It is understood that an hour and a half is to be given to this motion.
In Committee on Finance. - Employment Period Order—Motion to Annul.
I move:
That the Unemployment Assistance (Second Employment Period) Order, 1939, made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the 12th May, 1939, and presented to Dáil Eireann on the 23rd May, 1939, be and is hereby annulled.
For several years past, it has been necessary to move a motion in similar terms to that which we have set down here—in fact, since the Unemployment Assistance Act was passed—in an effort by the Labour Party to curb what we consider is a Ministerial abuse in overriding legislation passed for an important section of the community by the irresponsible introduction of Period Orders such as that with which we are dealing to-day. The Unemployment Assistance Act was intended to give effect to a very vital principle in the life of the nation—that the State should undertake liability for the maintenance of people who were willing and able to work and for whom work could not be found. That marked a vast difference in the attitude of the previous Ministry and was hailed with delight by most right-thinking people. It was never intended by the Oireachtas, when that Bill was passing through the House, that lip-service should be given to that principle and that it should be abolished during six months of the year by Ministerial regulation. The Act covers 12 months of the year and the necessary machinery has been provided by the Oireachtas to prevent abuse of the powers conferred by the Act.
If the Minister at any time found that the machinery was not sufficient to enable him to check abuses or to prevent people from drawing unemployment assistance when they really had work to go to, a remedy was at his disposal—to come back to the House. Anybody who has had experience of the operation of this Act will substantiate the statement I am making, that the machinery is more than ample for the purpose of protecting State funds and checking abuses in the application of this money. There is no Deputy on these benches who will stand for an abuse of State funds. We stand for the application of this unemployment assistance fund to as small a number of people as possible, but we contend that the spirit of the Act should be given full effect to until the Government is in a position to produce that magical plan by which they were supposed to provide employment for all people willing and able to work and who so far have not got that work. The ready device of giving out the impression, at the end of the year, that unemployment has abated by transferring unemployed persons from the unemployment assistance roll under the method of these Period Orders misleads nobody. It certainly does not mislead the unfortunate victims of the Orders because the Minister, with that utter irresponsibility of which I have spoken, has refused year after year to bring forward any evidence as to how many men had actually got work at the period at which he struck them off the unemployment assistance roll. He says in effect that from June to the end of October there is plenty of work for all single men and men without dependents and that they can go and do it. If he was so confident that that was a fact, would he not, as we have asked from time to time since these Orders were first introduced, have brought forward some evidence to show what has happened under previous Orders and how many of these men had actually got the work which he had promised them?
My contention, and the contention of my colleagues, is that the number of people who get work at the period these Orders are enforced is negligible, at least in this country. A good many of them do get work but not inside the shores of Éire. In fact, these Employment Period Orders have been a potent force in recent years in driving the workers across channel. My contention to-day is similar to that I made last year and the year before, namely, that if the work is there available, the ordinary machinery of the Act will compel them to take it. The machinery of the Act will preclude them from getting benefit under false pretences. The Order is unnecessary owing to the efficiency of the machinery for compelling any man in receipt of benefit to take work which is available for him throughout the entire 12 months.
The Minister really cannot have it both ways. If the Order is necessary to compel men to accept work which is available for them, then the Minister implies by that that during the other portions of the year his officers are not capable of detecting wilful evasions of work. The Civic Guard are there and they are very active when the signing of the unemployment register takes place. The investigation officers at the labour exchanges are also very active. We have the third method of detection which we have often so vigorously condemned, the anonymous letter. When the amending legislation was introduced, we appealed to the Minister to have that third method abolished but the Minister refused to do so and said that he wanted to preserve the anonymous letter as a protection for State funds. We pointed out the hardships that had been inflicted on recipients of unemployment assistance by the malicious anonymous letter-writer, but the Minister refused to pay any heed to these representations. That method of detection is still recognised under the amending Act and, on the receipt of an anonymous letter, the man about whom a complaint is made is immediately struck off unemployment benefit without any investigation whatever. It is bad enough to give recognition to some fellow who has not the courage to sign his name to a letter but the practice of condemning a man, untried and unheard, on receipt of an anonymous letter, and depriving himself, his wife and his children of unemployment assistance, is something that any Government should be ashamed to stand for.
The manager of the labour exchange has no alternative but to strike that man off unemployment assistance benefit. An investigation takes place subsequently it is true, and after the lapse of eight, ten or sometimes twelve weeks, if the man is proved innocent of the crime against the Act which the anonymous letter writer has alleged, it is then possible to get the money of which he has been deprived refunded. In the meantime, however, grave hardships have been inflicted on himself and his family. Strictly speaking, that man is not entitled to get home help from the home assistance officer during the period that he is deprived of unemployment assistance. There is a contribution from the local authority towards unemployment assistance and if a man is suspected of having abused the privileges of the Unemployment Assistance Act, the home assistance officer might legally be surcharged for giving him relief. If, however, he does give him relief, the amount of such relief must be deducted from the unemployment assistance benefit when he is again restored to the roll. I suggest, therefore, that the machinery at the disposal of the Minister for the operation of the Unemployment Assistance Act is quite ample and efficient. Why, then, is it necessary to have this Employment Period Order in operation from the beginning of June to the end of October? Without examination of the qualifications of any of the men who are affected by the Order, it is assumed that agricultural work is available for them, and that they must go and perform this agricultural work.
The Order applies to all rural areas and the rural areas start at the borough stones in the City of Limerick, the City of Cork, the City of Dublin and a few urbanised centres to which the Order does not apply. Outside these towns, all single men are classified, apparently, as being agricultural labourers. I, personally, asked that a classification should be made of those who are genuine agricultural labourers who could be sent to agricultural work, but, under the ambit and scope of this Order, men have been taken from the purlieus of the cities and towns, various types of craftsmen, stone-cutters, railwaymen and tradesmen of all descriptions who are quite incompetent to do agricultural work even if it were available, men who have not the remotest conception of what their duties would be if they were employed by a farmer. It shows the utter irresponsibility which inspires the Order that such men are unquestionably struck off the unemployment assistance roll without any examination being made of their fitness for agricultural work. I suggest that it is a definite attempt to rob these people of a benefit conferred on them by the Oireachtas. The unemployed citizens of the State are as much entitled to the benefits of this Act as any other section of the community are entitled to benefits conferred on them by other Acts passed by the Dáil. That is why I contend that it is abusing a Ministerial privilege, abusing a function of the Dáil and violating the rights of citizens to apply this Order.
I am asking the Dáil to say that we should preserve the authority of the Oireachtas and to say that legislation passed by the Oireachtas is intended to operate for 12 months of the year and that it cannot lightly be set aside by these recurrent Period Orders Nos. 1 and 2. We are dealing with Period Order No. 2 to-day because it is more vicious in its effects than Period Order No. 1, which deprives a man with a farm of £4 valuation or under from unemployment assistance from March to October. We are told that these people will be fully employed on their farms from March to October and then, from the 7th June to the end of October, the man without dependents is struck off and is going to get no benefit by way of unemployment assistance. The only excuse that has been so far advanced is that at this particular period there is a sufficiency of work for all these men. I should be glad if that were true but, so far, no evidence has been put forward to establish that it is a fact. Even if it be conceded that it is true, I still think that there is no necessity for this Order and that the ordinary machinery established by the Dáil to prevent or to check abuses in the drawing of State funds is more efficient for the purposes of the Act. I am, therefore, asking the house to agree that this Period Order should be annulled.
I formally second the motion. I would like to point out that when those Employment Period Orders are put into operation they have the effect of throwing a very big number of people from the suburbs of Cork on the home assistance funds. That is the effect that these Orders have in the suburbs. Those men, when out of employment, have to seek home assistance. We have a very conservative board dealing with home assistance in Cork, as I am sure Deputy Brasier would testify. The position is that when those men are out of employment they have to come to that board and seek home assistance. It is a terrible state of things that young men anxious for work cannot get it. The discussion on this Order reminds me of a remark that was made in the course of discussion here last night by Deputy T. Crowley. The Deputy said that there were young men and if they got work they would not take it. It is bad enough to treat the unemployed in the way that they are being treated under this Order or by the meagre maintenance that is offered to them, but it is a much more serious thing that insults such as the Deputy's should be offered to them—to young men who, I know, are anxious and willing to work but cannot get it.
Everything that has been said about the operation of these Orders is fully justified. The Order in March is severe enough, but the one that comes into operation in the period from June to October is really a very serious one for a great many young men of all classes who cannot get employment— tailors, journeymen harness makers and others who engage in seasonal work. Apart from these Orders altogether, I may say that the labour exchanges are very strict because, from time to time, they call these men, young and old, before a court of referees to show cause why they are not getting employment. As Deputy Keyes has pointed out, the machinery of the labour exchanges is quite sufficient to prevent any abuses so far as the unemployment assistance funds are concerned. In view of what has been said, I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision and not put this Order into operation.
I would like to point out that Deputy Hickey has put a wrong interpretation on a statement of mine made last evening.
I am sorry if I did.
Mr. Crowley
I am perfectly certain the Deputy did.
I would be sorry to misrepresent anybody. The remark that the Deputy made was that a lot of these young men, if they got work, would not take it. I think that is an unfair statement and that it is an insult to the unemployed.
Mr. Crowley
What I said was that they could not take work when they got it: that they registered at the labour exchanges in the different parts of the country for a particular type of work, and that unless they got that particular type of work they could not take it. I hope that makes my remark clear.
Mr. Morrissey
I am afraid not.
Surely the House is entitled to hear what the Minister has to say on this motion.
There is plenty of time still.
The Minister adopted that attitude before.
And remembers what happened.
Mr. Morrissey
We can understand his reluctance to speak.
We cannot have a half hour's hiatus. The Chair must soon call upon Deputy Keyes to conclude, if no Deputy rises.
Mr. Morrissey
I agree. Are we to take it that the Minister is refusing to speak on this?
No.
Mr. Morrissey
It looks very like it.
I intend to speak when I choose myself, not when the Deputy chooses.
Mr. Morrissey
I am sure the Chair will accommodate the Minister until he is ready, no matter how long that may be.
The Chair will call on Deputy Keyes to conclude the debate.
The Minister is showing his customary contempt for any question dealing with labour in the country.
It is a lovely evening anyhow.
Deputy Keyes to conclude.
I think that the silence of the Minister is more eloquent than any peroration that I could make as regards his attitude towards this matter. It is an indication of the contempt of himself and of his Government for the people we are dealing with. It is not the first time that he has adopted this attitude. The notable thing is that it is always on a question dealing with the lower section of the community, the poor and the unemployed. I am sure that in the South City to-night he will be very eloquent with his fellow-speakers in saying that they are advocating and championing the rights of the workers that they are true democrats, but the acid test——
The workers of South City showed what they thought of the Deputy's Party, and of Deputy Morrissey's Party, too.
But the acid test is his attitude towards this motion calling for a bare semblance of justice for those affected by this Order. That is how the Minister has treated the motion this evening.
He was asked to speak and would not.
The Minister does not want to as long as he has a machined majority to give effect to his views as they have been dictated by officials, but he has not taken the trouble himself to find out the mischievous effects of these Orders on the people of the country who are being dealt with.
The Deputy should realise that the responsibility is the Minister's.
It is his definitely, but he has not taken the necessary steps and has declined, after being pressed here on more than one occasion, to ascertain the figures relating to the number of people who got work during the period that these Orders were in suspense. He did not do so because he knew that the results would be disastrous to the case that he has made here. The number that got work was the very minimum, while the majority, or at least a considerable number were driven out of the country to seek work across the water because they had not a shilling left to fall back upon for their support here, notwithstanding the fact that legislation had been passed for their benefit. Instead of doing what he did in 1935, 1936 and 1937 the Minister to-day seems to think that it is a much stronger and more forcible argument to adopt the cowardly practice of ignoring and refusing to reply to a motion, put down in all sincerity, dealing with a serious matter like this. I have nothing further to add. I ask Deputies to show that they at least have some respect for the authority of this House: that they are not going to allow its authority to be overridden and treated in this cavalier fashion by the Minister. The motion will also afford the workers of the country the opportunity of realising that the sincerity of Ministerial gestures can be better tested here than on the hustings of South City to-night.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 49.
Tá
- Bennett, George C.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Curran, Richard.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hickey, Jame.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McMenamin, Dame.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Gradv, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Ward, Conn.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Keyes and Hickey; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.
Question declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 4.50 p.m. until Tuesday, 6th June, at 3 p.m.