1855. That expenditure is based on the work which the Department undertakes? -Yes.

1856. Is the work that they undertake limited to the payment-out of Unemployment Insurance ?-Oh, no.

1857. These salaries include other work carried out by the Department?-All the work carried out by the Department.

1858. This is the total figure? This is the total figure.

1859. Is the work that you are doing in the Department greater to-day than it was, say, last year?-Our salary estimate for 1926-27 is less than the salary estimate for 1925-26.

1860. What is that attributable to ?I think, in the main, as to the large figures, to the tendency of the number of people to whom we pay benefit to fall. 1861. Therefore you require less units in the respective Exchanges?—Yes.

1862. That is the case?—Yes.

1863. Is there any other branch of the Department where the work is getting less? In connection with the ex-service training schemes the work is getting less. Those schemes are rapidly approaching their end.

1864. Are you reducing correspondingly the administrative expenses?-Oh yes.

1865. As regards the records at Kew, you do most of your statistics at that end, do you not?-A part of the statistical division is at Kew, and a part is in London.

1866. At Albemarle Place?—No, Queen Anne's Chambers.

1867. A little while ago you had another division in another part of London where certain information was obtained?-As many Members of the Committee probably know, the Ministry of Labour has suffered from having staff in many different offices and having its staff split up. I believe at one time we did have some statistical staff in Albemarle Street.

1868. At the present time you have done away with those offices?—Yes.

1869. Is there any suggestion which the Department can put forward whereby if you had more concentration you could make a considerable reduction in personnel? We are hopeful that during the course of this year some extra semipermanent buildings which are being put up behind Montague House in Whitehall will make possible a concentration of staff, and that should be a gain in effi ciency as well as a gain in economy.

[Continued.

1870. Presumably you have in mind what the capital charge and the interest would be, and on the other hand what you are going to save in the way of the rent you are paying for places which presumably you can give up?Certainly, the thing has been most carefully considered.

1871. What is proposed to be given up; have you made up your mind about that? -I cannot quite tell you; it will probably involve a number of consequential moves.

1872. When the scheme was adumbrateu you had a plan of campaign in your mind, as to what you were going to do in dealing with the staff?-Yes.

1873. I presume you have not that programme with you?-I am sorry, I have not.

1874. Have you any idea what the cost of the new building is?-That falls on the Office of Works Vote; I am afraid I cannot tell you. I do not shelter myself behind that, but I do not happen to know.

Sir Fredric Wise.

1875. They shelter themselves behind you? You may speak for them, Sir Fredric, but I cannot.

Major Salmon.

1876. On that very point it would be interesting to know this: do you state when you require premises what your requirements are to the Office of Works, and the position in which you must have them; or do you simply say that you require premises in a particular locality to hold so many people?-We should say we require premises in a particular locality to hold so many people.

1877. Having regard, presumably, to a possible increase in the work?-Well, to the requirements; we should express the future as best we knew it.

1878. Would not that depend rather on if you were going to have a building put up for you, or you were hiring premises that were already erected. Would not that be a different outlook?-If you are buying premises or building premises, in either case you need to look a good long way ahead. I do not think in that respect it makes a great difference.

1879. But if you are renting premises? -If you are renting premises you do not need to look so far ahead. Of course we have to have premises for temporary increases in staff. If X thousand miner: fall out of work in a Welsh valley, which

may happen without any notice at all, we have to get staff as best we can, and house it as best we can.

1880. As a temporary expedient?-As a temporary expedient.

1881. That is quite understandable, but one would have thought it might have been possible to have a review in the districts to see how you could reduce the number of branches, if I may so describe them, and concentrate a little more?--I think you may take it that the Ministry of Labour are most anxious to do that sort of thing on every ground: efficiency, economy, the convenience of the public, and the convenience of the insured persons.

1882. When you talk of the convenience of the public that, of course, can be approached from two aspects?Very likely.

1883. It might mean that the establishments in a particular district should be much nearer together than is really essential because it means a little further to go?-I thought your suggestion at first was that the Ministry of Labour were perhaps not sufficiently keen in concentrating their premises; now, I see, you rather take the line that perhaps we are too keen, and go ahead regardless of cost; but I think we try to hold the balance; we certainly try.

1884. Is there any special department whose duty it is to review the position periodically?-Certainly.

1885. And in practice you are doing that?--Certainly.

1886. That is to say, either trying to give up premises when their leases come to an end, or give them up earlier if you can sublet them, because you find that the pressure of that particular kind of work in those particular premises does not justify keeping such large premises?-I am not sure that I follow the drift of the question. The answer to the question you asked me must obviously be "Yes," unless we are seriously negligent.

1887. I would like to take some concrete case; I do not want to deal with it too generally.-I am not able now to discuss concrete cases of Ministry of Labour premises.

1888. You know nothing about them?For one thing, they are not borne on this Vote.

1889. Surely, if there is any object in discussing these figures- -? Which figures?

[Continued.

1890. The figures of Salaries and Wages. A corollary of Salaries and Wages is a place to keep the staff in?— Also a corollary of Civil Service Salaries and Wages would be Stationery and Superannuation.

1891. Certainly, but I am rather taking it in a larger sense, that is the expensive annual charge for premises?Yes.

1892. You do not have that actually on this Vote, that comes under the Office of Works?-The expenditure comes under the Office of Works, but as a matter of fact we recover the cost from the Unemployment Fund, and it is credited as an Appropriation-in-aid of

this Vote.

1893. As regards the actual expenditure which the Ministry of Labour incur, have we any means of seeing how it is divided up, that is to say that it costs £X for running Employment Exchanges as distinct from any other branch. Have you got that?

Sir Fredric Wise.

1894. You have it for Kew; you remember you gave it to me last year? -We prepared separate statements for the Estimates Committee on this point. The total cost of the Employment Exchanges, so far as they are used in the administration of Unemployment Insurance, is brought in as an appropriation-in-aid of this Vote, and it is shown on page 483: £4,494,760.

Major Salmon.

1895. That is chargeable to the Unemployment Insurance Fund?—Yes.

1896. For administrative purposes?For administrative purposes.

1897. Does that only include personnel, or does that include the premises and all expenses?-It includes all expenses of any kind that Government incurs for the purpose of administering Unemployment Insurance.

1898. That is clear on that point; thank you. On the question of "Travelling Expenses," does that mean travelling expenses for the staff, or travelling expenses for people that you give vouchers to ?-Staff.

1899. This is purely for staff?-Yes.

1900. How is it that the figure is of this magnitude; is it because they have to keep travelling around, or is there any special reason for it?-A lot of the work of the Ministry necessitates

travelling. It has been reduced year by year, and the utmost endeavours are made to keep down the expenditure.

1901. What has been the peak load of it? Have you any idea how high it has been? You say it has come down?-In 1920-21 it was £161,000.

1902. That was at the period when you were doing a lot of work for demobilisation, were you not?—I should think that was over by then.

1903. Does the work entailed on this Department cause much more travelling than in any other branch of the Civil Service? Oh, no; I should suppose the Post Office, for instance, spend vastly more on travelling than we do.

1904. What sort of travelling; is it inspecting officers going from place to place? It would be the travelling expenses of officers engaged on inspection duties of various kinds.

1905. The audit staff, and things of that sort? Yes, or inspecting the payment of wages for Trade Boards, or going to localities in connection with an industrial dispute, or going to a training factory in regard to its management.

1906. You have just touched upon Trade Boards. Would it be possible for you to give the Committee any information as to what is the cost of the administration of the Trade Boards Act? -In the year in question something like £65,000 for staff and £5,000 for travelling.

1907. So it is roughly £70,000 for Trade Boards?-That is for the staff.

1908. That is nothing to do with housing the staff, of course?—No.

1909. There is an extra charge for that? Yes.

1910. Is the Ministry staff for this Department centralised?-Yes, but they have some local branches. They have a central headquarters staff, of course, but they have some local branches; it would be very extravagant to think of maintaining in London the inspector who does the inspection under the Trade Boards Act in Scotland.

1911. Would they be attached to existing offices of the Ministry of Labour which are used for other purposes, or would they be self-contained units?-It is the policy of the Ministry to concentrate its staff in every case that it

can.

1912. Are the administrative expenses in connection with the Trade Boards on the increase or decrease?-I do not think

[Continued.

there is a marked tendency in either direction. We are doing rather more inspection of the wages paid than we used to do.

Sir Fredric Wise.

are

1913. Is the new building you putting up behind Montague House doing away with Queen Anne's Chambers?That is rather the question you asked me before; I cannot, without having refreshed my memory for the purpose, say what will be the ultimate distribution of the staff in the re-arrangement of the premises.

1914. Perhaps you remember that the Estimates Committee rather recommended that there should be more concentration of the staff in one building?-We quite agree with that.

1915. That is what you are trying to do? Quite so. Obviously it will be a great gain to us to bring the staff into the place behind Montague House; but whether that means that we will give

up,

as the best building to give up.. Queen Anne's Chambers or some other place I cannot say. I am not sure whether it has yet been decided, but, in any case, it is one of those things that you may have to change your mind about at the last moment for reasons.

Sir Robert Hamilton.

1916. With regard to the training of Ex-Service Officers and Men, under sub-head P, on page 482, it is now seven years since the war; is that showing much diminution?-Yes, greatly.

1917. It is a large item still?-The amount for 1926-27 is £334,000, which is very greatly reduced.

Colonel Assheton Pownall. 1918. £1,000,000 less?-Yes.

Sir Robert Hamilton.

1919. How soon do you expect that to go off the Account altogether?--There will be little left after the end of 1926-27.

1920. There is a small item at the bottom of page 484: "Ex gratia Payment to an Applicant, who, through misleading information supplied by the Overseas Appointment Bureau of the Appointments Department, proceeded to South Africa." How does that come to be paid by the Labour Ministry?---The

Labour Ministry had, as one of its branches, the Appointments Department until that Department was closed, and of course the expenses of the Department were necessarily paid by the Ministry of Labour.

1921. Apparently it was not the fault of the Ministry of Labour that this resulted? The officer of the Appointments Department who gave the misleading information was an officer of the Ministry of Labour; he was a temporary officer we engaged, and he made very unwise representations, that no one would have dreamed of authorising, but he did it, and we made a contribution to the loss.

Colonel Assheton Pownall.

1922. He was suitably dealt with, I hope? He was.

1923. With regard to sub-head R on page 482,"Grants for Re-settlement in civil life," I suppose this is a rapidly vanishing item, is it not?-Yes; it really runs with the training to a large extent now; the people who are given resettlement grants are people who are found to be entitled to training but are found to be unsuitable. or who have finished training and need setting up in a small business in order to carry on in certain circumstances, or people who have been under treatment by the Ministry of Pensions who, after leaving that apply for a Re-settlement Grant and are given

one.

1924. Have you your figures under Subhead R for 1926-27?-Yes, £30,000. 1925. £100,000 less?-Yes.

Sir Fredric Wise.

1926. Have you the figures for 1926-27 in regard to "Loss and Compensation "? Are they reduced?-They are being reduced; but of course we do not know what we are going to lose in the coming year. We do not estimate for it; we are always hoping for better things.

1927. These will not occur again?— These last ones will not.

Major Salmon.

1928. With regard to the International Labour Organisation, sub-heads L1 and 12 on page 481, is that an increasing

[Continued.

or decreasing figure?-It was £29,000 in that year, and it is £31,000 in the Estimate for 1926-27.

1929. It is on the increase?-In 1923-24 it was £33,880. It is now less than it was, but it happens to be a little more than it was in 1924-25. It is considerably less than it was in 1923-24.

1930. Then I suppose it is fair to assume it is roughly stabilised now?-Of course, it is probably early days, in relation to an organisation of that kind, to say. We do not anticipate any considerable increase at present-on the contrary.

Colonel Assheton Pownall.

1931. Was not the increase this year owing to the fact that you made a considerable contribution to the Building Fund, a contribution of £4,000 as a gift? No, that is not included here.

1932. I thought that was in 1926-27 ?— No, that is on the Vote for 1925-26.

Sir Fredric Wise.

1933. That was a gift was not it? Yes.

Major Salmon.

1934. Is our share of the expense of running the International Labour Organisation higher or lower than that of other countries; have you any idea?We pay 11 per cent.

1935. Of the whole expenditure?-We pay 11 per cent., and there are 50 nations who are members, so obviously they do not all pay 11 per cent.

1936. Our share is 11 per cent. of the whole expense?—Yes.

Sir John Marriott.

1937. We make an 11 per cent. payment; what voting power have we?-I think the Estimates Committee reported that we had only one vote.

1938. With regard to sub-head R on page 482, Grants for Re-settlement in Civil Life, I understood that that account was closed?-We are not giving new rights to anybody; people had a certain time after the War in which to apply for a grant if they wanted one.

1939. I thought that period had elapsed? That is long since closed.

1940. That has elapsed?-Yes, long since. People who have been continually