Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Apr 1930

Vol. 34 No. 9

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 60. Unemployment Insurance.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £152,446 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, 1931, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Arachais Díomhaointis agus Malartán Fostuíochta, maraon le sintiúisí do Chiste an Díomhaointis.

That a sum not exceeding £152,446 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, 1931, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Unemployment Insurance and Employment Exchange including contributions to the Unemployment Fund.

I have received, during the course of the year, quite a number of complaints from persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in Dublin, that the attitude of the officials in the employment exchanges here is somewhat harsher than in the opinion of these persons it should be. In fact, statements were made to me of a very strong nature, and I was told that workers who became unemployed and desired to claim benefit were not treated as insured persons receiving benefits for which they had paid premiums but as paupers seeking charity. I believe these statements were, in the main, exaggerated, but I have heard so many of them, and they were of such a nature, that I believe there must be some cause for them. I think it would be advisable for the Minister to take steps to see if there is any real ground for them at all. Personally, I cannot give him any evidence that these statements are either true or untrue, but I was surprised by the number of occasions on which they were made to me and the vehemence with which they were made by individuals who had experience of going to claim benefit. It is possibly due to the fact that in Dublin the work of the officials in the exchanges is much heavier and more onerous than in the other exchanges, and that consequently the atmosphere becomes less human and more mechanical, but I think there must be some ground for complaint in view of the number of complaints that are made.

I would like if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us whether the unemployment insurance code has been reconsidered by his Department with a view to effecting improvements in administration and a reduction of costs. A Bill was introduced in the British Parliament last year which attempted, amongst other things, to amend the machinery for the determination of claims. I do not know if the particular proposals of that Bill have been considered by the Department here with a view to investigating their applicability to this country; neither do I know—I would like to be informed, if it is not out of order—whether the Department has considered the advisability of adopting what was probably the main proposal in the British Bill, that is, the reduction of the age of entry into insurance from sixteen to fifteen. The effect of that reduction in Britain was expected to be an increase in revenue to the fund, and there is no reason to believe that the effect would not be the same here.

I would like also to know if there is any additional cost involved in maintaining the Labour Exchanges as distinct from the machinery for the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. If there is any considerable additional cost involved, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether, in his opinion, the work done by these Exchanges justifies itself. There has been a considerable decline in the last six or seven years in the use that has been made of the Labour Exchange machinery. The Minister for Industry and Commerce told me, in reply to a question some time ago, the number of vacancies notified at and filled through employment exchanges, and it was obvious that although there is still a large number of vacancies notified and filled each year the number represents a very substantial decrease upon the numbers of other previous years. 16,800 vacancies were notified in 1929, and 14,830 were filled. I do not know if that number is, in the opinion of the Minister, sufficiently large to justify the maintenance of the machinery if that machinery, in fact, involves anything like considerable additional cost. It is quite possible, I admit, that the maintenance of that machinery does not involve any cost that would not be necessary if the machinery of the Unemployment Insurance Acts was to be maintained. I would like to know if the question was considered.

The cost of administering the Unemployment Insurance Act appears to be about 10/- per head of insured persons and about 30 per cent. of the benefits paid, and in my opinion that is high. I think the figure of 10/- per head falls to be compared with the allowance for administration expenses under the National Health Insurance Acts, which is at present 4/9 or 4/10 per head. Although it is extremely likely that under any circumstances the cost per head of administering the Unemployment Insurance Act would be heavier than the cost of administering the National Health Act, it does not seem to me that it should necessarily be double. If it could be reduced, it would mean that the deficit in the fund could be wiped off much more rapidly than is being done, and possibly in time a reduction in premiums could be effected or an increase in benefits could be paid. I suppose it would be out of order to discuss the matter of a reciprocal arrangement?

It has been done already. It has been taken on External Affairs.

These matters I have raised are matters of administration on which I would like to get information if the Parliamentary Secretary is in a position to give information now.

There are a number of grievances under which small farmers labour in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Acts to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister. In some of the rural counties, especially Donegal and Mayo, small farmers occupying uneconomic holdings, to make ends meet take up road work. During the time they are working on the roads, money is deducted for unemployment insurance stamps. When they become unemployed and make application for benefit, they do not receive benefit, although they have a sufficient number of stamps.

They do not generally or they do not at all?

They do not in the majority of cases I am referring to.

What percentage of the land cases would that be?

It is hard to go into details of that particular description, but I will quote a number of instances for the Minister. The plea put forward by the insurance people is that they are not unemployed within the meaning of the Act. It is tantamount to saying that during the time they are unemployed, as far as road work is concerned, they are able to take up work on their small farms. The point is that a man occupying two or three acres of land and having a sufficient number of stamps on his card is debarred from getting unemployment benefit owing to his having two or three acres of land. The Minister has pointed out on numerous occasions that it does not debar him from obtaining unemployment benefit. I will quote a specific case to the Minister in which the mere fact of a man's father occupying six or seven acres of land debarred the applicant from benefit which he otherwise would have received. This particular case occurred in Ballyshannon. The applicant had been employed as a motor driver by the Shell-Mex Company for a period of five and a half years. During that time he had 286 stamps. He received unemployment benefit for a period of six months, which, I understand, is the statutory maximum time in which they are allowed to receive benefit in any insurable year. He still had over 100 unexhausted stamps to his credit, and after a lapse of six months when he applied for benefit again he was told that he could not get benefit owing to the fact that he was not unemployed within the meaning of the Act and that because his father had six or seven acres of land he should be able to work upon that land. As far as that particular case is concerned, it could be argued, I believe logically, that when that man became unemployed he could get unemployment insurance benefit for six months, and that seeing that he had over 100 unexhausted stamps to his credit he should have got a second period. But owing to the fact that his father had six or seven acres of land he did not get it.

Did that finish the case?

He appealed to the Court of Referees. I understand he was turned down by the Court of Referees and that the umpire concurred in the turning down of him. There is another matter to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention. When an applicant for unemployment insurance benefit appeals to the Court of Referees he gets notification from the Department stating that his case will be considered on a certain date and that if he desires he can attend. In many cases the applicants, in order to attend, would have to travel probably fifty or sixty miles, and they are not always able to do so. Of course, it could be argued that they are entitled to have a representative there, but in rural districts it is very hard to get a representative to go before the Court of Referees. I suggest to the Minister that sums should be set aside to enable applicants to appear before the Court of Referees, because at present it is not fair to the applicant who is not able to attend.

There is another matter in regard to the Court of Referees to which I would like to draw attention. Very often when the Court of Referees turns down applications it refuses leave to the applicants to appeal to the umpire. I hold that if an applicant for unemployment insurance benefit appeals to the Court of Referees, and if he is turned down by two out of three of the Court, or even if he is turned down unanimously, it should be open to him to appeal to the umpire.

I would also like to direct the attention of the Minister to the question of the unemployment exchanges. As far as Donegal is concerned, there are a number of exchanges, but in Buncrana area, where there are more workers in insurable occupation than in any other part of Donegal, there is no exchange. I would suggest that it would be advisable to open an exchange there. I believe it would facilitate the work generally. As far as the present Vote is concerned, it seems to me that the House is not asked to vote a sufficient amount. The Minister is aware that there is no provision made for uncovenanted benefit. I believe that the six months' limit should be extended, in view of the many people at present unemployed and of the hunger and starvation that exists in cities and towns.

I think the Deputy is not in order in talking about uncovenanted benefit. We have no power to give uncovenanted benefit. It would require fresh legislation.

If this Estimate was increased, it could be given.

Legislation is necessary.

The point is that the Parliamentary Secretary has no statutory authority to pay uncovenanted benefits, and the Deputy cannot, on this Estimate, advocate an amendment of the law and open a discussion on uncovenanted benefit.

I was going to suggest that this Estimate be increased and that it would be possible for the Minister later to introduce amending legislation.

Deputy Lemass referred to the attitude adopted by some of the officials of the Labour Exchange towards persons seeking unemployment benefit. I have investigated a few of these cases of harsh treatment by some of the officials. I find that it is only in rare cases that it has happened and that usually the persons in charge are sympathetic, but that there is a great difficulty. The man at the hatch to whom the individual goes to sign his card for unemployment benefit is too busy to spend any time discussing a case with an individual and some better arrangement should be arrived at.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain what system the Labour Exchanges have in regard to securing employment for men signing up. Do they keep records of a man's trade? Do they keep records besides what is posted up on the red card of people in a particular area who can give employment. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that only recently I was interested in a case of a man who was signing on for a considerable number of years. He came to me over some difficulty he was in, and I had him sent to Cork where he got immediate employment in Ford's. I was informed that Ford's were looking for a number of men of his particular trade. The Parliamentary Secretary facilitated him by giving him his fare to Cork. The system should be such that it should find employment for men when it is available.

Another thing that I would like to get information on is when an arrangement is made between an employer on the one hand and employees on the other by which the employees become exempt from contributions for unemployment benefit what steps are taken to see that there is some guarantee of employment for the employees. An arrangement was made in 1923 between the Tramway Company and its employees whereby the employees were to become non-contributing but now there are fifteen or sixteen men who had been employed on road work unemployed and they get no unemployment benefit and have no means of getting benefit from the stamps to their credit, which had been placed there week by week prior to 1923. I understand that after 12 weeks' work in the current year if their stamps have not got into arrears they can draw benefit. I would like to know if there is any hard and fast rule by which the Department is guided.

Another thing I would like to know is when companies go into liquidation what is the position of their employees. Take the A and B Taxis as an illustration. A number of employees became unemployed as a result of the liquidation of that concern. They had been contributing as long as twelve years and had twelve years' stamps to their credit. Yet they could not draw any benefit because there were no funds there. After a lot of difficulty the Labour Exchange did manage to get the liquidator to place twelve stamps to the credit of most of these individuals and they were able to draw benefit for a certain period. What arrangement has the Department for getting these things done without having to engage the offices of somebody outside to negotiate? Why cannot that be done by the Department itself without keeping people hanging on waiting for this thing to happen?

I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary something with regard to the arrangement there is for finding out where employment is available and as to how the officials can tell for whom this work would be suitable. How can they tell from a man who goes into a hatch and signs up whether he is a good bricklayer or a good mechanic? Do they send along the first five or ten men who apply and who might or might not be suitable, or is there any arrangement, apart from the fact that they post on the wall a red card stating that there is work available on such and such a building? I have gone down to the Exchange very often and I have seen the difficulties of the staff. When the door is opened thousands of men rush in. It is impossible for the staff to do anything in the time at their disposal except to have the cards stamped. Would there be any way by which the assistant managers would have better contact with the unemployed men, rather than to have them shut off in an office where they see nothing except when a complaint arises? I believe that if the assistant managers had contact with these people there would be a better understanding and there would not be all this trouble which arises between the men who are signing up and the officials behind the hatches, and in that way the men who would be most suitable for certain types of work would be found.

Would the Deputy develop further the point about firms going into liquidation? I understood him to say that in some cases he had in mind people who have been paying for twelve years, and had stamps for that time and yet could not get payment?

The Minister is quite right. What I meant was that deductions have been made from their wages by the employer for a period of twelve years and that the employer did not stamp their cards.

And for twelve years the employees had allowed deductions to be made and had not seen that the cards were stamped? Is that what the Deputy means?

If the Minister looks into that case he will find I am correct in what I say.

Are these the facts?

These are the facts. I am not blaming the Department for the delinquencies of the employer; what I am blaming them for is that from the time that firm closed down until about a month ago no move was made by them to put these people in benefit at all. I believe some of the men had a certain number of contributions, others had less, and some had none, that some men were out of benefit altogether because they had no stamps, and that others were because they were in arrears. What I was wondering at was the delay of the Department in doing anything.

Did they know anything about it?

They did. Men went down for months and claimed, and it was after that that they came to me about it.

It was after the bankruptcy?

After the liquidation. Then the liquidator had certain funds at his disposal, and he set aside a certain number of stamps for each of the employees to get them into benefit. What I wanted to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to was the delay.

Not alleged at all.

I insist on the word alleged.

Well, I insist on the definite delay, that nothing was done, because I happen to know about the case; I got in touch with the liquidator, and I got these stamps put on. There is no alleged delay at all.

There are some matters which I would like to bring before the Minister in regard to unemployment insurance. One is the delay, of up to five or six weeks in some cases, before the authorisation of the benefit is made. I cannot see why there should be such a delay in the case of some claims. When you consider that a man, say a labourer, is knocked out of employment and has to wait five or six weeks before he gets any benefit, everyone will see that it is a real hardship, and I do not think there is any justification on the part of the Department for such a delay. Several cases have come to my notice in my county during the last twelve months or so, and I would like the Minister to look into these and to try to get his Department to hasten the payment of benefits. In connection with that also, I would like to bring before him what I think is the rule of the exchanges—the acceptance of the statements of employers and other people as to the actions of the man concerned. In some cases there may be a little tiff between the employer and the workman, and every statement made by the employer or, we will say, other prominent resident, is taken for granted by the agents of the exchange, while no notice at all is taken of the statement of the working man. I think that the function of the exchanges should be to try to help the working man more than the employer. In some cases the man is discharged simply because he will not accept a reduction of wages, and then his payment of benefit is delayed because the employer, of course, states that the man left the work of his own free will; he never tells the agent that he has left because he will not work for a lesser wage. I think that the Minister should take notice of that point and that he should give instructions to his agents to make certain investigations about these matters so that the working man will not be penalised. I think that the function of the exchanges should be to help the working man before anything else. That is why they were set up.

Another point I would like to bring to the Minister's notice is the payment of benefit to men who have left the country for a number of years and who, after returning and working again in the country have lodged claims for benefit. I understand—and I know it to be a fact in one case—that they are allowed only the number of stamps that have been put on their cards since their return and that no account is taken of the stamps that were on their cards before they left the country.

Has the Deputy a case of that?

I told the Minister of one case.

Could we get the details?

I know of one man, a bricklayer from my own town, who has been working for over twelve months in Dublin for a member of the Dáil. That work was finished and he returned to Newbridge to look for employment—God help us! He lodged a claim in Newbridge and he was allowed fifty-four days—I presume that was for the time he was working in Dublin. He told me that he had been in fairly constant employment from the time the Act was passed in 1912 and that he has not drawn very much out of it. He hopes that he will not have to remain unemployed for the fifty-four days. I do not think it is fair for the Department to penalise this man or any other man. It is bad enough for a man to lose money that he has paid into the British Unemployment Fund, but that you should disown responsibility for all the stamps he has paid before he left is not fair. This man to whom I referred is a bricklayer; we have not very many of them in the country, and we should be able to find employment for the few that are left.

In that connection the Minister should use his influence with his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Board of Works, to try to get the Prince's St. section of the G.P.O. started at once to give employment to the unemployed bricklayers in Dublin and in that way take some of the burden off his funds, because as far as I can see the structure there is a standing disgrace to the city of Dublin, with moss growing on the steel work, while the bricklayers of Dublin are walking about unemployed.

There are a few points on this Estimate to which I want to draw the Minister's attention. One complaint that seems to be general is the delay that takes place at the head office in Dublin in authorising payment of benefits. Another grievance is that a number of employers seem to think that the Act is not in force at all. Small employers in the country towns do not seem to pay much attention to carrying out the Act. They think it has been abolished. I think the Minister should ask the inspectors to do what they did some years ago, to go around and impress upon the employers that the Act is still law, and that they must stamp the cards of their employees. That would be very good business, because it would do away with the chief grievance that many workers have. At present, when the cards are not stamped, and when these people become unemployed, they find when they go to the exchange to make claims, that they are not entitled to benefit. The officials at the employment exchange or at the head office in Dublin tell the applicants to take their employers into court to compel them to stamp the cards. The unfortunate workers are not able to pay for summonses to bring the employers to court, and the Minister's Department comes along after, perhaps, three or four months, and makes the employers stamp the cards.

Another complaint in connection with this matter concerns arrears. When an employer complies with the Act and stamps the card after, perhaps, five or six months, the money is lodged, probably in Dublin, to the credit of the general fund, and in many cases the applicants do not get credit until they make claims. Weeks elapse sometimes before inquiries are made at the head office to see if the stamps have been put on the cards. I do not say that the collectors misappropriate the money. They may do so in some cases, but I do not think that is general. I would remind the Minister that, if the inspectors got busy, as they did a few years ago, the grievances that many workers now have would not exist.

A type of complaint has reached me on a few occasions that I think it right to mention. Men employed in insurable occupations, and who have their cards stamped, when they become unemployed, because they own a small piece of land or for some reason like that, are not able to draw benefit. That complaint has been brought to my notice on a couple of occasions, and while I am not an expert on unemployment insurance, it becomes the duty of a Deputy to inquire into the matter. To my mind, it is very unfair to compel men to stamp cards and that when they become unemployed they cannot draw benefits.

I have a case of the kind and I will put it before the Minister.

When they are unemployed and have stamps they can draw benefit

That was the case made to me. I will put the facts in the hands of the Minister, and if the man can get the unemployment benefit that will settle the whole thing.

Deputy Lemass referred to a rather serious matter when he made a sweeping complaint about the treatment of workers when they go to the unemployment exchanges. I would be very glad to get from him particulars of any case of that kind, because my experience has been, in any of the cases where we have made an investigation, that there was no ground at all for sweeping statements of the kind. However, I will take serious note of what he has stated, and if he can make any case I will have it rectified. The officers in the employment exchanges are most sympathetic to the workers, and make every effort to facilitate them in securing unemployment benefit. They are not there to prevent the workers getting unemployment benefit. Statements have been made by Deputies about delays. I have gone into the figures very carefully on many occasions, and in 98 per cent. the claims are paid automatically after the first waiting week. These are the figures and they speak for themselves, showing that the offices are working smoothly and efficiently. In only two per cent. of the cases is there any trouble, and where there is delay there is a necessity for it; something has to be got over, and they have to go before the Courts of Referees or before the Umpire. The treatment by the Courts of Referees was referred to. Deputies know that a Court of Referees is a body set up to inquire into any claims that are not automatically paid. On the Court of Referees there is a representative of the workers, a representative of the employers, and an independent legal chairman. The court carefully examines any cases in which there is any doubt and gives a decision.

If I might point out to the Parliamentary Secretary my complaint was that the workers who appeal to the Court of Referees are very often unable to appear at the hearing, owing to the fact that they may live 30 or 40 miles away.

It is usually a fairly bad case when it goes before the Court of Referees, and there is something wrong. If there is any doubt, the worker gets the benefit of the doubt. The Court of Referees is not set up to prevent workers getting benefit, but to ensure that only workers who are entitled get it.

In many cases they are not present during the time the court is sitting to state their case.

That happens very seldom.

It happens in the majority of cases in rural constituencies. Take County Donegal, where the Court of Referees sits in only one part of the county. If a person who lives thirty or forty miles away appeals to the court, very often he is unable to travel there owing to the fact that he has no money.

He has a trade union representative attending there for him.

There is no trade union representative in the case of small farmers working on the roads for a few months.

In reference to the Labour Exchanges placing people in employment, the additional cost would be very slight.

We do not keep the figures separately. I do not think it would be a wise procedure to drop the exchanges, because they cost very little and they serve a very useful purpose. The different offices keep in touch with employers. They keep a list of the unemployed segregated under different headings. The local offices, as well as the central offices in Dublin, have been very successful in placing quite a number of people in employment. During the past twelve months fourteen or fifteen thousand people were placed in employment. The case referred to by Deputy Briscoe and cases similar to it are very exceptional—that is, where there might be employment for an individual with a particular trade and where that fact might not be known. That might happen in one case out of a thousand. The labour exchanges act as between the worker and the employer. They are very successful in carrying out the functions of securing employment for people. As regards the cost, a special committee was set up to inquire into the cost of administration generally, and it was suggested before that committee that the post office might pay out unemployment benefit. After consideration, it was decided that the suggestion was not a workable one, and that it was better to continue in operation the present arrangement, which is working very well. Proposals for legislation are under consideration with the idea of reducing the cost of administration. We have had a committee carefully examining the different Acts relating to unemployment insurance. We intend to introduce legislation which will, I think, secure a reduction in the cost of administration.

Is there any proposal to deal with the age of entry into insurance?

No. With regard to the matter raised by Deputy Briscoe about companies in liquidation, the Deputy must know that it is the fault of the worker if he has been in employment for a number of years, and did not insist on his employer stamping his card. In any case, when it is brought to the notice of one of the labour exchange officers that an employer is not stamping a worker's card, we immediately take legal proceedings against that employer. It is really the worker who should do that.

That is not my point at all, and I am not blaming the Department. I admit it is the worker's fault if his card is not stamped. What I did try to point out was the terrific delay, on the part of the Department, in getting cases of this kind settled when they arise. A Deputy on the Labour Benches also referred to it. What happens is that if an employer is not stamping a card, the employee is told by the Department to bring the employer to court. It is well known that the employee is not in a position to do that. The result is that months elapse before the Department moves in the matter. My point was that the Department should move immediately. There is no use in telling the employee to use the employer and bring him into court, because it must be well known that the employee is not in a position to do that. The man has not even got the few shillings in unemployment benefit to which he is entitled, and which would be a help to him to pay his rent. What happens is that he is told to bring the employer into court, and that is why I believe all the delay arises in these cases.

The question of delay comes up again on this. I gave my percentage figure and I stick to that. The number of workers who are delayed in securing benefit is infinitesimal. When a worker makes a complaint he is told that he can bring the employer into court. As a matter of fact, immediately it is brought to the notice of the Labour Exchange officials that an employer has not been stamping the card of a worker, we immediately take legal proceedings against him. That is the position. The worker is also informed that he can immediately take legal proceedings against the employer to recover all that he is entitled to. With regard to the case referred to by Deputy Haslett, if a worker is unemployed he is entitled to unemployment insurance benefit, but in many cases it may happen that a man who has been out of one particular job may be working at something else. He may be unemployed as a road worker, and may have gone back to work on his farm. He would not be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits if he was working on his farm. He must be unemployed and not working to get the unemployment insurance benefit.

I think it would be interesting to know where the Parliamentary Secretary has been living during the past five years.

Is the Deputy going to make a speech or is this merely an intervention?

A reprisal.

Mr. Hogan

Do you not think it deserves a reprisal?

The Deputy, I assume, is going to make a speech?

Mr. Hogan

I am going to try.

Then we are going to start the discussion on this Vote all over again?

Mr. Hogan

I was anxious to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say. As he had nothing to say, I am now going to try to say something. The Parliamentary Secretary studiously avoided the points that have been raised on this Vote The Minister for Industry and Commerce can, no doubt, tell the House that these questions have been raised here frequently, every year almost, during the past three or four years.

And ineffectively.

Mr. Hogan

We are making no case whatever—I do not think that an attempt to do so was ever made from these benches—against the officials in the labour exchanges. In view of the way that the Act is administered from headquarters, I think these officials are as courteous and as capable as it is possible for them to be. Cases have been put up here repeatedly dealing with people who may have four or five acres of land. These people may get employment from the county council for ten, fifteen or twenty weeks during the year. When they get unemployed and make application for unemployment insurance benefit, they are told that they are not unemployed within the meaning of the Act as they have land. What employment do these few acres give them? In my own county people have come to me repeatedly and pointed out that they had one or two young cattle on these few acres of mountain. Just at the time they are unemployed on the roads is the time when these few acres of land require no attention whatever. Their position is, that at the very period of the year when they are unemployed on the roads they are also unemployed on the few acres of land they hold. Cases of that kind have been repeatedly put up.

This is a matter for administration and not legislation. It is a case where the head of the Department should administer the Act in a proper fashion, not merely according to the letter but according to the spirit of the Act. As it is, these people are done out of the benefit to which they are entitled. If they are not entitled to benefit the county councils and other public bodies who employ them should be instructed not to deduct money from their wages for the purpose of stamping their cards. When the money is deducted and their cards stamped the people are led to believe that they are entitled to benefit, but when they are unemployed and apply for benefit they are turned down or told to submit their case to an Umpire or Court of Referees. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us that cases of that kind are exceptional. Does the Parliamentary Secretary know the country sufficiently well to be able to say that? Can he imagine an unemployed road worker travelling from Ballyvaughan to Limerick at his own expense—taking a bus or train to Limerick, staying there overnight, and then travelling back again next day? Could there not be a system by which the Court of Referees would rotate? Surely it should be possible to have a Court of Referees sitting in different districts to avoid hardship, as in the case of an unemployed person who has to travel from Ballyvaughan to Limerick? The Minister may believe these cases are not numerous. I suggest they are sufficiently numerous to warrant consideration. The Parliamentary Secretary said it was thought that people might be asked to sign at the Post Office, but it was found that the old arrangement was sufficiently good. He also said you could go to a Civic Guard station and notify when unemployed. Does the Parliamentary Secretary know how far away these barracks are from people in certain districts? It strikes me that it would be a good thing if the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Parliamentary Secretary——

Were unemployed.

Mr. Hogan

Possibly unemployed for a period, but I dare say they would not find themselves in a queue outside the labour exchange. I hope they would not. I do not wish that they should be placed in that position, though they are bad administrators and deserve badly from the unemployed. They might get a senior inspector to investigate these cases and submit them to senior officers in the Department to see what could be done. The Parliamentary Secretary might do something to alleviate suffering in that way. He might consult the county councils on this matter. They know how the Act is administered. They see that the people have to stamp their cards and that they get nothing in return.

What has the Parliamentary Secretary to say about the case I mentioned from Newbridge?

I wish to speak on behalf of creamery workers. During the winter, from the month of October on, they work only a day or two in the week. These men have a few acres of land, but the time they have nothing to do on the land is the time when they are unemployed. During the winter these creamery men have nothing to do. I have put up several cases to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. One man has had his card stamped since the Act was first introduced. Year after year he has been idle, but received no unemployment benefit.

There are two points in connection with this Vote with which I would like to deal. One is the distance some may have to travel in order to claim unemployment benefit and register at the labour exchange. It seems to me that the areas are not well enough defined with a view to giving the opportunity to men to register at the nearest possible labour exchange. I will mention one case, and there are many like it. On Monday last, in order to register, a man had to travel from Birdstown, in the peninsula of Inishowen, to Letterkenny, a distance of almost thirty miles. If that man could register at Buncrana he would have to travel only five or six miles.

Is it for the purpose of registration?

Making a claim.

You said to register.

And register.

Making a claim in this case, which is typical of many more. That man should not have to travel thirty miles to Letterkenny for that purpose, and it should be possible for him to register in a town like Buncrana, the capital town of Inishowen. A fact that has been emphasised is that the Parliamentary Secretary has never made any attempt worth talking about to have reciprocal arrangements between the Saorstát and Northern Ireland and Great Britain in regard to unemployment insurance benefit.

That does not arise under this Vote but under the Vote for External Affairs.

And it is not correct.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell me why it is not correct?

I will take the case of a man who was employed for three years in Moville.

Is this about reciprocal arrangements?

It is not. This man was employed for three years in Moville. He had his card stamped there, and how is it he could not draw unemployment insurance in the Free State when he happened to go back at the end of three years to live in his own home in Derry?

That comes under reciprocal arrangements.

One of the great faults in connection with the Act is its administration, including the long delay that occurs when non-compliance takes place and is reported. It is well known that in a case of non-compliance files pass to and fro between the inspector and the Department, so that a question remains undecided for months. I have personal knowledge of a case of that kind. This is a matter that ought to be looked into, for it is the cause of a great deal of hardship as well as dissatisfaction with the working of the Act.

In a great many cases, the present arrangements with regard to the Court of Referees are not satisfactory. It is quite true that this is particularly apparent when you are dealing with cases from remote areas. I have had cases brought to my notice of people employed in the extreme end of the constituency of West Cork—Allihies Mines. That would be over 100 miles from Cork City where the Court of Referees sit. In cases of that kind, it is practically useless to offer a man a railway voucher from Bantry to Cork City. He has to travel close on 50 miles by road to Bantry. It is humanly impossible in the case of an unemployed worker who had been working in Allihies Mines to travel there. He has so many stamps affixed to his card but even with that he is not in a position to get unemployment benefit. In the case of a great many workers, it is very difficult for them to present their case in proper form. What ought to be done in cases of that kind is that the Department might make arrangements whereby cases which they wish to have examined closely might be investigated by an officer of their Department on the spot. If an arrangement of that kind were made, much better results would be obtained and the true nature of the case elicited on the spot. I admired Deputy Hogan for having brought up again this question of the very small farmer who farmed a very small patch of land. The small farmer who has a small bit of land is debarred from unemployment benefit. I have heard the Minister say so often that that is not the case that I expect he will say it again this evening. But that is not so. I, at any rate, would not have Deputy Hogan's perseverance in bringing that matter forward again and again as he has done. Cases of that kind are occurring, not perhaps to the extent to which they did occur. Deputy Hogan is right when he says that the letter of the Act might be adhered to but that the spirit of the Act is not carried out. The Parliamentary Secretary was, no doubt, quite sincere when he said that immediate steps were taken to deal with cases of non-compliance. I am satisfied that immediate steps were not taken, and, if they were, better results would have been achieved. It was necessary that these cases should be referred to. A good deal of improvement can be effected in these cases without very much expense.

The Parliamentary Secretary did not make any reference to the case of the Dublin Tramways Company and their employees, referred to by Deputy Briscoe. Under the section of the Act, arrangements were made by the Tramways Company under which employees of the Company were excluded from liability to become insured. That arrangement was made on the understanding, as far as I can interpret the Act, that the persons concerned were in permanent employment and not liable to dismissal except on the ground of inefficiency or neglect of their duties. In point of fact, the men were dismissed consequent on the decision of the Tramways Company to reduce expenditure following on the strike. The men were unable to claim benefit because of the fact that they were not in an employment where they were insured. Their claim to benefit had become inoperative owing to the period which had elapsed since they had put stamps on their cards. The Minister must admit in that case that some hardship was inflicted on the men because these men would have been insured were it not for the fact that this arrangement had been made —that is, except for the fact that they were deemed to be in permanent employment and would not be dismissed except for inefficiency or neglect of their duties. The men became unemployed through no fault of their own. Steps should be taken to ensure that in similar cases in future hardship of this kind will not arise.

Is it true that even in cases where the Minister had certified such an arrangement he should be satisfied that there was——

A likelihood of permanency.

Mr. O'Connell

Surely the Minister should have known within the last 12 or 14 months at any rate that even if those conditions were present at the time the arrangement was entered into, the circumstances were such then that that condition of permanency was not likely to continue, and steps should have been taken to terminate the arrangement or to see that insurance was entered into.

Mr. Byrne

I wonder would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us, as far as married women are concerned under this Act, what exactly is the meaning or the interpretation of the phrase "not available for employment"? I have had a case quite recently brought to my notice of a married woman who in the last six or eight months was refused unemployment benefit. She had been contributing for the past fourteen years. She appeared before the Court of Referees, and the Court of Referees found that she is available for employment. The woman was refused unemployment benefit on the ground that she had not satisfied the court that employment is not available as far as she is concerned; that she has not satisfied the court sufficiently that she has sought for employment necessary to comply with certain provisions of the Act. The court first finds, when she appears before them, that she is available for employment as far as the Act is concerned, and then she appears at a later stage before the court and the Court of Referees decide that she is not entitled to benefit because she is not available for employment. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us precisely what is the interpretation of the words "not available for employment"?

I am glad that one Labour Deputy knows something about the Unemployment Insurance Act and its administration, though I do not agree with some of his conclusions. Deputy T. Murphy knows that railway vouchers are given in certain cases, thus destroying the very happy contention which was put up by Deputy Hogan about poor people having to walk very long distances——

On a point of explanation, is the Minister aware that the court sends out printed forms stating they would not be responsible for any expenses of the applicant in appearing before the Court of Referees? That is contrary to the Minister's statement now.

It is also contrary to what Deputy Murphy knows is actually happening now.

Mr. Hogan

The two cases hang together—the administration of the Act in so far as it affects people with small patches of land who appear before the referees. These people are dealt with in automatic fashion, and they are said not to be entitled to insurance. When they come before the Court of Referees they are automatically turned down and they have to pay their own expenses.

The two cases are distinct. We have the statement from one Deputy that there is some improvement in dealing with land cases. I would like to assure Deputies that there is no automatic turning down, none whatever. I challenge every Party in the House, my own Party included, to put test cases before me, because that is the only way that I can properly deal with any allegations that are made here. The only way that I can test an allegation is by means of a concrete case. Deputy Byrne puts me a question which I cannot answer. It is not my business to answer it.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister knows about the case.

The interpretation of that case does not lie with me. On another occasion Deputy Morrissey asked me did the Court of Referees and the umpire finally adjudicate on cases in accordance with instructions issued by me or by the officials of the Department. If I were to give an interpretation such as Deputy Byrne wants to-night, it might be taken as a ruling in many cases. I prefer to keep away from any interpretation. We have the Act there, and we have the people to administer it. I am quite convinced, from the concrete cases that have been put before me, that there is no reason to complain of the spirit in which the Courts of Referees, as they are constituted, or the umpire, deal with any cases that come up for consideration. As I have said, the only way to test any matter is to put forward a concrete case. Since I issued that challenge on a former occasion, Deputy Ward submitted one concrete case. I would like Deputies to read that particular discussion and judge for themselves if it was a strong case to bring here and to found an argument upon that all such cases are turned down, and the landowner, simply because he owns a patch of land, is turned down. Deputy Hogan, apparently, wanted to get something out about the man with the couple of acres— poor land. Deputy Cassidy wandered into that too, but before he entered into any concrete case the holding of land had trebled in size.

I am quite prepared to send the Minister a few cases.

The only way to deal with any matters in dispute is to submit a concrete case. I would like the Labour Party to pick out a few cases so that we can examine them. I must say that Deputy Murphy has brought forward more cases than anybody else. Let some Deputies who are not satisfied pick out half a dozen cases in which definite decisions have been given by the umpire against the applicants. We will then get to all the facts. We will be furnished with particulars as to the size of the holding, the stock on the land, the condition of the land, and we will see on what basis the umpire's decision was given. If there is any hardship, then we can modify it. I have challenged different Parties over and over again to bring forward cases in which hardship can be shown. Deputy Colohan gives me a case of undoubted hardship, but I take leave to doubt the Deputy's facts. I refer to the case of broken employment. On the facts as presented by Deputy Colohan I cannot really understand why that particular man does not get payment of benefit.

He has been allowed fifty-four days.

Provided what the Deputy says is correct, and if the man got certain benefits paid to him and then had certain work which again put him into the insurance pool, I cannot understand why he was not entitled to further benefit. If a man got certain work after four or five years had elapsed which put him into the insurance pool again, and if he has got unexhausted stamps to his credit and is out of employment or not available for employment, he should get paid. He is entitled to benefit as long as he is again brought into the insurance pool.

He has been allowed fifty-four days on his claim, but that is for the time he was working in Dublin, after he came from Manchester. He had a lot of stamps on his card before he left the country and he is not given any credit for them.

I cannot understand why he is not. There must be something more in it. If the Deputy will submit that case to me, which, as he puts it, establishes a prima facie case in the man's favour, I will get it looked into. As far as ordinary delay in dealing with cases is concerned, I will stand over the Parliamentary Secretary's figures. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that 98 per cent. of claims of a particular type are paid at once, after the waiting week. I will say that of the non-compliance cases that Deputies get to handle probably a very big percentage would not be paid for months. Why? Because Deputies get the most doubtful cases. They do not hear of the cases in which men get paid automatically. They do not even hear of the non-compliance cases where investigations are proceeding smoothly and where there is every possibility that the workers will get the benefit due to them. They do not hear of the cases where the office gets hold of the fact that there is non-compliance and then proceeds to deal with the firm. In these cases there is no question of the firm breaking up. We do not hurry them, and sometimes we postpone these cases in order to deal with more urgent business.

The cases that Deputies mainly get to deal with are the difficult cases, the cases in connection with which there are considerable doubts, the cases in which there may be an element of fraud, or something amounting to conspiracy to defraud as between the employee and the employer. Naturally, in these cases we must make very thorough-going investigations. There may not be any conflict between Deputy Murphy and myself when I say that there is little delay in non-compliance cases. The Deputy may hold that there is delay, but he is dealing with a limited number of cases. I say that there is little delay and I am dealing with a whole lot of cases. If Deputy Murphy thinks that he has got hold of non-compliance cases in which there is what he considers undue delay, I would like particulars of them. I find that the officials even at headquarters, where they are more criticised than the officials in the country branches, do their duty with commendable alacrity and with tremendous sympathy for the people whose applications they are considering.

Does the Minister consider that a period of five or six months is not undue delay?

I will say that for an ordinary case that period would be a great delay. Deputy Corish knows of a case which has been delayed for over one and a half years and there is likely to be another half year's delay. I must say that there is very grave doubt about that case and a suspicion almost amounting to assurance of fraud. Deputy Carney raises a point about men having to travel in order to register. In so far as he speaks of men having to travel to register I do not think that the Labour Party are under any misapprehension as to the system that is in operation. As far as registering is concerned, a man need not walk any farther than to the nearest post office. There he gets an envelope and he puts inside it his application to be registered. He may send that application in an unstamped envelope, addressed to the office. The entire obligation on the man is to go the length of securing the necessary writing material and to drop whatever he has written into the nearest post office receptacle. As far as making a claim and getting payment are concerned, attendance at the office is necessary in order to avoid fraud. As to the distance which people are obliged to travel under the latter circumstances, I must say that the offices have to be centred in such a way as to make the cost of administration reasonable. We have to keep down administration expenses. Deputies have been talking here to-night on the point that administration expenses are too high. Our aim is to get the offices centrally situated so as to meet the needs of prospective claimants in any area. I cannot tell the number of claimants that there will be in Bunerana or the peninsula north of it and I cannot tell the number of people who will be making claims in the Letterkenny area. I have had the situation of offices often under review when it came to a question of appointing branch managers and I have often considered how better to locate them as the needs of prospective claimants might warrant. We have endeavoured to place them so that the least amount of travelling is imposed on the greatest number of people. I will have to look into the matter referred to by Deputy Byrne.

Mr. Byrne

Surely the Minister can tell the House what is his interpretation of the particular section of the Act to which I have referred?

I could not possibly. I will not attempt to define the section or give any interpretation of the words "not available for employment." In order to answer the Deputy's question I would have to have a review of possibly 20,000 cases, and I would have to segregate them under twenty or thirty heads. If the Deputy thinks it is worth while, we can get it done.

Mr. Byrne

Surely it is a simple matter.

It is not a simple matter.

Mr. Byrne

I am merely asking the Minister to give his interpretation of that section. The case I have in mind has received the grossest and the most inequitable treatment under the Act.

I am not going to define the section. I understand the case went before the Court of Referees and before the umpire.

Mr. Byrne

No. They refused to let it go before the umpire.

It went before the Court of Referees and stopped there.

Mr. Byrne

It went before the Court of Referees on three different occasions. On the first occasion the Court of Referees found that the unfortunate woman was not entitled to benefit because she was not available for employment and also because she had not satisfied the court that she had not been able to find employment. The case was turned down in the first instance on these grounds. A claim was re-entered and went before the court again. The court found that they could not grant unemployment benefit for one reason, and one reason only. That was, that she had not satisfied the court that she had been unable to obtain employment. We went before the court and we satisfied the court in every detail that she had sought, and diligently sought, such employment and was unable to obtain it. The court actually reversed its previous decision on the same set of facts, despite documentary evidence we asked to have produced. I have never known a court to follow such procedure in all my experience, and I ask the Minister what the interpretation of the Act means because, if "unemployment" is interpreted as at present, there is certainly no equity or justice.

Obviously what the Deputy says is inaccurate in one detail, if in nothing else. The court could not re-hear the case on the same evidence. There must have been some new evidence. There must have been some fresh facts, otherwise the court would never re-hear the case, and the fact that there was another decision shows that some new evidence must have been produced. On that new evidence the decision was given.

Mr. Byrne

Surely the Minister is not afraid to tell the House what his interpretation of the section is?

I would have the courage to tell the House if I knew. I do not.

Mr. Byrne

Then we are interpreting an Act but we do not know the meaning of it.

We do not know what interpretation the judges would put on it.

Mr. Byrne

Well, God help the unemployed of Dublin!

If the Deputy thinks that a new interpretation is necessary the law will have to be changed.

Mr. Byrne

I want the Minister to tell us what his interpretation of the section is.

This House never interprets its own Acts. It passes legislation and certain flaws may be discovered in that legislation by the judges.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister is responsible for the Department and knows the interpretation better than I do. I ask him to tell the House what that interpretation is. Surely, with all the experience of the Department behind him, he is not afraid to tell us, in the interests of common justice, what the interpretation is?

I do not think there is any question of being afraid to do anything. Just as on the question of the Railway Acts, I could say what the House intended in passing certain things, but I cannot speak in regard to, and I am not allowed to criticise, the judges' decision in finding what the law is afterwards on certain facts. I had nothing to do with putting in this phrase, "available for employment."

Mr. Byrne

The court reversed its decision on the same set of facts.

I do not believe that the court could hear the same facts twice.

Was there not an appeal to the umpire?

The Deputy has denied that. The Deputy did not go before the umpire.

Mr. Byrne

The court refused to allow the appeal to go before the umpire on the same set of facts on which they found that the woman was available for employment. If they found that, how could they reverse their decision on the same set of facts?

They could not do it. The Deputy is making a mistake.

Mr. Byrne

I am not making any mistake.

The Deputy, being present on both occasions, made a mistake. The court could not rehear a case which had been previously decided on the same facts. There must have been some new facts produced. I do not know that there is any other point, except the point first raised by Deputy Briscoe, and secondly by Deputy Lemass, about exemption cases. I think it is exemption and not exceptance he means. Employment of a certain type is exempted where there is a certificate granted that the employment is of a type that would ordinarily be considered permanent. If Deputy O'Connell's point is that hereafter, owing to what has happened, a certain type of employment should no longer be considered exempt, that is a thing I could deal with. I understand that Deputy Briscoe wanted me to look after people who, having been exempted some time ago, now find themselves without stamps to their credit and unable to get benefit. In that case I can do nothing, because they are not entitled to draw upon the fund. They have not stamps to their credit. They might have had stamps to their credit under an early apprenticeship. There is a three-year period in railway employment in which railway work is considered still subject to the incidence of employment. After that it becomes exempted and the old stamps are no longer effective. In the case of these men, retrospectively I can do nothing.

Would it not be possible to have the certificates issued by the Minister under the Act reviewed periodically so as to provide against the possibility arising of a type of employment, which in 1923 was considered permanent, being still exempted, although in 1927 or 1928 it would be common agreement that it was no longer permanent within the meaning of the Act?

Most exemption cases arise on an application by the class of workers who are likely to be exempted. They arise on their own initiative. If conditions have so changed for them and if they bring forward an application it will be considered. The Deputy wants me to review departmentally exempted classes to see whether conditions of employment have changed. We could hardly undertake that. It has to be recognised that in cases like tramway employment or railway work it is regarded as a benefit both by the employee and the employer that the contribution should not be deducted. It means that more is coming in at the end of the week or the month to the worker's house in wages. The only other matter that arises is the question of the non-compliance cases, particularly the special case which Deputy Briscoe spoke of, a firm going bankrupt. Cases of non-compliance, where in the course of an investigation it appears that there is a possibility of the firm or individual going bankrupt, are undoubtedly the most long drawn-out and the most difficult cases to deal with. Over and over again we find the plea made, and evidence given in support of it, that if we insist on going back two, three, four or five years for arrears and impose that burden on a struggling firm at a particular moment, we will knock them out of business altogether. In that event we warn the employer that the employee has the right to sue him in the civil courts in the ordinary way. We say, as far as we are concerned, that we are prepared to accept long spaced-out instalments provided they immediately start stamping the cards for the employees. We have to make a decision on the best facts we can find. Sometimes it is an intricate decision whether we should insist on the payment of the whole arrears and risk throwing a lot of people out of employment or whether we should let the thing drag on and let the contributions be paid by instalments.

I cannot deal with the case mentioned by Deputy Briscoe. I do not believe that an actual case has occurred in a bankruptcy if a claim were put forward to the receiver, or whoever was in charge, in respect of arrears. The Deputy mentioned the name of the firm, and I can have inquiries made. In non-compliance cases we are not entirely but for the greater part in the hands of the employees and as long as they do not help us we cannot do very much. If they like to give us notice we can take action but, if not, we cannot do anything. We do get some information through our inspectors but if there is what amounts to a conspiracy between employers and employees to evade payment it is very hard to get on the track of it. I was glad to notice from Deputy Broderick's statement that there is still an amount of non-compliance in the country because it means that there is still some money to be got into the fund.

In the case where a man has died who has been paying in for two years to the unemployment insurance fund, is his widow or son entitled to draw insurance after his death?

Where a man who has been in insurable occupation dies but has a book that is in funds the Deputy asks whether the widow is entitled to benefit. I do not think under those circumstances that the widow is entitled.

Although the man has paid up to date?

It is not life insurance. It is insurance for a man who has been in an insurable occupation to tide him over a period in which he is out of employment. The wife and children are taken into consideration while the man is alive and out of employment, but I do not think a claim exists when the man is dead.

Mr. Byrne

Will the Minister say if the court found that the woman was available for employment——

I do not know anything about her.

Mr. Byrne

Will the Minister say if in his opinion the court was justified on the same set of facts in reversing its own decision, saying on the third hearing that it refused unemployment benefit because that woman was not available for employment? Will the Minister say whether in his opinion it is an equitable proceeding on behalf of the court?

The court acts equitably.

Mr. Byrne

On these facts will the Minister say that it is an equitable decision?

Mr. Byrne

On the same set of facts to reverse their decision?

I do not believe that is right.

Mr. Byrne

I am stating the facts.

The question is not merely hypothetical, it is impossible.

Mr. Byrne

I was there.

The Deputy has misled himself.

Mr. Byrne

I am afraid I will have to——

The Deputy cannot put any further arguments before the House once the Minister has concluded. The Deputy's purpose is to get the Minister to make a declaration about a particular Court of Referees in circumstances which the Minister says he has not investigated.

Mr. Byrne

Surely the Minister can say what a certain section of an Act for which he is responsible, means? I have asked a question and he has not the courage to answer.

Very good. That is that.

Mr. Byrne

I ask him to tell me what it means. If I am not in order in submitting the whole case to the House——

Certainly not. The Minister has concluded the debate. It was specifically asked if the Minister was concluding the debate. The debate is now concluded.

Mr. Byrne

May I take it that in regard to an Act that has been in force for a number of years the responsible Minister declines to tell the House what the meaning of a certain section is? Am I to take it that he refuses to give an interpretation of an Act for which he has been responsible for a number of years?

I am afraid the Deputy must take it that way.

Vote put, and agreed to.
Top
Share