I was referring last night on this Estimate to the delay which takes place in dealing with workers' claims at the labour exchange where appeals have to be made for one reason or another. I suggested that by the application of commonsense methods to this matter, which has caused so much trouble for a number of years, it would be possible for the Minister at least to cut the red tape in half and prevent this round-robin sort of business taking place and thus get a speedier decision for the unfortunate people who are waiting for some benefits from the labour exchange. I am afraid the Department has been somnolent while the matter is in cold storage at headquarters in Dublin or in the respective branch offices. A system seems to have been adopted which cannot be altered. Unfortunately, the other side of it is that the workers are parading day after day outside the exchange and collecting in groups at the corners denouncing this slow motion, which seems to have little regard for their sufferings, while their wives are parading to the grocer's shop, perhaps, where their financial credit has been strained waiting for this long-delayed money from the exchange to which the applicants are justly entitled by their contributions. The matter ought to be looked into with a view to having an alteration made in the existing methods.
In dealing with that matter I should like to make special reference to the appeal cases with regard to small farmers which have to be dealt with by the Court of Referees and the Umpire. The functions of the Court of Referees, as I mentioned last night deal mainly with matters of fact. They have close contact and intimate relationship, in many instances, with the actual circumstances. They can see the actual value of the few acres of land that a man is credited with. If an appeal is taken, it is objected to perhaps by some officer in Dublin and eventually it goes to the Umpire. The Umpire's decisions are cryptic and never illuminating. The grounds are not stated or how the decisions have been arrived at. One would naturally be inclined to be suspicious that the official who first objected to, or overrode the decision of the Court of Referees, plays a very large part in determining the Umpire's eventual decision. This matter has been referred to year after year. The previous Minister called it a hardy annual. I need not, however, make any apology for introducing it again because it has not been remedied. The workers and the small farmers form a very large part of the framework of the country and it is nothing short of sharp practice to accept the contributions of these people with a few acres of stony ground who, when they come to collect the benefit, are repudiated and turned down without getting any satisfaction.
Let us take another example of the methods of this branch—a case where an employer fails to stamp the cards of his employee. When the employee wants to draw benefit the exchange endeavours to collect the arrears and if they fail to do so they report the matter to Dublin. The matter is taken up at the headquarters of the Local Government Department and they refer it to the inspector in the district. He makes an attempt and, perhaps, succeeds, and he reports back to his own Department. In due course it is reported back that the man is entitled to get benefit in respect of the stamps which have then been collected. We should bear in mind that these benefits are only payable to the applicant from the date of collection by the Department. Of course, if the worker suffered any loss he can bring the defaulting employer to court. I should like to inquire what is the necessity for this undue delay or why there is this persistent and incessant going up and down to Dublin. One would think that the local officer would be entitled, having failed to collect himself, to transfer the matter directly to the Local Government inspector in the district who eventually does the job.
I should also like if the Minister would give us some information on the question of reciprocity. This matter has been raised many times, but no progress seems to have been made in the matter. I should like to know if anything has been done, or if any hope can be held out of arriving at some form of arrangement with Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Many hundreds of Saorstát nationals are suffering because of the lack of reciprocity in connection with this matter. A former Minister told us that his officials attended a conference in London without any results accruing from it. If all the members of the House have the high admiration that I have for the higher officials of the Department I would not be surprised if we did get results. I suggest to the Minister that he ought not to be deterred by this failure and that he ought to apply himself to the matter. I feel sure that if the Minister would apply his fertile brain to the solution of the problem he would secure a signal triumph and wipe out what is undoubtedly a long-standing reproach. There is no reason why the British Government should continue to extract contributions from our nationals and refuse to pay them benefits when they come back to this country. I believe that with the application of some commonsense an arrangement could be arrived at which would remove this reproach and I will ask the Minister to give the matter his attention.
The Minister introduced a most praiseworthy idea with regard to the distribution of work in connection with relief schemes in order to ensure that the work would be given to those most in need of it. I want to pillory the Department for not giving effect to the Minister's intentions and in failing to provide suitable machinery for carrying out the objects he had in mind. Numerous complaints were heard in this House last year with regard to the manner in which the work was being allocated. It was indicated that farmers living in a big way were employed on relief schemes. Employment, it was stated, was given to well-off farmers and their sons and to pensioners and their sons and in some instances to the sons of people holding public positions, all to the detriment of labourers living in cottages and small farmers living on miserable holdings. These complaints were all attributable to the lack of suitable arrangements and the Department was largely responsible in that connection.
The system of registration was established and, if there was apathy in signing, that could not be described as the fault of the Department. I have known of cases, however, where men returned their cards by post and got nothing in return. We had cases of people who secured employment off their own bat. Some five or six weeks afterwards they were sent for by the exchange in order to be put to work. That indicates that they had been considered as unemployed in the exchange, thereby proving that the exchange is not a reliable source of information in the matter of statistics relating to unemployment or otherwise. Deputy Norton urged upon the Department the desirability of issuing a particular form which would help to clear up some of the chaos. That form was eventually issued. After a time the form was scrapped and an improved form was issued. The latest form makes a decent attempt to compel applicants to describe more closely and more approximately their true position. This has certainly resulted in an improvement, but the system is not by any means water-tight yet.
In conclusion, I would like to suggest that from the points I have made it is obvious there are a good many matters that require looking into in the Department. The Department was not giving satisfaction but, nevertheless, it was loaded with the administration of the Unemployment Assistance Act which is a glaring example from the point of view of its lack of order and planning. Notwithstanding whatever reports the Minister has got to the contrary, I may assure him that that Act is causing great aggravation throughout the country. I suggest that his Department particularly requires some looking into. I am not charging the minor officials, the rank and file of the staff. I have had close contact with labour exchanges during the last 20 years, both as an insured worker and as a representative of the insured workers, and I want to pay a tribute to the courtesy, efficiency and capability of the officials whom I met in labour exchanges in the various counties. They are the victims of a system; they act as the buffer between an almost impossible kind of legislation and the public. They do their very best in trying circumstances, and the Minister ought now to come to their assistance by holding a searching investigation into the methods obtaining.
Some brass-hatted, wooden-headed demi-god is controlling affairs somewhere, and the rank and file of the civil servants in that Department are being made the victims. Those officials are hard worked and underpaid. I know several officers who are doing responsible work for scandalously low wages. They are endeavouring to give satisfaction to the people under the most trying conditions. It is with the system and not with the officials that the fault lies. The Minister would do well if he would endeavour to infuse into his higher officials some of his well-known enthusiasm and energy, if he would try to galvanise into some form of activity some of the officials at the top in his Department and encourage them to introduce some machinery which will give a feeling of satisfaction such as the Department has not given so far.
