§ 42. Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour what has been the extra cost to the Insurance Fund caused by the reduction of the waiting period from six days to three days; and what has been the estimated saving to local authorities since this reduction took place in August last?
35 and 36. Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour (1) what is the estimated saving which will accrue to the Unemployment Insurance Fund by the alteration proposed by Clause 1 of the Unemployment Insurance Bill;
(2) what will be the amount of the annual saving to the Unemployed Insurance Fund by increasing the waiting period from three days to six days; and whether the Government propose to make any equivalent grant to local authorities to reimburse them for the proportion of this sum which will be thrown upon their local rates?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe Government Actuary, in his Report on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, estimates that the savings under Clauses 1 and 2 will amount to between £6,000,000 and £6,500,000 per annum, according to the state of unemployment. Of this 399 amount, about £4,500,000, I am advised, is attributable to the difference between a waiting period of six days and one of three days. As regards the suggestion that the Poor Law authorities were relieved of a burden last year by the reduction of the waiting period, or will now have a burden cast upon them by an increase in this period, I would point out that, as was explained in yesterday's Debate, a waiting period without benefit normally follows immediately after a substantial period of employment. Accordingly, an increase in the waiting period from three days to six should not result in any appreciable addition to the amount paid by Poor Law authorities in relief of destitution, nor should a reduction in the period from six days to three result in an appreciable decrease in this amount.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Health, in reply to a question asking for further help to the local authorities, distinctly said that they had received great benefits under the Act passed last year?
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the amount paid in relief by the guardians in the first quarter of the year amounted to £1,700,000, while in the last quarter of the year it was reduced to £1,100,000, and does he not think that the position will be again reversed when this Bill becomes an Act?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDIt is quite clear, and I think must be apparent to everyone, that the decrease of the amount paid by the board of guardians was due to a large extent to last year's Act as a whole, but while it is not possible to distinguish between the effect of the various provisions of last year's Act, the question of the rate of benefit has infinitely more to do with it than the waiting period.
§ Mr. T. SHAWIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the striking similarity between the numbers put on the register by the Act of last year and the decrease in the numbers relieved by the guardians, and does he draw any conclusion from that striking fact?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI should draw no conclusion from any mere 400 equality or similarity in numbers without going into the causes. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question.
§ Mr. W. THORNEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been estimated that, so far as West Ham is concerned, the provisions contained in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman mean an increase of £30,000 to the West Ham Union?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI should be very interested if the hon. Member would show me the figures and tell me the reasons on which he bases his statement, because I cannot believe that what he says is accurate.
§ Mr. THORNEThe clerk of the union will do that.