Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Apr 1925

Vol. 11 No. 6

QUESTION ON THE ADJOURNMENT. - UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE FREE STATE.

Mr. CORISH

At question time to-day I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce was he yet in a position to declare his policy with regard to the unemployment benefit exhausted during the last benefit year. I received a lengthy reply, saying that out of 44,568 claims which were received at the various exchanges throughout the country at the beginning of the benefit year, 10,269 had been disallowed, and that 8,854 were entitled to benefit from 1 to 30 days; 7,541 were entitled to benefit from 31 to 60 days, and 17,904 from 61 to 90 days. I think the answer given by the Minister to-day will be received with disappointment all over the State. I think when Deputy Johnson and myself questioned the Minister immediately before the adjournment he gave an answer from which the unemployed might reasonably draw the inference that the Government was at that time considering the question of bringing in a new Bill in order to renew the benefit which had lapsed for a great number of people in the last benefit year. I think they will be also disappointed when they read in the Press, if it is reported, that the only thing the Government has to offer the unemployed is that they should join the Army. I think that is a serious answer for a Minister to give to a question of this kind. The Minister denied of course that we had drawn the right inference when we stated that this was conscription by hunger. But I do not see any other name by which it should be called.

The Minister refers in his answer also to the fact that they have given protection, that there were measures taken in the Budget to stimulate employment. I am in agreement with the protective duties, and I want to congratulate the Government on them. I am in agreement with the tariffs they have brought forward in the Budget, but at the same time I think—and everybody else in this House will agree—that it will take a certain time in order to find out what stimulation will be given to employment by these tariffs that have been introduced. In dealing with these figures the Minister stated that 10,269 have been disallowed altogether, and that 8,854 persons would be entitled to benefit for from 1 to 30 days. We do not know what number of these 8,854 are entitled to only one day or even three or four days. We are entitled to think that 8,000 of them might be only entitled to one day or one week, and that would make the number of those people who are not entitled to draw benefit up to 20,000.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is drawing the conclusion that the 10,000 were disallowed because no contributions were payable. They might be disallowed on the grounds that they were able to obtain suitable employment.

Mr. CORISH

That was not pointed out to us.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister suggest by that that there was a disallowance because the young men will not join the Army?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Oh, no.

Mr. JOHNSON

When the Minister puts the Army as suitable employment, and then says, a person may be disallowed because he will not accept suitable employment, one is almost led to infer that the Army is suitable employment.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy has heard me answer as many as eight or nine questions a week in reference to unemployment insurance. Of the nine or ten cases, the explanation in six, perhaps, is that the applicants were not unable to obtain suitable employment, and never once did suitable employment refer to the Army. The inference is drawn now which was never drawn before.

Mr. CORISH

We have the figures here, which indicate the number of unemployed all over the State without any reference being made to any particular district. I take it the Minister will be in a position to find out whether certain districts were unduly affected by unemployment more than others. I know one town in my own constituency where 1,300 people were paid benefit during the last benefit year, and 700 of these have been rejected for the present benefit year. That is the greater proportion.

I think I am entitled to ask the Government what they propose to do for those people. Again, speaking of protection, I want to say that these people want work. Representations were put forward on behalf of that town asking for protection for the manufacture of agricultural machinery. There is a plant in that town which is capable of manufacturing sufficient agricultural machinery to supply the needs of the Free State, and it was refused protection. Some people, of course, will hold up their hands and be very gratified because the Government has stopped what they call the dole system. I want to say that we here on those benches do not want to perpetuate the dole system any longer than it is needed. We want employment, and the people themselves want employment, but until the Government is in a position to give that employment they should do something for the unemployed by way of the dole or by way of anything else you like. Only this morning I was looking at a poster in Dublin, put on the walls during the last bye-election, and at the top of that poster were the words: "Vote for O'Connor and Leonard and stability." It is all very well to talk about stability, but where is the unfortunate man who has been out of work for the last three or four years, and who has been disallowed benefit at the Labour Exchange during the last three or four weeks, going to find that stability. You wonder when the elections come off why people do not come out to vote, but when these unfortunate men cannot get work or cannot get anything to support them, they have very little interest in bye-elections, and the sooner the Government realise that the better.

I do not want to use platitudes or indulge in rhetoric in any way, and I do not want anybody to think I would be absolutely against the Government in their bye-elections. I want to see the Government winning any time they are up against people who do not want any Government in the country, but I do think when the bye-elections are over, that they should not forget their promises and that they should try and do something for the unemployed. We had a clamour in the country for the last two months for the abolition of income tax, and the people who are calling for the abolition of that income tax have got a good reduction. The unemployed will wonder if the Government are able to do that why they cannot do something for them. I recognise that the Unemployment Insurance Fund, as such, has been overdrawn and that we have had to call on the Central Fund to provide unemployment insurance for the last three or four years, but, be that as it may, the Government of the day will have to look after its unemployed. Conditions are abnormal in this country. We hope that conditions will soon become normal and that the tariffs brought in by the Government will have the effect of stimulating employ ment. Until that time arrives, the Government will have to set about doing something for the unemployed by bringing in some new legislation in order to provide for them, as they have done in the past.

Mr. DALY

I rise to support Deputy Corish. I am prompted to do so by the fact that on yesterday week there was a parade of the unemployed of Fermoy and district, with band and banners. Fermoy has been very hard hit, as the military used to employ something like 1,000 men. The building trade also, which used to employ a lot of men, is not giving any employment. The result is that many men are now on the "dole" and many others cannot even get the "dole." Some of them complain that they do not know why they have been refused it. The fact remains that many are unemployed in Fermoy, also in Cobh, owing to the closing down of Haulbowline dockyard, and in Buttevant. After the parade in Fermoy, in which banners were carried, some with threatening and some with appealing inscriptions on them, the unemployed held a meeting. The meeting could not be described as a defiant one, but rather, one of appeal to the Government for help. On their behalf I ask the Government to recognise the terrible plight of these people and to come to their assistance. About four months ago a grant of £750 was made to ex-National Army men in Fermoy, but through some fault, either of the Government Department, or of these people in Fermoy, the grant could not be availed of. The grant was not carried over to this year, but I hope, as a result of my appeal to-night, that that grant will be released as the first instalment of relief for the town of Fermoy. In asking for relief for Fermoy I should like to couple Cobh and Buttevant with it. In about two months' time a sum of £400,000 is to be spent on the roads of County Cork. That looks a very big sum, but when it is remembered that County Cork represents one-sixth of the area of the Saorstát, it is not such a large amount. I would ask the Government seriously to consider releasing this £750. It is in the Exchequer and really belongs to these unemployed men, who are very hard hit for different reasons. The flour mills in Fermoy are only working quarter time. Mills that used to be kept running day and night are now only working two or three days a week. As the opportunity arose, I felt compelled to avail of it on behalf of these starving people.

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to support the views of Deputy Corish and to express my regret that the Minister should have repeated—what he has said once or twice—the suggestion that because men did not enter the Army they are not ready to undertake work that is offered. I do not know whether the Minister really meant to say that, but it is certainly fair to draw that inference from his statement. We are told that 25 per cent. of the total number of claims allowed are only entitled to from one to thirty days' benefit, and 22 per cent. from thirty to sixty days. We know that a large proportion of these have been continuously unemployed for a long time. Having passed one period of thirty days since the beginning of the new benefit year we shall find a very rapidly growing number of men and women who are entirely without benefit and cannot give any benefit during the present benefit year—that is, until August or September. Apparently no provision has been made or thought of on their behalf, and I think the matter is becoming serious. The numbers may not be very great at present, but they will increase very rapidly from now onwards. I did hope, from the words that fell from the Minister before the Easter adjournment, that at any rate he was preparing the way for the introduction of legislation to deal with people who are out of benefit, if necessary on the system which he endeavoured to get away from, of uncovenanted benefit.

I was speaking to a man to-day who told me that he had been for fifteen months idle. He is a man of 47 or 48 years of age, a skilled tradesman, a teetotaller, steady, and a fairly well-educated man for his training; earnest and enthusiastic and ready to take up anything within his competence. He has been fifteen months idle for the reason that the particular trade he was trained for has been practically wiped out by developments in industry. He is one of many hundreds, and he is going to be in the position before very long of not having any benefit coming to him. That is an illustration representing a very large number. There are others who cannot claim to be skilled tradesmen, or claim all the virtues that I am claiming for him, but who are equally entitled to maintenance, as they cannot get employment. I think it is reprehensible to suggest—perhaps the Minister went beyond his intentions—that a man must lock himself up in the Army for a few years—an occupation which he is unfitted for by temperament or anything else—or that if he is not prepared to accept the offer that is open to him to join the Army, it is an indication that he is not willing to work. That suggestion is one which, if seriously intended, is likely to cause a great deal of resentment.

Similarly in regard to domestic service. I think the general experience is that it is a comparatively small number of women who are qualified to take domestic service, or who would be received as domestic servants by employers. I hope it is not the practice to say that if a person is not prepared to accept domestic service, who has never done anything of the kind in any house beyond her own, such a person is not willing to accept employment, and is thereby disqualified. I would most earnestly plead that the Minister should not allow this gradually increasing, and what will become a rapidly increasing number of people, to fall out of benefit entirely, and to have no prospect of having any payments between now and the end of the benefit year.

The prospect of employment, I hope, will rapidly improve, and the more rapidly it improves the more certain it is that the provision made for unemployment will not be required. Do not let us, however, be without provision for unemployed men and women. I think the Minister might give us some reassurance on this matter, that he is contemplating at a very early date introducing legislation which will make it possible for unemployment pay to be given to men to keep them from utter hopelessness when they cannot obtain employment.

Mr. EVERETT

I wish to support Deputy Corish and to appeal on behalf of two thousand rural workers who are unemployed in County Wicklow. Through no fault of their own these men are unable to get home help or out of work pay. I have received a resolution from a meeting of these men, stating that the grants given by the Government were not sufficient to absorb all the unemployed in Wicklow. They tell me there are over five hundred men with dependents, and they ask the Government to remove the restrictions on the unemployment grant or otherwise to provide work for them. At the same time they suggest that consideration of the Shannon scheme should be adjourned, and that the Government should put into force recommendations of the Reconstruction Committee by starting road-making and re-afforestation works. That would absorb larger numbers of the unemployed than the Shannon scheme, and be more benefit to the people. In making any recommendation, I would certainly urge the Minister to consider the case of the rural workers who, up to the present, have been deprived of unemployment benefit. The protection that has been talked about will not benefit the constituency I represent, in any way. In Bray there are one thousand unemployed men, in Arklow 500, and in Wicklow over 400. Many schemes have been put forward by local bodies to try and cope with the unemployment, and I trust that the Government will at least grant some relief or that those willing to work who cannot get it, will get a donation from the State.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy Corish has taken my figures of to-day and made certain deductions from them, to which I have already indicated I dissent. It is estimated that 10,269 will be disallowed. That is as far as my information goes, but I cannot stand over its accuracy. It is a hurried estimate. To start with, less than half of these will be disallowed because they have no contributions. As to why people should be disallowed for reasons other than not having a contribution, I dealt with the question of not being able to obtain suitable employment, and that has been queried by Deputy Johnson, who seeks to tie it on to a remark of mine about the Army. I do not know a single case where a man has been turned down, on the grounds of not being able to obtain suitable employment, having had Army service pointed out to him as suitable employment. The Deputy knows the Unemployment Insurance Acts well enough to realise that suitable employment is subject to definition, and that the definition may be enlarged by managers of Exchanges. But there is always the right of appeal in these things, and that appeal is generally taken where the officer seeks to go outside the old practice. Personally, I do not think that Army service can be brought under the term of suitable employment, because it means suitable employment inside the whole code of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. The claims of people have been disallowed because they were not unable to obtain suitable employment. Let me give an illustration.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister will realise that sometimes officials are apt to take a hint from a Minister.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If the Deputy suggests I am hinting that Army service should be looked upon as suitable employment, and therefore claims should be turned down, I disavow that. I am not giving any indication; I did not seek to give it. I do not believe it is possible even if I were to give an indication, that it would pass. Cases occur very frequently of this type. A man with a certain amount of land which he is not working applies for unemployment benefit, and the claim is refused on the ground that there is a prima facie case that he is not unable to obtain suitable employment, having a holding of his own which he does not work. If I am asked the number of these cases brought forward is it going to be retorted that this is agricultural conscription, seeking to drive men to the land who would rather be in industry?

Mr. CORISH

Is not that the exception rather than the rule?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It definitely is the rule more than the exception. With regard to questions frequently put to me as to benefits disallowed——

Mr. CORISH

So far as applies to the figures.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

With regard to a general estimate, at the beginning of the benefit year, of those who have not benefit allowed, certainly it would be a very small number would come under that head of holding land. I want to get to this question of hunger conscription, that picturesque phrase that was used to-day. It cannot be agreed that this is a question of conscription by hunger, because I simply say this. A plea is put to me that men are out of work and are starving. I say I am quite ready to receive, and give the greatest sympathy to, claims put up with regard to men out of work here. When it is realised, as I do realise, that there are numbers of men out of work for a long period, there is one fact that must be taken into consideration. It is that there are certainly a couple of thousand unmarried men between the ages suited for Army service, and of such physique and of a general type as would be welcomed in the Army. Yet, these 2,000 men will not join the Army. Am I to take it that the phrase "work or maintenance" might be further defined? Am I to take it that it is work we must select or maintenance? When that cry is used, with the implication on work or maintenance, I do not want to go far, because I may be quoted as saying that there are Army posts for which men cannot be found. There are some thousand men—let me take 50 per cent. of the number I have mentioned—for whom posts are available. These thousand men will not take the particular posts that are vacant, posts that will give good pay. I heard to-day of a phrase quoted about a lady looking for employment for her three sons, and they were all of the Army type. The Army was mentioned, and the retort came that it was a hard life and they would not accept it. Again, do not let me be taken as saying that that applies to a tremendous number of people. I do not want any great generalisations taken from my remarks. I talked about the Army for a certain purpose. I talked about domestic servants. Deputy Johnson did not apply the phrase "conscription for domestic servants." That might easily have been retorted.

Mr. JOHNSON

There is a difference between a domestic servant and a man for an Army post. A domestic servant is entitled to leave her post. A person in the Army is not.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The man in the Army joins up for a certain time. It is not for life, nor is it a lengthy service. I have not heard anybody indicating that the period which service in the Army would cover is one likely to see such a recrudescence of industry in the country as will lead to the employment of all the unemployed at the moment. In other words, a man going into the Army now would not bar himself from a chance, which appears a reasonable chance, of getting employment in industry.

Mr. JOHNSON

Would you make such arrangements as that any person joining the Army to-day may leave it on a week's notice?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Obviously, I cannot make any such arrangement, and I do not think that any such arrangement will be seriously suggested. I want to protest against being arraigned here as trying to drive men into the Army by the threat of hunger. I do not make any threat of the sort. There is a certain number of men for whom there are posts.

Mr. CORISH

As far as that statement is concerned, I am sorry the Minister makes it. One can imagine the inference that will be drawn from it in the country. I do not want to make any capital out of it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I have a certain care of how statements of mine are taken in the country. Where there are obvious misrepresentations, it is very easy to know them. I do not think anybody here can believe that the phrase was used with that intention. Deputy Johnson said, with regard to domestic servants, that it cannot be said that everybody is qualified for domestic service. I think he said, in fact, that there was rather a high degree demanded in this direction. I cannot claim much experience in the matter of engaging servants myself, but I know the conditions under which they are engaged, and I have always been told that the best policy is to get a girl who is untrained and who has no degree of qualification, no extraordinary degree. No particular degree of experience or qualification is required in such cases, I am told. Those are the outstanding facts.

To-day I heard one thing indicated in reference to a branch of work to which people were rather averse. Five minutes later I heard that denied, so I am not going to make use of what I heard. I believe that there are branches of work to which people show a distinct aversion and I cannot believe, with those things in front of me, that there is any tremendous urgency about this problem. I can hardly believe that when I realise certain figures that are laid before me with regard to employment generally. I think Deputy Corish made a remark about some people who would heave a sigh of relief on hearing that the dole had been stopped. Again, I do not suppose that we are quarrelling with the word "dole." We have both often agreed that it is a misused word, or has been so during the last benefit year. If it is to the specially extended benefit that the Deputy is referring, he is then correct. In the sense that there was something that has been stopped, he is correct. We are in the position now that there is nothing except the normal course of unemployment benefit. The position we are now in is that a special Act, which was further specially amended, has now run its course without any further special amendments. That was the special Act which supplied contributions for the fifth time.

On that matter I want the terms of my answer to a question put by the Deputy to-day attended to carefully. I gave certain figures, and I stated that, having regard to the season of the year, the measures taken in the Budget to stimulate employment, and the present state of the Unemployment Fund, I thought it was difficult to argue that these figures necessitated any present extension of benefit. It is said in regard to the protective measures taken that some time will elapse before they can have any effect in the way of increased employment. But there are other things. We had a clamour for the abolition of the income tax, and the suggestion that that would lead to increased industry. Even if the whole tax were not abolished, the reduction that has been made is already stated to be tending towards an increase in industry. The Budget statement of the Minister for Finance showed certain calculations based on increased activity arising out of the reduction. That is a thing that should show itself pretty soon. Taking things all round, the present season of the year is one that should show an immediate return. I do not pretend that everybody is catered for; but if Deputies put up as an argument to me that as long as there are a thousand men without employment who are not eligible to receive benefit from previous contributions, there should be some special provision made for them, I fail to meet that point of view. There is no good in trying to pretend that everybody is being catered for, but yet something is being done. Let there be no mistake about that. It is not right to think that because there is no extension of benefit nothing is being done.

Mr. CORISH

Would it not be right to say that there are practically twenty thousand people out of benefit now? I am only taking your own figures.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is an estimate, and it may be a correct estimate, but I would first have to get it examined. I know for a fact that five thousand out of ten thousand persons have been disallowed because they have no contributions. So that supposing you take it that there were five thousand and that even a larger proportion of those 8,800 had exhausted benefit by this time, you have certainly 10,000 who have no claim to benefit. Similarly, you have the agricultural labourers that Deputy Everett spoke about who never had any claim to benefit. And if it is put to me that as long as there is one thousand or five thousand, that then there must be something by way of extension of the benefit, then, of course, I fail to meet that.

Mr. CORISH

That is not a fair way of putting it. Ten thousand or five thousand spread over the whole State would not be much, but that number in a small district is another matter. I prefer to stand by the Minister's figure that there are 20,000 out of benefit.

Mr. EVERETT

Seventy-five per cent. of the people are not entitled to benefit through their benefit being exhausted.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Have I said 20,000 are without benefit?

Mr. CORISH

No. I said it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is the Deputy's figure.

Mr. CORISH

Yes. From the beginning of the benefit year over thirty days have gone, and that benefit is exhausted, so that will make up 20,000 or 18,000 but practically 19,000.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Let me continue my argument. Whether it is a relative figure of 10,000 or 20,000 does not matter. I took 10,000 as an example, and when it is said that nothing is done that is what I am trying to attack. There is a provision for benefit, not for these people, but there is a provision for others, and if there was no provision, and if the old provision was withdrawn, and we actually stopped all benefit other than that accruing on foot of contributions, then that 20,000 would be multiplied three times.

Mr. CORISH

Yes, everybody is aware of that, but what benefit is that to the unfortunate 20,000 people who have not a bit of bread to eat because the situation is as bad as that. The situation is abnormal to-day and the Government must bring in abnormal legislation to deal with it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is put to me that the situation is abnormal and that I should look at the history of things for the last couple of years. I was inclined to believe that, but then I got down to these other facts I have spoken about. I cannot believe now that men starving, as Deputy Corish put it, would refuse to come into the Army, and that women in a similar position would not accept domestic service.

Mr. CORISH

Is a man eligible for the Army over 50 years of age?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is easy to be eligible for domestic service.

Mr. CORISH

A man of 50 years would not be eligible for the Army.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Probably not. But coming back to the other points, the season of the year and certain things arising out of the whole scope of the Budget should lead to immediate benefit of these men, and if it does not would you note the conclusion, particularly adding in the third item, that the present state of the Unemployment Fund renders it difficult to argue that the figures necessitate any present extension of the benefit. Then there is the further fact, that the majority of those who exhausted their right to benefit are people who have had relatively few contributions to their credit.

Mr. CORISH

There are men who have been refused unemployment benefit who were working from 1911, when the Insurance Act came into being, up to 1920.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Prima facie, if what the Deputy states is correct, they ought to get benefit.

Mr. CORISH

But they have not got it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If the Deputy gives me the names we can have these cases investigated. I am here as the guardian of this particular fund, and this has to be repaid by industry. I think we have got to the point when we must make up our mind that, as far as that fund is concerned, all further extension is closed. The conclusion I gave in my answer to-day is one that I must abide by, that there is no argument at present for any further extension of the benefit. The fund is overloaded with a debt to the extent of £1,300,000, and that must be repaid. No further addition can be made, and it must be repaid by industry in the country. There was a tremendous number of people put on who never were engaged in industry, and the multiplication of benefit five times has put a very severe strain on that fund. The Deputy put a question as regards getting certain figures for the localities. That can be done, but it takes time. The Deputy will remember that when he asked some questions about unemployment matters before the adjournment I said it would take considerable time to get the figures. The Deputy retorted that in four or five days we could easily get them. My answer was that the figures I had led me to a different conclusion from what the Deputy came to.

On this point of localities and the trouble in certain districts, I received a very peculiarly-worded telegram from Cork, which says: "At a public meeting in the Coliseum, Cork, to-day, it was unanimously decided to notify you"—and then there is the peculiar phrase—"that 17,000 adults in Cork are confronted with life or death." That is a situation we are all confronted with, though it is obvious to see what the meaning is. I quote that figure as an example. There are, as far as we can discover, 6,000 unemployed in Cork, of whom nearly 3,000 are in receipt of benefit, and yet the meeting in the Coliseum speaks about 17,000 adults unemployed. I have a responsibility towards the people on whose behalf the Deputy raised this matter, but I have also a responsibility to the people who pay into the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I must get the figures checked before a decision can be taken. I think the Deputy would agree that, in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Fund, there is no reason whatever for putting any further charge upon it. The question of relief is another matter, and it must be brought up in another way. I do not see at the moment the figures are such that they warrant an immediate approach to that relief. If there is to be relief now when the season is so favourable, what is to happen in the autumn and the winter?

Mr. CORISH

I have no desire to exaggerate the matter. We in our own constituencies get as much annoyance as the Minister gets. When we come up here the people think we can do what we like.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think the answer I gave to Deputy Corish at question time is a quite sound answer. It may not be one in accordance with the Deputy's desires, but I think if he examines it he will agree that it is a reasonable answer. Taking certain things into consideration, there is no great case made for a present extension of benefit, particularly of benefit that has been multiplied five times already.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.15 until Friday, 1st May, at 12 o'clock.