more than anybody else to say on the ad ministration of this Act, ought to be able to administer the contributions, the stamp business, and so on for another 5 per cent. or one-twentieth of the contribution itself. That would bring the total up to one-tenth of the whole amount paid into the Unemployment Fund. Here there is nothing down for administration, and ho can spend, under the Bill as it stands, practically anything he likes. Under the National Health Insurance Act for England and Wales, 1918, they have spent only 10 per cent. of their funds in administration expenses. Their income was about 24¾ millions, and the expenditure on administration was 2½ millions—practically 10 per cent. If that can be done in the case of the vast machinery of National Health Insurance, I venture to submit that should be done in the case of Unemployment Insurance. I feel that this is reasonable. Half a million is ample. It is more than one-third of the one-tenth, and that being the case the House should put it into the Resolution so that we may know what we are committed to. If, in the future, the right 799 hon. Gentleman finds he wants more he has only to come down to the House and make out a good case, and then, I am quite certain, he will get it.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. BETTERTONThis Resolution brings home to us how slender really is the control of this House over finance. It gives practically unlimited powers to the executive to spend such sums as may be required. Some limit should be placed upon the expenditure authorised by the House, and if it is afterwards desired to exceed that expenditure the Ministry should come back and ask for an additional sum. The Government contribution must necessarily be indeterminate, but the cost of administration stands on an entirely different footing. I support the Amendment.
Sir R. H ORNEI regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. It is not that I do not sympathise with the desire for a strict limitation of the amount which may be spent. Every man of the Committee desires to spend as little money as possible in the working of the Act, but we must not prejudice its working by lying it up unduly, and I fear that a limitation of this kind put on at this point of time is going to prejudice the Act. We are now proposing to add an indeterminate number of persons to this scheme. It is going to be a very large number I expect, but what it will be precisely it is impossible to say. Accordingly no man is in a position exactly to estimate what the expense is going to be. So long as I am responsible for any administration under the Act I shall certainly give my assurance that it will be worked as economically as possible, but I am certain no man who has any experience of this kind of measure or observation of the past working of similar schemes could say with any precision what amount of money would be required for the operation of the Act.
I come now to our point. When I was proposing the Second Reading, I indicated a direction in which I thought it was necessary to leave some latitude. Clause 17, which provides that the insurance benefit may be dispensed through an industrial organisation such as a trade 800 union, limits the amount to be paid to the trade union to 5 per cent. I indicated that I was not satisfied that it could be worked upon a 5 per cent. basis, because very strong representations had been made to me by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress which went a long way, I will not say to convince me, because probably more proof is necessary, but at least to indicate that a strong case could be made out for a larger contribution by the State towards the expenses of the Trade Union administration than what was here provided for. Accordingly I am not prepared at present to say, when this Bill is in Committee, that I am going to stand rigidly by the 5 per cent. which is provided in Clause 17, and I gave the House a clear indication of my view upon that matter. If I accepted the hon. Member s proposal I should be tying myself to the 5 per cent. It would have that result. As the person responsible for the introduction of this measure, with all the best will in the world I cannot accept the limitation that my hon. Friend proposes, and I hope he will not press it.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHI much regret to note the attitude taken up by my right hon. Friend. If ever there was a time for economy, it is now. If ever there was an ago when everybody preached economy it is the age in which we live now; but though everybody preaches economy I notice very few who are endeavouring to put it into practice. I have no doubt that so long as the right hon. Gentleman is in charge it will be economically and wisely managed and the House will have confidence in the management, but we may not always have a Scotsman in charge. An Englishman may stray in some way or another; and Englishmen are not to be trusted in any Government Department. It is because of that that I have always been a strong advocate of Home Rule for England. They should be allowed to manage their own business, and not the affairs of Great Britain and Ireland. There is another reason why I look with considerable hostility on this proposal. The cost of the Workmen's Insurance Act is somewhat appalling. I do not think the country has grasped the enormous figures showing the cost of that Act. My hon. Friend said that it only cost 10 per cent. for administration expenses. There is 801 another way to look at what the Act has done, and that is by comparing the benefits that have been paid out, with the cost of the administration of the Act. It is astounding that the cost of working the Insurance Act should be practically equal to the total amount paid in benefits under the Act. If that is so, the Act is a humbug from beginning to end. There ought to have been a limit placed upon the management expenses of the Act; but that was not done. That is a very strong reason why a limit should be placed upon the expenditure under the Bill now before us. We are overridden with bureaucrats and officials all over the country. The country is groaning under officials from Government departments. There ought to be some check upon it. I am sorry the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is not here, because I am sure he would have raised his voice in support of this Amendment. We are the only two real Tories left in the House, and the only real guardians of the public purse. I welcome my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) among the economists, and I am not without hope that if he goes to a Division we shall find a good many who will have the courage to say that a limit must be placed upon Government expenditure. The Amendment is reasonable. It does not prevent the right hon. Gentleman from coming to the House and saying, "This limit is too narrow. I find that the expenditure that has been incurred, and the magnitude of the work I have to discharge makes it necessary that I must have more money." If he comes to the House with his perennial smile and his invariable good temper, and makes out the excellent case which he always makes, he will get the money without any objection from any part of the House, but he ought to come and ask for it. Figures should be given showing why it is necessary to spend more than £500,000 on salaries and expenses for this new department. Hon. Members need not be afraid of a Division. Even if defeated the Government will not go out. As they come out of the Lobby after defeating the Government they will find a Minister at the door shaking hands. There will be no indignation. I invite hon. Members to put in practice the principles of economy.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONMy right hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. 802 I do not propose to diminish the contribution towards administration expenses. The reports show administration expenses at £1,214,000. All I propose is to limit the Government's share of those to one-third. I am giving the right hon. Gentleman £100,000 more than he requires. The object is to keep the Government to a certain sum which they will be able to take out of the unemployment fund for administration.
§ Sir R. HORNEI do not understand my hon. Friend. If administration is to cost £1,000,000 and the Government are to have only £500,000, I do not understand who, he thinks, is going to administer the rest, and do not think that he thoroughly understands the scheme.
§ Major LLOYD-GREAMEIf we were to vote for the Amendment we might prejudice seriously the whole position, and I should be sorry if no support were given to the Government from the back benches. My hon. friend (Mr. MacVeagh) will shortly have an opportunity, if he likes to take it, of showing how cheaply he can administer unemployment benefit in another part of this realm, and it will be interesting to compare the cost of administration here and there. We can criticise the cost and administration when we know a little more about it. The Minister will have to come here every year and we can test the cost of administration. There is no good quoting figures from the actuaries' reports which assume, that a given number of people are going to be concerned in this Bill. There are many in this House who consider that some of the exemptions which are in this Bill ought not to be there and we want the House to be perfectly free if it sees fit to deal with large classes that are at present excluded from the scope of the Bill. Suppose we had included agricultural labourers, leaving out domestic servants for the moment. The whole basis on which the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson) founded his suggestion disappears. The hon. Member is proposing this specious amendment as if we were dealing with one fixed capital sum. The number of people who are included within the Bill makes that capital sum completely variable. I press the Government to economise when economy is possible, but I do not think we render any signal service if we take specious occasions on which to try to. 803 secure it. I want this Bill to be as complete a success as possible, but I think the Amendment will seriously prejudice us in our further consideration of the measure.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSI have been in this House many times when Ministers have asked for indefinite votes of this kind, and I have heard the same arguments repeated on the one side and the other. It seems to me that if this House is to have any real control over the finances of the nation it is absolutely necessary for it to put its foot down and tell Ministers that they must not come here and ask us for all the money there is. That is practically what this Votes comes to. The House, I hope, will refuse to grant any such power. Let the Ministers mention the sum and the House will vote
§ it, and if the sum is not sufficient they can come down and ask for a supplementary vote. If they do not do that it shows entire contempt of the financial control of the House, and I hope the House will resent it in the proper way.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONBefore we divide, I should like to say that it is perfectly clear in this Bill that the right hon. Gentleman is going to get an unlimited amount for administration expenses. I wanted to limit it. If hon. Members read the Bill they will see that that is the case.
§ Question put, "That the words not exceeding five hundred thousand pounds in any one year be there inserted."
§ The Committee Divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 104.
803| Division No. 34.] | AYES. | [11.34 p.m. |
| Atkey, A. R. | Glanville, Harold James | Redmond, Captain William Ascher |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Gretton, Colonel John | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Brown, Captain D. C. | Johnstone, Joseph | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Casey, T. W. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | |
| Donnelly, P. | Molson, Major John Elsdale | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Mosley, Oswald | Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson and Mr. Rose. |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Purchase, H. G. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Glyn, Major Ralph | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. |
| Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S. | Goff, Sir R. Park | Renwick, George |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gregory, Holman | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Hallwood, Augustine | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hartshorn, Vernon | Rutherford, Sir W. w. (Edge Hill) |
| Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich) | Hayday, Arthur | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Seager, Sir William |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Seddon, J. A. |
| Bromfield, William | Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) | Sexton, James |
| Bruton, Sir James | Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | King, Commander Henry Douglas | Stanton, Charles B. |
| Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W. | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Lloyd-Greame, Major P. | Swan, J. E. C. |
| Courthope, Major George L. | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | M-Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Macmaster, Donald | Vickers, Douglas |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Waterson, A. E. |
| Edge, Captain William | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Wheler, Major Granville C. H. |
| Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. | Morrison-Bell, Major A. E. | Whitla, Sir William |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen) | Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V. |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) | Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Neal, Arthur | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wilson, w, Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark | |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Gange, E. Stanley | Pollock, Sir Ernest M. | Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward. |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Pulley, Charles Thornton |
§ Original Question again proposed.
Mr. T. WILSONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be possible to issue a White Paper giving fuller details as to what the administration of the proposed Act will be approximately. If he will do that it will be very helpful to Members.
§ Sir R. HORNEI shall be very glad to accede to the request of the hon. Gentle man and to see that a White Paper is prepared.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
§ The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
§ It being after half-pant Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley) adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant, to the Standing Order,
§ Adjourned at Seventeen Minutes before Twelve o'clock.