asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that, because of the application of Section 8 (4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, large numbers of men, discharged from the Army, are deprived of benefit because, on discharge, they return to their work in rural areas, with the result that, if they lose their employment after the expiration of 12 months, they get no credit for the contributions credited to them under the Act; and whether, in these circumstances, he will introduce proposals for legislation to amend the Act, which was first enacted to apply to an industrialised country, so as to bring its provisions into conformity with the requirements of a country which is largely agricultural.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Discharged Soldiers' Unemployment Benefit.
Mr. Corish
I am aware that by the operation of Section 8 (4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, discharged members of the Defence Forces will cease to be entitled to unemployment benefit in respect of contributions acquired by them in the Unemployment Fund for service in those forces if, for reasons other than illness, no contribution is paid during an insurance year. The payment of 12 further contributions would, however, restore their previous credit in the fund.
I appreciate that by reason of the operation of Section 8 (4) ex-members of the Defence Forces who return to agricultural or other work which is not insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts may, if they become unemployed, be unable to obtain unemployment benefit in respect of their Defence Forces contributions. In this respect, however, they are in the same position as persons who, having been insured contributors for a period, become engaged in an uninsurable occupation.
I am having the whole position of social insurance examined and in the meantime do not propose to alter the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Acts.
Mr. Corish
Does the Minister see any justification for this provision in view of the fact that a large number of agricultural labourers joined the Army, paid for five years' unemployment stamps and now find themselves in the position that, having left the Army and returned to their former employment, they are not entitled to draw any benefit if they become unemployed? The Minister, in his reply, has given a clear view of the picture. From listening to him every Deputy must realise that this is certainly not a reasonable attitude towards these agricultural labourers.
I should not like to say that it is unreasonable, but as I stated, I am having the whole position reviewed.
Will the Minister take into consideration the fact that he will be expecting an influx of workers to agricultural employment to deal with the very difficult spring work situation and that the regulations, as they stand, are likely to prove a deterrent to persons seeking agricultural work when everything possible should be done to encourage men to take up such work?
There is not very much use in bringing unemployed men into agriculture.