22 May, 1924.]

[Continued.

5462. Is it any use comparing this with ordinary insurance at all, it is on such altogether different lines?-It was put to me that our charge was a high one.

5463. It seems to me so?-Directly anybody says it is high he must have some standard in his mind, and you cannot say that we are high by comparing it with any other form of insurance, I am sure.

5464. Do we understand that out of the £4,685,000 expenses there is only a small amount in question of £250,000?--None of that £4,685,000 is in question. will be a question whether another year we should add something to it.

Sir Fredric Wise.

It

5465. What company are you comparing this to?-Whatever form of insurance one takes; I should take all the companies there are from the published statistics, and I have done it for every form of insurance.

5466. Do I understand this premium on the pensions comes to about £250,000? -Yes, the accruing pension rights.

5467. How is that worked out?-I think we consulted the Government Actuary as to what would, if we were doing this, be a suitable sum to charge.

5468. Is it only a sum that is almost guessed at? Oh no, certainly not.

5469. It looks so small?-You may take it that the sum, if £250,000 it was, we have not worked it out precisely, is founded on the best advice we can get.

5470. On the advice of Sir Alfred Watson?-Certainly.

cheque once a year, can collect them for about 9.5 per cent. As your premiums are all collected, or mostly collected, by stamps do you think that to incur a cost nearly as large as the Alliance Ordinary Branch is a fair expenditure? Does not it seem to you rather high?-You are taking the experience of life insurance companies.

5476. I am?-With regard to the collection of those premiums they get business once, and then they are sure of a regular income, without effort, for 30 or 40 years; and they make one payment throughout the whole of the policy, and their expenses are somewhere round 9 per cent., or whatever it may be.

5477. That is so; then I am to understand that your expenditure covers more than getting the premiums, because it covers administering the payments out? -Absolutely, and the seeing of every claimant pretty well every day, at least two or three times a week, and making him a weekly payment; trying to find him a job, corresponding, and keeping accounts for the people throughout all their insured history.

5478. How much is your income?-£45,000,000 a year.

5479. And it costs you 10.5 per cent. of that £45,000,000 every year?-£4,685,000.

Chairman.

5480. You say it includes trying to find him a job; does it cover the whole of the expense of the Employment Exchanges? So far as they relate to insured persons.

Mr. Black.

5481. Might I ask one question about that premium; how is it that, these being civil servants, they are not insured in the ordinary superannuation scheme for civil servants?-They are so insured.

5482. And yet the Treasury object to your taking the money?-No. The salary of the officer is paid out of the Vote in the accounts before you while he is with us, and out of the proper non-effective Vote his pension is paid after he retires; that comes out of a Vote of Parliament. Then the law says that the Unemployment Fund, subject to certain conditions, shall repay the cost of its administration. What is the cost of its administration? We proceed to go through the accounts to see. We calculate all the ordinary

0 4

items, salaries and so forth, and then we come to pensions, and the question is, what does the law allow us to put down for pensions? We are advised the law allows us to put down in respect of pensions the sum paid for pensions during the year, but it does not allow us to put down a sum representing the accruing liability for pensions. (Mr. Fass.) Would the Committee like the figures showing what the Department has done in the way of reducing expenditure?

Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel.

5483. Yes?-In 1921-1922 their estimate was £5,800,000; in 1922-1923, it was £4,900,000; in 1923-1924 it was £3,827,000; in this year, £3,545,000; so that the reduction of the administrative expenses is a matter which is constantly before the Department.

5484. As you have been able to reduce it a great deal without getting any adverse criticism, it looks as if you could squeeze a little more out of this Fund? -(Mr. Bowers.) I do not think that is fair, if I may say so with respect.

5485. I do not criticise it adversely; 1 merely say it invites your attention?-It has it always.

Chairman.

5486. Have you anything to say on paragraph 89, Sir Malcolm?-(Sir Malcolm Ramsay.) That I think explains itself.

5487. We will now turn to the Account on page 469. Could you explain under what circumstances you took this Supplementary Estimate, which was considerably less than the underspending? As there was a large underspending, how was it that a Supplementary Estimate was taken?-(Mr. Bowers.) At the time the Supplementary Estimate was taken, we had no statistics on which to judge our revenue. Now we have two or three years' experience. The sum paid from the Exchequer is proportionate to the contributions paid by employers and workers.

5488. At what date did you take the Supplementary Estimate?-(Mr. Fass.) April, 1922. It was consequent upon the Bill of that year, which raised the State contribution.

5489. It was really the beginning of the year before you could judge the outgoings? (Mr. Bowers.) It was.

[Continued.

Sir Fredric Wise.

5490. Of these salaries, how much is a charge on account of Kew?-You will find that is Item (iii) in the smaller print,

Claims and Record Office, Kew, Expenditure, £672,775."

5491. Have you reduced your staff there at all?-Steadily. I could give you the figures over a period, if you desire them.

5492. You have reduced it? Yes.

5493. Are you still reducing it?Slowly; we shall not be able to go down so fast now.

5494. Have you at all considered the proposition of working in with the National Health Insurance?-That has been considered by various authorities. 5495. Was not there a Committee set up to go into that?-Yes.

5496. Did they ever report?-They have issued three reports, I think.

5497. Not to the House of Commons? -Yes; they have been laid before Parliament.

5498. Recently ?-No, not recently.

5499. Is there any chance of working in with National Health ?-I am fairly confident myself that that is a change which would not make the economies that you would expect on the face of it.

5500. You have duplication of about 12,000,000 cases, have not you?—I have looked at that side of it a good deal. One of the crucial items in the matter is that at Kew, because of the magnitude of the accounts kept in one place, we are able to adopt what are, in effect, mass production methods as applied to the accounting.

5501. Could not you consolidate that with the National Health or vice versa? -If you said, let us distribute those records among Approved Societies, and let them send us particulars and so forth, by breaking the large unit up into small ones, you would in one way or the other, in my judgment, off-set the extra saving.

5502. You would not get any real saving by amalgamation with the National Health? Surely, you must; there is duplication all through? Of course, it is rather a big question to deal with on the spur of the moment, like this. (Mr. Fass.) There are three Reports, and they have all been laid before Parliament; they were made in 1921 and 1922.

5503. I have been down there since then?-(Mr. Bowers.) I am sure you found it a very efficiently run office.

22 May, 1924.]

5504. I found it very efficiently run, but a most enormous reduction could be made in expenditure if there was some amalgamation with the National Health? -On that point I do not agree.

Chairman.] This is a very, very big and interesting subject, but I do not know that it is an accounting matter.

Sir Fredric Wise.

5505. Why should not the Committee go down to Kew and see for themselves?We should be delighted if you did.

Chairman.] It is hardly a trading point, is it; the policy of the amalgamation of insurances is a very big matter.

Sir Fredric Wise.] It would be a big thing if you could get a reduction of £30,000; there is a very great deal of duplication.

Mr. Black.

5506. With regard to sub-head F, the Industrial Court, I see the salaries, wages and allowances were £10,746 actually, and the travelling expenses and the Incidental Expenses were tremendously less than granted. How do you account for that? The travelling expenses were estimated at £1,500 and Incidental Expenses at £2,900, but in each case only a very small amount was expended?-At the time the Estimate was framed it was thought that there would be, probably, a considerable amount of travelling in the provinces on the part of the Court, that it would sit at provincial centres much more often than it did, and that there would be, in the period in question, an outbreak of industrial unrest which would lead to the use of the Court more than in fact happened.

5507. Can you tell us how many cases there were came into Court in that year? -I am afraid I cannot.

5508. What I am after is this: you have an expenditure in salaries, wages and allowances nearly approximate to the Estimate?-Yes.

5509. So that you paid out all, or nearly all, you expected with regard to salaries and wages, and yet it looks as if there was very little work done indeed, because your travelling expenses and incidental expenses are next to nothing?-I think that only shows that the people who are engaged in this work did not travel as much as was expected.

5510. If they were not travelling they were not doing their work, were they?—

[Continued.

The Industrial Court normally sits in London, opposite the Houses of Parlia

ment.

5511. Could I be supplied with the number of cases that were dealt with for an expenditure of £10,746 in wages? I want to know how much per case it cost us to deal with them, if you can let us know that?-Very good.*

Mr. Leif Jones.

5512. I see you have cut down this Estimate for travelling, and so on, later on ?-Yes.

5513. Really it is caused by a change of system, is not it? The Industrial Court, even when these Estimates were being prepared, was relatively new; and the course its affairs will adopt must always be, in the early years, uncertain; as to what extent they will sit in the provinces and to what extent they will sit in London and so on; at any rate there was not a great deal of knowledge on the subject at the time we framed the Estimate, therefore we put down the sums we did. Directly we found that their expenditure was on a smaller scale we reduced the Estimate.

5514. This year you have only taken £300 under each head?-Yes; it is quite smail.

Sir George McCrae.

5515. Under sub-head H I notice there has been an under-spending of £729,406. Could you give us the details of that? I see according to the foot-note there are various items which go to explain this?— I cannot split the saving into the various parts, but the substance of the matter was this that at the time this Estimate was framed we had relatively no adequat statistics as to the number of persons to whom the scheme would apply, and we were not able to make as good an Estimate as we should hope to make now. Of course, how much we shall actually take under this Vote depends on a variety of circumstances. We are able now to make better Estimates than we could then.

5516. Could you tell the Committee, for instance, what was the saving under subhead I?-No; those two funds were

The number of cases dealt with by the Industrial Court during the year ended 31st March, 1923, was 48, including one case upon which the Court was occupied for two months. The number of cases dealt with in the year ended 31st March, 1924, was 122.-F. G. B."

22 May, 1924.]

[Continued.

amalgamated by Statute; they run side by side, and I do not think in our accounts we have kept any separate charge in respect of them.

5517. For what space of time did they run separately?-From November, 1921. till 9th May, 1922.

5518. Do you find the amalgamation satisfactory?-Yes, quite; they were amalgamated by Statute from the date that I have mentioned.

Mr. Baker.

5519. Can I be told what proportion of the staff actually employed by the Ministry is borne on the Ministry Vote and what proportion falls under the head of Treasury Class?-The whole of the staff of the Ministry is paid for out of the Ministry's Vote; that is shown on page 469.

5520. That is the whole staff?-The whole staff of the Ministry. As to the other question you asked: how much of the staff in the Ministry are within Treasury Class is not a matter I can answer out of hand.

5521. Could I have that information later? Certainly.*

of

"On 31st March, 1924, the numbers of Staff the Treasury and Departmental Classes employed by the Ministry of Labour were 5,780 and 8,485 respectively. The reduction of hours from 44 to 42 per week of some 1,900 of the temporary staff was put into effect as from 19th June, 1924. The remainder of the temporary staff, about 4,500 in number, are either employed in offices where the staff is conditioned to a normal 8-hour day or in offices where no permanent cadre is sanctioned.-F. G. B."

owing to the slump, employers were not able to find as many openings for the men as improvers as was hoped; and the trades themselves said: What is the use of placing these men in when we see that afterwards there will be so much difficulty in finding them improverships, and so forth; so that, throughout the history of the scheme, we were compelled always to be going slower than we hoped, necessarily. Everybody wanted the sche.ne to finish as soon as might be; that is to say, that the men should be trained, and we took the sum of money which we reasonably hoped we might be able to spend. With the slump upon us it simply damped down the operations; it was not the number of men we could train.

5524. Does this training cover the King's Roll work; or is that quite a different function ?-The Estimate for training covers just the cost of training the men who are placed in training; but the cost of the King's Roll Committees would be borne, in this year, under subhead B for the travelling expenses of the Committee, and any staff required to do secretarial work for them, and so forth, would be under sub-head A.

5525. Have you got any census of cll these men in need of work?-We have had various.

5526. Distinguished as ex-service men? -We have had various inquiries as to the number of disabled men remaining out of work, and those figures are available.

5527. Where are they available?—I am not quite sure what has been published, but if there is any specific point on which we could furnish information, we shall be happy to do so.

5528. You have not it here now?—I have not.

5529. Do you remember whether the position has become aggravated, or is improving?—The percentage of unemployed amongst the disabled certainly less than among the generality of the industrial population.

5530. It is?-Oh, yes.

men

is

5531. Have you got definite proof of that? Yes.

5532. It has not been published, I suppose? I cannot say. I do not carry in mind whether or not it is as you say, but I should be pleased to send the Committee figures, if desired.

5533. I think the Committee would be interested in that, because it is a subject which is coming very much to the front