I beg to move Section I. of this Bill. This Section is merely a definition of terms used in the Bill. It is proposed to delete the reference to Act No. 1 of 1921 in this Section. It does not occur elsewhere in the Bill, as introduced.
[DAIL IN COMMITTEE.] - UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL, 1923.
1.—In this Act.
the expression "Principal Act" means the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920;
the expression "Act No. 1 of 1921" means the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921;
the expression "Act No. 2 of 1921" means the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1921, and
the expression "Act of 1922" means the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922.
I move amendment No. 1: "To delete the words, lines 13 and 14, ‘the expression Act No. 1 of 1921 means the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921.'" The expression does not occur in the Bill, and therefore, it is not necessary to include it in the interpretation clause.
Amendment agreed to.
Question put: "That Section I., as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 2.
(1) So much of Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act of 1922 as provides that the fourth special period established by that Sub-section shall terminate on the 1st day of July, 1923, is hereby repealed.
(2) The said fourth special period shall terminate
(a) on the 16th day of May, 1923, in respect of every person who shall on or before that date have received all the benefit authorized to be paid to him in the fourth special period;
(b) on the 6th day of June, 1923, in respect of every person who shall, after the 16th day of May, 1923, and on or before the 6th day of June, 1923, have received all the benefit authorized to be paid to him during the fourth special period;
(c) on the 1st day of July, 1923, in respect of every other person.
(3) Section 11 of the Principal Act shall apply to every question which shall arise as to whether the fourth special period has or has not terminated in any particular case as fully as if such questions were specifically mentioned in that section.
I beg to move Section 2 of the Bill. Under the Act of 1922, the Fourth Special Period was current from the 2nd November to the 1st July, during which the maximum of 132 days' benefit was payable. Persons continuously unemployed during that period will begin to exhaust their benefit early in April. We propose, under the present Bill, to take power to bring these people into benefit earlier than the 2nd July, which was the earliest date, under the 1922 Act, on which they could again come into benefit. Sub-section III. dealing with Section 11 (eleven) of the Principal Act merely applies to Courts of Referees, or, if necessary, to an umpire where the claimant is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Ministry. I formally move Sub-section 2.
Question put: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 3.
(1). For the purpose of determining the amount of benefit to which, having regard to the proportion of benefit to contributions fixed by para. 3 of the Second Schedule to the Principal Act, any person is entitled, but for no other purpose,
(a) no account shall, after the termination of the fourth special period, be taken of any benefit which may have been received by such person between the 7th day of November, 1920, and the commencement of the first benefit year, and
(b) during the first benefit year each of the total number of contributions actually paid in respect of such person after deducting from that total five contributions in respect of each week's benefit received by such person before the 8th day of November, 1920, shall be treated as equivalent to three contributions or such lesser number of contributions (not being less than one) as the Minister may from time to time prescribe by regulations made for the purpose.
(2) So much of Sub-section 1 of Section 6 of the Act of 1922 as is inconsistent with the foregoing sub-section is hereby repealed.
I beg to move Section III. When this Bill becomes operative law only persons who have contributions to their credit will be entitled to benefit. Uncovenanted benefit will disappear, and this section marks the transition from uncovenanted benefit to the original scheme of insurance against unemployment, under which payment of benefits was dependent on the number of contributions which claimants had to their credit. Under the emergency scheme of uncovenanted benefit, in operation since 1921, large amounts were paid to persons who had contributed very little, or who had never contributed. We propose in this Bill to put all persons on an equal footing. Section III., Sub-section 1(a) preserves the right conferred on unemployed contributors under previous Acts, and Section III. Sub-section 1 (b) is designed to ease the transition from uncovenanted benefit to covenanted benefit, as it will reduce the rate at which people will exhaust their benefit during the first benefit year— that is the period ending the 17th October next—and leave them better off at the beginning of the winter season than they would be if the ratio fixed by the Act of 1922 were continued. Sub-section 2 is merely a consequential amendment, dependent on Sub-section 1.
I have an amendment to this section:—"In Sub-section 1(b) to delete all words from ‘or such lesser number...,’ in line 5 to the end of the sentence.” One reason I have for putting down this amendment is to find out exactly what is the intention of the Ministry in regard to this matter. If the amendment were carried, the Clause would simply say that the three contributions would be the minimum, but according to the proposal some lesser number may be the minimum if the Minister so desires or so decides. I am not able to understand the intention in regard to that, and I should like to have some explanation from the Minister if he would give it to us.
The effect of Deputy Johnson's amendment would be that all contributions would have to be multiplied by 3 in the first benefit year, and there would be no discretion at all left with the Minister. It is considered necessary that the Minister should have some discretion in the matter, especially in the case of multiplying by 3, because it may be found that this would prove unduly expensive, and make perhaps a very large demand on the finances of the Bill. Besides, the full benefit which people would be entitled to under this Bill would be 15 weeks' benefit, and of the unemployed 25,930 would be entitled, as the Bill stands, to 15 weeks' benefit, so that the big majority would secure the maximum benefit under the present scheme. The Minister would necessarily require some discretion as to the application of the rule of multiplication by 3 in respect of the others so as to work out the amount as equitably as possible for the whole lot. Of the small minority remaining, 3,770 would be entitled to from 9 to 15 weeks' benefit, and over 3,000 more to periods averaging from 4 to 9 weeks' benefit, so that only a few hundred would receive no benefit. It is the Ministry's desire to reserve a discretionary power, so as to work out, as fairly as possible, the rate at which they should draw unemployment benefit. As pointed out, the vast majority of the unemployed —25,930 or 78.6 per cent.—would be entitled to fifteen weeks' benefit, or more, as it stands. It is in the first benefit year—between now and the 17th October—that, in the case of extravagant expenditure, it is desired to reserve the power to try and minimise that expenditure.
This rather upsets the whole scheme as it was explained to us in the introduction. Now we are told that the new proposal is not to ensure that people shall go forward with a certain guaranteed benefit, but that it will be in the discretion of the Minister. It may be quite right to talk about the first benefit year, but we have to think of the people who will be unemployed from October onward. There was a certain satisfaction expressed at going on to insurance when we were dealing with the Second Reading, but now we are told it is not insurance; it is insurance at the discretion of the Minister. The rate of insurance is to be at the discretion of the Minister. Either three times or something less than three times the contributions are to be taken into account. I do not think that is satisfactory; it is not consistent with the promise outlined in the Second Reading discussion. This brings about the question of the position of insured contributors at the close of the first benefit year, the close of October. The Bill can only be considered reasonably satisfactory provided that there is running along with it during this next few months a very general revival in trade and employment. If that revival does not pan out as it is hoped by the optimistic, then the position of these insured persons is going to be very, very bad indeed in October, and it will be obviously necessary to bring forward a new provision by that time, especially if these less fortunate people are going to be placed in so bad a position going into the next benefit year. After all, I suppose it is a case of "to them that have shall be given." Those who have been less lucky in regard to employment will have less contributions to their credit. But here is a proposition that seems, judging from the Minister's explanation, to ensure those people will be still less fortunate than they have been. I want to emphasise the position of the less fortunate, the less regularly employed workmen. Take certain of the building trades as an instance. They depend very largely on the summer season. Unless things are very much better during the next six months, those men will be entering upon the ordinary, normal, black season in November, and their position will be very, very difficult indeed unless some consideration is given to the winter cycle of trade and the conditions of such persons in that winter period. People going into the next benefit year are going to be badly placed indeed unless we are going to guarantee in this way and look forward at least to a very great acceleration in the rate of employment between now and then, so that they will have contributions to their benefit. Even those who have been fairly well employed going into the next benefit year will only have about one in six to their credit. If a man had been working, say, a full year, and had sixty contributions to his credit in the last two years or so, he would have to have something like regular employment between now and then to be put into anything like reasonable benefit for the winter season. I feel that this option to the Minister to reduce the credits ought not to be put into the Bill, that at least the people ought to be assured of the equivalent of three contributions, and that there should be no suggestion of any lesser number. I beg to move the deletion of these words following "or such lesser number," in line five to the end of the sentence.
Perhaps I did not make it perfectly clear to Deputy Johnson. So long as any substantial number require to have their contributions multiplied by three, in order to keep them in benefit, their contributions will be multiplied by three, but if after some time it is found that a large number of people will have made new contributions, then obviously it would be unfair that we should have to multiply all these contributions by three. Suppose there be a great increase of employment or a great diminution of unemployment, if large numbers of people become re-employed, these people will contribute, and would the Deputy insist that we should multiply these contributions by three. I do not think it would be fair to ask us to do that. With regard to some people being placed in a bad position, large numbers of people have undoubtedly been receiving benefit who never contributed a penny at any time. It may interest the Deputy to know that large numbers of people drawing benefits at the present moment will have fifty contributions to their credit because under the present scheme people who had contributions to their credit before the 1921 Act will be credited with these contributions in the second benefit year, as I understand it.
The Minister is rather harping on those more fortunate. I, on the other hand, am harping on the less fortunate ones. For the Minister to put forward the more fortunate ones and build his case on their position does not carry with it any conviction to me. I want to think of those who are less fortunate and who just as much require to live as the more fortunate.
It is the less fortunate ones who will have their contributions multiplied by three. That is our case. We are prepared to multiply the contributions of the less fortunate ones by three. Should the Deputy insist by deleting "or such lesser number" then we are also multiplying those who have a large number of contributions to their credit.
Will the Minister agree to put in a phrase that will ensure that so many of those with less than so many contributions will have their credits multiplied by three, so that there will be some assurance. This trusting to the judgment of a Minister is not satisfactory to the average man. It may be all very good for the Ministry if the Ministers think they are going to be in permanent occupation of their present positions. If they can assure us that that is the case, we may trust them, but a new Minister may come in and may decide "economy is my cry and nothing but economy." I would like some assurance. What is it Shylock said: "I cannot see it in the bond."
My word is my bond, and I hope as long as this emergency scheme is necessary we will exist. At least I hope that.
Once this Bill is an Act, the risks are too great.
The first benefits only run to the 17th October.
It is the succeeding period I am thinking about.
Who has the discretion in this matter? Is it the different local managers that will calculate the contributions or will they be sent to the Minister in every case?
I think the Minister has made it perfectly clear now, at all events, that only those absolutely and genuinely entitled to receive contributions, under this Act, shall receive them henceforth. I personally dislike the Act, and I think I am right in saying that every decent citizen throughout the country dislikes the Act, and included in these is every decent workman. I have been up and down town and country, and I find they do not like it. We must all admit that they are entitled to genuine contributions, but we must also realise—and the workmen themselves realise it—that there is a certain small proportion who never seek work, but who are continually seeking money from the Exchanges. I hold it is absolutely demoralising to any decent workman to have to wait shivering at the door of these Exchanges for his dole. and I am confident that the ordinary workman to-day wants decent work instead of the continuance of this demoralising system.
Does the Deputy know whether the ordinary workman wants this amendment or not? It is the amendment which is before us now, and not a general discussion upon unemployment benefit.
I do not want to raise a general discussion, but to mark my appreciation of the statement made by the Minister that only genuine people shall receive contributions henceforth. I think it is only fair to the taxpayer that that should be the case. The Minister has admitted that there has been an almost criminal abuse of this Act up to this, and people have been drawing contributions—property owners and so forth —and the poor Irish taxpayer has to foot the bill. That might be all very well up to 12 months ago, when the money came from the British Treasury. It was all very well to fleece them and to console ourselves with the idea that we were only getting our own back. Now the Irish taxpayer has to foot the bill, and consequently I was very glad to hear the Minister state that only those who were genuinely entitled to receive payment shall receive it henceforth.
With regard to what Deputy Hennessy has said, I should like to recall the statement I made, on the Second Reading, which was to the effect that while abuses were very difficult to check, that uncovenanted benefit was the order of procedure and the cases of criminal abuses were very, very few. I think the Deputy may be under some misapprehension as to what I said upon the Second Reading. I do not agree that there were many cases of abuse. There were very few cases of abuse. With regard to what Deputy Corish said as to who would do the multiplication by three, the procedure is that the manager of the Exchange applies to the Record Office to find out the money contribution which the claimant has to his credit and the Minister will do the multiplication by three, not the local manager of the Exchange.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided. Tá, 12; Níl, 34.
Tá
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Seoirse Ghabháin Uí Dhubhthaigh.
- Tomás Ó Conaill.
- Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.
- Liam Ó Daimhín.
- Seán Ó Laidhin.
- Cathal Ó Seanáin.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin.
Níl
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Uáitéar Mac Cumhaill.
- Seán Ó Duinnín.
- Mícheál Ó hAonghusa.
- Domhnall Ó Mocháin.
- Pádraig Mac Ualghairg.
- Peadar Mac a' Bhaird.
- Seán Ó Ruanaidh.
- Seán Mac Garaidh.
- Pilib Mac Cosgair.
- Mícheál de Staineas.
- Domhnall Mac Carthaigh.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Sir Séamus Craig, Ridire, M.D.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Pádraic Ó Máille.
- Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Fionán Ó Loingsigh.
- Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.
- Criostóir Ó Broin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Caoimhghin Ó hUigín.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Tomás Mac Artúir.
- Séamus Ó Dóláin.
- Próinsias Mag Aonghusa.
- Eamon Ó Dúgáin.
- Séamus Ó Murchadha.
- Seosamh Mac Giolla Bhrighde.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Alasdair Mac Cába.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Domhnall Ó Broin.
Amendment declared lost.
Question: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to
SECTION 4.
The first benefit year shall be the period beginning on the day next following the day on which the fourth special period shall terminate under this Act and ending on the 17th day of October, 1923, and the second benefit year shall be the period beginning on the 18th day of October, 1923, and ending on the 15th day of October, 1924, and every subsequent benefit year shall be the period beginning on the next day following the day on which the preceding benefit year expired and ending on the Wednesday nearest to the 16th day of October in the next following calendar year.
I beg to move Section 4. Hitherto the benefit ran from July to July and the books should be completed at the end of July, but in practice it was found that the books were not completed until September, and so we propose that the new benefits shall be from October to October. Besides there is another advantage and that is that this Section makes the benefits begin with the approach of the winter season, and it is consequently a little more serviceable to the claimants.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
The following enactments shall not operate or have effect during the first benefit year, that is to say
(a) condition (i) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Principal Act;
(b) sub-section (4) of section 8 of the the Principal Act.
Paragraph (a) provides for the transition from covenanted to uncovenanted benefit; for those contributors who came into insurance for the first time at the beginning of the year and who, owing to the depressed condition of trade, have been practically unemployed all the while. 5 (b) proposes to suspend Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act of 1920 and to make available for computation for benefit unexhausted contributions under the earlier Acts, so that by the suspension of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act of 1920 those who had exhausted contributions will have these made available for benefit.
Question put and agreed to
SECTION 6.
(1) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph(b) of Part I. of the First Schedule to the Principal Act:—
"(b) Employment under such a contract as aforesaid as master or a member of a crew of any ship registered in Saorstát Eireann or of a Saorstát Eireann or British ship or vessel (not being a ship registered in Great Britain or Northern Ireland) of which the owner, or, if there is more than one owner, the managing owner or manager resides or has his principal place of business in Saorstát Eireann.”
(2) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph(c) of Part II. of the First Schedule to the Principal Act:—
"(c) Employment in the military service of Saorstát Eireann.”
(3) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Principal Act:—
"2. —No person shall receive unemployment benefit for more than fifteen weeks during the first benefit year nor for more than twentysix weeks during any subsequent benefit year, nor at any time in respect of any period less than one day."
(4) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule to the Principal Act:—
"5. —A period of unemployment shall not be deemed to commence until the date on which the insured contributor makes application in the prescribed manner for unemployment benefit.
Provided that regulations may be made under this Act for allowing some earlier date to be substituted for the date of application in any case in which good cause is shown for delay in making the application."
I beg to move Section 6. Sub-section 1 is an amendment of the Act rendered necessary by our severance from Great Britain. As between the Saorstát and Great Britain, it provides in effect that the crew of a ship registered, or, if not a registered vessel owned in the Saorstát, will be insurable in the Saorstát, and vice versa. The provision herein has been agreed to by the British Ministry for Labour. In Sub-section (2) it is intended merely to remove any doubts as to soldiers in the Saorstát being in the same position under the Insurance Acts as the soldiers of the British Army are. Enlistment in the military forces is very obviously not employment of a kind which the Insurance Acts contemplate. In Sub-section (3) the maximum benefit between the coming into the operation of the Act and the 17th October is limited to 15 weeks, and after October to 26 weeks for the benefit year. It will be noticed that only 20 weeks run from this to the 17th October. Hence, the 15 weeks' benefit may be considered favourable when compared with the normal maximum of 26 weeks in the year. Sub-section (4) is merely a matter of administrative machinery intended to regularise a practice which has obtained of allowing claims to be antedated when claimants can prove they have been unemployed and prevented from lodging claims.
Will the Minister tell us what arrangements have been made, or are contemplated, for seamen drawing their benefit when they are resident in the Saorstát and unemployed, and are registered under the British Act and draw from the British unemployment fund?
At the present moment there exists reciprocal arrangements for the provision of Saorstát stamps in Great Britain, and the provision of British stamps in the Saorstát for the purposes of unemployment for such persons as the Deputy mentions.
Question: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) The Minister may by Order approve of any agreement between an employer and an insured Contributor or Contributors whereby such employer agrees to take into or retain in his employment the insured Contributor or Contributors on work which in the opinion of the Minister is work of public utility, subject to an amount equal to the weekly amount which each such insured Contributor would, but for such agreement, be entitled to receive as Unemployment Benefit, being paid weekly by the Minister to the employer for so long as each such Insured Contributor would otherwise be entitled to receive Unemployment Benefit, and such Order shall provide that the period for which each such Insured Contributor would otherwise be entitled to receive Unemployment Benefit during the first benefit year shall be reduced by one week or part of a week in respect of each week or part of a week in which such amount is paid by the Minister to the employer.
(2) Any agreement submitted to the Minister for his approval under this section shall contain the name or names of the Insured, Contributor or Contributors and particulars of the work on which he or they is or are to be employed, and of the wages to be paid and conditions of employment to be observed throughout the period of the agreement, and no alteration in such work, wages or conditions of employment shall be made without the prior approval of the Minister in writing, and if any such alteration be made without the approval of the Minister, the employer shall re-pay to the Minister the amount received by the employer in respect of any Insured Contributor in whose case the alteration is made from the date on which the alteration was first made.
I beg to move Section 7. As I pointed out in the Second Reading, the Section was merely intended to allow certain workers a choice in a particular circumstance as to whether they should receive the unemployment benefit of, perhaps, 20s. per week, or should continue to work and receive their usual scale of pay, the unemployment allowance going to the particular person who would guarantee them their usual rate of pay. The Minister shall specify what particular works should be considered in the case. Works of public utility only were contemplated, but, as I have said, if Deputy Johnson seriously objected to Section 7, we do not intend to press the matter. We were not at all enamoured of it, and it would put considerable labour on the Ministry, and probably result in a good deal of unpleasantness.
We had better take Amendment (4) first.
I beg to move:—
In Sub-section (1) to insert after the word "weekly," the words "out of the Unemployment Fund."
The object of the amendment is to indicate the source from which the payments will be made.
Amendment agreed to.
I move Deputy O'Brien's amendment to delete the entire Section. I had tried to think seriously of the arguments put forward in favour of this Section on the Second Reading, but the more I think of it the less I like it. The more I think of it the more sure I am that it would cause interminable trouble if it were attempted to be brought into operation. If it were not to be brought into operation, then it is no use putting it into the Bill. The very appearance of it in the Bill would immediately excite—I was going to say suspicion—attempts to make schemes, and would bring employer into conflict with employer, workman into conflict with workman, and employer into conflict with workman over even the prospect of such schemes. I am sure it is not going to be a satisfaction to anyone. The object of it is, no doubt, a good one, but the method of aiming at that object would, I am sure, be full of all kinds of trouble, and, in view of what the Minister has said, there is no use extending the argument. I would press for the withdrawal of the Section. There may be possibilities of the best way to achieve the end sought and do it by other means, but I would urge it ought to be dissociated from this Bill.
I appreciate what Deputy Johnson said about the motives underlying the insertion of the Section. They were, I can assure Deputy Johnson, good motives. I appreciate that he regards them as such. We realise quite fully that the Ministry might have a very unpleasant task in the operation of that Section. I accept the amendment moved on behalf of Deputy O'Brien, and am prepared to withdraw the Section.
Section 7 by leave withdrawn.
SECTION 8.
(1) For the purpose of retaining in insurance soldiers enlisted on short service who, before enlistment, were normally employed in an insurable occupation, the Minister for Defence shall, out of monies to be provided by the Oireachtas, pay to the Minister for the credit of the Unemployment Fund such contributions for each person to whom this section applies as are necessary to secure that there shall be not less than twelve contributions to the credit of such person in respect of each insurance year during which, or part of which, such person has been a person to whom this section applies.
(2) The sums to be paid in each year by the Minister for Defence to the Minister under this section shall be ascertained and paid at such times and in such manner as may be agreed between the Minister for Defence and the Minister.
(3) This section applies to every person enlisted in the military forces of Saorstát Eireann for any period not exceeding twelve months who at the date of enlistment has had paid in respect of him under the Unemployment Insurance Acts either twenty contributions at any time, or ten contributions since the 8th day of November, 1920.
I move Section 8 This section is designed to secure that soldiers who are insured before joining the Army, and who will not be remaining in the Army, shall have their required 12 contributions paid for them in each insurance year.
Before proceeding, will the Minister explain what the effect of that Section would be? Supposing a man were discharged from the Army in October and were unemployed for a period, what would be his position in the succeeding benefit year?
If he had been engaged in an insurable occupation before joining, and had 12 contributions to his credit, these contributions would be to his credit next October.
Does the Minister mean that he is not getting any credit for contributions during the period of service?
He gets the twelve contributions, provided he has not already got them to his credit.
I beg to move amendment 5.
In Sub-Section (1) to delete all after the word "that" in line 35, and to substitute:—
"each such person shall have the same number of contributions to his credit as if he had been employed as an employed person within the meaning of the principal Act during the whole period of his service as a soldier."
From the explanation of the Minister, I take it that those twelve contributions, when the soldier would go out of the Army, would entitle him to two weeks unemployment benefit. Will that be the position after October? That is one in six. If he were out of employment for five or six weeks he would have had only two weeks unemployment benefit. Then it would depend entirely upon the amount of employment available for ex-soldiers as to where they would be during the winter. Now, I think that is not good enough, and I want to urge the acceptance of the amendment, on these grounds, that the soldier during the time of his service ought to have been considered to be insurable, not only insurable, but to be kept insured so that he would not be any worse off than he would have been had there been no new Act and had he been working during that time. There is quite a considerable number of men who believe they were doing what was necessary for the country and left insurable employment to join the Army. They may have been disemployed for a considerable time, and they may have only recently renewed their employment, and the amount of credits might have been very low, but the prospect of re-employment might have been fairly good with the particular class of man. The proposal of the Bill is that he shall go out of the Army with twelve contributions to his credit, and unless he had by fairly regular work in the previous two years, been able to pile up credits, he is going into the winter very badly handicapped.
The amendment that I am proposing practically means that during the time of his employment as a soldier he would be treated as if he had been in insurable employment. I do not think that is an unreasonable claim. He took up work of an emergency kind and was called upon to do it. I think it is a fair charge upon his employers, the State, that they should keep him insured and should have kept him insured, even though they had, as I said in the early part of the discussion, deducted his share of the contributions. Having failed to make that deduction, the responsibility lies with the employers for having kept his cards stamped and kept him in benefit. I contend that a soldier who has done his service ought be kept insured just as though he had continued his insurable employment. But it is not reasonable to take him from insurable employment, put him into the Army, and then send him out of the Army, or let him withdraw from the Army under conditions which are much less satisfactory to him than they would be had he remained at his ordinary occupation. I, therefore, beg to move the amendment.
The Section is not designed to give a soldier the right to benefit, because military service is not one of the occupations that is insurable under the Insurance Acts. Deputy Johnson admits that the purpose of his amendment would be to treat military service as if it had been a service insurable under the Insurance Acts. This, we are not prepared to do. However, when the general demobilisation of the Army approaches, the question whether soldiers are to be given the right to benefit will, of course, have to be carefully considered. This Bill is dealing with ordinary unemployed insurance, and can hardly be expected to cause that a scheme will be operative on demobilisation. The effect of Deputy Johnson's amendment would be to treat military service as an insurable occupation, and I am afraid I cannot accept that. We do not purpose at all the placing of the soldier in a worse position when he leaves the Army than he had been in when he entered the Army. We are trying to avoid that, and we have no doubt at all that the Minister for Defence will endeavour, when demobilisation approaches, to secure that soldiers shall not be worse off. Moreover, several of those who had been in benefit will continue to be in benefit by the very fact, which we have already stated, that we are reviving their contributions prior to the 1921 Act. We cannot accept the amendment, because it would mean in effect that military service is regarded as an insurable occupation, which, of course, is not contemplated by the Act.
It seems that we are going to adopt the practice of the British Government; having taken all you can out of your soldiers you throw them on the market, and let them be employed, let them starve, or let them be dependent upon charity. That is practically what the Minister has told us.
While it may be true that Deputy Johnson's amendment would have the effect that the Minister suggests, surely the Minister will not say that the present Army, or service in the present Army, is a normal service. It is not, and I am very sure that his promise of fair consideration will not be satisfactory.
None of us knows what the position may be then. None of us knows how far the points that have been made will be met. There is no use in telling people that in a month or two months, or, perhaps, five or six months, something may happen. We do not know whether it will happen or not. I think there is something in Deputy Johnson's point. It certainly would look as if the treatment, which is going to be meted out, is not very nice, to say the least of it. That makes me bring forward another point, on which I ask the Minister now for a public assurance. There has been some talk—a good deal of it without good information— that many people have got what is called "the dole," who would prefer not to work and who do not want work. The Minister, I am sure, is familiar with the case that was raised with the Ministry in which certain claimants were asked by the Chairman of an Appeals Court whether they had made application to join the Army. He apparently considered that if they did not want to join the Army, it was a good reason for refusing to give them the benefit, because they were not properly seeking employment. The Ministry is, I understand, to make inquiries into that kind of thing. It arose in connection with a case in which the Chairman of one of these Courts happened to be appointed State Solicitor, and it is a very wrongful thing, approaching something like moral or economic conscription. I should like the Minister to give a public assurance, so that applicants will know where they exactly stand, and so also that prospective recruits for the Army will know where they stand in regard to these points.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the chair at this stage.
I thought I had made it perfectly plain that it was not the intention of the Ministry to place those who had entered military service in a worse position on leaving the service than they had been in when they entered, and there is no desire, and no intention, that they should be so placed. In fact, the desire is that they should, if possible, be very much better off on leaving the service than on entering it. I thought I had indicated that their treatment on leaving the service might very well be left for consideration by the Minister for Defence. With regard to the case raised by Deputy Cathal O'Shannon, I do not know if the Deputy was here when I was replying to Deputy Hennessy. I said we had not been able to trace very many cases of abuse of the Unemployment Insurance Act. There is no justification for saying that there had been many serious abuses. With regard to the case raised, that case is under inquiry, and I am informed that the State Solicitors have been told that they must not act in the capacity which, in one particular case, a State Solicitor had been acting in. With regard to making the definite statement which Deputy O'Shannon has asked for, it is the intention of the Ministry to see justice done to each claimant, and if any claimant has cause of complaint and brings his case to the knowledge of the Ministry, it shall have instant attention. Even should the claimant not be satisfied with the ruling of the Ministry, we will make available for him—in fact, it is already available—the Court of Referees and the Umpire. He is assured of justice.
Will the Minister say whether it is just to put the question put by the Chairman to an applicant, "Did you try to get into the Army, or were you willing to go into the Army?" or whether it would be just if a negative answer were given to that question to deprive the applicant of benefit?
I am informed that certain applicants for benefit did not appear to be genuinely seeking employment, and they were asked by the Chairman of the Court of Referees whether, as they had had no work for over a year, they had thought of joining the Army. That question was merely intended to test what steps the applicants had taken to make provision for themselves. It was as part of the inquiry into the genuineness of the claim for uncovenanted benefit that that question was put, and judging by the form in which it was put, I do not think it was an unreasonable question. From the information available I would not think so.
I do not think the Minister has quite got the drift of the assurance I asked him for. I do not want to deal so much with the particular case the Ministry are familiar with. I want a public assurance so that applicants, intending recruits, and for that matter the Chairmen of Courts, would know exactly where they stood— an assurance that nothing in the nature of a refusal to join the Army would necessarily be full ground for refusing benefit to the applicant, because that is nothing less than economic conscription.
I thought I had made that perfectly clear in the particular case raised. If the claimant had applied he would have had justice done to him. We have no intention by any compulsion of any kind whatsoever to force unemployed persons to join the Army
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 38.
Tá
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Seoirse Ghabháin Uí Dhubhthaigh.
- Tomás Ó Conaill.
- Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.
- Liam Ó Daimhin.
- Seán Ó Laidhin.
- Cathal Ó Seanáin.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin.
Níl
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Donchadh Ó Guaire.
- Uáitéar Mac Cumhaill.
- Séan O Maolruaidh.
- Seán Ó Duinnín.
- Mícheál Ó h-Aonghusa.
- Domhnall Ó Mocháin.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Peadar Mac a' Bháird.
- Seán Ó Ruanaidh.
- Seán Mac Garaidh.
- Pilib Mac Cosgair.
- Mícheál de Stáineas.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Maolmuire Mac Eochadha.
- Sir Séamus Craigh, Ridire, M.D.
- Liam Thrift.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Liam Mac Aonghusa.
- Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Fionán Ó Loingsigh.
- Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.
- Criostóir Ó Broin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Caoimhghin Ó hUigín.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Tomás Mac Artúir.
- Séamus Dóláin.
- Eamon Ó Dúgáin.
- Séamus Ó Murchadha.
- Seosamh Mac Giolla Bhrighde.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Tomás O Domhnaill.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Uinseann de Faoite.
- Domhnall Ó Broin.
- Séamus de Burca.
Amendment declared lost.
There are two amendments to Sub-section 3—Nos. 6 and 7. I would wish to know if Deputy Johnson accepts No. 6.
Might I suggest, following the precedent of an earlier amendment—the Ceann Comhairle himself suggested taking a later number before the first—that you take No. 7 before No. 6.
Agreed.
I beg to move amendment 7. In Sub-Section 3 to delete all after "twelve months" in line 45. The arguments run pretty much on the lines of the last discussion. The object will be to ensure that all persons enlisted for a period not exceeding twelve months should be considered in respect of this Clause. I need not go over the arguments again.
As Deputy Johnson has said the arguments in this case are exactly similar to those we had on the first amendment to Section 8. The effect would be to treat every soldier as employed in an insurable occupation, and after leaving the Army where he might not be insured at all, he would be treated as if he had been in an insured occupation during his term in the Army. Of course, we could not accept this because obviously he is not in unemployment insurance all the time.
Amendment put and negatived.
I beg to move in Sub-section (3) of Section 8, after the words "twelve months" to insert the words "or enlisted before the 1st May, 1923, for a period of service which terminates on or before the 1st May, 1924."
The Sub-section as it stands applies only to men enlisted in the Army for a period not exceeding twelve months. It appears some men were enlisted for longer than twelve months, and the object of the amendment is to ensure that the Sub-section shall apply to these men also.
Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That Section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
(1) The Minister for Finance may, out of the Central Fund, or the growing produce thereof, advance any sums required for the purpose of discharging the liabilities of the Unemployment Fund under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1922, as amended by this Act, and for the purpose of providing the sums to be so advanced the Minister for Finance may borrow money in such manner as he may think proper.
(2) Any sums advanced under the foregoing sub-section, together with interest thereon (if any) at such rate as may be fixed by the Minister for Finance, shall be charged on and be re-payable out of the Unemployment Fund.
(3) The principal and interest of any securities issued by the Minister for Finance for the purpose of borrowing under this section and the expenses incurred in connection with the issue of such securities shall be charged on the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.
I beg to move this section which makes provision for the financing of unemployment.
Agreed.
There are no amendments to the remaining sections, and I think it would facilitate the Dáil if I move Sections 10, 11, and 12, and so on to the end.
I suggest that the Minister should give a short explanation of each section, as he moves it.
Very well.
SECTION 10.
(1) Where any person is liable to repay to the Unemployment Fund any sum received by him by way of benefit, and does not show that such sum was received by him in good faith and without knowledge that he was not entitled there to, such sum may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be recovered by means of deductions from any benefit to which such person is or thereafter becomes entitled under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1922, as amended by this Act.
(2) Section 11 of the Principal Act shall apply to every question which shall arise as to whether a person is or is not liable to have a deduction made under this section from any such benefit as aforesaid as fully as if such questions were specifically mentioned in that section.
Sub-section 10 simply provides machinery for the recovery of benefits not properly received. They are at the present moment recoverable only after legal proceedings. This section provides an additional means by giving power to the Ministry to deduct from what may become due under the Sub-section an amount equal to the amount that had been improperly received. Any dispute in the case under Sub-section (2) might be referred to the Court of Referees or the Umpire.
Question put and agreed to.
Does the Minister intend under the machinery of Section 10 to recover sums improperly obtained during the past twelve months?
Section 10 has already been agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(1) For the purpose of securing that like rates of benefit shall be payable under any Special Scheme made under section 18 of the Principal Act as are payable under this Act, and that the benefits under such Special Scheme shall otherwise be not less favourable than those provided by the general provision of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1922, as amended by this Act, but for no other purpose, the Minister may, by Order made after consultation with the body charged with the administration of such Special Scheme, alter the terms and provisions of any such Special Scheme in such manner as shall appear to the Minister to be necessary to carry out the purpose aforesaid.
(2) Wherever any Special Scheme made under section 18 of the Principal Act, and before the passing of this Act applies to or includes persons employed in Saorstát Eireann as well as persons employed elsewhere, the Minister may by Order exclude from the application of such Special Scheme persons employed in Saorstát Eireann, and thereupon every person so excluded shall become subject to the general provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1922, as amended by this Act in such manner as shall be prescribed by such Order.
This Section will enable the Minister to make a condition of this Bill part of any special insurance scheme under No. 2 Act, 1921, where each industry may undertake its own unemployment insurance. Sub-Section (2) enables the Minister to include in the general scheme persons who do not wish to be associated with schemes not confined to Saorstát Eireann. I move.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Notwithstanding anything in any Act, it shall not be necessary for the Minister to require any society or other association to which section 17 of the Principal Act applies to make, before the end of the first benefit year, any greater provision for unemployment benefit than such society or association could have been required to make under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of the said section 17 as originally enacted.
Under Section 17 of the principal Act the Ministry can make arrangements to pay unemployment benefit to their members, provided the Trade Union undertakes to pay an amount not exceeding one-third of that provided by the State. But it is realised that owing to the recent unemployment being so abnormally high, and to a certain extent, the increased benefits that people insured under the scheme become entitled to, it is hardly fair to insist that the Trades Unions shall contribute in proportion an increase of one-third, so that we are simply here asking them to continue the one-third increase as under the original scheme. That would not be asking them to increase the amount of their pay. I move.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act No. 2 of 1921 is hereby repealed.
Agreed.
SECTION 14.
In this Act the expression "Minister" means the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Agreed.
SECTION 15.
This Act may be cited as the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923, and shall be construed as one with the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1922, and those Acts and this Act may be cited together as the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920 to 1923.
Agreed.