Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 May 1926

Vol. 15 No. 13

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL, 1926—THIRD STAGE.

The Dáil, according to Order, went into Committee on the Bill.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. NORTON

I move:— To delete the section.

In submitting this amendment I am actuated by a desire to make the Unemployment Insurance Bill as suitable as possible for the purpose for which it was originally conceived. At the present time, we know that there are many people paying unemployment insurance contributions who might be put into the category of permanent or semi-permanent employees. Most of those people never hope to gain anything in the way of benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the inducement at present to pay is the provision which the Act makes for refunding the amount of the contributions paid by such persons, plus 2½ per cent. compound interest, but less the amount paid to them in benefits. So long as that section of the Act remains, there is an inducement to people to contribute under the Act in the knowledge that ultimately their contributions will come back, but if the amending Bill is passed, and if this section of the Bill in particular is passed, it will mean that the provision which was made under the original Act for the refund of unemployment insurance contributions to persons reaching the age of 60 years will disappear, and instead compensation will only be payable to persons who reach the age of 50 years. That means that at 50 years of age a man will be entitled to what he has paid in, less what has been paid to him in benefits. This particular form of compensation is only applicable to men who have reached the age of 50, and the claim for this compensation must be made, in normal circumstances, within 12 months. It really means that a person who is less than 50 years of age will get no compensation whatever for contributions which he has paid in, and it means that people coming under the Unemployment Insurance Act or Acts in future will not have the inducement to pay contributions which is there already.

I put it to the Minister that it is wise, in the interests of unemployment insurance, that this particular provision should remain, because, at the present time, it encourages people to pay unemployment insurance contributions who, under a strange interpretation of the exemption provision, might get exemption or might be encouraged to evade payment of contributions. So long as the provision under the Act entitling them to a refund of the contributions, less the amount paid in benefits, remains, these people are encouraged to contribute, and I say that it is well and good that they should be encouraged to contribute under the Act, because by people of this class contributing the solvency of the Fund will be preserved, and in times such as the present it is very necessary that as many people as possible who are not likely to be a frequent liability on the Fund should contribute to the Fund for the purpose of maintaining its solvency.

There is one feature of this amendment that I would like to point out, and that is the fact that at the present time, after a period of three, four, or five years of industrial depression, when more men drew unemployment insurance than in any other period during which the Unemployment Insurance Act operated, men are asked to take now what stands to their credit, and in a great many cases it will mean that there is nothing to the credit of contributors, whereas if this section were introduced in circumstances free from the industrial depression which we have witnessed for the past few years, it would mean that men would have something to their credit. But men are being now asked to accept compensation in a period of very pronounced industrial depression, and at a time following a period of pronounced industrial depression. I think that the provision in the present Act entitling contributors to a refund of the amount of contributions paid by them, less the amount paid to them in benefits, is a good and suitable provision, and is calculated to maintain the solvency of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and I suggest to the Minister that this is not the time to introduce an amending Bill with this particular feature in it. I hope that he can see his way to delete this section, even if it is to be considered —although I do not think it is one we ought to consider at all—in other circumstances and at another time.

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)

Deputy Norton puts it to the House that this amendment is in order to make the Unemployment Insurance Act meet the purpose for which it was originally drafted. His idea is that by people, whom he described as semi-permanent employees, contributing to the Unemployment Insurance Fund you had a solvent Fund, whereas if you deleted this section or refused to accept Deputy Norton's amendment you would have the position that the Fund would be rendered insolvent. It is a peculiar thing that Deputy Norton and I are both aiming at the same point, but we are apparently going about it by different routes. The whole idea of Section 2 of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, 1926, is really based upon that same point. You may say it is, at any rate, the financial basis of the proposal in the Bill. If Section 2 of the Bill be not passed and the provisions which it seeks to cut out are not taken out, the Fund will be depleted and will be continued to be depleted by very large sums of money in five or six years time, when the Unemployment Insurance code has reached some point of maturity. The refunds at the moment are, of course, small, but it is estimated that the keeping in of the provisions which Section 2 seeks to put out would involve the payment of about £50,000 in about five years time, and there would be a continous payment of not less than that sum afterwards. The Deputy says that this will give people in semi-permanent employment an inducement to pay. They really never had any inducement to pay. There has been a necessity imposed upon them by law and we seek now to equalise matters. We are taking out provisions that would involve the Fund in certain big payments, and compensation to the contributors affected is being provided. That compensation will be on the present worth of unexhausted contributions.

As regards the point that there has been an abnormal period of industrial depression and that people might be adversely affected in regard to the minimum number of contributions to their credit if they are asked to accept this now, that is not an effective argument. Whatever be the period of abnormal depression, it will at least have its effect on the minimum number of contributions to the credit of a person to the extent of the benefit drawn by him. The force of that argument is not very strong, because it will always have its bearing. If the Deputy means that his whole aim is the deletion of this Section 2 because he wants to render the Fund more solvent, he can take it definitely that the best actuarial calculation is that the refusal to pass Section 2 of this Bill will mean eventually that the more or less non-permanent employees, people who are subject to fluctuations in the way of employment, will have to pay higher rates of unemployment insurance if the Fund is to be kept in a solvent way at all.

Mr. NORTON

I would like to know whether the Minister's actuarial advice shows that it is not desirable to continue the idea of inducing people who are in semi-permanent employment to contribute to the Fund, and I would like to ask him, too, whether he does not consider the provision in the present Act whereby contributors are refunded the amount they contribute is an inducement to people who contribute in the knowledge that they are really saving money and not contributing for the purpose of paying benefit to somebody else. Does the Minister not consider, in the case of a man who is in semi-permanent employment who says to himself: "I am not likely to become a liability on this Fund, but I am not flittering away my contributions if I do not become a liability, because at the age of 60 years I will get back my contributions," that that is not an inducement to people to contribute under the Act rather than to evade the contributions under the Act? Auxiliary postmen have been pressing my union to get them exemption from liability to contribute, and the argument I have used against their claim is the fact that if they do not become a liability on the Fund they get back what they have contributed, plus 2½ per cent. compound interest. That is an inducement to pay at the present time. If that inducement is withdrawn there will be an increasing demand for exemption and an increasing inclination to evade the provisions of the Act.

I put it to the Minister, too, that some consideration ought to be given to the case of a man who is not as frequently a liability on the Fund as the man who is very frequently a liability on it. I think a man in semi-permanent employment should be given some consideration in the matter of a refund of his contributions. If a particular contribution covers a particular frequency to become a liability, then some provision ought to be made for a man who is not a liability on the Fund so frequently. I think the present Act makes provision in that case by refunding the amount of contributions paid by a contributor less the amount paid to him in benefits. I think if that portion of the present Act is deleted it will mean that there will be an increasing demand for exemption and an increasing inclination to evade the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister has made reference to the necessity imposed by law. Of course, we understand that it is an obligation on the part of employers to pay the contribution and deduct such sum, if they care to do so—and they have a right to do so—from the employed persons. To go back to the initiation of this provision of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, it was admitted at the time that the purport of this particular provision was to make the scheme acceptable to persons who are in regular employment and whose expectation of unemployment was small. I admit at once that there is a case made, a very strong case made, that the whole system of insurance should impose an obligation upon the constantly employed person to meet the case of the less constantly employed person; but as we are so often reminded from the Ministerial Benches, we have to face the everyday facts and, while it is true that the necessity is imposed by law that these contributions shall be made, we know, and the Minister knows better than anyone, that his Department has very frequently been called upon to take action in respect of those employers who have not contributed.

The Minister, on more than one occasion, has pointed out that employees have, as one might say, conspired with the employers to evade their obligations under the Act, and in that way they made the Fund less solvent and, of course, made the position of the person who should have been an insured person a very unenviable one when he becomes unemployed. One of the intentions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts was to provide for persons who became unemployed and who did not expect to become unemployed —to meet the needs of men who became unemployed unexpectedly. As we said in the earlier stages, we have insisted that it was to the interests of men to see that their cards were stamped and that they were at least making provision for a time when they would be more likely to be unemployed—that is to say, when they became 60 years of age—even though their appearance of permanency satisfied them for the moment that the prospect of unemployment was small. Now we are removing that promise and expectation. We are inviting that kind of petty conspiracy between a small employer and his workman not to stamp cards. We are removing any inducement from the workman to see that his cards are stamped, if that workman happens to think that his permanency is assured.

Again, there is the Minister's statement that the Fund will be made more solvent by this provision—by the abolition of these benefits—and that in five years' time—after the expiry of five years—there will be a continual annual claim to the extent of £50,000 upon the Fund. In view of the fact that men have been contributing within the last few years in the expectation that at the end of the period, when they become 60 years of age, they will have this promise fulfilled, if we are going to wipe out that promise now it is unjust to those who have been so contributing. Actuarially the Minister can make a case, I have no doubt. He might say the promises of the original actuaries have not been fulfilled; that the scheme is not sound on its present basis, in view of the change in the industrial and economic position; that the call due to unemployment is greater than it was expected to have been. I think, neverthless, the retention of this scheme is desirable on many grounds, but I think, above all, that the elimination of this provision, when everything seems to be conspiring against the workman and against the social provisions that were made some years ago in another Parliament, is advisable.

It is unwise in every way that we should attempt to embody this provision in a mere administrative measure, a Bill to alter the machinery of insurance. It is unwise that we should go out of our way in such a Bill to abolish one of the important provisions of the original scheme. I think it is a most undesirable proceeding, and I hope the Minister will be persuaded not to proceed with it. The Bill could be made quite a sound and complete Bill in the way of a revision of administrative provisions without this Section 2. If there are to be any further changes to be made in the whole scheme of unemployment insurance in regard to benefits, contributions and the like, it would be on such a measure and not on a machinery Bill of this kind that the question should be dealt with.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I wish I could get Deputies to realise that what is being dealt with in this whole matter is an insurance scheme, and that that insurance scheme has to be made sound and solvent in some way or another. We are accused here that a certain promise made to certain people at the introduction of this code is now being taken away and no consideration is given them. If that be not taken away the alternative is an increased contribution. If that is called a conspiracy against the working classes—to wipe out a particular provision which, if left in, will necessitate sooner or later the taking of increased contributions from them under the Unemployment Insurance Acts—then it may be so described. I would call it rather a conspiracy in favour of the working classes generally. The Fund has to be made and kept solvent. It is not merely the abnormal period of industrial depression we have gone through which has rendered the actuaries' calculations unsound; it has been the big extension made in the classes to whom the insurance codes applied in 1920, with some assistance from the abnormal period of depression we have gone through. That is why the actuarial calculations are now discovered to be unsound.

Deputy Norton talked of the semi-permanent classes, and he asked that some special provision should be made for them. You are now dealing with insurance and with the fund that has to be built up by contributions. If you are going to exempt what are, for insurance purposes, called good lives— the people in more or less permanent occupation—and if you have a bigger number of excepted classes, then all the heavier will be the contributions on the bad lives.

Mr. NORTON

I would like to make an explanation in regard to that matter. I did not suggest that at all. I suggested that the provision in the Unemployment Insurance Acts whereby a contributor had a claim to a refund in certain circumstances, should be maintained with the object of continuing to induce permanent and semi-permanent people to contribute. I do not want them excepted at all, but if you remove the present provision the inclination will be to look for exemptions and evade the payment of contributions under the Acts.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy is back to the point of inducement and Deputy Johnson has answered him by talking of the conspiracy so frequently referred to in this House as between employer and employee to evade the Act. The Deputy talks of holding out an inducement to people whose occupation is more or less permanent in character. What inducement is there? There is no inducement. There is a necessity imposed by law. Deputy Norton disavowed any intention of saying that the necessity should not be imposed by law, but it is one point to which, logically, he may be driven. If you have to say: "Very well, take those people out; there is provision made for special classes by reason of exceptions," it means that if you are excepting the good lives you are going to have a heavier fine put on the bad lives, if you are to have an insurance scheme built up. We are not going to have any special provision made for the people whose employment is more or less permanent in character. It is not going to be any inducement to these people. As between inducement and the necessity put on them by law, I would always stand on——

Mr. NORTON

You cannot enforce it in many cases.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

What is to prevent enforcement?

Mr. NORTON

Everyday facts.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If the Deputy means there is not full compliance, that is recognised, but it is not going to be got over by refusing to pass Section 2. We are having what Deputy Johnson refers to as numerous cases of conspiracy between these people. The inducement has not operated. The necessity by law is there. If we get full compliance we will get a better fund; but even full compliance will not make up everything. If the section which Section 2 seeks to amend is left standing, and if you do not put the necessity of law upon those people, there will be very little compliance. There will be compliance on the part of the people who recognise from the point of view of insurance that their lives are bad lives, and their occupations are by no means permanent in character. If, then, there is to be any claim for a bigger number of excepted classes, the contributions from those people will have to be very heavily increased.

It will be noted that this section was included in an amending Act passed by the Labour Government when in power in England. Deputy Johnson, when more or less explaining that, pointed out it was introduced at the same time that there were some increases in benefits to other classes. Apparently, Deputy Johnson would not mind breaking a promise to certain people if further promises were given to other people. We are not proposing to do that because we consider the situation here is entirely different from that on the other side, and we consider the difference makes it more than ever necessary and desirable that we should get this very heavy burden on the fund in four or five years' time removed at the moment while we compensate those people in accordance with the presentday value of their unexhausted contributions.

Mr. HEWAT

I think this discussion has cleared up the position pretty well. The grounds on which Deputy Norton has asked for the removal of this section are not, in my opinion, quite sound, even from the Labour point of view. We should have to assume, in the first instance, that the Government are taking action to deprive people of something they are entitled to. That does not seem, on the face of it, to be correct. I wonder when these Acts were being originally drafted, was there any contemplation of a state of affairs in which a fund like this would be called upon to repay the contributions made to it by the fortunate contributors who did not need the assistance of the fund by reason of unemployment? I think the original framers of the Act never contemplated a position of that kind.

Mr. JOHNSON

It was quite clearly contemplated and stated.

Mr. HEWAT

I do not think it could have been generally recognised. Even to-day the people have not grasped the working of the Acts in their entirety.

They act automatically and think very little about the machinery. I was tremendously surprised myself, in connection with a concern for which I have some responsibility, when told that if an application were made to relieve the men of contributions to the unemployment fund, it could be carried through, on the grounds that these men were not likely to be unemployed. That is comparatively recently, and they actually got relieved. I should like to say here, particularly to the Labour Deputies, that I think that is utterly unsound. People who are in permanent employment and who, to that extent, are fortunate, are not to be asked to contribute one farthing towards people who are every day in fear of unemployment. That seems to me to be unsound administration. If legislation of this kind is to be put in force, it should be based on the principle that those who are fortunate should contribute towards those who are less fortunate and the fund, as a whole, should be on a sound basis of contribution. In the case of Health Insurance, there are some societies that call for very little assistance from the fund, and there has been a general claim going round that those fortunate societies should get greater benefits out of the fund than others. The lines of administration in these matters should be based on sound business principles. If the society is to be saddled with all the bad and none of the good, and if the fortunate man is to get back all his contributions, it does not strike me as reasonable. I think the Government is very wise to make this provision for the benefit of the fund, and I think that the Party in this House which should be the last to oppose it is the Labour Party.

Mr. JOHNSON

If the Minister had brought forward a Bill containing this provision and another provision on the lines of Deputy Hewat's proposition, one could have understood that it was a revision of the scheme as a whole, contemplating changes in the actuarial position. I personally am of the view of Deputy Hewat, that these exemptions are not calculated to serve the worker or the fund, but I would remind Deputy Hewat—or inform him, if he has not learned it before—that the purpose of that exemption was to induce employers to give regular employment—to induce employers who are accustomed to turning off men, to keep them on regularly and to satisfy the Minister for Labour, as he was then— now the Minister for Industry and Commerce—that their permanence was pretty well assured and that, therefore, they were not going to be a charge on the funds. The scheme was definitely on the ground that here was an inducement to employers to give permanence of employment to their workers——

Mr. HEWAT

I am afraid they did not know human nature very well.

Mr. NORTON

They did not know employers very well.

Mr. JOHNSON

They may have been too generous in their estimate of the natural characteristics of the genus employer. However, they considered that, as ordinary beings, they would be responsive to a financial inducement. Apparently they made a mistake. I am sorry the Minister feels it necessary to maintain his position in respect of this fund. He may be able to make a case for actuarial soundness, but I think it is a great misfortune that he should be introducing a principle of this kind in the Bill, practically telling the people who have been looking forward to a lump sum coming to them at 60 years of age that they need no longer count upon that and that they have got to make some other kind of provision, not so easily paid up as in this case. I think it will have the effect of tempting many more people to try to evade, by conspiracy with their employers, responsibility under the Unemployment Insurance Act.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I shall not put the amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper. The question I will put will be: "That Section 2 stands part of the Bill." Those who are in favour of the amendment will be entitled to vote against the section.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 12.

Tá.

• Richard H. Beamish.
• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Séamus Breathnach.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• Próinsias Bulfin.
• John J. Cole.
• John Conlan.
• Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
• Uí Dhrisceóil.
• Michael Egan.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• John Good.
• John Hennigan.
• William Hewat.
• Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
• Liam Mac Cosgair.
• Seán MacCurtain.
• Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Risteárd Mac Liam.
• Eoin Mac Néill.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mac Sioghaird.
• Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
• Martin M. Nally.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Mícheál O hAonghusa.
• Risteárd O Conaill.
• Conchubhar O Conghaile.
• Máirtín O Conalláin.
• Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
• Séamus O Dóláin.
• Peadar O Dubhghaill.
• Eamon O Dúgáin.
• Seán O Duinnín.
• Séamus O Leadáin.
• Fionán O Loingsigh.
• Domhnall O Mocháin.
• Séamus O Murchadha.
• Máirtín O Rodaigh.
• Seán O Súilleabháin.
• Seán Príomhdhall.

Níl.

• Seán Buitléir.
• Séamus Eabhróid.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• William Norton.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Liam O Daimhín.
• Tadhg O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Níl: Deputies Corish and Norton.

Motion declared carried.

Section ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

The Minister may by regulations prescribe the date on which the period constituting the insurance year is to commence and any such regulations may contain such consequential and supplemental provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary for dealing with or regulating the transition from the old to the new period, and in particular for making provision with respect to any period of time between the end of one insurance year and the commencement of the next insurance year.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not know whether it is an omission, but I think that the provision which applies to regulations and their lying on the Table is not embodied in the Bill, and I think I am right in saying that under the original Act regulations of a similar character are all required to be laid on the Table for a period. I do not know what class of regulation might be made under this as regards the insurance year; I mean to say there are possibilities within that that seem to me to require that the regulations should be laid on the Table. If it is intended merely to shift the date of the beginning of the insurance year from July to another date to facilitate the changing of books, there is nothing in it. But there may be other regulations, regulations affecting the insurance year, much more important than that, and I think that we ought to have some opportunity of discussing those regulations before they become permanent.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The principal Act of 1920, Section 35, says that all regulations made under the Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament. That, of course, is adapted, and an opportunity is then given within twenty days sittings for an order prescribing annulment. So that regulations under this would fall under the 1920 Act, and would have to be laid before the House.

Mr. JOHNSON

I see.

Question put and agreed to.

AMENDMENT 2.

Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—

"Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Principal Act (which imposes a disqualification for the receipt of benefit during a stoppage of work) shall not apply in any case in which the insured contributor proves that he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers members of which are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute, or that the stoppage is due to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms or provisions of any agreement existing between a group of employers where the stoppage takes place, or of a national agreement to either of which the employers and employees are contracting parties."—(Mr. Johnson.)

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am not clear that amendment 2 is relevant to anything in the Bill. If it is not relevant to anything in the Bill it is out of order. Amendments 3 and 4 are clearly in order, but unless it can be shown that amendment 2 is relevant to some section of the amending Bill, apart altogether from its relevance to the principal Act, it would not be in order.

Mr. JOHNSON

The various sections relate to the principal Act, altering various provisions of it. I did propose to show that this was to correct a defect in the original Act, and I thought that that would be acceptable.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

When an amending Bill has been brought in and read a second time amendments in Committee can only be moved if they are amendments which are relevant to something which the Bill, as read a second time, contains. This Bill is a different case, because the different sections relate to different things. But unless the amendment is proved to relate to something in the Bill it cannot be moved. Otherwise the result would be that when any amending Bill was introduced amendments to any part of the principal Act would be in order. I think that that is not a proper procedure. Amendments 3 and 4 serve as a good example. In the case of amendment 3 the Minister, under Section 7, proposes to deal with the case of teachers, and Deputy O'Connell proposes to make an addition. In the case of Section 8 the Minister proposes that no contributions shall be paid or be payable for any person who was in military service after a particular date. Deputy Corish proposes to modify that with regard to a particular class of persons in military service. These are examples of relevant amendments. But amendment 2 deals with a matter in the principal Act of which no mention is made in the amending Bill, so that amendment 2 is out of order.

Question—"That Section 6 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Part II. of the First Schedule of the Principal Act shall, as from the date of the passing of this Act, have effect as though there were inserted therein after paragraph (e) the following new paragraph:—

(ee) Employment, as a teacher, of any person in an institution certified by the Minister for Education to be a secondary school.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I move:—

In line 50 at the end of the section after the word "school" to add the words "or employment as a junior assistant mistress or workmistress in an ordinary national school or as a recognised lay assistant in a convent or monastery national school."

The object of this amendment is to have uniform action applied to the whole teaching profession so far as unemployment insurance is concerned. It seems to be plain that the original intention of the framers was to exempt all teachers, but from the way in which the original Bill was worded these particular classes of teachers were deemed to be exempt. The difficulty has arisen because of the fact that although the manager is technically the employer of the teacher, it is the State, or the Department, which pays the salaries, and much trouble was experienced at the beginning with regard to these particular classes of teachers, because the manager refused to pay the contributions, and I think that they were right in that, inasmuch as they were not the employers in the regular and proper sense of the word. Then some arrangement was made by the Department of Education whereby they refunded to the manager the amount of the contributions which he paid. As the position now stands, I believe that for all practical purposes they are exempt. The Act only applies, I think, to junior assistant mistresses with less than three years' service. I do not know whether it applies to the convent school teacher and the teacher of the monastery national school, because they would be ruled out in a great many instances by the upper limit of salary. I think it will be found that it would be more convenient for all concerned, for the Department itself, and certainly for these individuals, if they are exempted, and I therefore propose that these words be added. If the words are not in the proper form I am sure the Minister could arrange them if he is prepared to accept the general principle.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This, of course, deals with the matter that Deputy Hewat referred to, the question of excepting employments, and inasmuch as it is excepting anybody I presume that we will have objections from both Deputy Hewat and Deputy Johnson. But this section was brought in because, as I pointed out on Second Reading, a state of unfair competition was really being set up, inasmuch as certain teachers were exempt more or less by reason of their status, and certain other teachers were being insured, and it was felt that that was going to press hardly in the search for employment on those who were subject to the insurance code. As regards the people whom Deputy O'Connell's amendment seeks to include, the class of junior assistant mistresses, they have been excepted by a regulation of some date in 1923, and those who are called work mistresses—there are about ten, I think, at the moment—the grade is described as being redundant and vacancies are not being filled, so that it is quite logical to exempt these.

In that connection I put it to Deputy O'Connell that there is another class, spoken of as industrial teachers, of whom there are only about fourteen in the Free State, and it would be desirable to exclude these. The recognised lay-assistant in a convent or monastery national school is a bigger class from the point of view of numbers. There will be between 600 and 700 of these, but whatever difference there is may soon be abolished, and if these people are put on a pensionable basis they would come within the ordinary category of recognised pensionable National teachers, who are definitely excepted. To a certain extent this is forestalling what is likely to be done in another connection. I am suggesting, if he will agree with this, that I would admit the classes that he refers to, and would add to them what are called the industrial teachers, and I will bring up an amendment on the Report Stage to do this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question—"That Section 7 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1924 (No. 26 of 1924), no contributions shall after the 26th day of March, 1926, be paid or payable under that section for any person who was employed on or after the 30th day of June, 1924, in the military service of Saorstát Eireann.

Mr. CORISH

I move:—

To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) The foregoing sub-section shall not apply to any person who was employed in the military service of Saorstát Eireann as a tradesman or mechanic and received proficiency pay in respect of his service in such capacity.

I really do not think that there ought to be any necessity for any member of this side of the House to move an amendment to protect the interests of people who have done their best in order to secure the stability of the State. What I am asking for in this amendment is not very much. As I pointed out on Second Reading, there are a great many men who were members of the National Army who had been insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act from the date of its commencement in 1912 for a period of six or seven years and who had not been unemployed during that period. Now, under the regulations which prevail, unless they have twelve stamps within the twelve months previous to which they became unemployed or demobilised out of the Army, they lose the credit for these six or seven years' stamps which might be standing to their credit. I do think that the Minister should accept this amendment. It will not embrace very many men. I only ask it to be applied to men who were engaged in an insurable occupation prior to enlistment. I do not ask the Minister to say that all National Army men become entitled to unemployment benefit. I think the Minister on Second Reading was rather favourably impressed by the arguments which were then used by me, and I would ask him to accept this amendment.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I must at once explain what Deputy Corish has said. I did not express myself as being inclined to accept either his argument or the amendments that he suggested he was likely to found on them. I said that a case could be made that there was a hardship. Similarly a case could be made with regard to hardship on every person who was in the Army except those who came from agricultural employment. Any person who had come from what was an insurable occupation into the Army is in the same position as that which Deputy Corish seeks to remove from certain people. If you were to put Deputy Corish's arguments to their logical conclusion it would mean that it is only those who receive preferential pay, who had served the State or had done anything for the State should be considered. That clearly is not his own opinion but it is the argument he wants to use for this. Otherwise why does he take out these two or three classes of people and put them in a superior position?

Mr. CORISH

Will I tell you now?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes.

Mr. CORISH

Because I know in a great many cases that these men were very useful so far as workers in the Army were concerned and they were asked to stay on.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That, of course, gets down to individual cases with which we cannot deal. I do put it to the Deputy that if there is any hardship involved it is a hardship that falls upon everybody except those who came from non-insurable occupations. Take a person who came from the occupation of agricultural labourer. There is no hardship with regard to him, but in regard to every other class there is some hardship. There was certain provision made to meet an emergency. Certain people were about to be thrown on the labour market at a particular time when employment was scarce. In order to meet that emergency by that very large number being thrown on the labour market at that particular time, a certain section was introduced into the Act. That emergency, in so far as it was an emergency created by these circumstances, is past. We are now asked to extend what was a provision to meet a very limited type of emergency, for a number of people known to the Deputy, and apply that for an unlimited time. In regard to this matter of exemptions are you going to make certain provisions with regard to certain people on the grounds of individual hardship, a hardship which is recognised? The hardship aimed at was met by the provision in the Bill, and it is not proposed to extend that further. If this amendment were framed in a comprehensive way, it would simply come to the point of making it appear that Army service was an insurable occupation, and to that also we cannot agree. There is no reason to make any discrimination as between a tradesman or mechanic who had received proficiency pay and a clerk, to mention one class employed in the Army of soldiers serving in a particular capacity. So that in so far as it is based upon the claims of individuals it cannot be accepted at all. If it goes further and says that Army occupation shall become an insurable occupation then it cannot be accepted either because it is too far-reaching.

Mr. CORISH

I did not intend at this point to put forward the plea that Army service was an insurable occupation, but I do think that the Minister ought to reconsider his position in this matter. After all, these men were brought into the Army when the country was confronted with revolution so to speak, and I think that they ought to get special consideration.

If the Minister could see his way to bring in some amendment on next stage which would meet the purpose I should be prepared to withdraw it. After all, I know of a great many cases of hardship where you have six or seven years' contributions by men who went into the Army and now have lost the credit of the actual number of contributions.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Would you say twelve months?

Mr. CORISH

They must have twelve stamps inside twelve months. Under present conditions of employment in the Army they would not have that. They were in the Army for twelve months.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am not sure whether that was a slip on the Deputy's part or not. The situation is that if a person lapses by not having a stamp in a particular year then there is the entrance fee which admits him to the insurable class of twelve stamps to his credit. A person must show that he has not gone out of an insurable occupation. He must serve in an insurable occupation for a certain period. What is the hardship in the case of people who have gone into the Army? If it were said that we had taken people from insurable occupations at a time when there was considerable employment and got them into the Army there would be a very good case for the whole class of people in insurable occupations being dealt with. The Deputy admitted that was not so and that people got employment in the Army who would never get it outside. What I cannot follow the Deputy in is this: This amendment, I suggest, is an amendment to a very limited section in this Bill, i.e., Section 8, and must be very limited in its application. He goes further and limits it in regard to Army men. tradesmen and mechanics who receive proficiency pay.

Mr. CORISH

My reason for this is that personally I should like to see every man, who was in an insurable occupation prior to enlistment, able to draw benefit. It was in consequence of arguments of the Minister in answer to mine that I tried to get this in. It was in consequence of that that I put in this stipulation that a man should be in receipt of proficiency pay to show that he was a tradesman.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am trying to get at what the Deputy is asking me to consider. It is a matter of trying to get some idea agreed between us. As far as I gather, his intention is that in regard to certain people here who were in insurable occupations before going into the Army that we should waive the provision with regard to the twelve stamps. The Deputy stated previously that they had lost. They have not lost their benefit. They have been temporarily suspended. What is in dispute is the date at which a person is to be allowed to draw. The Deputy wants to allow them to draw here and now, although they have not fulfilled the requirements of the Act. The classes to which the Deputy wants that to apply are people who were in insurable occupations prior to joining the Army, or would he make any limitation?

Mr. CORISH

I had an idea, from the answer the Minister gave on Second Reading, that I could not get that, and then I thought I could get these people whom I described here as tradesmen and mechanics. I thought that at least the Minister would agree to extend it to these people. That is my point.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is without adverting to the circumstances in which these men came into the Army. There is this difference: if people were not in an occupation prior to joining the Army, getting occupation in the Army for them means that something has been done. If they left an occupation in which they were engaged when the call came, then there is a stronger case for such persons. You have a difference fairly comprehensive in this way, and it is a matter to have it considered whether or not the provision you should have is one stamp in every year or the entrance fee and whether that should be waived for all the people in insurable occupations who went into the Army.

I do not think you can discuss this in cases of individual hardship. You are hitting again at the roots of the whole insurance code. The fund is badly in debt to the extent of one and a half millions, and if those provisions are not agreed to there is going to be a bigger drain on the funds with less contributions flowing in. The net result will be further depletion of the fund and the drawing near of the day when all that abnormal contribution will have to be further increased. I urge the House not to decide lightly on that, and I ask the Labour Deputies to look forward and see whether it will be a popular thing to have the basis of the code destroyed simply for the sake of a number of people for whom certain provision has already been made and whose transit back to civil life has been eased to some extent.

Mr. CORISH

In face of the Minister not knowing the number concerned I take it he is only assuming that contributions have been increased. He has admitted himself that he does not know the number affected by this amendment. I ask him, in view of that fact, to reconsider the position on the next stage and see whether he could obtain an estimate of what it would cost the Insurance Fund. Undoubtedly there are cases of hardship.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Remember that the contributions that would have to be paid under the section referred to in Section 8 of the Bill would be undoubtedly paid by the State.

Mr. CORISH

Then why did you use the other argument?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

You have to recognise not only the contribution but the source from which it comes. There is not an inexhaustible source from which the Government can draw money. I do not mind leaving this in suspense but it is only what can be called the postponement of execution.

Mr. CORISH

I think the least the Minister could do would be to reconsider the matter and see what it would involve.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 8, 9, 10 and the Title put and agreed to.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Bill reported without amendment.

Fourth Stage ordered for Tuesday, the 18th May.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.