There are three points that arise on this Unemployment Insurance Vote—the debt of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the contribution income and, arising out of both of those, the stamps that have been bought or the stamps that have been sold to workers who come under this Vote. I asked a question to-day as to the total income of the Unemployment Fund for certain years, in order to get figures comparable, and I asked those who were replying to bear in mind that the rates had been lowered in 1931 and to estimate for 1931 and for the portion of 1932 in respect of which we could get any figures, what these actual figures might have been if the old rates had been adhered to, and I got a statement—I have not yet had time to analyse it accurately but, at any rate, this does come out of it that, as between 1929 and 1930, the contribution income of the Unemployment Insurance Fund showed a fairly big increase, an increase that probably was carried over beyond 1931 to 1932. I find that the income for 1932, if one takes the percentage of the first nine months as equal to the percentage in any other year and multiplies it out to get the true total for the year, is likely to show also an increase over 1931— about the same increase as 1931 showed over 1930, and we had a Eucharistic Congress this year which put some people into insurable occupations other than those who were in in 1931.
We certainly do not see in that table reflected in the income of the fund, the huge number of the employed about whom the Minister for Industry and Commerce has been so constantly boasting in recent weeks, and, when I take the other table, which gives me the indebtedness of the fund, I find that the fund in September in this year is in debt to the extent of £329,000 whereas on the corresponding date in 1931 the debt was only £297,000. Now, we have got to consider what that means. Deputies will know that there was very big debt on this fund, that it was being paid off very rapidly, and that, in the end of 1930, I came to this House with a Bill which, to a certain extent, funded the debt that remained to be paid, and established the contribution income on a lower basis but such as seemed to me likely to meet all the calls on the fund and to liquidate that debt over a period of about seven years. That calculation may have been too finely made. It may have been that, even in normal times, without the abnormal unemployment that is taking place at this moment, and the abnormal calls on the fund, we had cut that too fine and I would like to hear from the Minister on that point. But, at any rate, instead of there being a reduction—and we allowed for a reduction, something, at least, about one-sixth of the entire amount—as between 1931 and 1932, we find that the debt is up by about £32,000.
Now, some part of that may be due to miscalculation at the time when we reduced the contributions, but I doubt if it is all due to that, and, if it is not all due to that, the only reason why the debt of the fund has increased in this year is because there are more calls being made on the fund. If that is not the explanation, some other must be given. The sale of stamps I know nothing of yet—we will get that some of these days, but those are really the only tests with regard to employment in the country. The sale of stamps is an absolute test. So many stamps sold mean, in any particular year, so many weeks or hours of employment, and, if more stamps are sold, it means more weeks of employment in the country. There are the two factors I have referred to—does the income of the fund increase or does the debt of the fund increase? We certainly have not, in those two tables, any reflection of the £32,000 odd that the Minister was boasting of having put into employment a few weeks ago. We have something to explain on these two tables about increased unemployment.
The Minister has been asked, as a third item, about reciprocity. That is only the harder road that he has to travel than the small landholder who is going to be brought to the fore again by Deputy Murphy and Deputy Davin, but the Minister held out hopes, when an early question was put to him in this House, that there could be a solution got to that problem. He is asked about it and his first reply was that many claims had been considered but none had been found feasible—at least, none had been accepted, as such, and, then, he added that he was however, considering further alternatives to see whether progress could be made along those lines. I asked the other day for information as to what progress had been made and I was told that there was none, and when I referred the Minister to the previous question I was told that the answer was comprehensive enough. I take it to mean that the Minister has failed in these other alternatives—whether he has given up considering alternatives or whether he considered any I do not know, but I do know that none of them has borne any fruit.
We are as far off getting any reciprocal scheme either with Great Britain or with Northern Ireland as we were before. Except there is going to be a considerable money sacrifice on the part of the people of this country, I do not see how we are going to get very much in the way of reciprocity. Deputy Norton said that our people pay into another fund. Of course they do. Speaking quite frankly, I say our people draw out of a pool of work that surely, in the first place, belongs to other people. These are the things that have to be balanced and, when he comes to balance them, the Minister will find that it is not as easy to get this scheme of reciprocal insurance worked out as he thought when he was in Opposition.
There is a considerable need in this country to get a proper figure in relation to the unemployed. But that figure should represent the unemployed under a particular definition. It should not represent people who are not working; it should not represent people who are employed for a time on some piece of work and consider themselves unemployed because they have to leave that, although they have something else to fall back on. There should be some definite unemployment definition, such as people suitable for work or available for work but unable to get work. I would add that they must be people who depend on work for their wages and sustenance. It is only when we get a figure like that— and it is hard to get it—that we will know anything at all of the problem that faces the Government of the country.
We have not helped towards an appreciation of the correct figure by having all this nonsense talked about an easier scheme of registration and the bigger stimulus there is to people to work. All that is mere nonsense. There was a stimulus before. All that was required was that a man should get registered in order to get employment. The stimulus, in my opinion, was sufficient. Now we have this huge number to explain away. There is the test that I have spoken of—how many of them are, in fact, dependent on new work, work other than what they have been engaged at and out of which they are earning wages. There could be a further investigation into the unemployment lists for the year and into the number of people who have to re-register or who are discovered to have failed to register because they went into employment. I suggest we should have some investigations along these lines and the Minister should stop talking about the big numbers he is getting into employment or is going to get into employment. Heretofore he has talked in a fantastic way on this very serious subject and he should endeavour to drop that attitude and get down to practical work.
I came upon another Fianna Fáil advertisement yesterday, one I had not known of. It is probably one of those that are driving the Minister to distraction at the moment. It certainly is not a kindly thing to remind him of, but I am going to do so. This deals with employment:
The protection of industries means more money in Ireland. Money in Ireland means more employment. More employment means more buyers.
There is a logical mind behind all this:
Buyers mean more buying of Irish goods.
And then there is the grand finale:
More buying of Irish goods means more and more and more and more money in Ireland and why should it ever stop?
That is what we have to consider—why should it ever stop?
