UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [PAYMENTS]. (Hansard, 21 June 1921)

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I waited to see whether the Minister of Labour would rise to explain this Resolution. I waited in vain. I could not allow the Resolution to go through sub silentio without making some protest. A sum of £20,000,000 is involved, and I propose not only to protest—

§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara)
The Resolution gives only-borrowing power.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I see. We are not to spend this money, but only to borrow it. I suppose we have not got it in the Treasury, and we are not asking for leave to spend it, but to borrow it. Yet when we have got it we shall spend it. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt tell us that unless he gets this Resolution, unemployment benefits will cease. I took the precaution to hear his 1132 explanation when the Bill was introduced, and I gathered then that the fund is bankrupt. With that sort of plea the Government hope to damp down all criticism, although I do not think it will have that effect. It is very unfortunate that we are not carrying out our undertakings with, regard to unemployment insurance. I know that the right hon. Gentleman in his heart regrets that as much as any of us; he regrets having to cut down the amount of the benefits. That cutting down will hit particularly those men who, owing to their diligence perhaps, and to their being good workmen, have retained employment until recently. They will get a reduced benefit, whereas those men who, perhaps because they were inferior workmen were the first to be discharged, have enjoyed the greater benefit paid in the past. Without hesitation I declare that that is a great breach of faith, and it will be remembered against this Government with many other breaches of faith. We are apparently presented with the Government's only alternative for the state of depression in which the country finds itself.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
This is not a time for discussing the Bill or the principles of the Bill. The Resolution refers only to the method of finding the money, and it is only that phase of the question which is now open to discussion. We cannot range over the whole of the Bill which is now before the Standing Committee.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
The Government ask leave to raise this money by the issue of such securities as the Treasury think proper; in other words by borrowing to the extent of £20,000,000, if necessary. I object to that proposal, and I hope that all hon. Members, irrespective of party, will support me. I submit that we could raise the money by economies without any further borrowing. The Minister of Labour will say that that is impossible, and that we cannot save £20,000,000. If that is the case Heaven help us all! In view of the fact that there is bound to be a great drop in the revenue because of industrial depression, the Government ought already to have altered much of their policy radically. I do not want to go into details now, but I will draw attention to several directions in which we could save this amount of money. Borrowing will put up the price of money; it will depress our credit, lead 1133 to further drop in the Exchange, and we shall have to pay more for raw materials, cotton and food, from America. Without further borrowing we could save this money. In the first place we could come to a settlement in Ireland which would save this amount and more in a year.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
We cannot discuss that subject or similar subjects, or we shall be ranging over the whole of the Estimates.

§ Mr. HOGGE
Is it strictly the ruling of the Chair that on a Financial Resolution you can discuss only the method by which the money can be raised? In my recollection the consideration of a Financial Resolution is one of the opportunities that the House has of discussing the policy of the Bill to be based upon the Financial Resolution. While it may be true that the Chair thinks that my hon. and gallant Friend is going somewhat wide in the illustrations he is using, surely it is not the hard-and-fast ruling of the Chair that the only thing we can discuss is the method of raising this money?

The DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN
A Financial Resolution has to be taken on its merits. Sometimes, for obvious reasons, a wider discussion takes place, and at other times, for equally obvious reasons, the discussion is much narrower. I think that this is a case where the narrower view should be taken of the discussion, because the Bill dealing with the principle for which this money is to be provided is now being discussed by a Standing Committee upstairs, and it would obviously be inconvenient and undesirable that we should carry on here at 4.30 in the afternoon the same kind of discussion that was carried on upstairs this morning in the Committee room. Therefore, in a case like this it is the duty of the Chair to confine the discussion to the narrowest limit.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I do not propose to pursue that course. There are Estimates on which money could be saved, and that money could be transferred so as to avoid this borrowing. I admit that to borrow the money is better than to print more paper, and in that respect I can support the Government. In the first part of this Resolution we are raising the amount of the contributions by the employed persons to a substantial extent, and at a time when 1134 all round wages are being reduced. I do not blame the Minister of Labour. He is concerned only with the machinery, and with doing his best to meet the difficulties that arise. But is it not time that he realised that his support of the Government is helping to bring about this state of affairs?

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move to leave out paragraph (2), which authorises the Treasury to make, for the purpose of discharging the liabilities of the Unemployment Fund under the Unemployment Insurance Acts of 1920 and 1921, as amended by the said Act, advances out of the Consolidated Fund not exceeding at any time £20,000,000. That means that the fund is insolvent and that consequently the taxpayer has to find £20,000,000. It is to that I object. I wish to prevent the taxpayer from being called upon, in view of the circumstances of the country's finances at the moment, to find another £20,000,000 because of the mistakes made by the Government on this unemployment question. I would remind the Minister for Labour that in March last I pointed out to him that what has happened would happen, that he would not have enough money, and that he would be obliged to ask Parliament for more. The right hon. Gentleman then told me that I was wrong, and said that he had £22,500,000 available. I thought that that was insufficient, because the result of giving these doles is not to do away with unemployment, but to increase it. The more there is given away in doles, the more these Resolutions are passed, and the more the taxpayers come forward with money, the more will people continue to do nothing. I am right in saying that this is a fatal proposal, because it will accentuate the evil it is designed to diminish.

§ Mr. SPENCER
On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Baronet within his rights in discussing those aspects of the question? If he be in order, we shall all want to do the same thing.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Baronet was not in order.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I was speaking on the point of leaving out paragraph (2), and I want to show that the £20,000,000 ought not to be levied. I am endeavouring to recall to the right hon. Gentleman the fact that I told him last March, the 22½ millions he had then in the fund would 1135 not be sufficient, because the dole he proposed to give would increase unemployment. I am now proved to be right, as I generally am, notwithstanding that I am generally in a minority. When a little time has elapsed history always shows the minority in which I was to have been right. Therefore I say, the right hon. Gentleman should be content with the money he can get out of the subscriptions of employers and employed and should not be putting a burden on the taxpayer.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
Before the Question be put, I should like to know if the Debate will be limited to the one point in the Amendment, or will it be in order to discuss the Financial Resolution generally?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The discussion will be limited to the Amendment before the Committee.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and I am glad to know from it that he is always right. Despite that, I have absolutely no sympathy with the position he takes up in this matter, although he may be right in the course he proposes to take. He seems much more concerned about getting three times this amount out of the Government for the railways than in getting what is due to the unemployed.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
It is not due.

§ Mr. HOGGE
It is due, and my right hon. Friend who is so keen on contracts should know it. There is a contribution necessary from the State in virtue of the contributions made by the employers and the employed. That is a contract into which the right hon. Gentleman has entered along with the rest of us in this House. He now seeks to break that contract with the unemployed after having exhausted all his eloquence in trying to get a sum three times the size of this for the railways. I think we can dismiss my right hon. Friend's argument without worrying ourselves very much as to whether he considers he is always right or always wrong. On the question of this 20 millions, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to state how much borrowing power remains unexhausted.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
Ten millions.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I take it that my right hon. Friend has still power to borrow £10,000,000 for the purpose of dealing with unemployment.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
That is correct.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I think that is quite enough for my right hon. Friend to have, in view of the muddle which his Government is making of this question of unemployment. We should be very chary about giving power to borrow £20,000,000 unless the Committee are satisfied that the Government is competent to deal with the problem. If the Government continues to muddle the problem as at present, they will be forced to come to this House for further borrowing powers. Already the Government has filched no less a sum than £20,000,000, built up by employers and employed in connection with this fund.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
What does the hon. Member suggest the Government has done?

§ Mr. HOGGE
They have filched or taken or stolen—if you want it put bluntly—the reserves built up by the employers' contributions, the employés' contributions and the State contributions. They have used that money only to make the position worse, and they are now asking for power to borrow another £20,000,000. That is to say, they are taking altogether £40,000,000 to deal with a crisis which they are themselves responsible for creating. We want to know, when is the Government going to pay back to the employers and the employed the £20,000,000 they have already taken, so that these people may benefit by the reserve which they created? I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, after the reasons which he has given for his Amendment, would be prepared to go into the Lobby in support of a reduction of the amount on other grounds. I believe in keeping the borrowing powers of the Government down, because I do not think the Government is competent to deal with this problem. The history of their dealing with it is one long muddle. We have had Act after Act, and we have not settled it yet, but they have endeavoured by all kinds of devices to escape from their own responsibilities.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I did not in any way intend to say that the State should break any engagement into which it has entered. Any engagement of that kind must be maintained, at whatever cost. I should be the last person to suggest breaking such an engagement, but I object to the borrowing of the other £20,000,000 on the ground that it is unnecessary.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I apologise to my right hon. Friend if I have misrepresented his position. I hope he will agree that this Government, having already taken £20,000,000 out of this reserve, the House should not give it, of all Governments, another £20,000,000, but should take a step which will compel them to come back to the House, and review the whole position of unemployment by reducing the amount which they have power to borrow. If my right hon. Friend will go to a Division on that understanding, I shall be prepared to support the Amendment.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
The hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was right when he said I should have made clear at the outset what we are asking for here. I am very much impressed with that necessity as a result of the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down. If the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will recall it, I previously explained the circumstances which made this Financial Resolution necessary and also made necessary the Bill which is based upon this Resolution. I did my best on former occasions when the matter was before the House to make those circumstances clear, and now let me say again that deepening and continuous industrial depression—which has undoubtedly been accentuated by the position of affairs in the coal industry—has entirely upset the scheme upon which was based the Act of March last. The contributions it was sought to impose in that Act were based upon the calculation that over the whole period from last March to the end of July, 1922, we should have an average of 1,000,000 persons unemployed. With the past industrial history of this country before me and making the closest possible calculation I could, I arrived at that figure which I still regard as having been in the circumstances a reasonable, fair, and sound forecast, as far as any forecast can be sound. The whole scheme ws based on that figure, and the benefits were based on it. That 1138 figure has now been falsified by events. The numbers now run to 2,000,000 unemployed and 1,000,000 on short time. Does my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London say that he could have foretold that? I do not think so. I followed him with great care, as I always do, in the Debate on that occasion, and while he said that we were too optimistic, I do not think he can now state, "I could have told you in March last that, so far from 1,000,000, you would have 2,000,000 unemployed and 1,000,000 on short time." I do not think anybody could have forecasted the situation which has arisen. At that time the fund stood at £22,500,000 The tremendous drain upon it has brought it down to £5,250,000.

§ Mr. HOGGE
And what of the ten millions?

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I have not got ten millions, but I have borrowing powers to the extent of ten millions. These borrowing powers are set forth in Section 5 of the Act of 3rd March last and we are asking now that that ten millions shall be increased to 20 millions. At the present time, the outgoings of the fund represent round about two millions a week, and that is out of a fund which has been reduced since March last from 22½ millions to five and a quarter millions. The income is only £350,000 because of the very large number of men and women who are unemployed and not paying the contributions. Therefore hard necessity compels us to do as we are doing by this Resolution and this Bill. We are compelled to reduce benefits and increase contributions. Further, this continuous and deepening unemployment to which I have referred has compelled us to make further provision for benefit periods to the extent of six additional weeks between now and the end of October and probably another six additional weeks next spring, beyond that which was provided for in the scheme of March. As regards benefits, which at present stand at 20s. for men and 16s. for women, these have had to be reduced to 15s. and 12s. Here again, it is hard necessity which has compelled us to do that. As regards contributions, at the present time the contribution for men is 4d. a week and that of the employer 4d. a week. In any case, under the Act of March, 1921, on the 4th July these contributions would have become 5d. for men and 6d. for employers. 1139 Because of the drain on the fund, the abnormal unemployment and the exceptional circumstances generally in which we find ourselves, we have been compelled to increase the contributions, not to the 5d. and 6d. set out in the March Act, but to 7d. for men and 8d. for employers. As regards women, the contributions at this moment are 3d. for the woman and 3½d. for her employer. Under the Act of March last those on the 4th July would have become 4d. for the woman and 5d. for her employer. I am now compelled to make those figures 6d. and 7d., respectively. I shall then, on that basis of reduced benefit and increased contribution, run into debt up to a maximum of £16,000,000 between now and July, 1922. But by the close of the insurance year of 1922–3 I shall have paid off that £16,000,000. I am estimating that during the whole of the year before us from July, 1921, to July, 1922, there will be one and a quarter millions of unemployed. There are two millions at this moment.

§ Mr. HOGGE
There will be more if you stay in power.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
We are assuming things will improve and I hope that over the year we shall not carry a heavier burden than 1,250,000. If that is realised, by continuing the reduced benefits and the increased contributions for the year, we shall have paid off the whole of the debt of £16,000,000 maximum—which debt will be £13,800,000 by July, 1922—by July, 1923. What would be the effect of the right hon. Baronet's Amendment? This fund would run dry during the coming autumn. There could be no other effect. I have £5,250,000 still, but I was bound in the interests of the poor people to take time by the forelock. Somewhere about September I would have got to the limit of my borrowing power, and the whole thing would come to an end. That is a state of things which my right hon. Friend is the last man to lightly contemplate. I do most earnestly hope now that I have made it clear that my right hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, because it would bring the whole thing to an end in a most disastrous way just when the winter was coming on. I press upon him the extreme un wisdom and inexpediency of proposing to keep the borrowing power down to that which is already provided in the Statute. As regards the comments of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) 1140 that he will associate himself with the Amendment, let him face the consequences, of that act. Let him charge it against me as my muddle, but he will have to face the consequences of his own proposal. I do not think the great bulk of the Committee will support him. We have got to carry on.

§ Mr. HOGGE
Get rid of this Government.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
We have got to make provision for the unemployed. After all, that is far more important than partisanship.

§ Mr. HODGE
I cannot associate myself either with my hon. Friend sitting beside me (Mr. Hogge) or yet with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). My opposition would be on entirely different grounds. My ground is that the borrowing powers are not sufficient. Something has been said in this House from time to time by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the sanctity of agreements. The Unemployed Insurance Act of 1920 offered those who paid certain benefits. The Bill that the Government has introduced and which will be based on this financial Resolution is breaking that contract.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is going into the merits of the Bill, which we have discussed on Second Reading. We cannot discuss now whether this is a breach of contract in regard to previous legislation. We are now dealing only with money.

§ Mr. HODGE
I do not intend to discuss the Bill, but I am surely entitled to make that reply as far as the speech of the right hon. Baronet is concerned. Be that as it may, I think the question of contract does arise so far as this Resolution is concerned. The Member for East Edinburgh pointed out that under the 1911 Act a fund of £22,000,000 had been accumulated. Some of those who contributed have never drawn any money out of the fund, and now that they are coming on to the fund they will not get what they have really paid for. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London declared that this granting of borrowing powers for £20,000,000 would do exactly what he had prophesied, namely, that the more you gave unemployed pay the more you created unemployed. In the society that I represent 1141 we have 100,000 members idle. If the hon. Baronet finds employment for them they will give up their pay to-morrow. I do not think anyone in this House who knows me would say I was a revolutionary in any shape or form, but I do say this, that the greatest danger to men like the right hon. Baronet is the starvation of masses of the people of this country. That is going to give you revolution. I love the old things, the old customs of this House, and I have a certain love for the antique conservatism of the right hon. Baronet. A telegram has just been put in my hand from my right hon. Friend the whip of the Labour party, informing me that the question of this unemployed resolution has been discussed at Brighton, and that the conference has unanimously decided that the proposals of the Government to reduce unemployed pay should be fought to the bitter end. I can only express the hope that I expressed on Second Reading, that the Government may even yet realise that it would be better to find an extra £10,000,000 for the purpose of maintaining the 20s. benefit which is at present paid, because when one takes into account the value of money to-day, 15s. is not an equivalent amount to the unemployed pay previous to 1914. I therefore say, that as far as we are concerned, we shall support the Government with respect to the Resolution, although we deplore the fact that they are raising contributions and at the same time reducing benefits.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
The question before the Committee is whether the powers that the Government are taking in the Financial Resolution to borrow £20,000,000 are sufficient for the purposes of their Bill. I think I have stated the question accurately. The Resolution asks power to borrow £20,000,000, and the Minister of Labour has stated that the total liability of the taxpayer through the operation of this Bill is some £6,230,000.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I do not follow that.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
I will deal with that point in a moment. The point before the Committee is, is £20,000,000 sufficient? I shall in my observations address myself directly to that question, and endeavour to show to the House that the powers the Government are taking in their Resolution are insufficient for the purposes of their Bill. The Committee is, first of all, 1142 entitled to ask itself what are the credentials of the Minister of Labour. Is his past record such that he can come to the House and ask for more money in view of his recent remarks on the Second Reading or another stage of the Unemployed Bill in February last? Let me remind the Committee that, as recently as the 24th February, 1921, the Minister of Labour came down to this House and stated: There is in the Unemployment Fund over £20,000,000, and we are quite entitled to deal with that, because it was the high state of employment during the War, and the £62,000,000 out-of-work donations paid since the close of hostilities to persons, many of whom would otherwise have come on the Fund for benefit, which have kept the Fund at £20,000,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1921; col. 1238, Vol. 138.]

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
What column is that?

§ Sir G. COLLINS
My first point is the Minister had no right to encroach on that Fund. This Fund was built up to a very large figure during the War. There was very little unemployment when this Fund was built up. Yet so recently as February last, when everybody knew there was bad trade coming, or, rather, when trade was bad already, the Minister took money from that Fund and with that money increased the unemployment benefits. Further on, in the same column—I direct the attention of the Committee to these words—he said: I think that I have made a perfectly safe calculation. It was a perfectly safe calculation ten weeks ago, and yet this afternoon he comes to the Committee and asks for further borrowing powers.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
Will the hon. Member read the next column?

§ Sir G. COLLINS
Yes. On a basis of 9½ per cent., the benefits proposed under this Bill could be given. I quite agree.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I went on to say that if the percentage of unemployment went beyond an average of 9½ per cent. there would be a deficiency.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
I am not entering into the interpretation of the Minister of Labour. If he will bear with me for a few minutes, I am pointing out these facts before I come to his basis for this Resolution. I am endeavouring to draw 1143 the attention of the Committee to statements in February last to find out whether his hopes for the future are likely to be more correct. I come therefore, with these preliminary observations, to the actuary's report on the present Bill. This report has not yet been referred to this afternoon. The actuary employed by the Government states: I am advised that for the purpose of the present estimate it should be assumed that in the first of these two years 1,250,000 persons on the average will be constantly unemployed. The actuary has been directed by the Government. Further on, however, the actuary states: There is, indeed, a considerable risk that it will be exceeded"— that is, the number of unemployed— unless in July, 1921, onwards there is a continuous and substantial improvement in the industrial situation. That is the point to which I am anxious to direct the attention of the Committee this afternoon. The finance of this Bill is based on certain facts. The finance in February was also based on certain anticipations. The February anticipations have broken down, apparently due to the coal lock-out. The main trouble is this: What we are faced with to-day is not due to the lock-out in the coal industry, but to the general policy of the Government which causes unemployment. I know that the Debate this afternoon is limited to the specific question whether the £20,000,000 borrowing powers are sufficient for the purpose. I put it to the Minister of Labour that the amount is insufficient for his purpose and that in a very few weeks or months this fund will be bankrupt. He had a surplus of £20,000,000 on 24th February, and he has told the Committee this afternoon that that £20,000,000 has dwindled to £5,000,000.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
Five and a quarter millions.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
Five and a quarter millions. Until the general situation improves, until the Continent is able to consume British goods, until the Government alter fundamentally their policy of imperialism in distant parts of the world—[An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"]—in spending money in Mesopotamia and large sums of money on naval works in distant parts, the causes create unem- 1144 ployment at home, which will make this fund bankrupt and which is making it bankrupt will continue. The Minister of Labour may smile, but he has raised hopes in the minds of 3,000,000 of people, and at least he will agree with me that these hopes have been dashed to the ground, and there is bitter disappointment amongst 3,000,000 men and 3,000,000 homes. For many long months and years in the House I have spoken on the subject of expenditure, and endeavoured to direct the attention of the country to the effect of the borrowing policy upon the industrial situation at home. Until the Minister of Labour introduced this Bill, I am afraid that my words fell upon deaf ears. Throughout the country our people during the War and since the War have had large wages. They have not realised the close connection between Government policy and their own homes. They are cause and effect, however they came about. At last, the millions spent have brought this unemployment about, have caused the Minister to reduce the benefits after a long period of unemployment and at a time of all times when the purse at home is strained. He comes to the House and, rightly so, asks for increased contributions from the employers and from the employés. He can only find £6,000,000 from the State for unemployment insurance, but there can be millions found for other purposes. Six millions for the unemployed! The Minister of Labour rather questions that figure.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I do not recognise the £6,000,000.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
I am reading from paragraph 6 of the actuary's report on the Insurance Fund. The cost to the Exchequer under the scheme, as amended by the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, was £5,191,000; and further on, at the end, just above the initials, there is this: The net addition to the liabilities of the Exchequer in respect of 1921–22 is thus £1,047,000, and in respect of 1922–23 £1,233,000. Does the Minister of Labour know his Bill?

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
Yes, certainly.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
The right hon. Gentleman seems to question the figure I give, but it is absolutely correct. The total cost to the Exchequer of the un- 1145 employed insurance schemes this year is £6,000,000 odd. Will the Minister of Labour correct me if I am wrong? The point I put is that the money the Government are finding is insufficient for their scheme. This burden on the Exchequer is small in comparison with the amount the Government are finding for other purposes in Palestine and other places. The Minister of Labour, owing to events which, I admit, he cannot control, has been forced to reduce the unemployment grant. I hope, if the Government are going to reduce the unemployment grant, that they will at the same time practice an all-round economy in all Departments of the State, and I can assure him there will be no heartier supporter for that policy than myself.

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, if he felt so strongly about the imperialistic ventures which we have undertaken for our own health and our own good, did not vote against the Estimate of £27,000,000 which this House passed last week. To quote it now at this stage, when he had an opportunity to vote against it last week, seems to me rather out of order on an occasion of this kind.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
When the Vote is challenged at a later stage of the Session, I shall certainly vote against it.

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
It cannot be raised again; it has been passed. It cannot possibly come up again, and it is really late in the day for the hon. Member to say that he wishes to do away with an obligation under the League of Nations, in order to get more money for something else. Surely we cannot consider this Financial Resolution in that way. It is perfectly hopeless if you are always going to throw Palestine into the balance against something else. It is an impossible way to conduct finance. What you have to do is to scrutinise carefully the demands of Ministers on all occasions, such as the statement of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour this afternoon proceeded to give what I may call his customary breezy arithmetic. The breezy arithmetic was this: "At the present moment I have £5,500,000 cash."

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
Five and a quarter millions.

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I will leave out the fraction—say, £5,000,000 cash. He has got borrowing powers up to £10,000,000; he is reducing the benefit, he is increasing the contribution, and yet he will come to the end of his tether altogether by September. It is a remarkable fact that, between now and September, he will have got through £15,000,000, and between September and next July, 1922, he said, "I shall be £16,000,000 down." He is going to spend £15,000,000 between now and the 1st September, and only £6,000,000 between September and next July. How can he know that? How can he possibly tell that? All his previous estimates have been falsified by results and facts, and to come to the House now and to encourage the House to believe that in July, 1922, this £20,000,000 will all be paid back is simply beating the air and so much waste of time. All that breezy optimism and breezy arithmetic is not worth the paper it is reported on. I am fairly certain that the right thing to do is to leave him with his present borrowing powers, and, when he is bankrupt, then let him come to Parliament to get more. That would be the right time to-come to Parliament, and not to make fantastic estimates as to what will happen in 1923 and as to what will be the position in July next year.
The story of the finance of this insurance fund is no very great credit to this House and to the arithmetical acumen of the various people who estimate it, and the one who has always been brought forward by the Minister from the Ministry of Labour as his financial adviser. We are getting a. little sceptical about all these figures hurled at our heads and about the way the finance of this scheme has been arranged. I am perfectly certain that they are merely piling up the debt on this fund, and it is going to be a stranglehold on the industry, employers and workmen alike, of this country for years to come. We have got to deal with this problem. We have to go to the root of it and attack it with an entire financial reconstruction. All this borrowing—I am only on paragraph (2) of the Eesolution—is bad finance, and is built entirely on a foundation of shifting sand. How do we know that there is going to be this trade revival? How do we know there are going to be 5,000,000 unemployed? It is really, 1147 at the present moment, quite impossible for this Committee this afternoon to pass this Resolution on the easy assurances of the Minister of Labour. We have had too much experience of these things in the past. I shall take the first opportunity of registering my protest against the financial jugglery behind all this and the false estimation by voting against paragraph 2 of this Resolution.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
I hope the Committee will agree to paragraph (2), as far as it goes. I disagree entirely with those who are opposing this Sub-section. Surely to goodness, if it was felt, with the position before us in March, 1920, that we could borrow £10,000,000 with £22,500,000 in reserve, and an anticipation that we might find ourselves overwhelmed with unemployment, we can make the present provision. This was taken as a proper precaution. There was not the same kind of argument in the House at that time, as now, when the position has grown worse, and the Department has estimated that they will possibly draw upon or borrow £10,000,000, the balance having diminished to £5,250,000. Now that we are touching the rate of benefit and making a severe charge for increased contribution, and we feel that we cannot recover from this abnormal period with any degree of certainty, we ask: if it was right to borrow £10,000,000 with £22,000,000 in reserve, whether £20,000,000 is too much to place at our disposal with only a balance of £5,250,000, the country being faced with the same rate of unemployment for the next few months? Can anybody suggest, does the hon. Member for East Edinburgh suggest, that we should come to the House again? Is it really suggested that month by month, as further monies are required to meet our obligations, that this House should be made the cockpit of party discussions while the people outside are going short of unemployment benefit? Are they always to be used as the central argument for party advantage? That would happen, as it does happen, because you would have a position like this created if there is no Autumn Session and in the middle of the Recess the money ran out. Would you call the House of Commons specially together to determine whether another £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 should be advanced, and perhaps find before you could discuss it that the payment had 1148 suddenly stopped! This is a Farrowisation of the Unemployment Fund with all its worst possible features. If I were receiving unemployment donation and suddenly found at a crisis that my income was stopped because Parliament could not trust its own Department with a surplus in reserve, I should feel inclined to take some more definite and strong action than was perhaps constitutional. I should do something to feed my children whatever might happen to me. I do not believe with my hon. Friend behind me that £20,000,000 is sufficient. My quarrel is because it is only £20,000,000—

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
Hear, hear!

§ Mr. HAYDAY
The argument is that if £10,000,000 is a right margin to provide with a balance of £22,500,000, that £20,000,000 now is not sufficient to provide seeing the reserve is now down to £5,250,000. Hon. Members say, "Vote against it." It is urged that this expenditure is part of the great wasteful policy of the Government and that Parliament should not grant another £10,000,000. In fact, that there should be nothing for the unemployed.

§ Mr. HOGGE
Nobody said anything like that. We have said quite explicitly that we are in favour of the State fulfilling its bargain. We are not prepared to trust them any further in view of the Government figures. The Minister who is responsible has got borrowing powers for £10,000,000 plus what he has in hand. Our position is this: that until—

§ Mr. HAYDAY
I do not know to what extent this may be looked upon as an interruption of something I have said. If it be a conversation between the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Labour—

§ The CHAIRMAN
Of course, if the hon. Gentleman does not like to give way, nobody else can rise. But, as I understood it, the hon. Member for East Edinburgh wanted to explain something that he said, and it seemed there was no objection to that.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I will do it quite shortly. None of us here have said that we are agreed that more money is not required. The hon. Gentleman ought not to be un- 1149 fair. Our position is that we are not prepared to give up Parliamentary control over Government expenditure.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
Quite so. You trust them with £10,000,000 when they have a reserve of £22,500,000, but you will not trust them with £20,000,000 now that the reserve has been reduced to £5,250,000. If you are so deeply interested as to desire the Department to carry out its bargain then let them draw less or more of the £20,000,000 as they desire. Do not restrict them to any figure if your main desire is to see that the Government side of the contract is maintained in meeting the obligations to pay unemployment benefit. That is all I desire to say except to ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, whether we may make reference to paragraph (1) or whether that will be a separate matter for discussion.

§ The CHAIRMAN
We have now got to paragraph (2).

§ Mr. A. HOPKINSON
The Minister of Labour said that nobody had told him there was going to be this state of unemployment, or that the coal dispute would take place, and on that ground he challenged the whole of the Committee to say whether they had given him any warning or not. During the course of the Unemployment Bill that warning was given to the right hon. Gentleman. I myself gave it vigorously. Not only here, but I gave it to the Press of the country and have been giving it for the last two years. The whole fallacy of the position of the right hon. Gentleman is that it is no use coming here and asking us repeatedly for further and further borrowing powers for specified amounts, because the whole basis of his policy and of public unemployment insurance is that the deficit will naturally year by year go on increasing. The whole policy of unemployment insurance has been leading to that result. That type of legislation and policy in industrial affairs always has led to it. It led to it in France. It led to it in other cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I was pointing out that that policy inevitably results in increasing deficits and it always will do so, even with the original payments and benefits and still more with the increased payments and reduced benefits. In collecting that money the right hon. Gentleman is reducing the capital of the employer 1150 regularly week by week. He is reducing the capital of the country at the same time. If you reduce the capital of the country you increase unemployment, and therefore I say—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The argument of the hon. Member is more appropriate to the whole Bill than to the specific Amendment which relates to borrowing powers.

§ Mr. HOPKINSON
I bow to your ruling, Sir. But we object to the grant. We object to these borrowing powers being asked for, because we know it is inevitable that the right hon. Gentleman will ask for more in the autumn and more again in the spring of next year. We know that by his own showing and arithmetic. The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) read the report of the Government actuary. The Government actuary was told at the start that he had to reckon on an average of 1,250,000 unemployed in the next 9 or 12 months. Surely if you are going to employ an actuary in a calculation of this sort you ought to allow the actuary to form his own basis of calculation? What is the actuary for? If you take a basis of 1,250,000 unemployed to the actuary you have done his work and the rest is simply a matter of ordinary arithmetic. Any Member of this House could do the thing. I could do it myself. Once we have got the acturial basis which is the anticipated unemployment during the next 12 months, the rest is easy. As I pointed out here every night when the Bill was before us the 1,250,000 of unemployed estimated for is certainly nothing more or less than a guess, and from all the signs of the times an extraordinarily bad guess. As bad a guess as the guesses upon which the original Bill were founded. They were guesses from the beginning. It is said: How can we anticipate? Everybody whose business it is to study industrial affairs knew there was going to be a coal dispute just as they know that each blunder of the Government in the matter of the controlling of industry in one form or another will cause a dispute and more unemployment.
Why, really, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), and myself, and, I think, some others, oppose the Government on this matter is because we feel that we have no actuarial foundation 1151 whatever, and that the whole thing is based upon guesses which have always been bad guesses, based upon anticipations which have never yet been fulfilled, and based upon a peculiar degree of optimism in the commercial community of the country. Some of us knew all along that the whole thing was hopeless, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should really look into the meaning of this problem and consider it by the side of all these guesses, calculations, and so-called estimates and consider to where it is running you. It is going to run you into continual and increased borrowing, and there will be no end to that state of things. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) spoke about shifting sands. It is not a question of shifting sands. The metaphor is wrong. It is a question of running down steep places to the sea with a constantly accelerated pace. Therefore I hope the Committee will pay some attention to what the right hon. Baronet opposite has said, and what the Member for East Edinburgh has said, and possibly even to my words. I hope the Committee will free their minds from what I call cant. We have heard from some hon. Members that all our troubles are due to the fact that we have spent a few millions abroad. That is what I call cant. We see the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench getting up and picturing starvation and all that sort of thing, as if pity for starvation was purely a quality confined to the Labour Benches.

§ Mr. HARTSHORN
It looks like it!

§ Mr. HOPKINSON
Would hon. Gentlemen kindly give some of us credit for not wishing to starve our fellow-men? We are wishful for a change in the policy of the Government by which we can save millions. Instead of continually increasing the troubles of this country and of the working-classes particularly, one would try to impress upon the Government the pursuit of a policy which has got some end to it, and which has some chance to help the country to recover its prosperity. If only the Government could stand out of the way and not be continually reducing the capital available by all these socialistic devices of taking the money from the thrifty and distributing it amongst the thriftless we might be able to pull the country round 1152 and avoid some of the worst disasters which are facing us. I hope the Committee will regard this as a matter of economics and dismiss all those sentimental ideas which have led the country astray and produced the present situation.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, although it did not convince me. As I understand the figures, he has got £5,250,000 and power to borrow £10,000,000, making £15,250,000. He estimates that by July next year there will be a deficit of £16,000,000. What will really happen will be that he will be nearly £1,000,000 short. If that is so, why on earth should he not be content with the powers that he has got, and if he finds that those powers are not sufficient he has between now and the 15th of August, and if in the meantime his financial position becomes very bad, he can come to the House and ask for a further sum.
What is the advantage of that? Firstly, that we keep some control over the expenditure and over the Minister. The second advantage is that we shall have an opportunity of reviewing the circumstances and finding out how far we have been committed to a liability which we may not be able to discharge. I am afraid that I cannot reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge), because it would not be in order to discuss any alteration of the benefits, but I presume it would be in order just to say that no doubt that is a violation of the agreement which was entered into. The answer is, what on earth could you do? There was not the money and you could not carry out the obligations you had entered into. If my Amendment is carried there will be no cessation in the unemployment donation as it is given now, but if the right hon. Gentleman finds that he will require more money, all he has to do is to come down to the House.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the vague guesses about the final result of this fund. Let me point out that the Minister of Labour is not alone in underestimating his requirements. Every single railway company's superannuation fund has been in exactly the same position. Whatever faults I have got, and I do not doubt they are 1153 many, no one will say I do not endeavour to speak the truth. There is not the slightest chance of me being offered any office under the present Government, and if I were offered a position I should not accept it. Every railway superannuation fund has gone through the same experience, and they have had to cut down the benefits. Every one of these funds has had to do the same, because too sanguine views have been taken about the amount of the contribution and the number of people who will benefit. The same thing is going to happen here. I believe the giving of these unemployment doles or donations will be the very means of perpetuating unemployment. The more you give the more will be required, and the greater the sum that will have to be found by the taxpayer. My proposition is that the right hon. Gentleman in another two months' time should give us the pleasure of his society again on the Treasury Bench, and inform us what position he is in, and if he wants more money, then it will be in the power of this Committee to give it to him.

§ Mr. SPENCER
The argument which has been put before us is that if you give these doles you will only increase unemployment. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite who used that argument is correct, then we are going to perpetuate unemployment until we are all unemployed. In my opinion, we shall get through this period of depression, and we shall come again to something like a period of prosperity as we have done on all other occasions. In my view instead of talking this way we should try to meet the depression, because it is only a state of things which has followed all great wars. I know the depression is somewhat alarming, and it is out of all proportion to anything that has happened before, and consequently we have more unemployment than we have ever had previously. This has been aggravated by the fact that we have an unparalleled coal strike—I do not mean a strike, I mean a stoppage. I am so accustomed to hearing hon. Gentlemen opposite call it a coal strike that I was led to make the same mistake. My point is that there is a stoppage in the coal trade, and it has led to a far greater degree of unemployment. That has to be met, and the question is, What is the best way to meet it? The right hon. Gentleman thinks it can be best met by preserv- 1154 ing the right to borrow £10,000,000 instead of increasing it to £20,000,000.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
For the time being.

§ Mr. SPENCER
We had £22,500,000 to start with in March, but that has been reduced in two months to £5,250,000. It is fair to say that if unemployment continues at the present rate, in about eight weeks' time not only will the £5,250,000 be exhausted, but a considerable amount of the £10,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman is asking for power to borrow will also have been exhausted. The income is about £350,000 a week, and if the depression continues the right hon. Gentleman cannot look forward to any further increase so far as subscriptions are concerned. If you take the figures, the Department is paying out about £2,000,000 per week, and if we were to have a further period of 16 weeks' depression of trade similar to the present time £32,000,000 would be required, and the right hon. Gentleman would have £20,000,000 to borrow and he has got £5,250,000.
He would get about £7,000,000 by way of subscriptions and contributions, and that would give him about £32,000,000 which would be just about sufficient for 16 weeks. That is with the borrowing power to raise £20,000,000, and if you cut that down to £10,000,000 you are very seriously jeopardising the financial stability of the scheme. Personally, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is taking a sufficiently large sum, and if there was a proposition to increase it I should be disposed to support it. I have already stated that I think the right hon. Gentleman is too pessimistic, and he ought to mortgage the future to a far greater degree, and instead of increasing liabilities which are not going to be met and extinguished, if he were to mortgage the future to a far greater degree we should find with the return of prosperity we should be able to wipe out the mortgage.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
My only object in asking for these powers is to make this fund solvent. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) associated himself with the suggestion that we are now committing a breach of faith.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I said I did not wish to argue that point because I thought it was out of order, but on the face of it that does appear to be the case.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) said he was quite satisfied that we were breaking contracts. In this very scheme which we are told is a breach of faith I am providing for two additional periods of six weeks in order to meet the grave period of unemployment with which we are immediately confronted, and may be confronted with next spring.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman is not in order in discussing that question, and I have already prevented several hon. Members from discussing it.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Do I understand that the explanation is that there have been variations before, and the variations have been upward and now they are to be downward?

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I will refer to Section 93 of the original Act, which says: If whilst any part of any such advances outstanding it appears to the Treasury that the unemployment fund is insolvent, the Board of Trade shall, if the Treasury so direct, by order, make such temporary modifications in any of the rates of contribution, or the rates or periods of unemployment benefit, and during such period, as the Board of Trade think fit, and as will on the whole, in the opinion of the Treasury, be sufficient to secure the solvency of the unemployment fund. That was the original agreement.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. CAIRNS
Listening to the Debate which has been proceeding one is led to wonder what kind of question is being discussed. Having had experience of unemployment myself, I am perhaps in a different position from a majority of those who have spoken this afternoon. I am inclined to ask, are we talking about dogs or about men? There are some hon. Members who have spoken who seem to have more respect for dogs than for men. May I remind them that we are talking about human beings—about millions of men who have been out fighting for their country and who have saved their country. They are now out of employment. If it rested with me I would not place any limit on the Ministry in regard to money. Good heaven!—I hope the Committee will excuse my language but I cannot help it—I signed 60,000 miners' certificates for men who went out to fight for their country. I know what is 1156 coming on this winter. Coming events cast their shadows before them. There will be thousands of our men out of work by no fault of their own. I was out for 12 months through slackness of trade. I did not want a dole, I wanted work. Our men do not want doles. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) suggested it was all cant that we are putting forward. May I as a working man say I never refused any work, and I like to consider that my fellow men are of the same stuff and are Britons. You are proposing to give them 15s. a week—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not in order in dealing with that point. His arguments must be directed to the question whether the Treasury shall be allowed to borrow a further sum of money. The first part of the Resolution has already been dealt with.

§ Mr. CAIRNS
It makes it rather difficult for me if I cannot speak on that particular point. I am sorry there are men in this House who are opposing the proposal of the Ministry. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will get a thumping' majority for it, and if he asked for £40,000,000 instead of £20,000,000 it ought to be granted to him.

§ Mr. HOGGE
May I add one word to explain the position of those who have spoken in the sense I have spoken. We are asked to give the Government power to borrow a further £20,000,000 and hon. Members behind me are declaring that that is not nearly enough. If their view is the correct one, surely the sooner we have an opportunity for reviewing the situation, the better. That is why we are in favour of granting power only to borrow a lesser amount.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
And you would be wiping it out altogether.

§ Mr. HOGGE
No. We say that the Government which already has £5,250,000 in hand would, if it were granted power to borrow £10,000,000 only, have plenty of money to go on with until they are in a position to come again to the House with proper figures, so that it may review the whole situation. If it is true that the Government expect to have 1,250,000 unemployed right through until July, 1922, then it ought not to remain in office. It contemplates rising for six months during which time there will be this amount of unemployment every week. 1157 It is an impossible situation. By supporting the Amendment the Committee will not be opposing the grant of further borrowing powers—unless, of course, it is desired to make a party point of it, but by carrying the Resolution it will give the Ministry enough money up to the time the House is expected to rise and then the Government will be facing the unemployment problem during the Winter months when it is most acute. What we desire is that the House of Commons should keep its grip upon public funds and should insist on the Government placing the House in possession of all the facts in regard to unemployment before increased borrowing powers are given it. Is there any member of this Committee who is opposed to the unemployment benefit?

§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFT
We are opposed to increasing it.

§ Mr. HOGGE
If the hon. and gallant Member had taken the trouble to read the speech I made when I opposed this Bill on the Second Reading he would have seen that I based my opposition on the ground that it was false economy on the part of the Government to reduce the amount. Do not let the House make any mistake. If power is to be given to the Government as is suggested in this Resolution, they are going to be enabled to deal with the unemployment problem at a time when the House is not sitting, and all the Committee will be doing by passing the Amendment will be to keep the House of Commons grip on the finances of the nation.

§ Mr. WATERSON
I would not have spoken but for what has fallen from the last speaker, who has been trying to eat his own words in his endeavour to justify himself, an attempt in which he miserably failed. This is not merely a Government question. We have to deal with a very important situation affecting the lives of many of our people, and particularly of our children. After listening to the words of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and the arguments he adduced in support of his Amendment, I sincerely hope he will divide the Committee in order that we may know exactly where we stand and who are the sheep and who are the goats. May I respectfully remind the right hon. Gentleman that the burden is not to fall 1158 solely on the Government and the country, but that a certain proportion of the liability has been placed upon those who may receive this unemployment benefit? May I point out that the waiting period has been extended from three to six days, that the unemployment grant has been reduced, and that an increased contribution is also to be paid by the worker. The liability therefore is not all on one side. I agree there is something in the argument that this House should keep complete control over public finances, but surely if it has been found possible to trust the Minister in the past there is no reason why at this juncture we should now withhold our confidence from him. I hope that the Resolution will be agreed to unamended in order that we may give to our fellow workers some little comfort, a little more security than they now have, and a little more happiness in their cottage homes.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
I desire to ask the ruling of the Chair on a point which I wish to raise. Assuming that the first Clause of this Resolution is carried, will that preclude the Committee upstairs from discussing and deciding on any variation of the rate of contribution? The Government contribute one-fourth of the total. It is proposed to increase the adult male contributor's payment from 4d. to 7d., and the employer's contribution from 4d. to 8d. In the Resolution as it stands the Ministry is required to meet one-quarter of the charge. We have an Amendment down upstairs reducing the amount paid by the contributor and increasing the amount to be paid by the State. Can we discuss that upstairs in the event of this Resolution being carried?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That will rest with the Chairman of the Committee upstairs. This Resolution lays it down that a certain sum shall be payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, not to exceed one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contributions. As to the application of the particular Amendments upstairs, it is not in my power to rule.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
It follows, therefore, that if we are successful in reducing the 1159 payment by the contributor we should get a reduced rather than an increased contribution from the State, because it would only be one-fourth of the total. In face of a reduction in benefit from £1 to 15s.—namely, a reduction of 25 per cent.—the contribution is being increased by 75 per cent. At the moment the contributions are 4d. from the adult male, 4d. from the employer, and 2d. from the State, making a total of 10d. per week. The suggested scale is 7d. from the adult male, 8d. from the employer, and something under 4d. from the State. We believe that to be one of the fundamental defects of the Act which has largely contributed towards the financial breakdown. There are three parties to the scheme, all of whom are benefiting to some extent. The man benefits by his receipt of an amount which should be sufficient to keep him physically able, when the employer again requires his services, to give to that employer the result which has accrued from keeping his physique up to standard by the benefit received. The benefit to the State can scarcely be measured in terms of words. Assuming that there were no unemployment scheme at all in the country, and you had 3,250,000 people either totally or partially unemployed, does anyone suggest that we should have gone through the period from last November to the present time without having to face some very serious consequences? Does anyone suggest that the State has not benefited as a partner in this scheme by reason of its being able to give benefit to the unfortunate third partner in this great undertaking or contract? I suggest that the State ought to pay at least one-third of the total contributions, rather than one-fourth. It is because of the possible, bearing that this may have upon our Amendments which are designed to secure that result that I would, if I should be in order, move the deletion of all words after—

§ The CHAIRMAN
No Amendment is now possible. The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), to leave out the latter part of the Resolution, was negatived, and therefore, as the latter part stands, the former part stands also. The hon. Member is quite in order in discussing the Resolution, but he cannot now move an Amendment.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
I regret that very much. Perhaps I shall learn to render better service if I am permitted to remain in the House longer. I was not aware of the technicalities of order in this matter. I do not now know how my object can be achieved. If I moved the rejection of the Resolution, that would mean that the Ministry of Labour would not have power to pay such increased contributions as may become necessary to make up one-fourth of those paid by the other two contributing partners, who have had their contributions increased. I hesitate, therefore, to move the rejection of the Resolution, even if it were in order to do so, because I would rather have the powers which it is sought to place at the disposal of the Ministry than leave the Ministry with no power at all. I desire, however, to enter my protest against the inequality of the partnership as between the State, the employer, and the employé. The respective payments, namely, 7d. by the employé, 8d. by the employer, and only 3½d. by the State, do not represent the relative values that accrue from this scheme to the respective partners, which we consider to be one-third for each of them.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I should like to say a few words in reply to my hon. Friend, who has been very helpful in connection with the progress of the Bill in Committee. In recent Acts, the addition of one-fourth to the joint contributions of employers and employed has been the principle laid down, and I may tell my hon. Friend that that was the principle in the Act of 1911—though it was then one-third. Let me explain what these figures have meant. Under the Act of 1920, the contribution of one-fourth from the State, to be added to the joint contributions, worked out at 2d. per week in the case of men and 1⅔d. in the case of women. Under the Act of March last, which increased the contributions on both sides, the State had to pay 2¾d. in the case of men, and 2¼d. in the case of women. Under this Bill the joint contribution will be 1s. 3d. in the case of men, and 1s. 1d. in the case of women, and the State contribution will be 3¾d. in the case of men, and 3¼d. in the case of women. With regard to the aggregate figures, I will not go further back than the Act of 1920. In that case the State contribution in the aggregate was £4,250,000. Under the Act of the 3rd 1161 March last, as the result of the increased contributions, the State's contribution was £5,750,000. As a result of the still further increase under this Bill, the State's contribution will be £7,750,000. That is a very considerable addition in a short period of time, consequent, of course, upon the increase in contributions. Now let me tell my hon. Friend where he stands. If this Resolution is passed, the State's contribution cannot be increased. Therefore, if my hon. Friend desires to reduce the employé's contribution, he must make up the difference from the employer. He cannot touch the State contribution. The alternative is to bankrupt the fund, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be the last person to wish to do that.