asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that unemployment benefit is being withheld from a person (name supplied) in Donegal because of the operation of the Unemployment Benefit (Contributory and Additional Conditions) Regulations, 1966; and if in view of the dissatisfaction experienced by persons excluded from benefit by these regulations he will re-examine the entire position with a view to introducing regulations which will liberalise the conditions on which benefit may be granted.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Withholding of Unemployment Benefit.
82.
As I indicated in reply to a question on this subject earlier this year, women employed in private domestic employment were always excluded from cover for unemployment benefit up to 1966 for the reason that, since there was practically no unemployment amongst private domestics, it was considered to be unnecessary and unfair to seek contributions from such women for unemployment insurance when few could qualify for unemployment benefit. When the question of extending insurance cover for unemployment benefit to female private domestics was revised in 1965 it was found that the absence of such cover was a hardship in the case of older private domestic workers of long service. Such persons, once they became unemployed, could find it difficult, for age and other reasons, to obtain further suitable employment. Accordingly, provision was made by legislation and relevant regulations for the extension, as from 31st October, 1966, of cover for unemployment benefit to female private domestics at a special reduced rate of contribution. Title to payment of benefit was limited to women who had a substantial record of employment as evidenced by the contributions paid over a ten-year period. Female domestics of 65 years and over are not, however, subject to this test and they, therefore, can qualify for unemployment benefit in the ordinary way.
As I said before, the 1966 legislation constitutes a considerable advance on the previous position by giving cover for unemployment benefit to those older domestics who are most likely to need it, in return for a modest increase in the contribution rate and I do not propose to alter the existing position.
Surely, the Minister remembers that the farm workers were in the same category until it was realised that they were not secondclass citizens and they were included the same as everybody else? Is he aware that there are numerous cases of domestics who, despite what he said about full employment, have over the years been working when they could get work and unemployed when they could not and because of the fact that no benefits were attached were not signing at the labour exchange and that the average of stamps that these people have over a period of 20 years may not qualify them for any benefit? Would the Minister have another look at this? This is a matter that should not be done by half. The Government have created a selective group who would be entitled and the remainder are left out. That is wrong.
Deputy Tully and I have had question and answer on this in the House several times. I cannot at all agree with him in his allegation that this operates unfairly towards the younger domestics. Indeed, the records do not show that a big number of them are victimised—few if any. Fortunately, there is good demand and competition in the market for this type of employment and they can command very good conditions. They can pick and choose nowadays. They get considerably improved wages on what they used to command not so many years ago.
I am afraid that the idea of getting cheap labour for housework is still in the back of some people's minds. Possibly, the Minister is not aware that I received a reply from his Department today in regard to a domestic who for over 15 years had only an average of 24 stamps and is, therefore, ineligible for benefit even though she worked every time she could get work. If I send the particulars to the Minister, will he have the matter looked into?
I would be very interested. There are those who do casual domestic work and whom it does not suit to have constant work, who sometimes work part-time somewhere near their own homes. I do not think any Member of the House could really visualise a situation in which a good domestic available for employment would find herself unemployed for any extended period.
Mr. Tully
I am going on the Department's letter.