I move the motion which stands in the name of Deputy Murphy, Deputy Keyes, and myself as follows:—
That the Unemployment Assistance (Employment Periods) Order, 1936, laid on the Table of the Dáil on the 4th March, 1936, pursuant to Section 7 (3) of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933, shall be and is hereby annulled.
This employment period Order has the effect of providing that the occupier of land, entered as such in the valuation list, which is not situate within the boundary of any county or borough or of any urban district or of any town having town commissioners and of which the annual rateable valuation under the Valuation Acts, or the aggregate of such annual rateable valuations, exceeds £4, should be deprived of benefit under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933, for the period prescribed in the Order. I want to draw the attention of the House to what is happening under the employment period Order this year as compared with last year. In doing so, I want, at the outset, to protest against the unwarrantable delay on the part of the Minister in the tabling of these Orders. The first employment period Order was made on the 28th March, 1935. It became operative on the 17th April, 1935, but it was not tabled in the House until 4th June, 1935. Over two months elapsed between the period on which the Order was made and the date upon which it was tabled in the House. One could understand an isolated omission of that kind, but, when we come to the second employment period Order, we find that it was made on the 29th June, 1935, became operative on the 17th July, and was not tabled until the 30th October. An Order made on the 29th June was, apparently, held up deliberately until the 30th October of the same year, though it became operative on the 17th July. It was, therefore, not submitted until three months after it became effective.
In the present instance, the employment period Order was made on the 10th February, 1936, became operative on the 4th March but was not tabled until the 4th March. It was necessary to put questions in the House to induce the Minister to lay the Order on the Table. Otherwise, we should probably have found that the Order would be held up for two or three months, as occurred on two occasions last year. While the element of delay has been common to the employment period Orders of 1935 and to the employment period Order of 1936, the annulment of which we are now discussing, in other respects there has been a very considerable change in the character of the employment period Orders. In the case of the first employment period Order of 1935, it was provided that the Order, which affects persons with a valuation of £4 or over, would operate from the 17th April, 1935, until the 21st May, 1935—a period of five weeks. Later in the year, the Minister made another employment period Order applying to the same persons and others with whom we are not concerned in this discussion. We are discussing now the application of the Orders of 1935-6 to the class of persons who have a valuation of £4 and over. The second Order of 1935 became operative from the 17th July, 1935, to the 1st October, 1935—a period of eleven weeks-so that for the year 1935 the two employment period Orders which were issued were operative for a period of 16 weeks. At that time the Minister admitted that he made no investigation on any national scale to satisfy himself that persons in this category would be able to obtain work during the currency of the Orders. He admitted that he made no local inquiries to ascertain whether in certain areas the valuation of the land was such that it was impossible to expect people to exist and to maintain families during the currency of the orders. The land they held might have been specially valued at a low rate because it was exceptionally poor.
Although he has carried out no national investigation, and made no local investigation this year, as far as the House is aware, the Minister comes to the Dáil and lays an Order on the Table, the object of which is to prevent persons who hold land with a valuation of £4 or over, from receiving unemployment assistance benefit, not for five weeks or 11 weeks as was provided in 1935, but for a total period of 34 weeks. Last year the Minister deprived persons with a valuation of £4 and over from drawing unemployment assistance benefit for a period of 16 weeks under two periods, one of five weeks, and an interregnum, and then a period of 11 weeks. This year, though he has no evidence to produce to the House to show that the Orders of last year were justified, on the basis of the information available, instead of making two unemployment period Orders, the Minister makes one Order, in respect of that class of person, and provides that it shall be operative from March 4 without interruption until October 27. It begins therefore much earlier this year than last year and will end much later. There will be no interregnum during which the persons concerned can draw unemployment assistance benefit. In other words, the Minister, having succeeded in depriving such persons of benefit for 16 weeks last year, has come to the House and asked for authority to exclude the same class from unemployment assistance for 34 weeks this year.
We have had no explanation from the Minister either in the Press or in his recent speeches to justify his belief that these persons can find employment during the period of this Order. We have had no indication from the Minister that he is undertaking any inquiry this year, or that the circumstances in these areas have been investigated with a view, to exempting them from the scope of the Order. We have had no evidence whatever that there has been any kind of inquiry into the circumstances in the areas affected. Instead, the Minister comes to the House, apparently prepared to confess that there was no such inquiry, and he asks it to approve of a blanketing Order, the effect of which is to get people with a valuation of £4 or over off the unemployment assistance register. In my opinion the reluctance and apparent unwillingness of the Minister to carry out any investigation, to make any particular inquiry in any area, or to advert to the circumstances in any area is all due to a desire-and is probably a part of the policy of the Executive Council-to save as much money as possible at the expense of those who were formerly entitled to unemployment assistance benefit. While the Minister may call this an employment period Order most people who have any contact with the circumstances in rural areas will have no hesitation in saying that this is nothing more or less than an economy Order, designed to sweep thousands of persons off the unemployment assistance register, and to save the benefits formerly provided for them. Last year it was bad enough to sweep them off for 16 weeks. The Minister feels that having economised so much last year, he can come to the House this year and more than double the hardship that he then imposed on these persons.
A question was addressed to the Minister on February 6th in which he was asked to state in respect of each employment exchange and branch employment office the number of persons precluded from receiving unemployment assistance owing to the operation of (a) the first employment period Order and (b) the second employment period Order made in 1935, and the total estimated amount saved to the State by the operation of the two Orders. In his reply the Minister indicated that it was estimated that £12,000 was saved by the first employment period Order of 1935. A sum of £12,000 therefore was saved by excluding persons with a valuation of £4 and over from the unemployment assistance for a period of five weeks. In other words, the Minister saved by the first employment Order £2,400 per week for five weeks. This year the number of persons in receipt of unemployment assistance benefit is no less than last year, and instead of saving £12,000 for five weeks we will find that the Minister will save not merely £2,400 per week for five weeks but will save approximately £2,400 for a period of 34 weeks. Last year the saving was £36,000 during the currency of the unemployment period Orders in respect of persons whose valuation was £4 and over, but this year the Minister is going to go one better, and to present the Minister for Finance with £81,000 representing a saving at the rate of £2,400 a week for 34 weeks, all at the expense of small farmers with valuation of £4 and over. During the operation of this unemployment period Order the local authorities will be expected to contribute their quota in full towards the Unemployment Assistance Act. All the savings will be on the Minister's side. Local authorities will not be empowered to save at all. The entire savings will be on the part of the Central Fund to the tune of £81,600 this year at the expense of small farmers with valuations of £4 and over.
This year there is the same absence of any kind of inquiry, but the hardship which extended for 16 weeks last year is going to be more than doubled, because these people are going to be deprived of benefit for a period of 34 weeks. I should like to know from the Minister, and we ought to have had an explanation long before now, what is the basis upon which it is sought to justify an Order of this kind for such a long period, and in the blanketing manner suggested by the Minister? Is it the contention of the Minister that holdings with a valuation of £4 and over can sustain a man, his wife and family, and that they can by operating such holdings be able to win a standard of remuneration equivalent to what they would receive under the Unemployment Assistance Act? The Minister can tell us if holdings with a valuation of £4 or over are capable of yielding an income to small holders? I think the sooner we know in what way a standard of civilised existence can be provided for these people the better. The assumption underlying the Order is that when allowance is made for expenditure in the tilling or the utilisation of the land these people will be able to get £39 by operating the holdings for that period. I should like the Minister to tell the House in what way a person operating a holding with a valuation of £4 or £4 10s. Od. can secure a return of £39 after his expenditure in the utilisation of the land had been deducted from the income received.
That test is applied in the case of a holding, a large portion of which is bog, a large portion of which is mountain land, a large portion of which is utterly unfitted for utilisation in the way of wheat or beet production. When we are discussing the possibility of a farmer being able to find remunerative employment on a small holding of that kind, we have got to remember that only a fortnight ago the Minister for Education asked us to pass an Education Bill the object of which was, during this period, to release the children of small farmers from school so that they might operate on the land, so that, during the 34 weeks referred to in the Order, the smallholder has not only to find remunerative employment for himself on his holding but his wife and family are also to apply their energies to the land. It is suggested that a man with a family of five or six can find remunerative employment for a period of 34 weeks for himself and his family on a holding with a valuation of £4. I think it is preposterous to suggest that it is possible to utilise the energies of a small farmer and his family, on a holding with a valuation of £4, over this period of 34 weeks. It is equally absurd in existing circumstances to suggest that, irrespective of the location of such a small holding, it is possible to secure a margin of £39 for that period from the land after the expenses of the farmer in utilising the land have been deducted.
I think that the manner in which this Order has been tabled is utterly unfair. It has not been tabled as a result of any kind of inquiry. It has not been tabled as a result of any kind of scientific investigation. The whole object of the Order seems to be to save money for the Exchequer and in that way to reduce the cost of unemployment assistance for the State. I suggest to the Minister that it is utterly unfair that the small farmers of the country should be compelled to make this contribution to the saving of State funds when other sections of the community are much more capable of bearing the burden of these savings than the persons affected by this Order. Last year, when the first employment period Order was made, I received a letter from a small farmer in these terms:
"The valuation of my land is £4, but all I get out of it is one meal of potatoes a day, and a little drop of milk. I cannot find work so how am I to provide for my wife and nine in family? I am left on the roadside. Up to last week I was getting 5/6 from the exchange, and some beef. Now both are dropped and I got a notice to say that I can get nothing more until October. I am in a terrible condition."
Bad as that man was last year, when he was denied benefit for 16 weeks, he is going to be in a still more terrible condition this year when denied benefit for 34 weeks. Yet these are the people who are supposed to be able to utilise their lands to support themselves and their families.
