asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that 1s. 1d. was deducted each week for unemployment insurance form men serving in the Railway Protection and Maintenance Corps, Cork Command, and if he can state when they will be entitled to benefit in respect of the moneys so contributed.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
I would refer the Deputy to the answer which I gave Deputy O Cúlacháin on the 8th July last, to a similar question. The Minister for Defence had paid contributions for the members of the Railway Protection, Repair and Maintenance Corps, so far as these can be identified, whose occupation before joining the Corps was insurable occupation, and unemployment benefit has been paid, or is payable, to the persons for whom such contributions have been paid. If the Deputy will let me have particulars of any cases in which it is alleged that benefit due is not being paid, I will have immediate inquiries made.
Can the Minister state if it is a fact that unemployment insurance money was deducted from the wages of the Railway Transport Corps during their service?
I believe so.
In that case would not the Army authorities be supposed to stamp their cards for the full period of service?
I understand that is what was done, although not by the procedure to which the Deputy alludes. Cards were not stamped week by week, but a sum equal to the deductions was credited to these people, and for that credit contribution is now being paid.
Was the deduction made each week?
I am not quite clear whether it was made in every case each week, but it was made to get at the week by week deduction, and in the total result credit had been given to those people for the deductions made whether week by week or in a lump sum, and benefit is now being paid to those to whom benefit is payable.
Does not the Minister know it is illegal to stop more than one contribution at the time?
I do not want to say the Minister for Defence did anything illegal, but I do want to say that there may have been certain matters allowed for a few weeks to go unrecognised during the disturbed period, but leaving out any technical irregularity there may have been, no one has been prejudiced by the fact that the moneys deducted week by week were not evidenced by stamps affixed week by week. If there was a lapse now and again it has been made up in the long run, and the contributions have been credited to all those people who were insurable, and benefit will be paid.
Does that leave out certain people who were not insured prior to joining this corps? Once you employ them upon this particular occupation does not that make them insurable?
No; a distinction has to be made in this. People, for the purposes of the 1924 Unemployment Insurance Act, are recognised as being insurance to the extent of having further stamps credited to them, if at any time they had twenty stamps to their credit or ten stamps before a particualr date. Anyone can come in under that. That was the test of insurable occupation. Certain people joined this corps who were railway employees and were definitely in insurable occupations. Apart from the other slight test put up they more than stood the test. Deductions were made from these people either week by week or in a way that corresponded to week to week deductions, and these people gain benefit more than the people who pass the slight test of the ten stamps before a certain date, or the twenty stamps at a given period. They will get more benefit, because deductions would have been made for the weeks they were in the Army in what is regarded as insurable occupation. But persons who joined the Railway Corps without being in insurable occupations previously shall not, by that fact, be admitted as being in an insurable occupation.
Is the Minister aware that these men who were not in insurable occupation had 1/1 deducted from their wages, and if they were not eligible for benefit, will that money be refunded to them?
So far as I could follow that question, it is not relevant to what we are discussing.
It is relevant in this way that these men joined the Railway Protection Corps.
What men do you mean?
That is the question here. It happened in Cork. I have been in Cork and there are hundreds of men in Cork from whom this money was stopped, and who are not now entitled to any benefit.
As I stated in my reply, if the Deputy will let me have particulars of any cases in which it is alleged that any benefit due is not being paid, I will have inquiries made.
Were the cards of people from whom deductions were made stamped for the whole period of their service?
So I understand. If the Deputy will give me particular of cases he may have in mind, I will have inquiries made into them.