Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 May 1934

Vol. 52 No. 15

Estimates for Public Services. - Vote No. 61—Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £931,220 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1935, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Arachais Díomhaointis agus Malartán Fostuíochta (maraon le síntiúisí do Chiste an Díomhaointis) agus i dtaobh Conganta Díomhaointis (9 Edw. 7, c.7; 10 and 11 Geo. 5, c.30; 11 Geo. 5, c.1; 11 and 12 Geo. 5, c.15; 12 Geo. 5, c.7; Uimh. 17 de 1923; Uimh. 26 agus Uimh. 59 de 1924; Uimh. 21 de 1926; Uimh. 33 de 1930; agus Uimh. 44 agus Uimh. 46 de 1933).

That a sum not exceeding £931,220 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses in connection with Unemployment Insurance and Employment Exchanges (including contributions to the Unemployment Fund) and Unemployment Assistance (9 Edw. 7, c.7; 10 and 11 Geo. 5, c.30; 11 Geo. 5, c.1; 11 and 12 Geo. 5, c.15; 12 Geo. 5, c.7; No. 17 of 1923; Nos. 26 and 59 of 1924; No. 21 of 1926; No. 33 of 1930; and Nos. 44 and 46 of 1933).

The gross amount required is £1,950,790. The appropriations-in-aid amount to £554,570, making the net total £1,396,220. The net increase of £1,203,129 is due entirely to the passage, during the course of the year, of the Unemployment Assistance Act. The sub-heads are, I think, in the main fully explained in the notes which appear on the Estimate. As regards salaries, wages and allowances there is an increase of £90,000 due entirely to the necessity for a substantial increase in staff for the administration of the Unemployment Assistance Act. This also explains the increase in travelling expenses and incidental expenses, the expenses for the umpire and the Courts of Referees and so forth. The contribution to the Unemployment Fund shows an estimated increase of £2,000. That figure is, of course, an estimate. It is impossible to tell with any degree of accuracy what the revenue to the fund from the sale of stamps will be. It is anticipated that it will be somewhat higher this year than last year, and consequently an increased State contribution, the amount of which is fixed by legislation, is budgeted for. The main item is the estimated expenditure on unemployment assistance of £1,500,000. That figure is also an estimate, because there are not in existence any data upon which a reliable forecast could be made.

This is the first year in which the Act has been brought into operation. In fact, it is only coming into operation at the present time. There are roughly £200,000 applications for qualification certificates to date. I do not want Deputies to run away with the idea that that figure represents £200,000 people out of work. Any person who applies for it is entitled to get a qualification certificate. In fact, in due course every person in the country who is qualified—that is, whose means are less than the amount set out in the statute and who is not disqualified for any of the reasons stated in the statute—will have his qualification certificate. A number of questions which have been asked in the Dáil concerning the Unemployment Assistance Act appear to be based on a confusion of ideas between an application for a qualification certificate and a subsequent application for unemployment assistance. The qualification certificate corresponds to the insurance card under the unemployment insurance scheme. Every worker will have his certificate. When he is at work the certificate will be in his possession. When he is out of work the certificate will be lodged with the exchange, and if he can sustain it he will, presumably, make a claim for unemployment assistance: that is, when his unemployment insurance benefit, if any, has been exhausted.

Of the 200,000 applications for qualification certificates 60,000 have been issued up to the latest date for which I have figures. Our experience to date has been that 15 per cent. of those who applied for qualification certificates were not entitled to receive them. 85 per cent. did prove their claim to qualification certificates. It is very noticeable that of the persons who have received their certificates less than half have applied for unemployment assistance. The assumption is that the others who received their qualification certificates were either at work when they applied, or have since obtained work. The total number at present receiving unemployment assistance is somewhere round the figure of £20,000. The total amount that is being expended weekly is about £10,000 or £11,000. It is impossible to give precise figures, because certificates are being issued at the rate of £2,000 a day, so that the situation is changing from day to day. In the administration of the Act we are endeavouring to give first attention to those persons applying for certificates who show, on the face of their applications, that they possess no means of any kind. It is assumed that, as a general rule, such persons would be in most urgent need of assistance. In any event it was possible to deal with their applications much more expeditiously than with the applications of those who, on the face of their applications, showed that they possessed means, because where means were shown an investigation had to take place in order to assess their yearly value for the purposes of the Act.

In some districts there has been confusion and, I think, in some cases hardship has been caused by the manner in which the local assistance authority either misinterpreted the law or misunderstood the manner in which the Unemployment Assistance scheme was being brought into existence. I think that applies particularly in Cork where the assistance authorities appear to have got a very confused idea of the new situation, an idea which could not possibly have entered into the minds of anybody who had taken the trouble to study the nature of the legislation or the various speeches and explanations of it which were delivered by me when the Bill was passing through the Oireachtas. I recollect stating in the most distinct manner that the Bill which was then before the Dáil in no way relieved local assistance authorities from any obligation they had to provide for the relief of destitution in their areas. I saw in this morning's newspapers a report, which may not be correct, that the Cork Board of Assistance claims that it was released from all obligation to make any provision for able-bodied destitute persons by the passage of the Unemployment Assistance Act. That is, of course entirely incorrect.

General Mulcahy

The Minister will recollect that Deputy Briscoe contradicted the Minister on that point, and was very explicit in saying that it did.

Mr. Lemass

I am not responsible for what anybody else said. I am talking about the obvious terms of the Act and the statements that I made myself. The surprising thing about the Cork Board of Assistance is that they apparently jumped at conclusions without making any attempt whatever to verify the conclusions. I have no record that they, at any time, addressed any inquiry to my Department, either as to the date at which the scheme was coming into operation or as to the manner in which it would operate. I think it is obvious to anybody who has given the matter any consideration that the whole scheme could not be brought into operation overnight. It was inevitable that there would be a very large number of applications made during the period in which the scheme was being initiated and that it would take some time before all these applications could be disposed of.

The Dublin Board of Assistance, with commendable foresight, made the necessary arrangements to deal with that situation. They are gradually reducing their expenditure upon outdoor relief and the number of cases relieved as the Act is coming into operation is gradually being reduced. If the Cork Home Assistance Authorities had shown the same foresight or the same genuine concern for the welfare of the people under their charge, the situation there would have been entirely different from what it is.

Apart from Cork there are only one or two districts in which the local authority appears to have been badly advised as to the effects of the Act and the manner of its administration. But in these places every effort is being made to speed up the application of the Unemployment Assistance Act. In Cork, I may say that we are at present paying out unemployment assistance at a weekly rate which, if continued for the course of a year, would amount to a sum nearly double the total cost on the Cork Municipal Council for outdoor relief last year. It is impossible to give any picture of the situation in respect of the scheme as yet, because two or three months will elapse before it will be in operation to such an extent that one would be able to form conclusions as to the extent to which it was required and the cost which it will involve upon the public funds.

The Estimate this year was £1,500,000. It is obviously desirable that whatever provision is made should be adequate, so that no difficulty will arise. In future years, we will, I think, be able to make a more accurate estimate, based upon experience and probabilities, than is now possible.

Persons who are refused the qualification certificate, or, having got the qualification certificate, are refused unemployment assistance or get unemployment assistance at a lesser amount than that to which they are entitled are, of course, entitled to appeal. Where the refusal is a refusal of a qualification certificate the appeal lies to the committee established under the Unemployment Assistance Act, a committee which is at present practically in continuous session, because every person who has been refused has availed of his right to appeal. Where the refusal is a refusal of unemployment assistance on any of the statutory grounds there is an appeal to the Court of Referees, and from the Court of Referees, on certain points, to the Umpire. A number of persons have communicated with the Department of Industry and Commerce objecting to the refusal of unemployment assistance by the local officer, and Deputies have sometimes approached the Department on behalf of such persons.

It would save the time of the Deputies and the officers of the Department if Deputies would understand that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has no function in these matters. Where the applicant is refused unemployment assistance by the insurance officer on any of the statutory grounds his right of redress lies in his appeal to the Court of Referees, and from the Court of Referees to the Umpire, whose decision is final.

The Court of Referees will, I anticipate, have a somewhat busy time for a period until there has been laid down a series of decisions which will govern future cases. That applies more to the Appeals Committee than to the Courts of Referees because so far as the Courts of Referees are concerned, the questions they will have to consider will be similar to those arising under the Insurance Acts. So far as the Appeals Committee are concerned they are doing entirely new work and they are building up, and will build up in a short time, a series of decisions which will operate in the future to determine the way in which the Act will be interpreted by the local officers.

I do not think there is anything more I could usefully say at this stage. I ask Deputies to believe that every effort is being made to bring the Act into operation. The officers of the Department of Industry have had a very great strain placed upon them. They did the work with considerable energy and they have accomplished a very great task indeed. Deputies will contemplate the magnitude of the task when I say that we are bringing into existence for the first time a new social service which in the magnitude of its operations and the amount of money involved is substantially greater than the Old Age Pensions Scheme or the National Health scheme or any other social scheme in operation now in the country.

It is not easy to foresee all the difficulties which arise in such a task, but so far as they have arisen they have been dealt with and the machinery is now working smoothly, dealing with the applications at the rate of 2,000 a day. It will be some weeks before all the applications will be disposed of, but once they have been disposed of the handling of future applications in the administration of the scheme will become a matter of routine. The experience which is now being acquired by the various officers will be of considerable value in the permanent administration of the scheme.

Mr. Anthony

I want to ask the Minister just one question. I can quite understand that in legislation of this character, where so many processes have to be provided and so many questions answered, at the beginning a certain amount of difficulty will arise in the administration of the Act. We all appreciate that and none of us wants to embarrass the Minister or his Department in any way. I got the information which I required in relation to the administration of this Act in the reply I got to some questions I asked to-day.

I want to put to the Minister one or two other questions which will obviate the necessity of putting them on the Order Paper. Would the Minister at an early date introduce legislation to abolish what is known as the "waiting period"? It is the cause of very serious hardship to many of the unemployed when they have to put in what is known as the "waiting period." I need not develop that to any extent, because the Minister is aware of the difficulties and hardships.

My second question would be more in the nature of a supplementary question arising out of his reply to-day. That is in cases where the statutory obligations have been complied with to qualify for unemployment assistance, will the payment be retrospective? There are, we know, cases where some delay has occurred in the issuing of the certificates. I am aware that some delay must arise and has arisen in that connection. But that delay having arisen, many of the unemployed persons, who have applied for unemployment assistance, were of opinion that when the certificate was issued the payment would be made retrospective. I should like that the Minister would satisfy the House, and particularly persons who have been so unfortunate as to apply for home assistance, as to what is to be the procedure in that respect. To put a concrete case: a person fills up the questionnaire and is found at the end of a period to have qualified in every way for a certificate. Can the Minister see his way to make the payments, when the person has received the qualification certificate, retrospective as from the date on which he applied?

General Mulcahy

The Minister, in his opening remarks, was not quite clear. He implied that a certain amount of hardship was being occasioned to persons seeking unemployment assistance. It was not clear whether some of that hardship was not caused by his own local officers. That was the impression he gave.

Mr. Lemass

No. The hardship arose from the fact that the local assistance authorities had failed to make provision for the maintenance of outdoor relief until the applicants had received unemployment assistance. In the case of Cork, they made no provision for payment of outdoor relief after the 1st April, although the Act did not come into force until the 18th April.

General Mulcahy

Then, the Minister's remarks were directed entirely to the boards of home assistance. It is only fair to recall in that connection that some of the Government Deputies, when the Bill was passing through the House, stated that the home assistance authorities would be entirely relieved from dealing with able-bodied unemployed.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think that that is fair representation of what Deputies said.

General Mulcahy

That was challenged from various sides of the House, and the Minister was asked to make the matter clear. He probably did make it clear, but some of the statements of Fianna Fáil Back Benchers carry far and deep at times. There is so much complaint in different parts of the country as to inability to get assistance under this Act that I should like to know if the Minister has scheduled, under the statutory power given him by Section 4, any particular classes of persons or any particular area in which no person shall for some particular period be regarded as unemployed.

Mr. Lemass

No.

General Mulcahy

So that the Act applies all over the country without restriction as to class or area. I should like to know from the Minister who the Unemployment Appeals Committee are, where their headquarters are, who the Court of Referees are and whether he has taken any steps under Section 22 to arrange for courses of instruction for persons who are unemployed and seeking assistance under the Act. The Minister tells us that about 20,000 persons are receiving assistance under the Act. The Minister will recall that the figures issued weekly now are not comparable in any way with the figures for 1931. The table he issues weekly now is, nevertheless, headed: "Table showing the Number of Persons Registered as Unemployed." As long ago as October, 1932, the Minister realised that the classes of persons then registering required a certain analysis. He did not, in fact, arrange to make any analysis of the position until about 16th January, 1933. Subsequently he told the House that he had made that analysis, that it was very interesting and that he would convey the results of it to the House. Later he changed his mind as to that. At present we are getting the exact type of return that we got in 1931, although the Minister repeatedly tells us that it does not mean what the heading of it says it does. I should like to know what arrangements the Minister is making now to change the type of weekly return, so that it will mean something. At present, the Minister tells us that it means nothing. That is when it suits him to say so. I presume that out of the 90,000, odd, registered as unemployed, about 20,000 have claims current under the ordinary Unemployment Insurance Act and that 20,000 are being paid a certain amount under the Unemployment Assistance Act. Does the Minister intend to make his weekly return to show the different classes of persons who are at present all lumped together under the heading of "unemployed"? The Minister has repeatedly told us recently that these people are not all really unemployed, that some of them are unemployed, that some are farmers, that some have casual work and that, generally, they represent a varying degree of employment and unemployment. I think that some more reasonable and more intelligible return should be substituted for the weekly return issued now. It might be well, too, if this return continued to be issued, because there must be something in common with it and the figures of the past. It would be useful enough, in spite of anything the Minister says, to be able to compare these figures, but he is in a position now to issue something more intelligible and informative, and I should like to know whether or not he intends to do that.

Mr. Corish

I think that it will be generally accepted that great dissatisfaction prevails all over the country in consequence of the slowness with which certificates under the Unemployment Assistance Act are issued by the Department. The Minister has told us now that the Department has done its best, having regard to the difficulties which prevailed, owing to the fact that this was a new Act and that the machinery had to be got into operation. The Minister has also told us that the public assistance authorities have neglected their duty in not making provision for destitute people after the 1st April. As it is the opinion of the Minister that that position obtains in some areas, I should like to support the plea of other Deputies that, in cases where certificates have not yet been issued, although applied for as far back as March last, payment should be retrospective. These people have been treated badly in the various areas. In view of the fact that, in certain urban areas, the ratepayers have been mulcted to the extent of 9d. or 1/6 in the £ for the unemployed, I think that the Government should give special consideration to this plea, since they are getting the proceeds of that rate. As a matter of fact, the incidence of the 9d. rate is greater than it superficially appears to be in so far as urban and city areas are concerned. An effective rate of 9d. in the £ would be entirely different from the rate which produces the full amount of a levy of 9d. in the £. Local authorities are bound to give certain rebates and allowances of that kind under Acts of Parliament and these are not taken into consideration in so far as this rate is concerned. In some cases, a rate of 10d. in the £ has to be struck to raise the amount required by a nominal 9d. rate. I raised that question when the Bill was going through the House but I could get no consideration for it from the Minister. In some industrial areas, where there are large numbers of unemployed, this rate of 9d. in the £ is being levied. I have in mind Wexford, where a rate of 9d. is being levied and where applications under the Unemployment Assistance Act were made a considerable time ago, while certificates have not yet been issued. I think that, in these cases, the Minister should provide for retrospective payment. Even where public assistance authorities have been paying home help since 1st April to people who are entitled to it, the amounts paid are disgracefully small. I think that the average amount of relief paid all over the country apart from Dublin, or Cork, perhaps, would be in the vicinity of 6/- or 7/- per week. Under the Unemployment Assistance Act it would run from 12/- to 15/- or £1 a week, and I think that the Minister should have the difference made up so far as regards people who have genuine claims. I should like to mention that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction also about the method of calculation with regard to certificates. I have in mind the case of one man with five children who has been absolutely destitute for about five years. His brother, who does not live with him but is in fairly good circumstances, has allowed him the sum of 10/- a week, and because of that allowance from his brother a certificate has been refused to him.

Mr. Lemass

It could not be refused for 10/- a week.

Mr. Corish

I do not know whether the full certificate has been refused, but I do know that there has been some cut in it. I think that the Minister will agree that it was only because the man was destitute that his brother was giving him that allowance and that the man ought to have been told that he would not get the certificate if this money was coming from his brother.

In another case, of which I know, a ridiculously high sum is being charged against a man because he had a goat. It is absolutely ridiculous to be making calculations in that way in the case of unfortunate people who are on the verge of starvation. I think that the Minister should pay attention to this matter, especially with regard to the retrospective effect of the Act. These people are in a bad way. They have made applications for certificates more than two months ago and it is not their fault that their applications have not been considered. I think everybody will agree that there would be no objection from any part of the House if the Minister would agree to pay retrospectively on the certificates that, undoubtedly, will be issued in connection with a number of cases. One would like to know also how the claims or applications are being considered. Is each area being considered in proportion to the number unemployed, or has Dublin, Cork, or Waterford, say, been taken first, or has each area got its due proportion of the number of applications that have been adjudged upon? I think that is a very important matter. Some localities seem to think that they have been neglected and I should be glad to have an assurance from the Minister that that has not been the case.

Mr. Broderick

During the Minister's speech I heard him mention the question of the Cork Board of Assistance. I understood him to say that they had failed to appreciate their liabilities for the ensuing year. Appreciating to the full the magnitude of the Minister's task, I am not inclined to be too carping or critical. However, out of the spirit, which eventually developed into this Bill—the spirit which arose, if my memory serves me aright, through the motion of Deputy Morrissey when this House accepted the principle of the provision of either work or maintenance for the unemployed—out of that spirit developed an enormous increase in the cost of what was known formerly as home assistance. The result of that spirit was that, as well as fulfilling their statutory obligations, they had now to undertake liability for the people who were unemployed. The result was that the liability of the board of assistance last year was increased by a sum of £20,000.

The Minister says that we did not make the necessary provision. I think that everybody accepted, up till rather late in the year, that unemployment assistance was going to come into operation on 1st April, and I might point out to the Minister, as he might be unaware of it, that all subsidiary bodies, such as those boards of assistance, have to have their accounts made up and their demands made on the parent body in January. We fully believed in January that we were to be relieved of maintenance in lieu of employment on 1st April. Subsequently, it transpired that it was on the 18th. We could not know, on 10th January, how it was going to be delayed, and even then some of us advocated provision for even a greater amount. I am afraid that some of us, who were in closer association with the Minister than I can have the honour of claiming, were quite emphatic that we were making too great a provision altogether, as, subsequent to our provision being made, a motion was handed in to reduce the provision we had made by a considerable sum. By that time, however, the effect of the new policy was to be seen. But we could not see until then that we had not made sufficient provision. We had made provision, however, for our statutory obligation—the relief of destitution in our area—and that is the only obligation we have. Any obligation, other than that which the Minister transferred to us, is not fair to us and we have no statutory obligation to fulfil it.

Apart from that, we levy rates for the maintenance of destitute persons and now there is your tax for the aid of unemployment assistance. Those people are now paying both, but your side have not come in and given us the relief we claim. As I said in my opening remarks, I appreciate to the full the magnitude of the service undertaken. I quite realise that it has got to be in operation for a considerable time before it can become fully operative. In the meantime, however, areas in our constituency are rated for the relief of destitution, and are also taxed for unemployment assistance, and I think that, in equity, we are entitled to a refund of the moneys that accrued to the Minister under taxation that we have made up on the rates.

Mr. Keyes

One would be happy— I would at least—if one knew that unemployment assistance was now working smoothly. Anybody living in the country, however, would have to say that the very reverse is the case, because I have never known of anything that gave rise to a greater amount of dissatisfaction than the operation of this Act that was looked upon originally as a very beneficent Act. Its operation, so far, has caused nothing but consternation because of the number of people who have been debarred from the receipt of home assistance as a result of it and who have been trying to conform to the requirements of the Act since early in March with very little hope of getting any benefits from it. To a certain extent, I am not surprised at this, as the Act has had to be administered by the Unemployment Insurance Department, but I must certainly say they are not dealing with it very satisfactorily. Having thrown the Unemployment Assistance Act on top of the same shoulders with very little accretion to the staffs, it was only natural to expect and anticipate the chaos that has arisen. I have before me at the moment the case of 175 men in one little village in County Limerick whose forms were filled in early in March— some as early as the 2nd March. These 175 application forms are still lying in the Civic Guard barracks and cannot be returned to the exchange because of lack of a suitable form on which to fill the returns which the Guards have secured from an investigation of the claims. That is only one barrack and it is typical of others I have heard of.

I have a letter in my case from one man whose wife has had three operations and is under the dispensary doctor's care. He has made application for relief in order to provide the necessary medicine, sustenance and nourishment for her and he has been told that as he is now entitled to unemployment assistance, he cannot get it. The net result is that the dependants of those 175 men men are actually on the point of begging. That is not by any means an isolated case but is typical of what is happening in County Limerick. With regard to the speeding up of this matter, I suggest that if the basis of valuation is not radically altered, it would be better to scrap the Act entirely because the benefits that were expected from the Act are not going to materialise under the present system of valuation. We find 2/6 per hen, 15/- per goat, and I have a case in which a Civic Guard put a valuation of £1 per perch on two perches of land belonging to an agricultural labourer in Ballybrown, in the County Limerick. If my mathematics and notation have not gone west completely, that would represent £160 per acre and that would be something to talk about in the country with regard to land valuation.

I should like to know who has given these instructions to the Civic Guards. They have surely not been sent round the country to constitute themselves valuers of goats, hens, land, and these classes of things? They must have got some specific headline sent to them. I cannot trace where it came from, but they certainly got some instructions, and they are doing a work through the country for which they are unfitted. It is not their job and they must be carrying out the instructions of somebody whose job it is. I suggest that whoever is responsible for giving the instructions and for basing the valuation as it is being based seems determined to wreck the beneficence of the Act, and I suggest that the whole foundation of the Act is going to be shattered if it is to continue on that basis. I have met some of the few people who were lucky enough to get payment and their dissatisfaction, I think, is greater than the dissatisfaction of those who have not been paid when they find the amounts they are to receive. I met one man from Adare —a single man living in a cottage with his mother—who received a postal order for 6d. I thought that it might have been a mistake and might have been intended for 6/- and I made some inquiries. Although I did not get to the exact root of the matter, I was told that it may possibly have been correct, as the basis of payment may have been 6d. a day and, in some cases, 9d. a day. This was his first payment and it might have been a payment in respect of only one day and was probably correct.

I know another man in the City of Limerick who has a wife and family. He has no means but he and his family are in receipt of some money from a society to which he belongs. His fellows in that society were decent enough—those of them who were at work—to make a rather heavy contribution every week to enable something to be paid to those who were out of employment. It is only a local union and it has no amalgamation or big funds behind it. These contributions were more or less charitable subscriptions by the employed members to keep the unemployed members from starving. These contributions have been taken cognisance of and this man, who would be entitled to 17/6 a week, is in receipt of 4/6 instead.

The chaos in respect of the issuing of qualification certificates and the subsequent determination of the candidates' suitability is, to my mind, very largely due to lack of planning in advance of the Act or of the administration of it. The Act was passed through this House in August and September, and I might say that at that time it was thought that it was capable of being put into operation by January. Subsequently it was gleaned that it could not be put into operation until April, and the staff did not come to be recruited until January. Six thousand applicants sat for the examination, and something under 400 were passed into the Service. Surely a very considerable number of the remainder must have been sufficiently qualified to be called on to co-operate in this work, but what happened was that a certain number of civil servants were drafted in from one or two other Departments, but, in my opinion, not by any means a sufficient number.

I heard Deputy Norton complaining last week of people working long hours in factories, but I suggest that the civil servants engaged in the unemployment exchanges at present are the most sweated people in this country. They are working inordinate hours which are not at all suitable for the heavy work on which they are engaged, which are likely to sap their strength and undermine their health and calculated to unfit them for doing the work competently or fittingly. They are doing ordinary unemployment insurance business from 9 o'clock or 9.15 in the morning until 5 o'clock in the evening, and then they turn over and try to devote a few hours of the evening to carrying on the business of unemployment assistance. That system is certainly not going to bring this chaotic condition that obtains now into reasonable order. People have looked forward to this Act as a most beneficial measure. It was the intention of the Government to do the very best thing possible for the people who are condemned to unemployment, and I am very anxious to know what it is has come between the Government and the Act and the administration of it simply to negative the good effects of the measure passed through this House, because that is what it actually amounts to. I would suggest to the Minister that if he wants to get to the root of the matter and speed things up, he must get down to this question of valuation and put it on something like a reasonable and fair basis, because already I have heard people clamouring for the withdrawal of the Act.

I should like, as I said at the outset, to say something about the administration of unemployment insurance in the exchanges. That is, to my mind, the most important branch in the Minister's charge, dealing, as it does, with the working class people and with small farmers, in whom the people on these benches, at least, claim to have a particular interest. The regulations to deal with many of the cases seem to have been framed with the express desire of inflicting the maximum amount of hardship on anybody who is compelled to seek assistance through the employment exchange. That is notorious. If, for instance, a man who has a case makes a claim, in the first place, the claim has to be sent back to the employer for a statement by him as to the man's reason for leaving his employment. If the employer gives a reply which is in any way calculated to disqualify the claimant for any reason, the case has to go to Dublin, and if it is refused when it comes back, he can appeal against the decision to the referees. In many cases the case is again sent to Dublin, examined and sent back to the exchange, and then the Court of Referees is called into being to examine the case and to give a decision, which must go again to Dublin, and where it is possible that it may be upset. There are, in all, five or six different ramifications of the case between the exchange and headquarters, and each time there is a cold storage period of a few days and, sometimes, a few weeks. Finally we have a gentleman called the umpire—a barrister, I presume, who sits in chambers in Dublin. He has power of life and death, and from him there is no appeal. The Court of Referees is constituted for the purpose of dealing with matters of fact, and the Chairman is appointed by the Minister himself. They are supposed to have actual contact with the circumstances.

I move to report Progress.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. Wednesday, 30th May, 1934.