Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Jun 1927

Vol. 20 No. 3

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 60—UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £155,526 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1928, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Arachais Diomhaointis agus Malartán Fostuíochta, maraon le síntiúisí do Chiste an Díomhaointis.

That a sum not exceeding £155,526 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Unemployment Insurance and Employment Exchanges including contributions to the Unemployment Fund.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This is a new Estimate, but it is merely a segregation of items that had been previously set out in the Vote for the office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In so far as it really represents old items segregated under a different head, nearly all the items show a decrease. In some small items, such as incidental expenses, there is no change. The earlier items—travelling expenses, incidental expenses and telegrams and telephones—were previously joined up with the same items for the whole Department. There has been a segregation, founded upon experience of the working of some years, as to the actual amount expended upon these three items in relation to unemployment insurance. Certain explanations are attached to the estimate with regard to the other items. With regard to E, provision has been made for a fee to a barrister, not to exceed £350, for acting as umpire, and there are amounts set aside for fees to chairmen of Courts of Referees. The expenditure will vary according to the number of cases that will fall for examination. The same thing applies to F—travelling and subsistence allowances for members and persons required to attend courts, and that, of course, would vary considerably, according to the number of claims for unemployment insurance benefit.

The State contribution to the Unemployment Fund and to special schemes comes under G. The method used for reckoning that is based upon the receipts from the sales of unemployment insurance stamps. The receipts are taken, and then a particular proportion, representing the State contribution of roughly one-third, is provided. Item H is a special provision with regard to contributions that are made towards the administrative expenses incurred by certain associations which are allowed to make arrangements with my Department with regard to the payment of unemployment benefit to their members. That item will, of course, vary according to the extent of unemployment amongst the members of the associations, and this £350 item is taken as the ordinary average. Sub-head I is fairly definitely explained in the note. Poor people are advanced money to enable them to travel to places to take up employment that has been found for them by the employment branches. Of course, the advances are repaid in accordance with undertakings that are given when the advances are made, and the sum detailed under that is included in the appropriations-in-aid. The biggest item in the appropriations-in-aid—item A— is simply based upon the income of the Unemployment Fund, including the State contribution. There is a maximum percentage that may be taken by way of administrative expenses.

Mr. JOHNSON

There is an interesting comment upon the discussion yesterday furnished by this Vote if one looks at the amount of the contributions to the Unemployment Fund under sub-head G. It will be seen that the amount is the same this year as the amount that was estimated to be required last year, and last year it was only £5,000 less than what was estimated to be required the year before. Inasmuch as that contribution is based upon receipts from stamps sold, one can see that there is not much faith in the Department in the claim made that there has been a great increase in the number of persons employed, and consequently a great decrease in the number of persons unemployed. As between the Estimates for 1925-6 and 1927-8 there is a decline of £5,000, which, roughly, means the increased employment of 1,000 men. Perhaps when the Minister was drawing up this Estimate he was not thinking of the arguments he would use on a discussion on unemployment.

I want to refer to the practice of the Department in respect of appeals in cases of dispute. The case that I referred to in a question yesterday is one which might be picked out of many complaints regarding the considerable delay that takes place in adjudicating upon cases. I ask the Minister to bear in mind that while inquiries are being pursued men are out of work and are not receiving money. Consequently they are suffering to a more or less acute degree, according to their reserves and according to the amount of credit they can get from shopkeepers, which in too many cases is very small indeed, while in too many other cases the men are forced to rely upon what their neighbours can give them by way of assistance pending a decision of the Department. The case that I quoted yesterday had to deal with a dispute with respect to the validity of certain stamps. It is a case of three men who were employed by a certain company in County Dublin which, I think, went into liquidation. The men had a considerable period of employment and their contributions had been deducted by the firm. They applied for unemployment benefit in the usual course. They were refused benefit, and have now been regularly, signing on for twenty weeks—in one case I think twenty-one weeks—and their claims are still under examination.

It may be in this case that there has been some wrong-doing on the part of somebody, and it may be that the Minister has had a very great difficulty in pursuing an inquiry. But it seems to be an unfortunate thing that the men have to suffer as a consequence of the slow progress of this inquiry. It is now, I think, five weeks since I wrote to the Department, and then the inquiry was being pushed forward and the matter was to receive immediate attention. I have no doubt that it has been receiving attention, but I am wondering whether the officers concerned have not too little to do, as some Deputies would suggest, but have entirely too much to do and cannot follow up their inquiries with the speed that is necessary. It is not right that men of this class should be deprived of what may be, and I believe is, a just claim upon the Unemployment Fund for so long a period pending an inquiry.

I think it is a matter for very earnest consideration as to whether there should not be a means whereby, if there is a prima facie case in favour of the applicant—that he at least has not been in fraud, that the Department ought to advance the benefit, even awaiting absolute proof of the invalidity. It certainly seems to me to be very unfortunate and a very great hardship that men of this class should be deprived of their benefit for more than four months pending the pursuit by the Department of an inquiry into the validity of certain stamps. The Minister says that it is now in the hands of an expert chemist to see whether the stamps are valid or not. I do not know whether that is the actual inquiry; I only take that from the Minister's statement yesterday. But the fact remains that there has been three or four months' delay in coming to a decision on the validity of these men's claims. If that were an isolated case one could understand an excuse from the Minister, but Deputies know that it is a very common complaint, that there is too long a delay in coming to decisions regarding the validity of claims, and men who are claiming benefit are deprived of all means of living except by the aid of charitable agencies and friends.

I want to urge upon the Minister the necessity for speeding up, first, the Department regarding replies to queries sent by individuals, trade unions or Deputies, and, secondly, the necessity for speeding up inquiries that are under question in the Department. If that requires further assistance and a bigger staff, by all means put in a bigger staff. I do not credit, either from my observation or experience, the stories about the long, wasteful hours spent by civil servants drawing pay. My experience is quite the contrary. My experience is that civil servants work harder than most commercial servants. I also dissent from the criticism that is so often levelled, that people do not get courtesy and proper consideration from civil servants when making personal inquiries. I think that it is quite a false impression to create: that civil servants do not give good service and do not work assiduously and earnestly. In this case I think we are probably suffering from some of the unfair comments, and that staffs have been unduly cut down, or have not been increased sufficiently to do the work that is necessary. If that is the reason for the delay in answering inquiries and pursuing investigations into cases, then the remedy ought to be to employ more civil servants on that particular job. I make the complaint that there is too great delay, and the further complaint that there is no reasonable ground for charging an applicant with fraud in such a case as I am referring to, and that the claim for benefit should be conceded. If other questions arise later, those who are the culprits should be made to suffer, but the claimant should not be made the sufferer for the delinquencies of other people.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I want to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that compliance with the Act is as general as it ought to be, and whether his Department took steps during the last year to ensure that there was greater compliance than there had been. I am satisfied from my own experience that there is not anything like general compliance, and that the State contribution could be very much reduced if the employers and the employees who are liable were compelled to obey the law in this matter. I think that that particular matter is not being looked after as it should be, because I find very many men, when they are disemployed, coming to me and saying: "I have been working with Mr. So-and-so for so many months or years, and he has never stamped a card." The employee is, perhaps, just as much to blame as the employer, but it shows that there is not that supervision that there should be, and I think the Minister and his Department might give a little more attention to that phase of the question.

Another matter I wish to call attention to is the method of informing a person that a claim for unemployment benefit has been disallowed. He gets a form stating that his claim has been disallowed in accordance with Section 7 (4) and so on. In nine cases out of ten the claimant has not any idea of what Section 7 (4) or 8 (4), as the case might be, refers to, and very often, because he is ignorant of the reason why his claim is refused, and perhaps cannot find anyone to enlighten him, he does not appeal against the decision to the Court of Referees. I suggest that the Department should state in plain language, as briefly as they can, the reason for disallowing a claim. It would save some of us a lot of trouble if that were done.

As to the delay which Deputy Johnson spoke of, it is no uncommon thing for a claim to be under consideration for nine or ten weeks, or even longer. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is the round-about way of dealing with these claims, which go from the branch office to the next office and from that to the central office in Dublin, and then have to come back again in the same way.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

They must.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I do not know whether that is essential. I know it often leads to an unemployed person having to wait for four or six or ten weeks before getting benefit. That is unfair, and any steps that can be taken to obviate that delay should be taken. Taking everything into consideration, the Department is dealing fairly well with the matter, but there could be an improvement. There are, however, two matters that the Minister should pay some attention to: one is the question of compliance, as in my opinion hundreds, if not thousands, of people who should be complying with the Act are not complying, and the other is the question of delay. The Minister might very usefully turn his attention to these.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

As to the Court of Referees, it might be advisable if the Court of Referees held sessions in different centres. As far as I know, there has never been a sitting held in the County Clare. People from all parts of the county have to incur the expense of travelling to Limerick. That acts as a great deterrent, and even people who have good cases are prevented from going before the Referees. As to the Exchanges, I know a whole district in Clare where there is no place provided for the making of claims. Ennis, for instance, is the nearest centre to Scariff, which is twenty-two miles away. Limerick is the same distance. Even the Minister, I feel sure, would consider it a hardship for a man to have to travel 22 miles to make a claim for benefit. For a man who does not live near a town, it is even a greater hardship to have to travel that distance. I also am not satisfied that all that might be done is being done in the matter of compliance. I do not know that the Minister has any responsibility in that matter, but I should like to know if he is satisfied that the present method of securing compliance, by making the officers responsible for National Health Insurance also responsible for Unemployment Insurance, is a suitable method or likely to produce the best results. Is the Minister satisfied that it is working successfully? As far as I know, the system is working most unsuccessfully in connection with Unemployment Insurance, and certainly working to the detriment of National Health Insurance.

Mr. T. MURPHY

I support the point made by Deputy Hogan for slightly different reasons. I feel that so far as the Courts of Referees are concerned in large counties, sittings of the court might be held in various centres in the county with advantage to the administration of the Act. From my own experience in Cork I know that people have to travel very long distances to railway stations from remote portions of the county and attend the court in order to have their cases dealt with. The arrangement, of course, is that representatives both of the employers and the workmen are to sit as court referees with a chairman. I have assisted at these courts very frequently and I have rarely seen a representative of the employer or employee there. The fact that the chairman is a lawyer, as he usually is, is, of course, a great help in interpreting and administering the Act. I think an arrangement could be made with advantage to have direct representatives of the workmen and employers act in conjunction with the chairman at the various sittings of the court throughout the county. I think it is a suggestion the Minister will find would considerably improve the method by which the Act is administered and which would obviate the delay that is caused because of the disagreement that often takes place between the umpire and the court referees by the reason of the very strict manner in which the Act is administered locally. The point is worth considering, and perhaps the Minister would consider it.

Mr. G. LYNCH

I would like again to emphasise one point on the administration of the Act which I referred to to-day. The Minister seemed surprised when I produced seven documents that were sent to a worker in a country district. I think he was sincere in his surprise, and we would feel very greatly obliged to him if he would try by some simple means to get the necessary information for the worker concerned. There is another point to be considered—the question of delays. I might give as an instance the case of R. O'Molloy, Kilcommon. The member's number is Galway, 15413. This man registered on, 12th March, and his case did not come before the Court of Referees until 2nd June. In this case we had a full court. We had the chairman, a representative of the employers' panel, and I was on the court myself as a member of the workers' panel. We went into the whole case, and the unanimous decision of the court was that benefit should be granted. Yet, up to the time when I left Galway last Monday, he had received no benefit. Practically four months have elapsed, and the evidence he produced showed that the man was face to face with starvation. His was a case of undoubted hardship which should have been dealt with quickly.

I came across another very serious case—the case of a man named John Foley, who applied in Galway for benefit some time ago. He was informed that some time about 1920 he received credit for 12 stamps which should have been credited to another John Foley, and the result was that 12 of the 18 or 19 stamps he had to his credit had to go to make up the error made by one of the clerks in Dublin in 1920. That is a ruling that, in my contention, is against all equity and justice. Even presupposing that that error had been made in 1920, if that error had not then been made it would not in any way have affected the benefit he received during that period, because of the fact that he would receive uncovenanted benefit. Therefore, it is not right that he should be deprived of benefit at the present time. Further, we should have proof that it was an error and that the 12 stamps that were credited to him should have been credited to someone else.

In regard to the working of the Courts of Referees, for two or three years there was no Court of Referees in Galway district at all. Through the medium of Deputy Johnson I got the matter raised about twelve months ago. A number of us received notification that we had been appointed on the workers' panel. We attended the court, and some of the workers' representatives lost time and wages by attending. We found out afterwards, or at least we were informed, that we were not properly appointed, and the loss was never made up to these men who sacrificed their wages in order to attend. In fact it is only two months ago that we found out that the panel was in order after a delay of twelve months. In view of the fact that the regulations have been more than stringently enforced to the detriment of the contributor, it is a very grave injustice that delays of this kind should occur. The Minister should facilitate the administration of justice in the case of all contributors. If a man pays contributions and has the misfortune to become unemployed, the Government should, like any other body of citizens, discharge its liabilities to that citizen.

Mr. COBURN

I would like to call the attention of the Minister to a very great grievance that exists among some workers in the immediate vicinity of Dundalk. My constituency, being in such close proximity to the Six Counties, it is only natural that some residents in or about Dundalk have to migrate to the Six Counties in search of employment. I have had brought under my notice cases where men secured employment in the North of Ireland and worked there for one, two, three, four or five years. Then owing-to the general economic depression, they found themselves unemployed, and, in the natural order of things, their residence being in the Free State, they came back to live there. I want to give one specific instance where one of those workers, a married man with a family of three or four, was engaged in quarries situated in the North of Ireland. I think his occupation was a set-maker. That was a very flourishing industry in the Six Counties for a period extending over forty or fifty-years. This man is unemployed at present, and, naturally, he came back to his wife and family, who are living in Dundalk. He has lodged his unemployment book in the local labour exchange. He had been forced to contribute every week to the unemployment fund when engaged in Northern Ireland, but up to the present, I am sorry to state, this man has not received a penny of unemployment benefit.

I would like to ask the Minister if it is his intention in the future to make some reciprocal arrangements between the Minister responsible for unemployment benefit in the Northern counties and himself whereby residents of the Free State employed in Northern Ireland who have perforce to contribute to the unemployment fund whilst engaged there will be made so that when these men are out of employment and come back to reside in the Free State that they will be assured of their unemployment benefit. I believe this question was discussed in the late Dáil. It is a very burning one, and one that perhaps will affect the relationships of the people of the North with the people of the South. It would be well. I think, if the Minister responsible here would endeavour, in the near future, to come to some amicable arrangement whereby these people will receive what they are justly entitled to, seeing that they have complied with all the regulations that govern the unemployment scheme. I avail of this opportunity to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I can assure the Deputy that there is no question to which more attention has been given than the particular matter which he has raised, namely, the question of getging some sort of a reciprocal arrangement entered into with the Northern Government with regard to the disadvantage that residents in both areas labour under when they leave one area to work in another and afterwards return to their own. At the initiation of the Trades Union Congress various suggestions on that point were carried out. A further attempt was made to settle the matter when officials from my Department went to Belfast and put up seven suggestions or methods of meeting the difficulty. I think they exhausted all the possibilities of the situation, but they then discovered, and have since discovered, that it was not the intention of the Northern Ministry to accept any alteration, suggestion or modification of the old law as it existed, and we are at a standstill there. If the Deputy would care to see the suggestions that were made, or if he wishes to get any further details on the matter, I can place them before him.

Mr. COBURN

I believe the Minister did do something.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is not merely asking for belief in the matter. If the Deputy would let me have his point of view as to whether any further modifications or alterations are possible, other than the ones that my Department offered, then I would be glad to discuss the matter with him.

Mr. COBURN

The only reason I can give the Minister so far as relates to the refusal of the Minister responsible in Northern Ireland to agree to this reciprocal arrangement is that the conditions governing the unemployment fund in the Free State were not as favourable as those that prevail in Northern Ireland. Of course, that raised a very big question, a question of a worker in the Free State receiving 15/-, while the worker in Northern Ireland receives 18/-. I do not propose to go into that aspect of the situation, because it is quite outside the sphere of the point under consideration. I simply bring up the question in the hope that the Minister responsible, in conjunction with the other members of the Executive Council here, will endeavour, in the near future, to devise some means whereby this difficulty would be got over, because it is really a great hardship. When the father of a family comes to you, and tells you that he has been working for five years in Northern Ireland and has been compelled to contribute to the unemployment fund there, and finds, when he becomes unemployed and returns to reside in the Free State, that he is not entitled to benefit despite the fact that he has been paying contributions during the whole of the period that he had been in employment, it is really very vexing, not to speak at all of the pecuniary loss that he suffers. He is not entitled to get the unemployment benefit when he comes to reside in the Free State. That means a loss to him of anything from 23/- to 25/- a week, which, if he received it, would be a great help to him to enable him to pay his rent and keep his family in comparative decency.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No opportunity will be lost of getting in touch with the Northern Government to see if they are open to accept any suggestions from us. If there are any other alternative ways of meeting the situation, they will certainly be welcomed by us if they afford a way out.

Mr. LYNCH

Have they made any suggestions?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No. There has been nothing from that side except merely a refusal to consider the various points put up. The one point on which we could get even an approach was an admission of their willingness to receive representatives of my Department in consultation. That began and ended the matter. Nothing emerged from the consultation. I am quite ready to show members of the Dáil the particular alternatives which we proposed, to see if there is any further alternative that they think might be proposed and the objections made to the proposals which we submitted, and see whether the House believes in the objections made. I recognise that there is a definite hardship, but we have done our best to alleviate it and have not been successful.

There were some complaints with regard to non-compliance. Undoubtedly, there is a big amount of non-compliance at the moment, but my officials in the local office and the inspectors under the National Health Insurance scheme, have been ordered to bring to light as many cases as they can. It seems to me rather unfair to ask the State to incur expense in doing for individuals what those individuals definitely can do for themselves. There need not be a case of non-compliance if an employee saw to it that his card was stamped. There could be 100 per cent. compliance to-morrow if the employees would look after it.

Mr. MORRISSEY

No laws would be broken if people obeyed them all.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Generally, there is some consideration for not obeying a law, but here is the case of an individual looking forward to a period of unemployment that the Labour Party seems to think is inevitable at the moment, who is going to suffer, and allows himself to suffer by not insisting on the stamps being put on.

Mr. JOHNSON

He is afraid of the sack.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There may be a difficulty that way. We recognise that that is a difficulty, and that is the reason why officials are told to go into the question and investigate and bring to light as many cases as they can. I believe there is still a large amount of non-compliance, for it is impossible with the staff that we have to get the matter properly adjusted. I do not know who made complaints with regard to the National Health inspectors operating. I think that is one of the best ways to get the matter looked to. It obviates the necessity for increased expenditure. There is no reason to believe that the work is not being done efficiently and earnestly and wholeheartedly by these people.

The Court of Referees was another matter referred to. It was suggested that sittings of the Court of Referees should be held oftener, or that special courts of referees should be held at stated times. As to that, people will have to make up their minds on two points: (a) as to whether there is going to be more or less delay in having actual sittings of the Court of Referees on stated occasions, or whether it is not better to have the sort of system that we have at the moment; and (b) there is the question of expenditure. I think that the present system gives the best results with an expenditure that is reasonable on those courts. I think it was Deputy Hogan suggested that at certain periods special sittings of the courts should be held, and that the cases should be tried out. I should be glad if the Deputy would let me have his views on the matter in writing, setting out the number of court sittings that he would have in regard to a particular area, and let us see what the extra cost would be.

Then there was the big matter raised about delay. When this point was raised when the Dáil met last Thursday, I was dismayed by the statement made, particularly by Deputy Davin, I think, with regard to delay. There has been very little delay in the handling of these cases. There always has been and will be delay in cases where fraud is suspected, and there I cannot agree with Deputy Johnson's plea in the case that he questioned me about yesterday, where there was fraud suspected. If the fraud is actually there, there is no right to benefit. Take the case the Deputy raised. If the stamps have been improperly affixed and have been taken from another book and so on, then the claimant on foot of those stamps has no right. The whole question, which is fundamental, is: Has he any rights to any benefits whatever?

Mr. JOHNSON

If the payments have been deducted from his wages— and in this matter it is a question whose agent the employer is who makes the deductions—if in good faith the claimant has allowed deductions to be made from his wages monthly, yearly, and so on, and sees stamps put on his book, and it then turns out, when the claim is made, that somebody has apparently been defaulting, then I think the applicant ought, at least, to get the benefit of the provisional doubt and ought to be paid unless it is proved that he has been a fraudulent conspirator in the matter.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If the man himself is clear of the fraud, in the case of fraud, and supposing there has been a fraud on the part of the employer, the claimant is not going to suffer.

Mr. JOHNSON

He suffers until the case is decided.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I would like to hear Deputy Johnson speaking, not as Chairman of the Labour Party, but as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, on this subject, if he found my Department appearing before him for having paid a claim before the charge of fraud made was investigated. I think we would get a sharp comment if we entered upon that line of conduct. Once there is fraud suspected, everything has to be gone about more carefully than where a case seems a straightforward case. There may be collusion between employer and employed. The whole thing is clothed with suspicion, and, very naturally, such a case will have to be very much more carefully handled than what appears to be a straightforward case. Most of the cases where there, has been delay have been found to be due to suspicion of fraud or something very near fraud. Ordinarily speaking, no sub-department of mine has so many inquiries and letters to answer as the section dealing with unemployment insurance. There is an average of about 70 complaints or letters with regard to unemployment contributions per week. Take the normal letters written in the normal type of case that calls for correspondence. There have to be a great number of inquiries. Complaint is generally made either to myself or my private secretary, or the head of the Department here in Dublin. That necessitates inquiry at the local office, and generally an inquiry from the National Health Insurance to see whether a man has been in receipt of sickness benefit while out of work. It may, and it does in the big proportion of cases we have to deal with, necessitate inquiry in London as to old payments and old books, and there are a variety of other circumstances to be inquired into. The most obvious cases of delayed payments would represent the cases of men who had mixed up their unemployment hooks or lost them. There would be the question there of tracing and so getting sufficient evidence to get on the track of the old books or to make up one's mind as to what the amount of employment has been. There is quite an amount of inquiry necessary in the simplest of these cases.

Since the speeches made on the opening day of the session upon this matter I asked for inquiries to be made with regard to correspondence, and a certain number of cases filed were taken at random and examined. Sixty-two files were taken. These were cases where we had letters either from Deputies or from such bodies as the Trade Union Congress, or some such authority, or from solicitors on behalf of claimants, and where questions followed. In 55 out of the sixty-two cases taken at random nothing farther was gained by parliamentary questions. Mainly the parliamentary reply was a repetition of the last letter written either to the Deputy or the claimant. In seven of the cases there was a certain amount of improvement, but the improvement occurred in this way: In one case the claimant would not complete the answer on the form. When the Deputy took the matter up it was explained to him that the difficulty arose because of the incomplete forms. The forms were then completed and benefit paid. In another case the claim was under investigation and was cleared within a day of the question being put down—it was on the point of being cleared in any event. The third case was a difficulty through an unemployment insurance book not being lodged, and by writing back to the person who raised the matter he was able to have the book traced, which the claimant had not been able to do for himself. There was another case of a book that had gone astray, or of a workman who lost his book, or said he lost it, and it was traced. There was one case where fresh facts were brought to light through the intervention of the Deputy and where benefit was paid, although it had been previously refused. That was the only case out of the sixty-two. There was one other case where fraud had been suspected and the Deputy was informed that the matter was under investigation. The investigation lasted a considerable time longer; eventually a sufficient case seemed to have been made to have benefit paid without pursuing the fraud suspicions further. I could get a further analysis made with regard to these cases. The average of the sixty-two cases included a number of cases in which fraud was suspected, and in only one of the cases in which fraud was suspected was the idea of fraud afterwards abandoned. Even allowing for the fraudulent cases, the average period taken to settle these cases was a period of nineteen days including Sundays.

I do not think that was an unreasonable period if Deputies will take into account what I said, that there has to bean inquiry made at the local office, to the Accountant's Branch and to the National Health Insurance Commissioners, and so on. I will certainly see to it that there will be no suspicion of avoidable delay. I would not like to be taken as assenting that there has been any delay, because I do not think it is so. My Department has had many letters from Deputies, from solicitors, from the outside public, thanking them for their attitude towards these claims and the energy they displayed in trying to get matters settled, and there will not be in the future, as there has not been in the past, any delay that can be avoided. Deputy Morrissey said that if we could insist on more compliance the Government contribution would go down. Surely it is the other way, as the more stamps bought the more the fund would increase; but I do not want that to be taken, as meaning that we are in alliance with the would-be fraudulent employer, in order to keep the contribution as low as possible.

Vote put and agreed to.