Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Feb 1942

Vol. 85 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Insurance (Intermittent Unemployment) Bill, 1939—Second Stage.

Mr. Lemass

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill had its origin in the building dispute in 1937. In connection with that dispute the question arose, during the negotiations which led to the settlement of it, of the loss suffered by building trade workers when their employment was interrupted by inclement weather which made it impossible for outdoor building operations to be continued. One of the demands made by the workers' side in those negotiations was for payment during those periods of stoppage due to inclement weather. In the course of the discussions it was agreed, on my suggestion, that we would consider the possibility of preparing an insurance scheme against the loss of employment due to inclement weather amongst building trade workers and, subsequent to the termination of the dispute, a number of meetings were held between representatives of the employers and the workers at which the details of a scheme providing for such insurance against intermittent unemployment due to inclement weather were worked out. That scheme was embodied in this Bill.

The Bill was introduced in 1939 with the intention of arranging for its discussion in that year. But, shortly after its introduction, the war began and the pressure of administrative affairs following the war made it impossible to proceed with the Bill then. Subsequently, as Deputies are aware, further difficulties emerged for the building trade from the circumstances of the war. Building activities became considerably curtailed and shortages of various building materials made it evident that building work on any scale was not likely to be resumed while the war lasted. I felt, therefore, that it was undesirable to deal with the Bill without giving the parties who were associated with the working out of it an opportunity of reconsidering it in the light of the new circumstances. I felt that there might be reasons why either of the parties would prefer a postponement of the measure until the emergency had passed. I arranged for consultation with them and found that that was not the case; that they still wished to have the Bill proceeded with and a scheme of insurance against intermittent unemployment, due to inclement weather, brought into operation. I therefore arranged for the submission of the Bill to the Dáil with a view to its enactment.

The Bill proposes to establish, for manual workers in the building trade, a scheme of insurance against intermittent unemployment resulting from stoppages of building work due to inclement weather. It also provides for the extension of that scheme of insurance, at the discretion of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to other trades. I may say that it is not proposed to extend it to other trades at present until some experience of its working in relation to the building trade has been obtained. Clearly, there are other classes of workers besides building trade workers who are liable to be intermittently unemployed due to inclement weather, and if a case can be made for insuring building trade workers against that loss, a similar case can, presumably, be made for insuring other classes of workers against similar loss. It proposes, for the time being, to confine the scheme to building trade workers until experience of its operation has been secured, and, in the light of that experience, to consider its possible extension to other trades which are carried on, in the main, out of doors.

Mr. A. Byrne

Such as carters drawing sand to a building site?

Mr. Lemass

I do not want, for the moment, to suggest other classes to whom the scheme might be applied, but many such classes will occur to most Deputies. The scheme provides that insured persons and their employers will provide, by means of weekly contributions to a fund to be established, the means out of which payments will be made to these insured persons while they are intermittently unemployed. The State itself will not contribute to the fund. The undertaking which I gave and the arrangement which has been entered into provides that the administrative cost of carrying out the scheme will be met by the State. While the entire revenue of the fund will be available for the payment of benefits, the administrative expenses, which it is estimated may amount to about £10,000 per year, will be met by the State, and that will constitute the State's contribution to this scheme for the betterment of conditions in the building trade.

The fund will be under the management of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who will decide all questions regarding the scope of the scheme. For the purpose of administering the scheme, the Minister is authorised to appoint local officers, insurance officers, courts of referees, an umpire and inspectors—the umpire and inspectors appointed under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. It is considered that the administrative expenses will be reduced and, in any event, a more satisfactory arrangement is to use the machinery already in existence under the Unemployment Insurance Acts for the determination of all questions of dispute that may arise under this Act. Therefore, when any dispute arises, the procedure will be the same as that now followed when a dispute arises under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. A decision will be made by the appointed officer; there will be an appeal from that officer to the court of referees; and from the court of referees, on matters of law, to the umpire, the same court of referees and the same umpire as function under the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

In justification of the introduction of the Bill, I would say that the activities of the building trade are, in particular, influenced by the nature of the weather at any particular time, and employment in the building trade is, or can be, at periods of the year, very adversely affected by weather conditions. What is commonly known in the trade as wet time, that is to say, hours or periods during which building activities in whole or in part must be suspended, owing to rain, frost, snow, storm and the like, are frequent occurrences. Workers in the industry are generally paid upon an hourly basis, so that they are unable to foresee from week to week, or even from day to day, how their earnings will be affected by weather conditions. Housekeeping on incomes of such a varying and uncertain nature is a matter of the greatest difficulty, and sometimes even a matter of embarrassment.

The problem constituted by that intermittent unemployment in the building trade has concerned building trade employers and the leaders of building trade unions for some time past. In Great Britain, just before the war, arrangements had been made for the introduction by the industry, for itself and without the support of legislation, of a scheme of insurance against broken time through bad weather, but the introduction of that scheme was, I think, prevented by the war and has been deferred until after the war. So far as I know, this is the first attempt anywhere to make provision against loss of employment in the building trade through inclement weather by means of legislation and, consequently, the measure must be regarded as being, to some extent, experimental. There was not the precedent of successfully operated legislation of a similar kind in other countries to refer to, but I think I can say that the scheme of the Bill, which took a long time to prepare and which was discussed in every detail with the representatives of the employers and workers, appears to be reasonably good.

There has been an opportunity afforded since the Bill was first introduced in 1939 to examine how precisely it would have worked out if it had been enacted in 1939. The experience of the building trade, such as it was, during these two years—it was not a normal experience because of the special emergency circumstances—was recorded and an account made of the payments that would probably have to be made out of the fund if the Bill had been in operation. From the results of that investigation, it does appear that the scheme of the Bill as it appears at present is reasonably sound, that the contributions payable under the Bill would be adequate to provide for the payment of the benefits contemplated, but not more than that. The Minister is, however, given power in the Bill to vary either the rate of contribution or the rate of benefit. It is quite clear that the scheme must be financially sound, if it is to work, that the total of the contributions payable in any year must be equal to the amounts of benefits that will require to be paid in that year, and we cannot, on the basis of the very limited and rather experimental records that were kept, say with certainty that, in normal circumstances, these contributions will enable these benefits to be paid.

If experience should show, over a period of time, that the contributions are insufficient to enable the benefits to be paid, either the contributions will have to be varied upward or the benefits downward. If, on the other hand, it appears that the contributions are more than sufficient to enable these benefits to be paid, then the reverse process will be possible. The fund, of course, can be allowed to run into debt, although it is not desirable that it should, but if a deficiency should at any time appear in the fund which was likely to be only of a temporary character, it can be met by borrowing. I should hope, however, that the fund would, in the course of time, build up a reserve which would always be available to meet the circumstances of a particularly wet season during which the claims for benefit would be more numerous.

The scheme of the Bill is one of compulsory insurance. It will be obligatory upon all employers and all workers in the building trade to participate in the scheme. The contributions made will be recorded by means of stamps, as in the case of unemployment insurance, and the obligation to make a contribution will rest upon the employer who may recover the worker's share by a deduction from wages. The payment of benefit will also be made by the employer. It is only in cases where dispute exists, or where other difficulty has arisen, that the benefits will be paid through the employment exchange. In practice, it is contemplated that the employer will pay to the worker who has been disemployed for a period owing to bad weather the proper rate of benefit, and will then recover from the fund the amount of the benefit so paid. It is necessary, of course, to provide various safeguards against abuse, although it must be recognised that the greatest safeguard against abuse will be, firstly, the disinclination of workers to accept benefit instead of wages, if it is possible for them to be earning wages, because the rate of benefit is lower than the standard rate of wages in the building trade and, secondly, the fact that an employer who makes a payment will have to recover the amount paid, and if there is any question as to the right of the employer to make that payment, having regard to the weather conditions of the time or other circumstances, he risks the loss of the amount, or, at any rate, he risks failure to recover from the fund the amount so paid. It is a fact that the best safeguard in the interests of both employers and workers will be to ensure that the payment of benefit under the scheme will be kept at a minimum. It is, of course, necessary to supplement a safeguard of that kind by various checks, and the Bill provides for these checks.

Mr. Corish

Who is to determine whether a day is wet or not so that a man may knock off?

Mr. Lemass

The employer in the ordinary course.

Mr. Corish

Is it left to him?

Mr. Lemass

It is left to him to decide. Of course, the worker has the right to appeal if, in fact, circumstances arise during which he finds that he is unable to work because of the inclemency of the weather and fails to get payment from the employer. In that case the employee has the right to appeal. The rates of contribution, and the rates of benefit, are set out in the Schedule to the Bill in respect of a skilled worker. The term "skilled worker" is defined in the Bill as Deputies will notice. The contribution by the insured person will be 8d. per week and by the employer 8d. per week. The rate of supplementary benefit payable to a skilled worker who becomes intermittently unemployed is a 1/- per hour. In the case of unskilled workers, the contribution from the worker is 5d. and from the employer 5d., and the rate of supplementary benefit 7½d. per hour. In the case of young persons, the rates of contribution are 2d. for the employer and 2d. for the young person, and the rate of supplementary benefit 3d. per hour.

I should, perhaps, attempt to forestall any comparison between the rates of benefit payable under that Schedule with the standard rates of wages for skilled and unskilled workers in the building trade, say, in Dublin, where the rates are high as compared with the rest of the country. This is a national scheme that is going to be applicable to the whole country, and hence the rates of benefit payable under it must take into account the rates of wages of men not merely in Dublin, but throughout the country as a whole. We cannot, of course, risk a situation in which there might appear to a worker to be an advantage in being unemployed and in drawing supplementary benefit rather than in earning wages at work. It is, therefore, essential, from many points of view, that the rates of benefit should be less, substantially less, than the actual rates of wages, so that the tendency on the part of the worker will be to be at work, except when weather conditions render work impossible.

It is necessary, of course, that the fund should be built up to some extent before benefit will become payable. Consequently, the Bill provides that no man becomes entitled to receive benefit until 12 contributions have been paid in respect of him. That applies not merely to existing workers, who have been insurable, but under the scheme, as soon as it comes into operation, it will also apply to new entrants to the industry under the Bill. New entrants will not become entitled to receive supplementary benefit unless and until they have had 12 weeks' work in the building trade.

Mr. Corish

With one employer?

Mr. Lemass

With anybody. That part of the Bill is very similar to the Unemployment Insurance Acts. A record of the contributions paid in respect of the worker will be contained on his card.

Mr. Corish

Suppose a man has seven stamps from one employer and five stamps from another, within 12 months, what will his position be?

Mr. Lemass

As long as he has 12 contributions paid, he will be entitled to receive supplementary benefit. In that respect the scheme under this Bill is not the same as that under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, which take into account the fact that people go out of insurable employment altogether. In this case, the individual worker is being insured against that type of unemployment. His right to benefit, for which he is insured, depends solely on the fact that contributions in respect of a period of 12 weeks have been paid.

I should say that it is proposed to bring this measure into effect as soon as it becomes law. I would like to give notice at this stage that it is going to take some time, after the enactment of the Bill, before it can be brought into operation. The preparations for doing that will include the printing of the stamps, which is a difficult and tedious matter in any circumstances, and particularly so in present circumstances. That will take some time. There are technical difficulties which make it impossible to speed it up, so that it is likely to be some time, after the Bill has passed, before the scheme can be brought into operation. The Bill provides that the scheme will come into operation on a date to be fixed by order by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is clear, therefore, that one cannot tell in advance the date from which an insured person's right to receive benefit will come into operation.

I do not think there is any other aspect of the scheme that it is necessary for me to refer to. I have given a general picture of what the Bill contemplates. It is a matter of some consolation to me that I can come to the House with such a Bill and announce that it is practically an agreed measure so far as both parties in the industry are concerned. In fact, to a very great extent, the Bill is their own product, in so far as the general scheme of the Bill, in its main provisions, was drafted in consultation with the employers and workers in the industry. The scheme under it was prepared by them. It was approved by me, and was then put into the form of a Bill by the Parliamentary draftsman. Even at that stage, the parties in the industry had another opportunity of considering the draft of the Bill. They have approved of that draft as giving expression to what they intended to create in the matter of an intermittent unemployment insurance scheme for the building industry. There are, perhaps, some details of it which require, and should get, the careful consideration of the House. I have had discussions already with individuals who are perturbed about some of the sections, and rather dubious as to how they will work. It is desirable that we should give all these sections very careful examination, because I believe that if we can make this Bill workable, if we can so frame it that the benefits it will confer will be obvious and that the administrative problems will be few, then the question of the extension of this method of insurance to other industries will become easier, because both the employers and the workers in those industries will have less difficulty in facing up to it.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister's statement that this is an agreed Bill alters very much one's criticism of the measure, but on its face it does not appear to be financially sound. The contributions which are to be paid weekly by both employers and employees amount to 1/4, so that three weeks' contributions would leave a credit of four hours for any individual. Four hours in a period of 140 hours does not appear to be a very elaborate estimate of a possible loss of time. It may be that in respect to quite a number of operatives some of them would never draw benefit. It is quite possible a number of those engaged in the building trade, the majority of the trades involved, might not be so subject to weather conditions as others, and in that respect it may be that the balance will be in favour of the estimate being better than what it appears to be on its face.

The proposal to increase or decrease the contributions paid by an order of the Minister is not a very acceptable one, but, as it affects only the persons concerned and they have agreed to it, it does not look as if we should interfere with that proposal. The Minister said there would not be an insurance year. Possibly Section 9, which refers to an insurance year, deals with the balancing of the accounts for a particular year. Some period must be taken in which it would be desirable to have an account of the year's incomings and outgoings. I take it that, so far as Section 9 is concerned, it is for that purpose the insurance year is mentioned and not for the purpose of interfering with what a contributor would be entitled to draw in the event of having stamps to credit.

Mr. Lemass

There is, of course, provision for an insurance year. A person who has left the building trade, in the sense that no contributions are paid in respect to him for a year, ceases to become entitled to benefit. That provision is there to that extent, and perhaps I may have misled Deputy Corish, because a person must have contributions in respect to him during the year in order to become entitled to benefit. The person who has no contributions paid is deemed to have left the scheme.

Mr. Cosgrave

That again is a slight shock, but if they have agreed to it, it is their business. There are some exclusions, very few, but in a matter of this sort the fewer the exclusions the better. If there are persons who, by reason of whatever place in which they are employed, are less liable to interruption than in other places, it would be only fair that their contributions should also go to make up the fund for those who are less fortunate, and taxing them, if one were to employ the term, in that respect, would, I think, be rather fair, having regard to the position in which they would be placed. The principal exclusions, I think, are under Section 11, and probably the reason for that was that there is not any broken time under State employment. I do not think that is a very good reason. We should take the employers as a whole and, if there are those operatives who are particularly fortunate, there is no reason why they should not bear their share in contributing to their less fortunate brethren.

This measure was circulated only last week. I read it, perhaps hastily, on the morning it came, but, as well as I can remember, there was nothing in that section which empowers a Minister to avail of the order about informing the House of events, such as laying a Paper on the Table. I think that ought to be done. I am quite sure, although this clause is so worded to increase or decrease, that the Minister's advisers were not of the opinion that there was likely to be a decrease in the contributions.

If I were to make a suggestion to the parties concerned, who have agreed perhaps on everything, it is that they might consider the advisability of allowing the fund to be made up to deal with special circumstances which occur in a country now and again. For example, nearly 50 years ago there were seven weeks of frost here, and a thing of that sort would interfere very seriously with a measure of this kind. If a fund were built up, it would be of advantage to those in the trade. It is satisfactory to know that in one trade, at least, there is agreement between employers and employees, agreement which finds its way here in this measure.

Mr. Keyes

I welcome this measure. I consider it a very laudable attempt to stabilise the position of the unfortunate people who are employed in the building industry and who have suffered so much through the vagaries of our climate. As the Minister said, it must be to a very large extent experimental, because there is no very reliable data on which to go. I am sure this measure will also be welcomed by other members of my Party. I am delighted to see that it is being made compulsory, because if it is not so made there might be very little hope of its success. I had a question on the Order Paper to-day suggesting that steps should be taken to require employers to cover by insurance certain risks under the Workmen's Compensation Act. We are aware of the conditions that exist, and I am afraid they would be much the same if we did not have compulsory insurance in this type of intermittent scheme that is now being proposed.

I think it would be worth the Minister's while, for the sake of the more equitable and speedy working of the scheme if, in connection with the machinery he proposes, he would bear in mind the idea of vesting more authority and discretion in the local exchange managers. I suggest that most matters in relation to which there might be some dispute would be matters of fact. I do not know what disputes one could visualise at the moment, but I suggest that they would have relation primarily to matters of fact.

Possibly there would be the danger of collusion between an employer and the workers, but, if the matter is to go through the routine that we have at the present time, and has to come up here to the officers in Dublin, it will mean delay. To a big extent, obviously, it will not be so much a question of interpretation of laws as a question of matters of fact, which would be better known to the man on the spot, and I think it would be well to try to have this thing work as smoothly and expeditiously as possible. There is one point that I am not quite clear about. If a man has not paid his contributions for 12 months, then I presume that he goes out of benefit in the same way as under the ordinary unemployment insurance, but in this case does he lose the advantage of the stamps that he has to his credit? For instance, he may have worked for five years intermittently and none of his lost time might be due to the weather, but he would have contributed his stamps. He was only knocked off because of the completion of the job and he has a pile of stamps to his credit without ever having drawn from the fund because of loss of employment due to inclement weather. Now he loses 12 months, and will they be lost to him also?

Mr. Lemass

They are lost if it is a break of more than a whole year.

Mr. Keyes

Even if he goes into employment again?

Mr. Lemass

It is not the whole year exactly, but between one October and another October—if he has not had a single week's work.

Mr. Keyes

What I want to know is whether, when he gets employment again, he can revive the value of his stamps. I appreciate that it is difficult to know what the rates will be or whether they will be equitable in comparison with the benefits that are paid, and I take it that there will be revision in that respect, because it is more or less a gamble whether the 8d., or whatever it is, will work out to leave a balance on one side or the other. I take it that an early opportunity will be taken to have a revision of these figures so as to have a scale, either up or down, as suggested by the Minister. This is a difficult Bill to criticise and, as the Minister says, it will call for careful discussion on the Committee Stage, but I think we can say that we all welcome it and we hope for the cooperation of all Parties in making it of benefit for the building-trade workers and others of a similar character.

Mr. Dockrell

In making a few comments I hope the Minister will not say that I am making points which would be better raised on Committee, because there are many people who are wondering where they stand, and the sooner they can find that out the better. The Minister says that the Bill is an agreed measure with the builders, and I think that is perfectly correct, but I hope the Minister's purpose is not to bring in a whole lot of other people who have to contribute but probably will never draw a penny in benefit. I would like to point out that I take it that in this insurance there are really two things that affect the weather as far as the builders are concerned, namely, rain and frost. Different trades are affected differently by both of those. I think it will not be disputed that the first and the biggest casualties due to the weather occur in the case of bricklayers. The bricklayer, by the nature of his trade, is out in the open the whole time laying bricks and, of course, very bad, wet weather or heavy frost affects him. Bricklayers are affected to a very great extent. I suppose that next in the line would come builders' labourers, and, probably next in the line, there might be a dead heat between the carpenters, who put up casings, and the painters who work on an open site, and some other tradesmen.

Now, the Minister has drawn Section 3 very much wider than the builders. I would like to call his attention to Section 3 (d) which says: "all work in the manufacture, alteration, fitting or repair of articles of wood, worked stone, marble", etc. The section speaks of work in the manufacture, and so on, of articles of wood of a type commonly made in builders' workshops or yards. I would like to point out to the Minister that under that a wood-cutting machinist employed by a timber merchant would be affected. Does the Minister seriously suggest that that man should make a contribution? If so, I should like to say that it is really on the principle of putting something into the "kitty" because he will never draw anything out. A terrazzo worker would also come in under that clause 3 (d)—well, I think he would really come in under 3 (a)—but does the Minister suggest that a terrazzo worker is laid off because of inclement weather? I think that if a terrazzo worker were to be affected in that way it would mean that they were building the house upside down and putting on the roof last. Another person about whom I should like to ask the Minister is a brass finisher who visits a site to put a brass grill, say, in the offices across the street. Does the Minister suggest that that person should be brought in? When I say "that person" I mean a member of the brass-finishing trade. Another section that could be brought in under clause 3 would be practically all the labourers employed by timber merchants and saw millers throughout the country. They would be engaged in the "manufacture, alteration, fitting, or repair of articles of wood". Certainly, the men who carried stuff to the machines would come under that category. I am not sure whether the pilers would not also be affected, on the same principle that Deputy Byrne spoke about the sand men who would be laid off, not because of inclement weather but because the builder's job had stopped. Of course it might be argued that it was due to inclement weather, but I think in that case it would be inclement weather once removed—that is, unemployment. However, that is merely illustrating the difficulty of drawing a line.

I should like to suggest to the Minister—I do not suppose he could have done it in any other way—that this is the third column of additions and the third column of substractions from the wages of the employee that the employer will have to have in his wages book. It is the third book of stamps that he will have to keep and lick. The Minister spoke about the administrative cost. I think he has shoved about 98 per cent. of the administrative cost on to the employer. The employer has to contribute the stamps, deduct the stamps, and make up the stamp book. He has to pay the man the money, and he has to furnish a claim to the Department, which, if it is not absolutely in order, will be thrown out. I do not suppose that after a time there will be very much difficulty about that, because I do not think there can be any dispute about the employer wanting to stop the job and the men wanting to go on. I never heard of an employer who stopped a job when the men wanted to go on. It is more a matter of common consent. But I am just wondering if a dispute could arise in the City of Dublin when one builder had stopped work on a site, and it could be thrown in his teeth that another builder only a short distance away had not stopped the job. I am just wondering if controversies like that could arise.

To get back to the administration, I think I have mentioned about the three columns, the addition and subtraction, and the furnishing of the claim. The Minister's Department has only to O.K. that claim. If the Minister measures the cost of that at £10,000 per annum, I should like to suggest to him that there is a very much greater administrative cost which must be borne by the employer, and ultimately by the building owner, whoever he may be, whether private or public. However, as the Minister said, it certainly is an agreed measure between the builders and the workers, the Government having given the pledge that the Minister spoke of, so that I am merely sounding a note of warning to the Minister that he cannot put in many more columns of additions and subtractions. I should like the Minister, when replying, to mention, as far as possible, the points which I have raised, and to give us some reasonable period between now and the Committee Stage, so that the various interests who are involved or think they are involved can go into the matter and see where they stand.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

Deputy Dockrell's picture of the employer spending all his time licking stamps and putting them on the various cards is a rather distressing one. I am sure there is nobody who has interested himself in the development of social services who has not at the back of his head an ideal system by which one stamp on one card would provide all the benefits contemplated by the State for all workers. That is an ideal which I think we are not likely to realise for some time. There are obviously many difficulties in securing that complete administrative unity in respect of all the social and insurance services available to workers, and I hold out no hope of being able to overcome them in the near future. I appreciate that those extensions of the legal requirements of employers in respect of their workers impose administrative costs and administrative difficulties upon the employers, but I do not think they are of such a character as to deter us from proceeding along that road.

Deputy Cosgrave raised the question of the inadequacy of the contributions to pay the benefits contemplated by the Bill, and Deputy Keyes referred to the fixation of those figures as something in the nature of a gamble. While that is true to a certain extent, it is not altogether true. From the day upon which it was contemplated that legislation of this kind would be introduced, records were taken and information was obtained from various employers in relation to their own individual experience over the years 1938, 1939 and 1940, and earlier years in respect of which records existed, and from various local authorities and other sources, to enable some fairly reliable calculation to be made as to the probable incidence of intermittent unemployment amongst building trade workers. It was not merely a guess which resulted in those figures; it was a calculation based upon all the available information. It is, of course, recognised that the information cannot be 100 per cent. reliable, and that only experience over a number of years will in fact determine what contributions will permit of the payment of those benefits, or what benefits will be payable from those contributions. I can, however, say that there are good grounds for believing that the contributions contemplated in this Bill will be sufficient to pay the benefits indicated. A lot will depend, of course, upon the experience in the earlier months during which the Bill is in operation. If an exceptionally bad year should be experienced at the beginning, then the finances of the fund will be upset.

If, on the other hand, an exceptionally good year is experienced, then the fund should be able to build up reserves which will enable the bad years later to be successfully encountered. The Bill proposes to fix those contributions and certain benefits in the light of experience. There is a proposal that those benefits or contributions can be varied. To answer Deputy Cosgrave's point concerning the submission to the Dáil of any proposals for variations of contributions or benefits, I would draw his attention to a general section which provides that all regulations made by the Minister under the Bill must be submitted to the Dáil in the usual way.

Mr. Cosgrave

Regulations?

Mr. Lemass

Including regulations varying the contributions.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is this a regulation? I did not take this to be a regulation.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister would, by order, make regulations providing for the alterations of the contributions or the benefits. Any such order made by the Minister must be laid before the Dáil, and could be annulled by the Dáil. That is provided for in Section 13 of the Bill. While, therefore. I cannot say with any definiteness that those contributions or benefits will never be altered, I think they are more likely to prove accurate than not, and the experience of the two years during which the Bill has been in existence but not introduced would rather confirm that judgment.

I may have misled Deputy Corish by a statement I made to him concerning the circumstances under which a worker ceases to be entitled to benefit, by making him think that the Bill was wider than in fact it is, and I may have misled Deputy Keyes by making him think it is narrower than in fact it is. When a worker comes into the building trade for the first time, he must have 12 contributions on his card before he becomes entitled to unemployment insurance. If in any insurance year— defined in the Bill as from one October to the other—no contributions at all are paid in respect of a worker, then in the next following year he will not become entitled to benefit until 12 contributions have been paid.

It follows therefore that a worker may have been out of employment for two years before he becomes disqualified. A person making a claim in September, 1942, would be entitled to receive benefit in September, 1942, if 12 contributions had been paid in respect of him since October, 1940.

Mr. Keyes

The penalty occurs in the second year?

Mr. Lemass

Exactly. Then, of course, he again becomes entitled to benefit if 12 contributions have been paid. It is not an unreasonable assumption that a person who is out of the building trade for so long has in fact ceased to be a building trade worker at all and must be regarded as a new entrant to the building trade. From the point of view of an individual, it can be said that he is making contributions against which he will not be entitled to benefit. But, of course, what the Bill does is to put the contributions of building trade workers in any week against benefits which have to be paid to workers in the building trade in that week. In other words, it is not merely an individual insuring himself against intermittent unemployment, but all the workers in the trade are insuring all the workers in the trade against that.

Mr. Keyes

I was referring to a man who built up a residue of stamps for himself which he had never drawn upon and had no opportunity of drawing upon. For instance, take a man who went to work in England for 12 months and did not contribute any more. Will the value of the stamps he had come back to him again if he returns to employment here?

Mr. Lemass

It is not merely a question of the value of the stamps. There is this difference between this scheme and the unemployment insurance scheme, that when he becomes qualified to benefit, that is, when he has fulfilled all the conditions and has 12 current stamps to his credit, he is entitled to get benefit against the period in which he loses employment. He does not exhaust his right to benefit if he is qualified in the same way as is the case under the unemployment insurance scheme.

Mr. Dockrell

He qualifies for the payment?

Mr. Lemass

Once he qualifies for the payment he is entitled to get it; once the circumstances entitle him to it. Deputy Keyes suggested that difficulties should be left to the local officer of the Department to settle on questions of fact, such as the state of the weather, so as to expedite payment. That is, in fact, what the Bill contemplates. It may be that the Deputy will be able to suggest some method of making that clearer, but that is, in fact, what is contemplated and what Section 31 is designed to ensure. If the Deputy will raise the matter again on the Committee Stage we will give special attention to the point, because I am in agreement with him as to the desirability of proceeding in that way.

Deputy Dockrell is not going to lead me into the discussion of a number of hypothetical cases as to the classes of workers to whom the Bill may apply. I recognise that there will be a number of cases concerning which bona fide doubts will exist as to whether the workers concerned are within the scope of the Bill or not. Section 10 provides the machinery for the determination of this question. That section sets out that the Minister may decide or, alternatively, that the Minister may refer such question for decision to the High Court; and any person dissatisfied with the Minister's decision, assuming he chooses to decide himself, can appeal to the High court. But I contemplate that, in the course of time, we will have a number of recorded decisions which will in fact operate to define with reasonable accuracy the classes of workers to whom the Bill applies and to whom it does not apply. It is almost certain that in the first year of operation there will be a number of cases referred to the Minister or the High Court for decision under Section 10. That section was put in because we knew we could not define precisely those to whom the Bill would apply and those to whom it should not apply. We had to have that fairly elaborate machinery in order to enable those doubtful cases to be determined.

Deputy Cosgrave referred to the exclusion of certain classes of building workers from the Bill. The Bill does contemplate that a person who is in regular permanent employment, who is not liable to loss of earnings because of interruption of employment through inclement weather, and who has been in that employment for a reasonable period of time may be excluded, as workers at present can be excluded from the payment of unemployment insurance contributions under similar circumstances.

As Deputies are aware, there are certain classes of workers who are certified to be in permanent employment, and not liable to the risk of unemployment. After a number of years of such employment, those workers are excluded from the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Somewhat similar provisions are being followed here. The Minister can give a certificate which declares that the persons to whom the certificate refers are in permanent employment, that they have been in such employment for a period of time, and that they are not liable to any loss of earnings because of interruption of work through inclement weather. Those certificated workers are excluded from the scheme.

It is only in respect of precisely the same type of worker that Section 11 operates. That section relates to employees of the State, and provides that the Bill shall apply to employees of the State engaged in building operations, except they are in this type of permanent employment and not liable to unemployment or loss of earnings. It is intended that a building trade worker engaged on any of the types of activity set out in Section 3, but employed in the circumstances contemplated in Section 5, can be excluded from the Bill, and in the same way employees of the State can be excluded.

It is probably true that there will be workers who will not be excluded, who will be more or less permanent in employment, and whose work will be of such a character that they are not liable to loss of wages because of inclement weather, and who will still have to make contributions. That is recognised; just as it is recognised that there will be some classes of workers who will be claiming on the fund much more often than those, and whose contributions will probably be insufficient to meet the amount of their individual claims. But one balances the other, and the workers' representatives and the employers' representatives agreed that the whole lot of them should make contributions, and that the whole lot of them should have equal rights to benefit.

We did not discuss precisely those excepted persons such as Section 5 provides for; but I think it is not unreasonable that we should have some procedure by which we can exempt from the scope of the Bill those who are defined there; that is persons who, having regard to the normal practice of employers, can be classified as being in employment of a permanent character, where no deductions are made from their wages on account of time lost owing to inclement weather and whose other circumstances of employment are such as to render it unnecessary that those persons should be insured under the Bill. We did contemplate various classes of workers who can conform to those conditions. If they do conform to those conditions then, having been employed by such employer for three years or more, they can be excluded by a certificate from the Minister. However, as the principle of the Bill has secured general acceptance, discussion at this stage is of no particular value. It is obviously a Bill which requires careful examination in matters of detail, and the most important discussion upon the Bill therefore will take place in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 25th February.

The Dáil adjourned at 6.10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 18th February.