Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Oct 1933

Vol. 49 No. 17

Public Business. - Money Resolution.

I did not move the Money Resolution.

The Chair should have drawn the Minister's attention to the oversight.

Notice was not given of its being moved to-day and, therefore, certain people who wanted to speak on the Money Resolution are not here now.

The Money Resolution is invariably associated with a Bill in Committee. There are numerous precedents for not formally stating that the Money Resolution will be taken before the House goes into Committee on a Bill.

There are Deputies anxious to speak on this Money Resolution who would be here if they knew it was coming on. I know one who is absent at the moment.

I think there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the ordinary procedure of taking the Money Resolution with the Committee Stage would be followed here to-day. Notice of taking the Bill in Committee was given and no exception was taken.

It is absurd to try to ride off on a trivial point like that. There are people who are anxious to intervene when the Money Resolution is taken. The Deputy of whom I spoke and who is anxious to speak on it is not here at the moment. I am only asking that he should be given a chance at least to intervene. If we are to break through what is regularly done, and to take the Money Resolution half way through the Committee Stage, surely we could by agreement continue the Bill in Committee now, let the Money Resolution be taken later and then formally again let the Committee Stage be taken.

If such is the desire of the House that procedure can be followed. I apologise to the House for having overlooked the Money Resolution.

I hope the Chair is not taking it that I am making any reflection. I am only speaking on behalf of the Deputy who is desirous to take part in the discussion. Let the Money Resolution be taken later, and, as I say, the Committee Stage can then be formally taken.

Ordered accordingly.

I move amendment No. 11:—

At the end of the section to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

A qualification certificate issued to any person under this section shall disqualify such person for receiving assistance under any Act or portion of an Act which has for its purpose the relief of the poor.

The Minister, in introducing this Bill, said it was not the intention to have unemployment assistance given and home assistance given as well. This amendment is only an attempt to embody that principle in the Bill. If the Minister accepts the principle, I am quite in his hands as to the way it should be carried out and as to the most desirable manner of giving effect to it. The most important point is whether people are eligible for both forms of assistance at the same time.

I think the Deputy misunderstood what I said. During the course of the Second Reading debate the question was raised by Deputy Alfred Byrne, and I said the payment of home assistance by the local authority is entirely a discretionary matter. There is no obligation upon the local authority to pay home assistance to anybody; the local authority acts on its own discretion.

There is a statutory obligation.

On the contrary, home assistance to the able-bodied unemployed is at the discretion of the local authority.

Any person destitute is entitled to it.

No. The Deputy is mixing up the two kinds of relief. The giving of relief in the form of home assistance is at the discretion of the local authority. What I said, on the Second Stage, was that if the local authority wished in any special case to give home assistance, they could do so. I assumed that in the majority of cases the local authority would not consider any person in receipt of unemployment assistance as destitute and, no doubt, a very large number of able-bodied unemployed who are in receipt of home assistance will cease to get that assistance if they get unemployment assistance under this Bill. It is possible there may be cases where the measure of relief required cannot possibly be provided by this Bill. I explained during the Second Reading that any Bill designed to institute a scheme, which is to have national application, can only be drawn upon fairly general lines, and could not possibly provide for every type of case that could be conceived. The intention is that if there are cases of considerable hardship, with which this Bill cannot adequately deal, the local authority should continue to relieve these cases. The local authorities know the position, and are able to get very precise information upon the state of each case.

One can conceive a man with a wife and very large family, living in very poor circumstances, burdened with a high rent that they could not possibly pay and provide for themselves out of the assistance paid under this Bill. In that case the home assistance authority might decide to supplement it. Where it is the case of only a small family, they might decide otherwise. I do not think that a system of unemployment assistance that would debar persons from getting home assistance of any kind should be adopted. I think that it is better that the discretion of the local authorities should be retained if the circumstances require it.

That places a very great responsibility upon the local authorities of making provision for people who are to get assistance in addition to that provided in the Bill. I have not yet come across any section of the Bill which definitely states that his extra assistance is to be given.

There is nothing in this Bill to require the local authorities to do anything. It does not make any regulation whatever in relation to the local authorities. The Poor Law Relief (Dublin) Act, 1929, Section 2, provides: "The board of guardians of a union to which this Act applies may, at their discretion, relieve out of the workhouse of the union, any destitute poor person who could not heretofore under the provisions of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts, 1838-1914, have been relieved by them otherwise than in such workhouse, if such person at the time when he is so relieved has been resident for a continuous period of not less than two years either in the County of Dublin or the County Borough of Dublin, or in the said county and county borough." The local authority, as I understand it, is not under any statutory obligation to give home assistance to able-bodied unemployed persons. We are providing that such able-bodied unemployed persons will, under various circumstances, be entitled to assistance under the Bill. It is possible, it is quite conceivable, that there will be certain cases where the amount of assistance payable under the Bill will provide much less adequate relief than is now available in certain cases, and where that would occur, the local authority may at its discretion supplement the amount of assistance. It is entirely a matter for the local authority, and I do not think that discretion should be taken from it.

Would the Minister say that where able-bodied unemployed persons are getting relief under this Bill, they are stopped from getting relief from any other authority?

That is not a correct statement.

That is Deputy Briscoe's statement in respect to this Bill on Second Reading. He asserted, and the benevolent way in which he looked at the Minister suggested that he had his authority for the statement, that where able-bodied men got relief under this measure they could not get relief from any other authority. That was his definite statement.

I think the Deputy is misrepresenting the Deputy's statement.

Let me read what Deputy Briscoe stated:

"It is quite clear that where able-bodied men get relief under this measure they cannot, at the same time, get relief from the city or from any other authority."

I suggest that is wrong.

They can if the board of assistance wishes to give it to them.

Therefore, that is a wrong statement?

I am quite clear that what Deputy Briscoe was trying to convey to the House——

Apart from what he was trying to convey, that statement is wrong?

The statement he made was in reply to a statement by Deputy Byrne that this Bill would increase the rates in Dublin by 1/6 in the £.

I do not think that Deputy Byrne had spoken at that time. Deputy Briscoe did say that where an able-bodied person got relief under this measure, he would not get relief from the city or from any other authority at the same time. At any rate that was a wrong statement. It is clear now that that was a definitely wrong statement, that where people are going to get assistance under the Unemployed Assistance Bill, it is a fact that they also can get relief from the local authority.

It is a fact that this Bill does not prevent them, but whether they can get it or not is a matter for the local authority.

Deputy Briscoe was laying it down that they could not get any assistance from the local authority.

It is open to the local authority so to decide.

I should like to argue against Deputy Dockrell's amendment. It was stated on Second Reading that this Bill did not wipe out the provisions that were made to relieve destitution. It was stated, as a deduction from that statement, that Dublin could not flatter itself that by paying whatever it is due to pay—1/6 in the £—it was going to be relieved of the charges against it last year or this year for the relief of destitution. That statement was denied by Deputy Briscoe. He held this Bill was definitely and clearly a substitute for the other provisions. Now we know it is not so, and I am glad it is not so because this Bill is not going to meet the problem. I suggest to people who are anxious to take away the power that local authorities have at the moment to provide relief for the destitute, that they should not be interfered with because if this Bill fails in its object, if the money provided for it is not enough, then clearly there will be people destitute, people who will have no other resort except to the ratepayer. The Minister, on Second Reading, said the numbers of unemployed at one time totalled 104,000. He then made certain deductions from that. He had 15 different calculations or he had calculations made in which there were 15 different items of estimate. In the end he said he was satisfied that there were about 30,000 able-bodied people to be provided for under this Bill and we were told that it would cost £30 per head. This Bill, he said, would cost over £1,000,000. That gave again the enumeration of the people to be helped under the Bill as 30,000. Previously when this measure was spoken of other Ministers had given other calculations. Fifty thousand was definitely mentioned in the first foreshadowing of the Bill. Fifty thousand was the figure used.

Fifty thousand what?

Fifty thousand able-bodied persons without any resort to unemployment insurance and the Bill was stated to be prepared to meet the wants of these 50,000 people.

Firty thousand people may well be provided for under the Bill but that does not necessarily involve that 50,000 separate payments will be made per week. The Deputy may be including in his larger calculation the dependents of these people.

No. The Minister for Education did not include them and he spoke of 50,000 people for whom the Bill would provide. The Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke of 30,000 people who were going to be provided for. He did not say that it would mean a payment per week for each of those persons. He said that it would cost over a million pounds and apparently that million pounds is going to be provided next year. We are going to have £450,000 provided for some remnant of this financial year. If that is a five-month period the calculation is pretty exact because it will mean that in a full year you will have to provide £1,080,000. If there is only a million pounds to be provided, and if the calculation of 50,000 persons be a correct one, then we are definitely short of money and it will be necessary for the local authority to come to the aid of the people who are destitute. For that reason, even though there might be some necessity to say that no person at one and the same time was going to receive unemployment assistance and what is called home assistance, there should be no prohibition put in the Bill against the relief of destitution, making it appear as if this Bill were to take the place of the money provided heretofore for destitution, because in my opinion it would not be enough. The Minister says that the local authority can give further relief at their discretion. He is giving them that phrase, in opposition to what Deputy Briscoe said on the last occasion. Even though it may make people begin to feel that they have not come to the end of the destitution payments, although they have got an extra 1/6 on the rates, it is a good thing to leave to the local authority on every occasion the question whether they will pay what used to be called moneys in relief of destitution. They can find out—there will be records open to them—whether certain people are in receipts of assistance under the measure and they can make up their minds whether the amount is sufficient or not. They can argue further as to the application of the means test, whether it is used too rigidly or too liberally and they can at a later stage make up their minds whether in fact the money provided under this measure is sufficient. If the Government then do not decide to bring in further subventions, they can go back to their original provisions.

This Bill is going to complicate matters. Local authorities meeting at the beginning of the next financial year will not know for what purpose they are going to plot a rate. They will not know what they are likely to have to meet in the way of destitution, and they will not know what deduction to make from the amounts going out this year as compared with last year in relief of destitution. But that is a problem for them. If they like to say that this measure has been expressed to meet all the conditions that are likely to arise and all the unemployed likely to be in want, they can, on that, decide not to make provision for any moneys of the old type and can leave the burden entirely on the Government of providing in case this Bill is deficient. I certainly would have spoken against or would, at least, have urged Deputies not to press all the amendments which touched somewhat on this matter and which have been ruled out of order.

I would ask if this amendment is going to be considered that it be considered in another way to prevent the two things being got at once. If the Deputy is not convinced that the local authority will not act in that way, there might be some arrangement, but not entirely to wipe out relief from rates in aid of destitution.

I hope that Deputy Dockrell will not press the amendment but I should not like to ask him to withdraw it for the reasons given by Deputy McGilligan. He has obviously not studied the Bill very closely. He has argued on the assumption that it provides a limited amount of money——

I have not.

——for the payment of unemployment assistance and apparently contemplates that money running short with the result that people entitled to assistance under the Bill will not get it. That is not the position at all, of course. There is no fixed amount in the Bill, and any people entitled under the Bill to assistance will get it. There is a certain fixed contribution to a fund established for the purpose from the unemployment insurance fund and from the local authorities, but the balance, whatever it may be, will be provided from the Exchequer. The Deputy can assume, therefore, that everybody entitled to unemployment assistance under this Bill will get it. The argument for not opposing Deputy Dockrell's amendment is that which I stated in my original remarks on the subject. The argument which Deputy McGilligan has put forward against the amendment is no argument at all.

If we could have this a little clearer then we would know where we stood with regard to the financial provisions of this measure which are not in the Bill. If the Minister had moved the Financial Resolution at the proper time we would know exactly what he meant. He did give an indication of his point of view the last time—over £1,000,000 and provision for 30,000 people. If there are 50,000 people to be provided for, the £1,000,000 is not sufficient on these rates, and on the statement which he made on the last occasion that the £1,000,000 would be built up in a particular way—£250,000 from the unemployment insurance fund and a contribution from the local authorities, the Government to supply the amount wanting. It would require a new financial resolution to get the extra money. That is all in the Bill, not before the House at the moment because the Minister blundered into not moving the Financial Resolution at the proper time.

I think the fault lay with the Chair.

I am not accepting any criticism of that type on the Chair.

The Minister blundered, and if we had the provisions discussed we would know exactly what the Minister's view was and how many people he thought were going to be provided for. I still stick to my point that on the calculation given by the Minister's colleague when he was acting for the Minister in his absence that there are to be 50,000 people requiring provision of this type this autumn and winter, and the Minister's statement that it would cost £30 per head, the £1,000,000 is not enough in the full year and it is only £1,000,000 that is to be provided. Therefore, there will be necessity for this provision to relieve destitution from the rates and we should not interfere with it.

In response to the Minister's wish I will not press this amendment but, at the same time, I desire to protest against the system which, apparently, perpetuates two classes of officers investigating the same class of case and by which the particulars will all have to be gone into afresh. I will leave it at that. I beg to withdraw my amendment, with the leave of the House.

I take it that the Minister is going to reconsider the points raised in the amendment between this and the next stage?

Does the Minister appreciate the point that there will be a certain amount of confusion under the section as it now stands? According to his own statement, it is quite possible for a board of assistance to give additional relief to people who are in receipt of relief under the Bill. That impression has already got abroad and undoubtedly a considerable amount of confusion will be caused to those whose duty it is to give relief and to ascertain the different necessities for it. Deputy McGilligan has explained it very clearly—far more clearly than I could do it—and I suggest to the Minister that it is something worth considering.

A board of assistance must make up its mind as to what it wants to do and, having made up its mind, adhere to it. We cannot help them out of that difficulty at the risk of doing injustice and creating hardship in what would undoubtedly be a small number of cases, but cases which nevertheless, have to be borne in mind.

By this Bill you are cutting in on the work already being carried out under the 1929 Act. As a result of that, you are doing only half the work in connection with it and handing that half over to another Department. The other half will not know what is being done.

I think the Deputy can be satisfied that administrative arrangements will be made to ensure that there will be an exchange of information between boards of assistance in particular areas and my Department so as to provide that knowledge of the fact that unemployment assistance is being paid in a particular case will be available to the board of assistance when determining their attitude.

We should like to know what is in the Minister's mind.

What is in my mind is that, in the great majority of cases in which able-bodied persons are getting home assistance at the present time, they will get in future unemployment assistance and not home assistance. There will, however, be cases where very special circumstances will operate, circumstances of particular hardship which might make it necessary and desirable that the home assistance authority should supplement the payments under this Bill, but I think that in the majority of areas they will be a small minority of the cases.

How does the Minister propose to have any kind of collaboration between the local authority which is granting the home assistance and the labour exchange? Assuming that applications are made from the same parties to both funds, how does the Minister propose to deal with that?

The home assistance authority would inquire from the local officers of the Department whether a particular person whom they were proposing to help is in receipt of unemployment assistance.

And vice versa?

It is obviously much easier for the local authority to do that than for the Department to do it in every case.

So far as the Department is concerned, there is a class of person defined as being entitled to unemployment assistance who must get that assistance if he applies for it and fulfils the conditions, but so far as the local authority is concerned, there is discretion. They can always assume that an able-bodied unemployed person is getting assistance. The Department could not always assume that such a person was getting home assistance.

I suggest that it boils down to this: that, under the Bill, a man will get a maximum of 20/- and we know that at the moment that particular person, A.B., is receiving 30/- in home assistance——

How does he get 30/-?

His family.

Mr. Kelly

How does he get it? Let us know.

If the Deputy wants to make a speech he can make it. I am trying to make mine.

Mr. Kelly

I am merely asking a question. 25/- is the maximum that I know of.

I had better let it go. The least said the better. I want the Minister to understand that it is one thing to debate a point here and another thing to administer it. In my opinion, the people affected will be many thousands—in Dublin alone, at any rate, there will be hundreds—and if they receive 20/- maximum assistance under this Bill and are already receiving, say, anything from 25/- to 30/- at present, in what way is a public board to be able to make up its estimate for the year if there is no provision made beforehand by the Minister?

That is obviously an accountancy problem.

It is. We can argue here as to how it should be done, but it is another thing when it comes to doing it.

Make an estimate of the number of people getting 30/- this year.

I would like to ask the Minister to clear up a point to which I referred on the Second Reading. I understand that where able-bodied men get assistance under this Bill discretion remains with the local authorities as to whether they will give anything over and above that.

That is not what the Deputy said before.

Deputy McGilligan made the statement and, I believe he has repeated it to-day, that unemployment assistance would be in addition to relief money given by local authorities. I do not know what the position is in the country, but in Dublin, in many cases, the outdoor assistance given is short of the amount given under this Bill. In other cases, it is more. It is not incumbent on the local authorities to continue to give outdoor relief to persons receiving unemployment assistance. Deputy McGilligan refuted that statement again to-day.

Let us try to get the position clear. I said on the last occasion that if members of the Dublin Council were flattering themselves, that by taking a burden of 1/6 in the £ off under this Bill they were getting rid of destitution, they were deluding themselves. The Deputy's answer was very precise. He said it was clear that, if a person got unemployment assistance under this Bill, he could not get destitution money, and that if that was not laid down clearly he would ask the Minister to lay it down. The Minister has refused to do so. It is quite clear that a person in receipt of unemployment assistance can get money on being destitute. That is the very point at issue.

On the other point being argued, as to the dove-tailing of methods, and the assistance going to be given by those engaged in meeting destitution through the ratepayers, and those going to be met through this measure, at any rate, one obvious thing might be done. In Section 6, the Minister has power to appoint so many persons as he thinks proper to be unemployment assistance officers. All local authorities have people who are whole-time officers, or a great percentage of them, dealing with the giving of relief. There is a superintendent of home assistance and others who, I presume, are in touch with the people concerned. Surely it would be better to go a step further, and to use as many of these officers as possible as unemployment officers. They have knowledge of the locality and have been dealing with the people. If they get to know who is getting unemployment assistance under this Bill, they will know from personal touch with the locality whether they are folk ordinarily getting money for the relief of destitution, and they will be able to prevent over-lapping to the extent to which it might occur, and to the extent to which it is desirable that it should not occur. Surely that is the way the matter should be dealt with. It is not proposed, and rightly so, to wipe out the power of the local authorities to give money for the relief of destitution. Therefore, they will still have to keep it up, even if there was any, likelihood of getting rid of officials to look after destitution. It was expected that they would get rid of these people.

It is hoped that this unemployment assistance will be transitory, and that, in the end, we will get a situation where there might be destitution only of the old type—not the new destitution which has been brought on the country—which will have to be relieved, and for that purpose the scheme with local officials ought to be kept alive. In that event it seems to me that the clearer thing, if possible, is to have the unemployment assistance officers either recruited from people who ordinarily look after the relief of destitution, or else to get people who will administer the new measure who are in very close touch with the unemployment assistance officers, so that there will be an avoidance of over-lapping to the extent that is necessary. It is not proposed to prohibit people in receipt of unemployment assistance getting home help. It is not stated with any assurance that the provisions to be made for unemployment assistance under the Bill are likely to negative all need for moneys for the relief of destitution by local authorities.

Deputy Briscoe is quite right in saying that it is in the discretion of the local authorities, if they wish, to pay home assistance in addition to unemployment assistance.

The Deputy did not say that.

I did not hear him. His statement was:—

"That where able-bodied men get relief under this measure they cannot, at the same time, get relief from the city or from any other authority."

The statement that they can get relief from the city authorities is true to this extent, that they are not prohibited from getting it under this Bill. In the majority of cases I think they will not get it. The local authorities have discretion in refusing as well as in granting. If they consider that destitution has been prevented in particular cases by the assistance available under the Bill presumably they will not make provision there, but where they think it is not entirely prevented or where there are other circumstances, presumably they will make provision. I think the number of cases in which they will make provision will be a minority. On the second point, I want to make it clear that the term "unemployment assistance officer" is really a device for individualising certain responsibilities under the Bill. The home assistance officers, in the great majority of cases, will be existing officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and, in some cases, existing officers of the Revenue Commissioners. Undoubtedly additional staff will be required to administer the measure, and in a clerical capacity. The unemployment assistance officers will be people who are trained in the functions they will have to carry out, such as the administration of unemployment insurance, and the assessment of means.

I cannot understand the criticism that has been levelled at the Bill by Deputy McGilligan and by Deputy Doyle. It is quite clear that this measure is going to relieve the ratepayers in the county boroughs and in the urban areas, and that it is going to be a big relief to the agricultural community. For a considerable time we have heard about the burdens that agriculture has to bear. The argument about duplication would only apply, in my opinion, to the City of Dublin. My information is that there is a rather high scale of relief in Dublin compared to other places. Under this Bill the amount of relief given will be greater than the amount given by other local authorities. The difficulties anticipated by Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Doyle will not arise. I have before me the demand made by the County Board of Health on Wexford Corporation for the current year. For home assistance it amounted to £1,288. A rate of 9d. in the £ in Wexford produces £720, leaving £568 to be secured. I am not optimistic enough to think that that £568 will completely disappear, but I am perfectly certain that it will not take £568 to relieve the ordinary destitution in that particular area. I am certain that we are going to have great relief in rates, in so far as dealing with the able-bodied men is concerned, because of the operations of this Bill. Deputy McGilligan said the people were being deluded if they considered that the 1/6 rate would cover everything. I have been dealing with the affairs of local authorities for a number of years, and I am satisfied that the provisions in this Bill will give distinct relief to the local authorities.

I never denied that.

You said the people were being deluded.

If they thought that one thing was going to substitute the other.

In 90 per cent. of the cases, one thing will substitute the other. In Dublin, in certain cases the parties are getting over £1 a week. In the ordinary course, if they receive £1 per week under this Bill, they will apply for the difference between that and what they have been getting from the local authority. To estimate for that will be quite easy. Any town clerk or secretary of a county board of health could do that in two or three minutes.

I am glad that Deputy Corish has drawn a distinction between the position of Dublin and other parts of the country. I suggest to the Minister, and to the Deputy, that Dublin is entitled to a little more consideration than the other places affected, because the city has had imposed upon it the burden of supporting people who have come from all parts of the country looking for work. That has gone on for a number of years. For that reason, the rates are going up. Another 1/6 is to go on now, and there is going to be more confusion as to who is going to pay.

It is amusing to hear Deputy Doyle and other Deputies who think that this Dáil was got up solely to legislate for Dublin City. That seems to be rather a delusion.

It is not an optical illusion.

That was a delusion which was shared by the late Executive Council for five or six years before they went out of office. They paid for it when the people got the opportunity. It is time Deputies opposite realised that there is another portion of the Free State besides Dublin City.

There is Cork.

There are the ordinary country people, and the ordinary country ratepayers are getting decent relief under this Bill. It will be an enormous relief to the farming community. We, in Cork, have the misfortune to be tied to a city for home assistance purposes. Our home assistance bill increased by something like £15,000 in 12 months, because home assistance was being paid to a class who never before got it—able-bodied persons. The last Executive Council took very good care that they did not get it. They set their faces against it. These figures are held up as a headline, showing the amount of destitution that exists. Those people had to suffer before or, in a famous phrase, "die of starvation." I consider that this Bill, and particularly this clause, will give enormous relief to the ordinary ratepayers of the country. I cannot see what Deputies who were growling about the burden on the ratepayers, even before the economic war commenced, are growling about now when the ratepayers are being relieved.

The case of Dublin requires very special treatment. I have figures here showing how £1 per week would be disposed of by a man, his wife and four or five children. The rent, at a moderate estimate, would be 6/- for a room. Sometimes it would be a great deal more, and in some cases it would be less. At present, 6/- would be about the average. Coal and light would cost at least 2/4 or 2/6 per week. Other small expenses, such as society money, would amount to about 1/-. That would be 9/4 or 9/6 out of the £1 and would leave about 10/6 for food and clothing—about 1/6 per head per week, or 2½d. per head per day. No provision is made in these figures for washing, for books for school children or the many other necessaries for such a home. One pound per week—how can it be done on that? Is it not starvation for them? Is it not certain that the able-bodied man in such a position will have to get income from another source in addition to the amount provided under this Bill?

Hear, hear!

Mr. Kelly

I welcome this Bill. It is, in its way, a great measure because it removes the taint of pauperism that at present exists in dealing with decent workmen who, for many reasons, are unable to get work. Take the other scales. A man with a wife and two children will get 15/- per week. How will they exist on it? I have various scales here but it is scarcely worth my while reading the rest of them because I am certain Deputies grasp the situation and that I would be only insulting their intelligence by reading out further figures. This scale meets rent, where it is moderate, and a stone of coal daily. It is a great job that it is the Government's intention to distribute turf as fuel during the winter. As to the single man, he gets a few shillings. There is no use in talking about him. Having regard to these figures, is it not right to assume that the scale allowed by this Bill will have to be supplemented and, I believe, considerably supplemented? I do not think that anybody can question that. As to how far it will be otherwise supplemented, it may be very considerable, and I hope it will. Where you have an able-bodied man idle with a wife and children depending upon him, it is certain £1 per week will not be a sufficient sum.

I think that the Minister should make some attempt to co-ordinate the inquiries that will be made by the two authorities with regard to the assistance required. You will have a superintendent of home help in each county, at least, who will be in touch with all the cases. Take the county from which I come. Inquiries may have to be pursued down as far as Roscommon. At the other end the authorities might not know the first thing about the position of the applicants. In the same way, they might be pursuing inquiries in the vicinity of Athlone and might not know what was being received at the other end, which the home help officer would know.

In reply to the hopes expressed by Deputy Corish, I think Deputy Corish will find himself rather disappointed at the burden which will fall on the local authorities. If the Deputy will look up the total number of able-bodied men and women dealt with in the County Wexford during the last week of July, 1933, he will see that in the case of men the total number of able-bodied dealt with, as compared with July, 1931, was an increase of 243 to 581, and in the case of women, 207 to 260. That means that the total number of able-bodied men and women dealt with during the last week in July in County Wexford was 841. He will also find that the total amount expended in County Wexford in home assistance to the able-bodied was only £238, an average of 4/- per head. The Deputy knows the extent to which unemployment among able-bodied men in Wexford is increasing, and I certainly would not like the local authorities in Wexford to face this coming winter or next winter in the belief that they need not make preparation to give further and increased home assistance to able-bodied people in Wexford.

I cannot see the force of Deputy Mulcahy's argument at all, considering that he admits that they were all able-bodied and that the greater portion of them will be immediately taken off home assistance when they come under the Unemployment Assistance Bill. The maximum contribution we have to make is 9d. in the £.

Wexford town alone is being asked to pay £815 for the whole year.

I did not go that far. I said last year the demand on the town was £1,288. The proceeds of a 9d. rate would be £720, leaving a difference of £568. All that £568 would not be saved, because there are certain old people who are destitute but, of course, it would not take anything like £568 to look after these.

I hope the Minister is not of the opinion that I am opposing anybody receiving relief from the two sources, if there is a necessity for it. What I am arguing is that the machinery, in my opinion, is not sufficiently made up to have any kind of definite understanding.

The Deputy can be certain that there will be close co-operation between the authorities operating this Bill and those operating home assistance in every area. It is not necessary to put any section in the Bill to provide for that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
(4) Whenever an unemployment assistance officer is satisfied that the means of a person who is the holder of a qualification certificate have altered in amount since such certificate was issued, but do not exceed in case he is resident in a county borough or the borough of Dun Laoghaire, fifty-two pounds, or, in case he is resident elsewhere, thirty-nine pounds per annum, such unemployment assistance officer may amend such certificate in such manner as is requisite.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
12. In sub-section (4), line 39, to insert after the word "elsewhere" the words "in Saorstát Eireann."— (Mr. Lemass.)
Question proposed: "That Section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

It is provided in Section 12 (3) (b) that whenever an unemployment assistance officer is satisfied that a qualification certificate was obtained or issued by any innocent misrepresentation or other bona fide mistake such unemployment assistance officer shall revoke such certificate and such revocation shall have effect as from the date of the issue of such certificate. In other words, the qualification certificate is issued. It is subsequently discovered, perhaps three or six months afterwards, that the certificate was issued or obtained by an innocent misrepresentation or other bona fide mistake, whereupon there is power to revoke the certificate, and the revocation shall have effect as from the date on which the certificate was issued. It is provided in Section 28 that the Minister has power to recover unemployment assistance improperly received. It seems to me to be possible under the Bill, as at present drafted, for a man to obtain a certificate of qualification, say, on 1st January, and it may be discovered on 1st July that the certificate was issued by an innocent misrepresentation or by a bona fide mistake, and the mistake may be on the part of the Department or on the part of the unemployment assistance officer, whereupon when this is discovered the certificate shall be revoked and the revocation shall have effect as from 1st January, and this unemployed destitute person may be presented with a bill on 1st July for £26, if he happens to reside in the City of Dublin.

The Minister has power under Section 28 to recover that from him or, perhaps, might take the view that it cannot be recovered at once, because the man has not got £26 or a fraction of it, and that that £26 is to be recovered from him subsequently by means of deductions from the rates to which he may be entitled in future. That seems to be an altogether unfair provision. If the certificate has been obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation you could understand the revocation of the certificate carrying penalties, but it may have been obtained by innocent misrepresentation. Perhaps the Department did not understand the meaning of a statement made by the applicant; perhaps, because they drew a deduction from his statement that was not fairly deducible, or, perhaps, the employment assistance officer, or some other official of the Department, made a genuine mistake. In that case, it seems to me to be altogether unfair that a person who has drawn the money as a result of that mistake should be penalised in the way that it would be possible to penalise him under this section. I suggest to the Minister that it is his job to try to avoid innocent misrepresentation. It is the job of his Department to try to avoid mistakes, even though they may be labelled bona fide mistakes, and that, if it is not possible to avoid innocent misrepresentation or bona fide mistakes, and these do occur, that such revocation of the certificate as takes place when these innocent misrepresentations and bona fide mistakes are discovered should only have effect as from the date of the discovery. It seems to me, therefore, that the Minister might amend the section on the Report Stage to read: “such unemployment assistance officer shall revoke such certificate and such revocation shall have effect forthwith.” It might be possible, under the Bill as drafted, to present a man with a demand to pay back to the Department the benefit he received for two years. It would be possible to sue him for it, and it would be possible for the Department to say, “You are two years in debt; you will get no more money until it is paid off,” and perhaps for four years to come he may only get half the sum he was entitled to. I suggest to the Minister that that is going altogether too far in the case of innocent misrepresentation or other bona fide mistake, and that in respect of these cases revocation should take place forthwith on discovery, but ought not to be antedated as is possible under the Bill.

The insertion of the precise amendment suggested by Deputy Norton would, of course, mean that the revocation would only have effect from the date of the discovery in the case where there was fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation. I am sure that is not his intention.

No. I suggest that it should be forthwith in the case of paragraph (b).

I should like to consider the matter. May I say that I do not want to encourage innocent misrepresentation or other bona fide mistakes? One would have to consider to what extent one was opening the way to the possibility of that defence being put up by a person who, it had been found, was getting benefit to which he was not entitled. I shall look into the matter, because, on the general ground, where the misrepresentation was innocent and the mistake bona fide, there is something to be said for the Deputy's contention.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
In the calculation of the means of a person for the purpose of this Act the following things and no others shall be deemed to constitute the means of such person, that is to say:—
(a) the yearly value of all property belonging to such person (not being property personally used or enjoyed by him) which is invested or is otherwise put to profitable use or is capable of being but is not invested or put to profitable use;
(b) all income which such person may reasonably expect to receive during the succeeding year in cash, including the actual or estimated amount of any income which such person may reasonably expect to receive during such succeeding year as head of the household, whether as contributions to the expenses of the household or otherwise, but excluding any income or money coming within any other paragraph of this sub-section and also excluding all moneys earned by such person in respect of his personal employment under a contract of service;
(c) the yearly value of any advantage accruing to such person from the use of property (other than furniture and personal effects) which is personally used or enjoyed by him;
(d) all income and the yearly value of all property of which such person has directly or indirectly deprived himself in order to qualify himself for the receipt of unemployment assistance.
The following amendment was agreed to:
13. After the word "value" where it occurs in lines 27, 43 and 47, to insert the words "ascertained in the prescribed manner."— (Mr. Lemass.)

I move amendment 14:—

In paragraph (b), page 8, to delete all words from the word "any," line 38, to the end of the paragraph, and substitute the following:—

(i) any income or money coming within any other paragraph of this sub-section,

(ii) all moneys earned by such person in respect of his personal employment under a contract of service,

(iii) any moneys received by way of benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1933,

(iv) any moneys received by way of unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1930,

(v) any moneys received by way of unemployment assistance under this Act,

(vi) any moneys received by way of home assistance.

The words in the Bill exclude from the income as calculated under the Bill "any income or money coming within any other paragraph of this sub-section," and also exclude "all moneys earned by such person in respect of his personal employment under a contract of service." We propose to delete those words, and to clarify the position by inserting the numbered paragraphs set out in the amendment, so as to make it clear that in calculating the income of any person for the purpose of assessing his means under the Bill no account will be taken of the moneys earned by that person while working in the previous year, moneys received by way of benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts, moneys received by way of unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, moneys received by way of unemployment assistance under the present Act, or moneys received by way of home assistance. Where there is no easy method of assessing the means of a person, the ordinary practice will be to actually ascertain what he did get in the previous year. Obviously there must be deducted from that what he got by way of wages for work; what he got for unemployment assistance, unemployment insurance benefit, home assistance or national health insurance benefit. The amendment really clarifies the Bill in that respect, as well as ensuring that those payments will not be taken into account when his means are being assessed.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 15:—

To insert at the end of the section a new paragraph as follows:—

(e) the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by such person.

This was, in a sense, discussed already in connection with another amendment.

Does the Minister propose, when he says: "The yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by such person," to include, say, such persons as thrifty working-class people, who had made provision for their old age by way of a small annuity or pension of, say, 5/-, 10/-, or 15/- per week?

As far as I can see the yearly value of any benefit——

The Deputy is really referring to paragraph (a), Section 13, which refers to "the yearly value of all property belonging to such person ...which is invested or is otherwise put to profitable use, or is capable of being but is not invested or put to profitable use." If the person has got means, the means must be taken into account. If they exceed the limit fixed in the Bill the person becomes unentitled to unemployment assistance. If they are less, those means will be deducted from the amount of the payment he is entitled to receive under the Bill. The amendment we are now discussing relates to benefits received by an unemployed person from his relatives, and so on, and it is really intended to provide for the assessment of the benefit, say, of free lodging or board and lodging provided by relatives. I quoted an extreme case on the Second Reading. If a man has £1,000 a year and an unemployed son he cannot send that son down to draw 9/- or 10/- a week benefit. He is able to provide for that son and he should provide for him. If an application for that sum were received the value placed upon the benefits received in the way of free lodgings, board or clothing, would be taken into account, and would probably exceed the means limit, in which case the person would become unentitled to assistance. That is an extreme case. You come down to borderline cases, no doubt, but as an appeal is provided for we can be certain that only those cases will be excluded which we actually want to exclude.

I quite see the Minister's difficulty. I anticipate that the interpretation of this section will cause great difficulty to the Minister and his Department. I should like to have the position clarified. I should like the Minister to amplify his own statement made on the introduction of the Bill. I am putting a concrete case to the Minister, the case of a person who has been thrifty enough to provide for old age in some way—that is, through a trade union or other agency such as an insurance company, to provide a sum of 5/-, 10/- or 15/- weekly at the age of 60 or 65 years. Will that amount be taken into the calculation of means? I can quite anticipate a whole lot of trouble arising on what is commonly regarded and now known as the means test. I should like to have it made clear by the Minister whether in the particular case to which I have referred, the case of a person who has been thrifty enough to provide for old age in the way I have stated, ensuring 5/-, 10/- or 15/- a week superannuation, that will be calculated as means?

Because, if so, it appears to me to be manifestly unfair to those persons who had been thrifty enough to make that particular provision. I am not going to suggest for one moment that persons who did not, because of unemployment and other causes, make that provision, are to be blamed; but the Minister must certainly admit that these thrifty persons had in all probability to make many sacrifices in order to make this little provision through a trade union or an insurance company. I should like if the Minister would, at a later stage, introduce some amendment which would meet this case, because as the matter at present stands there is going to be very serious hardship inflicted on the poorer members of the community.

It is quite obvious that we must take all means into account. I do not think the Deputy can possibly draft an amendment which would provide for the exclusion of the man who saved £100 in his life, and provide for the inclusion of a man who won £100 in the Sweep. If the Deputy will sit down and endeavour to draft an amendment he will realise the difficulties. We must include all means. Our purpose is to provide for the persons who, for some reason, are unable to provide for themselves. The persons who had been lucky enough to provide——

If the Minister consults the income tax people he will find that they have a method of differentiating between fortuitous investments and investments provided as a result of thrift.

I would suggest to the Minister, quite seriously, that he might, at a later stage, introduce some amendment covering the case to which I have referred. It is very discouraging to humble people who have made provision for their old age in the way I have indicated——

This Bill does not make provision for old age.

I know, but at the same time I am sure the Minister would be sympathetic with the case of the particular kind of persons to whom I have referred—persons of 60 years and upwards, who may have 40 years' membership of a trades union or been contributing for 40 years to an insurance society which will ensure to them at the age of 60 or 65 the sum of 5/-, 10/- or 15/- a week. I do make the suggestion very seriously that the Minister might consider, at a later stage, the drafting of some amendment which would enable those persons to be included in this Bill. Some provision should be made for those people, so as not to place a premium on improvidence.

Deputy Anthony is anxious to be clear as to what this amendment means. I would ask the Minister if it does not, in fact, really mean that if Deputy Anthony, taking pity on an unemployed person, relative or otherwise, takes him into his house and gives him keep and shelter, the value of that keep and that shelter will be taken into consideration in estimating whether that person should get assistance under this Bill or not?

Let us imagine two unemployed persons, one of whom has the benefit of free lodging or free board, or both, and the other not having that benefit. It is quite clear that the provision you have got to make for the person who has not got it must be on a more generous scale than for the person who has. The intention is to ensure that the maximum provision under the Bill will be available for those who need it most, and that where the need is reduced the provision will also be reduced.

What the Minister means is to tell Deputy Anthony that if he does take in a person in this particular way the value of the shelter and the value of the food or other assistance given by him to that person will be taken into consideration when estimating whether that person should receive assistance under the Bill or not.

Following the precedents of the Old Age Pension Act.

Not the Minister's precedent?

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 16:—

To insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the immediately preceding sub-section, the income of a person shall, in the absence of other means for ascertaining it, be taken to be the income actually received during the year immediately preceding the date of calculation.

This is an amendment which is intended to make it clear that where there is any difficulty in ascertaining the means of a person the actual income of the previous year will be taken as a standard.

Amendment 16 agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
(1) The following conditions are referred to in this Act as the statutory conditions and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act (including this section) be the conditions to be complied with by the holder of a qualification certificate in order to entitle him to receive unemployment assistance, that is to say:—
(a) that such holder proves that since the date of his application for unemployment assistance he has been continuously unemployed for at least six days;
(b) that such holder is capable of work and is available for and genuinely seeking but is unable to obtain employment suitable for him having regard to his age, sex, physique, education, normal occupation, place of residence, and family circumstances;
(c) that since his qualification certificate was issued to him he has not done anything and no change of circumstances or other event has occurred which would invalidate such certificate or would disentitle him to hold such certificate;
(d) if he has been duly required by an unemployment assistance officer to attend a course of instruction appointed or approved by regulations made under this Part of this Act, that he has duly attended such course in accordance with such requisition;
(e) in the case of a person applying for unemployment assistance in an urban area that either he has been ordinarily resident in such urban area for at least one year before his latest application for unemployment assistance or has had at least three months' employment in such urban area within one year before such latest application.
(2) A person shall not be deemed to have failed to comply with the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined an offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute.

I move amendment 18:

In sub-section (1), line 27, to delete the words "for at least six days."

This is a drafting amendment, as the words proposed to be deleted are not necessary.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

I move amendment 19:—

To add at the end of sub-section (1) a new paragraph as follows:—

(f) in the case of a widow or spinster who has no dependant, that no less than fifty-two contributions have been paid in respect of her under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1930, as amended by any subsequent enactment, during the period of four years immediately preceding the date of her application for unemployment assistance.

This amendment is consequential upon amendment No. 9 which we discussed already.

Amendment No. 19 agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16.

I move amendment 24:—

At the end of sub-section (5) to add the following:—

"provided however that a person shall not be disqualified for receiving unemployment assistance in any case in which he proves that he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work and that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers members of which are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute, or that the stoppage is due to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms or provisions of any agreement existing between a group of employers where the stoppage takes place, or of a national agreement to either of which the employers and employees are contracting parties."

The purpose of this amendment is to remove an injustice in the old Act of 1920. I think the Minister is familiar with the facts in connection with the recent strike on the railway, where the men engaged in the shops were debarred from receiving employment benefit because it was held by the umpire that although they were engaged in the works, yet those works were not carried on as a separate business. For that reason the umpire turned down the decision of the court of referees which allowed an appeal on behalf of the men. This is quite a simple amendment, and simply means bringing the Act up-to-date as in Great Britain by the introduction of the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Act of 1924. I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

It is quite clear, I think, that the Deputy's grievance is directed against the Act of 1920 and not against this Act. I do not think that the Deputy, or any Deputy in the House, would argue that we should have in this Act more generous provisions than in the Unemployment Insurance Acts. If there is a case to be made for the amendment of these Acts we could argue it on a more suitable occasion; but I think that, so long as the terms of these Acts remain as they are, this Act must be the same, and that no amendment should be made here unless and until a similar amendment has been inserted in the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

Do it now.

It cannot be done now. In any case, the situation is one which we would have to consider very carefully. The position here is designed to ensure that where there is a stoppage of work those who are in charge of the administration of this Act will be in a position of neutrality and their acts will not have the effect either of breaking or prolonging the strike. This section must be read in conjunction with another section of the Bill which says that where a person refuses an offer of employment in a situation vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute, that refusal will not be held against him or disqualify him from receiving unemployment insurance. That is the principle that has been in operation. The difficulty in the dispute to which the Deputy has referred arose out of the interpretation of the section. A dispute took place on the Great Northern Railway. The employees of the railway works were not involved in the dispute and were not on strike but, in consequence of the stoppage of the railway for a number of weeks, there was no work to be done in the workshops and the men became unemployed. They applied for unemployed benefit but it was disallowed and their appeal to the umpire was also disallowed. On the particular merits of the case which the Deputy has in mind I cannot express an opinion without having all the facts which were available for the umpire, but the clear intention of the Act is to provide that where one firm carries on two businesses a stoppage of work in one of the businesses should not disqualify from insurance benefit a person employed in the other business if that person becomes unemployed.

But it does.

It does not. The wording of sub-section (5) of Section 16 provides that "where separate branches of work which are commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises are in any case carried on in separate departments of the same premises, each of those departments shall, for the purposes of this sub-section, be deemed to be a separate factory or workshop or separate premises as the case may be." The bar to the drawing of benefit or assistance applies only in the case of men actually employed in the factory or works where the stoppage takes place. If another business is carried on in the same premises it is, for the purposes of these Acts, deemed to be separate. The contention of the railway workers in Dundalk was that the railway premises were a separate undertaking to the railway transport system and that a strike upon the latter could not be implied to be a stoppage of works in the repair yards. That was the argument of the workers and, apparently, it was not accepted by the umpire. It seems to me that what we want to do is clear, and that we must put the interpretation on the Acts as they are worded at present. If Deputy Coburn wants to raise the question of the proper interpretation I think it would be much more suitable for him to raise it in the form of a Bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Acts and, incidentally, to amend this Bill if it becomes an Act. However, I think that so long as the Unemployment Insurance Acts remain as they are this Bill must remain the same. Otherwise, I think an impossible position would arise.

I am supporting Deputy Coburn's amendment, but if the Minister will indicate that he himself will introduce a short amending Bill to meet the case suggested in Deputy Coburn's amendment, then, I think, we need not discuss the matter any further. The Minister has referred to sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Bill, where separate branches of work are carried on as separate businesses in separate premises, etc. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to a case that occurred in Cork City in 1923, when there was a strike lasting for over 13 weeks. That strike began in the distributive trades, and members of other trades, not remotely connected with the distributive trade, were cut off from all unemployment benefit. I will give one case as an example: The tailors employed in this drapery house, and who had no connection with the strike of 1923 in Cork City, were refused unemployment benefit in the labour exchange. These men had no connection with the strike and yet they were victimised.

I think that is the class of case that Deputy Coburn envisages, and it is the kind of thing we want to remedy. Perhaps the Minister, who has now confessed himself as quite in agreement with the spirit behind this amendment of Deputy Coburn, will indicate that he will, in the near future, introduce a small amending Bill giving effect to what is expressed in the amendment—so to amend the Act that persons who are not responsible for future strikes will not be victimised. I have given the case of the tailors who, on the occasion of the Cork strike in 1923, were deprived of benefit because of a strike in the distributive and other trades. That is the sort of case that Deputy Coburn had in mind when he introduced his amendment. I have given a concrete case. I do feel that the Minister should be sympathetic in the matter and in that way he could obviate the necessity for a division on this amendment. If the Minister will indicate that he will, in the near future, provide legislation to deal with this class of case that I have mentioned I think we would be satisfied.

I do not know the circumstances of the Cork case at all. If the facts are as stated by Deputy Anthony I am surprised. I am surprised to hear that tailors were refused assistance in that case. Possibly there are some facts in the case of which we are not aware at the moment. On the question of introducing the Bill and giving an assurance to that effect, I would rather maintain my freedom of action. There is nothing to prevent Deputy Coburn introducing a Bill himself. He might be disillusioned by the effect of his amendment. Perhaps if the amendment were inserted it would leave the Bill very little different from what it is already. However the Deputy will be able to ascertain that for himself. The main fact is he should not amend this Bill until the Unemployment Insurance Act is being amended. As I foresee, what will happen is that persons who are only indirectly connected with the business organisation where there is a trade dispute and who lose employment where there is such a dispute, will not be debarred from receiving benefit. It is a question of the degree of the connection. If there is a dispute in a premises, any person receiving money from that business will not be debarred. On the other hand, any person who goes out on strike would be regarded as not entitled to benefit. In other words we are trying to keep officially neutral in relation to these matters, so that our action will neither prolong nor shorten the dispute. The aim is to get words that will give effect to what is the general intention in the matter. If any Deputy has a suggestion we would like to have it here in the form of a Bill. If the Unemployment Act is to be amended, it will be simply a matter of a change of terms hereafter.

I think the Minister should be more sympathetic in this matter. I do not think it would be possible for Deputy Coburn to introduce a Bill dealing with this issue. A private Deputy could not introduce a Bill which might impose charges upon State funds. However that is a moot point. It seems to me that this Bill might be amended in the manner provided in Deputy Coburn's amendment. Deputy Coburn is trying to deal with the case where people lose their employment because of a strike in another firm or another industry. If these people ordinarily lose their employment in respect to which they are contributing to the Unemployment Fund they will be entitled to draw unemployment benefit. The Dundalk case quoted by Deputy Coburn is a glaring case. That was a case where the decision of the umpire operated to deprive these people of benefit to which they would normally be entitled under the Unemployment Acts of 1920 to 1931. There is always the possibility that the Dundalk case will be used as a precedent in other cases. I put it to the Minister therefore that where such a case as that at Dundalk arises, the Act should be drawn so as to entitle those people to benefit. After the views to which the Minister has now given expression he ought to see his way to do that.

I said I had not all the facts.

I think it is perfectly clear from the Minister's phraseology that if he had been dealing with the Dundalk case these people would have got benefit.

I could not say that, not having all the facts.

If that is so and if the Minister would have acted in the way he indicated he would, it is for us to say that we will put it right now. What happened in the Dundalk case is that owing to the way the decision of the umpire operated there is a possibility of its being used as a precedent to govern other similar cases, and if that decision is to operate in future cases then you may have the Dundalk decision actually being used to get legislation in this House. I put it to the Minister that he might consider this matter further and that instead of advising a private Deputy to introduce an amending Bill he would do so himself.

I will consider it anyway.

I quite agree that men placed in the same position should be entitled to benefit. These men were unemployed against their own expressed will. The umpire decided that the shopmen were employed in a separate branch of work in a separate department. Here is the word on which the umpire based his decision: "That this separate branch of work was not commonly"—and the word "commonly" used by the umpire is incorporated in the present Bill—"operated as a separate business in separate premises." A strike took place and these men were debarred from receiving benefit owing to the terms of the 1920 to 1931 Acts. My amendment would ensure that if these men were debarred from receiving benefit under the Unemployment Act of 1920 they would not be debarred from receiving the unemployment assistance for which they are asked to pay an increased contribution. My amendment is to ensure that, pending the introduction by the Government of a short Bill to amend the Act of 1920, men placed in such a position would be entitled to the benefits of this measure. I quite agree with Deputy Norton that, as far as I am concerned, I am precluded from introducing a Bill to amend this because there would be the question of finance.

Is the Deputy clear that he is trying to kill two birds with this amendment—not merely dealing with the Dundalk case but also providing that workers who would become unemployed following the breaking of an agreement by the employers would also be entitled to unemployment assistance?

No, I do not think so; I do not think you can argue that.

The Deputy's amendment reads: "or that the stoppage is due to an employer acting in a manner so as to contravene the terms or provisions of any agreement existing between a group of employers where the stoppage takes place, or of a national agreement to either of which the employers and employees are contracting parties."

I hold that the Minister has introduced sections of the 1920 Act so as to safeguard himself and his Department. I hold that in circumstances such as I have indicated those men should receive what they are justly entitled to receive. I am putting down this amendment so that in the event of unemployment benefit being refused to men placed in such a position, they will receive unemployment assistance which will be equally as great as what they would receive through the medium of unemployment benefit. I think it is a great hardship that a decent body of men should be prevented, on a technical point, from receiving what they are justly entitled to receive.

I would like to have an opportunity of looking into the matter more fully, and I will undertake to let the Deputy know definitely whether or not I propose to introduce an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920 so that he may then consider his own position.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

With regard to Section 16, I would like an explanation of (2) (b), particularly the opening words "in any other case."

If a person loses his employment through misconduct or voluntarily leaves his employment, then two things happen. If he is entitled to unemployment insurance benefit, under the existing law he cannot get that benefit for six weeks. Under this measure he will have that same period of six weeks, just as under the existing law in the case of unemployment insurance benefit. He will then draw unemployment insurance benefit until his benefit becomes exhausted and then he will serve a further waiting period of six weeks before he becomes entitled to unemployment assistance. If he is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefit, he waits a period of three months. It is obvious we must be a little more severe here than in the case of unemployment insurance benefit, where a person is getting something to which he has contributed. Here he is getting something to which he has not contributed and, consequently, there must be a much greater inducement to a person to hold the job he has got, not to leave it or act in a manner so that his employer would have to dismiss him. The words "in any other case" really relate to cases in which a person is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefit.

This provision is entirely new in respect to this class of person. My complaint in connection with the provision made in the Bill is that while you may get a case where a person has, without any justification whatever, left his employment, there may be cases in which the circumstances are such as to make them line ball cases. When claims for this benefit are being received, it seems to me the person dealing with the claim will have to decide whether the applicant has left his employment without just cause. Unless the applicant can prove beyond doubt that he left his employment because of a just cause, then it seems to me that it is quite possible to impose on that person a disqualification for receiving assistance for a period of three months.

One can understand that where a person flagrantly throws up a job and says to his employer: "I will not work for you any more," there is justification for this provision; but there may be a case not quite so serious, a case which may be a little beyond the line, but is not really a very gross case, and in such circumstances there should be power to impose a disqualification of less than three months. The section says: "Where a person loses his employment through his misconduct, or voluntarily leaves his employment without just cause, such person shall— (b) in any other case, be disqualified for receiving unemployment assistance for the period of three months."

I would like the Minister to put in some provision so as not to make it mandatory in all cases to impose a period of three months. Two months or seven weeks might meet the circumstances of many cases. It seems to be a hardship to impose a disqualification for three months in a case which is slightly beyond the line and which is not nearly as bad as a case which would merit the period of three months.

It is obviously better to have a fixed period than to have the Minister deciding in individual cases.

Will you not have the court of referees?

Yes, there is an appeal to the court of referees and to the umpire on the point whether a person left his employment voluntarily or lost it through misconduct. Once that has been decided the punishment is a disqualification for three months. My experience is that it is very rarely employers notify the exchanges that a person has left employment voluntarily or has lost it through misconduct. I am quite certain there are more people drawing benefit who could have been disqualified under that section of the Unemployment Insurance Act than are not getting benefit because of reports received from employers. It is for Deputies to consider whether it is not desirable that employers should not be more strict in doing their part of the job. It is obviously not going to help anybody if people can be induced to leave work without just cause or act in such a manner as to get themselves dismissed.

I am pleading the case of a man who may leave his employment by reason of a just cause. There may be an element of reason in a man leaving his employment. Unless he can establish that he left his employment for just cause—and that is a pretty rigid standard—that person would be disqualified for three months. My interest in the matter is to give some discretion to the court of appeal or the court of referees or the umpire to ensure that the person concerned would have an opportunity of obtaining his benefit in a lesser period than three months if it were thought that the circumstances were such as to entitle him to benefit in the shorter period. If this section goes through in this form the court may take the view that a case is a hard one on the individual concerned, but, nevertheless, under the section they must disqualify him for three months.

I am satisfied that if the court of referees have a discretion they can use it severely in cases of persons leaving their employment without reasonable cause, but what I am trying to legislate for is the case of a person who leaves his employment, not perhaps with just cause according to a rigid interpretation of that phrase, but, nevertheless, as a result of substantial provocation or for some substantial cause.

The borderline cases are always the difficult ones to deal with. I will consider the matter.

Section 16 agreed to.
Sections 17, 18 and 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.

I move amendment 25:—

To add at the end of sub-section (10) the words—

"or such later date (if any) as may, in case of a determination, reversal or revision by the umpire, be fixed by the umpire or, in any other case, by the unemployment assistance officer."

Amendment agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to
Sections 21, 22 and 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Question proposed: "That Section 24 stand part of the Bill."

I desire to inform the Dáil that on the Report Stage I propose to bring in an amendment taking the fund out of the Bill and providing that payments will go direct to the Exchequer and will come direct from the Exchequer. There does not seem to be any particular reason why the fund should be maintained. What I propose to do will not affect the provisions of the Bill in any way.

Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
(2) In every financial year commencing after the 31st day of March next after the passing of this Act, there shall be paid into the Unemployment Assistance Fund the following sums, that is to say:—
(c) by the council of every borough (other than a county borough or the borough of Dun Laoghaire) or urban district having for the time being a population (as shown by the census of population which is for the time being the latest such census) exceeding seven thousand and by the commissioners of every town having commissioners under the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, and for the time being such population as aforesaid, a sum equal to the amount of a rate of ninepence in the pound on the rateable value at the beginning of the immediately preceding financial year of such borough, urban district, or town;

I move amendment 26:—

In sub-section (2) (c), page 14, to delete all words from the word "borough," line 8, to the word "aforesaid," line 16, and substitute the words "urban area (other than an urban area which is a county borough or the borough of Dun Laoghaire."

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 27:—

In sub-section (2) (c), line 17, before the word "rateable" to insert the word "effective".

In moving this amendment I am anxious to ensure that, if the Minister wants the proceeds of a 9d. rate, he will only get the proceeds of a 9d. rate. As a result of local government legislation passed in recent years, urban authorities find themselves in this position that they are unable to collect the full amount of the rate. For instance, the position in Wexford is that whilst the total valuation of the borough is £21,704 14s., the amount of the effective valuation is only £19,260. Last week, in answer to a query put by Deputy Mulcahy, the proceeds of a 9d. rate, so far as Wexford borough is concerned, was given as £814, whereas the actual effective rate would be £720. That means that under this Bill the borough would actually be paying almost 10¼d. in the £ instead of the 9d. laid down in the Bill. I suggest to the Minister that in view of the fact that urban areas and county boroughs only are contributing to this insurance scheme he should accept the amendment. A great many calls are being made at the moment on urban areas in connection with housing, sewerage, waterworks and undertakings of that kind. The result is that urban ratepayers are finding themselves put to the pin of their collar to meet their obligations. In view of that, I think the Minister should accept the amendment. As I have stated, if the Bill goes through unamended this will really mean a rate of 10¼d. in the £ in Wexford borough, instead of a rate of 9d.

I submit that amendment 29, in my name, really achieves what the Deputy has in view in his amendment. In my amendment we are defining the expression "rateable value" to mean:—"(a) in relation to the county borough of Dublin, the valuation under the Valuation Acts, as deemed to be reduced by Section 69 of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930 (No. 27 of 1930), of the hereditaments and tenements situate in such county borough rateable to the municipal rate; (b) in relation to the borough of Dun Laoghaire, the valuation under the Valuation Acts, as deemed to be reduced by the said Section 69, of the hereditaments and tenements situate in such borough rateable to the municipal rate; (c) in relation to any other urban area, the valuation under the Valuation Acts of the hereditaments and tenements situate in such urban area rateable to the poor rate." I think that amendment will achieve the main purpose the Deputy has in view in his amendment.

Not to the full extent, because in a case of rates under the Small Dwellings Act there is, for instance, a 10 per cent. reduction given to people who pay their rates within a certain period of the year. Then, again, owing to the economic distress there are, at the moment, a great many vacant premises in the various urban centres. Of course, if you take the gross valuation of the borough, then the borough itself will have to pay the rate as being the rate that was levied on these vacant premises, and also as if there was no 10 per cent. reduction in so far as the rate on small dwellings is concerned.

I do not follow the Deputy's argument. A rate is struck and that is estimated to provide a certain amount for the services of the urban district. That has got to be apportioned over the various citizens in accordance with their rateable valuation. If the rateable valuation of certain people is 10 per cent. less for a period than otherwise it would be because of the provisions in some Act, then the total sum that these people have got to pay is reduced by that amount, or if there are certain premises that are not liable to the full rate over a certain period, then the position is that they do not pay the full amount that would otherwise be collectable on those premises.

As a result of the reductions given under the Small Dwellings Act and the fact that the full rate is not payable on vacant premises the greater, of course, is the demand that is made on the general body of the ratepayers. I think the Minister ought to be satisfied with the proceeds of a 9d. rate on the effective valuation of a borough. The Minister, I am sure, is aware that a certain amount of rates has to be wiped off each year as being uncollectable because of the poverty of some of the ratepayers. I do not suggest that urban authorities should be forgiven those rates, but what I am suggesting is that the proceeds of this 9d. rate should only apply to the effective valuation of the borough. Otherwise it will mean, in the case of Wexford, a rate of 10¼d. in the £ instead of 9d. I have been asked by a number of people to bring forward this amendment, and I think the Minister should accept it. What I am asking in the amendment is a small matter so far as the Unemployment Assistance Act will be concerned, but it is a matter of some importance as far as the local ratepayers are concerned because at the moment they find it hard to meet the demands made upon them.

What we want is the proceeds of a 9d. rate on the valuation "under the Valuation Acts of the hereditaments and tenements situate in such urban area rateable to the poor rate."

But, under the Bill as it stands, you would actually be getting the proceeds of a rate of 10¼d. in the £ in the case of Wexford borough.

I will ask the rating authorities in local government to look into the matter.

In view of that, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment, reserving to myself the right to bring it up again on Report Stage.

I take it the Minister means to apply the same procedure to Dublin.

In Dublin the reductions are effected by Act of Parliament, and these reductions are preserved in the amendment that I propose to move later. They were preserved in the Act of 1930, and are further preserved here.

Amendment 27, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 28:—

In sub-section (2) (c), line 19, to delete the words "borough, urban district or town" and substitute the words "urban area".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 29:—

To insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) In this section the expression "rateable value" means—

(a) in relation to the County Borough of Dublin, the valuation under the Valuation Acts, as deemed to be reduced by Section 69 of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930 (No. 27 of 1930), of the hereditaments and tenements situate in such county borough rateable to the municipal rate;

(b) in relation to the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, the valuation under the Valuation Acts, as deemed to be reduced by the said Section 69, of the hereditaments and tenements situate in such borough rateable to the municipal rate:

(c) in relation to any other urban area, the valuation under the Valuation Acts of the hereditaments and tenements situate in such urban area rateable to the poor rate.

This is the amendment that we discussed on Deputy Corish's amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
(1) It shall be the duty of every council and board of commissioners by whom money is payable under this Part of this Act into the Unemployment Assistance Fund in a financial year to pay such money into the said fund in four equal instalments, on the 30th day of June, 30th day of September, 31st day of December, and 31st day of March, in such year, and for that purpose to raise such money by means of the rate by means of which expenses incurred under the Public Health Acts, 1879 to 1931, by such council, or board, are raised, but as a separate item of such rate.
(2) Where any money is payable under this section into the Unemployment Assistance Fund by a council or board of commissioners, the amount thereof may be deducted from any sums payable from the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account directly or indirectly to such council or board, and be paid into the Unemployment Assistance Fund in discharge of such money.
The following amendments were agreed to.
30. In sub-section (1), lines 29 and 30, to delete the words "and boards of commissioners."
31. In sub-section (1) to delete all words from the word "of," line 35, to the end of the sub-section and substitute the following words "of, in the case of the Council of the County Borough of Dublin and the Council of the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, the municipal rate, but as a separate item thereof or, in the case of any other council, the poor rate, but as a separate item thereof."
32. In sub-section (2), to delete in lines 40 and 41 the words "or board of commissioners" and in line 43 the words "or board".—(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 were agreed to.
SCHEDULE.

I move the following amendments:—

33. To delete in the heading of the third column the words "other borough, urban district or town having a population which (as shown by the census of population which is for the time being the latest such census) exceeds seven thousand" and substitute the words "urban area (which is not a county borough or the Borough of Dun Laoghaire)."

34. To insert at the end of the Schedule the following:—

"A person who is a widow or a spinster and has no dependant, 7/6, 6/-, 5/-."

Amendments agreed to.
Question—"That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Top
Share