I do not care how the moneys were got; the State used to pay £140,000. It paid in allied services something every year. That something varied. It was the difference between the £140,000 which ordinarily was required to run the insurance scheme and whatever amount was brought in by a certain fraction of the total Fund. That difference sometimes amounted to £30,000 and sometimes to £50,000. The State paid X, and X plus Y amounted to £140,000. Y was a certain fraction of the Fund to which the State subscribed. The State always subscribed more than Y. If I made a bargain with the Fund and said "I will meet the expenses of the Fund every year and pay nothing to the Fund," the taxpayer would be saving, because the taxpayer's contribution at the moment by way of addition to the Fund amounts to more in the year than the total administrative expenses of the Fund. Therefore, you can say that the State was bearing the entire administrative expenses of the Fund. Part was a direct grant in respect of allied services, but more than the total administrative expenses was subscribed to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The State used to pay £141,000. As it is now set out, it will pay in this year, if the income of the Fund remains exactly the same, £136,000. We expect the income of the Fund to increase. We calculated on a slight rise, and. we believe that the proportion of the total amount, as taken on the new fractional apportionment, will in fact be £141,000 or £143,000. The State is going to save a little this year on the State Grant. The State Grant will not be so much over the coat of the administration of the Fund as formerly. It will be less than it used to be by £46,000. I am not satisfied that that £46,000 is quite accurate. A certain amount of estimation comes in. I think that £54,000 would probably be more accurate. It will certainly be less than the £64,000 previously estimated. The State will save, because the State Grant will be three-sevenths of the total contributions of the employers and workers instead of, as previously, one-sixth. Three-sevenths of the total contributions will amount to £204,000. That represents a reduction of about £46,000. That is an estimate, but if it is correct it represents a reduction, as I have said, of £46,000 on the amount of the State Grant as at present, or last year, or the year before, payable or paid. Let us take that as a gain. A fraction of that will be taken from the Fund, plus any little expenses that will have to be made up. Suppose the calculation is accurate, if the produce of one-fifth of the Fund only gives £136,000 instead of £141,000, and if £141,000 be the total required, the State will have to pay £5,000 by way of allied services. Again, the taxpayer is going to save on the moneys put into the Fund to the extent of £46,000, but he will have, as heretofore, to meet the demand for £141,000. He may meet that by £136,000 in subscription to the Fund, plus £5,000, or some amount like that, to allied services, or he may meet it all out of the Fund. But it is all the taxpayers' money to the extent of £141,000. The State is saving from £46,000 to £54,000.
