§ 55. Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour if he can give an estimate of the cost of the administration for those who will receive standard benefit under the new Unemployment Bill, and also for those who come under Part II of the Bill?
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton)It is not anticipated that the amendments of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme proposed in Part I of the Bill will materially affect the cost of administering this scheme, except in so far as the extension of the period for which benefit may be drawn in the benefit year will increase the numbers on benefit, and therefore the administrative costs falling on the Unemployment Fund in respect of them. As regards Part II of the Bill I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 16 of the Financial Memorandum prefixed to the Bill.
§ Mr. BATEYThat does not give us the figures in either case—neither in Part I nor Part II. Cannot the Minister answer the question and tell us the cost of administration under standard benefit and transitional payment?
§ Sir H. BETTERTONI have already answered the question that
It is not anticipated that the Amendments of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme proposed in Part I of the Bill will materially affect the cost of administrating this scheme.
§ Sir H. BETTERTONI would ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the Actuary's 518 report, which is already published in regard to Part I of the Bill.
§ 57. Mr. LAMBERTasked the Minister of Labour if he will place upon the Table the estimate of the Government actuary of the cost of Part II of the Unemployment Insurance Bill?
§ Sir H. BETTERTONSuch information as I am able to give with regard to the cost of Part II of the Unemployment Bill is summarised in the Financial Memorandum prefixed to the Bill. This cost, I am advised, is not such that it can be made the subject of actuarial calculation, and I have therefore not asked the Government Actuary to make a report on it. As my right hon. Friend probably knows, a report by the Government Actuary on the proposals with regard to Unemployment Insurance in Part I of the Bill has been laid before the House (Cmd. 4447).
§ Mr. LAMBERTMay I ask my right hon. Friend whether this House is to be asked to vote an indeterminate sum, and is it not essential that we should get from the Government Actuary an estimate of the cost?
§ Sir H. BETTERTONNo, Sir, it is not a matter in which an actuarial calculation could possibly be made. The Actuary does not know what standard the board will adopt, and therefore what the cost will be. He does not know how many there will be in need. What he has done is to make an actuarial calculation with regard to insurance in Part I, and it is impossible to make an actuarial calculation with regard to Part II. All the information is contained in the Memorandum to the Bill.
§ Mr. LAMBERTIs not this a financial leap in the dark, and that we do not know where we are?
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSIs it not a fact that the standards will definitely be fixed by the local regional commissioners, or whatever they may be termed?
§ 65. Mr. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to state the result of the negotiations with representatives of local authorities in connection with the contributions of such bodies; whether any reduction of the 60 per cent. contribution towards maintenance of able-bodied un- 519 employed has been agreed upon; and whether he intends to continue the grant of £500,000 to distressed areas in this connection?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAAs regards the first two parts of the question, I must ask the hon. Member to refer to the Bill which has now been circulated. As regards the last part of the question the special grant to which the hon. Member refers will not be continued as such, since it was an emergency grant given in anticipation of the more comprehensive relief now proposed to be given under the permanent scheme.
§ Mr. THORNEIs the hon. Member not aware that when the Bill is before the House of Commons it will be impossible for any hon. Member on this side or on the other side of the House to move to increase the financial obligation of the Government? Therefore, is it not a question of the Government accepting a greater obligation than 60 per cent.?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAThat is the question I have endeavoured to answer.
§ Mr. THORNEIs it not a fact that so far as the Opposition or any private Members of the House are concerned we shall not be in a position to alter the financial obligation of the Government? Unless the Government are prepared to come to the aid of the local authorities by reducing the amount, they will be put under a great financial hardship.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAThat may or may not be the case. My hon. Friend is calling attention to the procedure of the House, and I cannot give a ruling on procedure.