Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 May 1943

Vol. 27 No. 25

Unemployment Insurance Bill, 1943—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This is a brief, non-controversial measure introduced for the purpose of amending the existing unemployment insurance laws. Under the existing law a person leaving this country for employment abroad, on whose behalf contributions would be made during the insurance year, October to October, would not on his return be entitled to draw his unemployment benefit. In other words, he would forfeit his rights to unemployment benefit by the fact of having to leave the country to seek employment. The object of this measure is to amend the law, so that persons leaving this country temporarily would, on their return, be entitled to draw, if required, the benefits to which they were entitled and which were credited to them at the time of their departure. It is a non-controversial measure and I think all Parties will agree with it. It is designed to do a measure of justice to those people who were in credit with the Unemployment Fund at the time of their departure from this country. I do not think the measure requires any further explanation. If there are any points that Senators wish to raise I shall endeavour to answer them.

What about persons two years abroad? Will they benefit from this measure?

If a person is abroad even for two years or whatever will be the duration of the emergency, the object of this Bill is to preserve his right.

I do not think there is any doubt about this being a desirable measure and something that is absolutely necessary. Whether or not we think it desirable that people should go abroad at this time, we must face the fact that in going abroad they relieved conditions here very considerably, as compared with what the position would have been if they had remained and if there was no work for them. It is, therefore, highly undesirable that they should on their return find themselves in an unfair position.

As far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, I am in complete agreement with it. There is only one point on which I have any doubt. That is in regard to Section 1, paragraph (b)—as to whether the Government is perfectly satisfied to fix one year as the period within which a person must return to the State. I would personally prefer to have a little elasticity, so that the Minister could fix a period which might be more than one year but not more than three or four years after the expiration of the emergency. A great deal depends on the point as to what is deemed to be the end of the emergency and when that Act of 1939 will come to an end. What is operating in my mind is something like this. It is quite obvious that the Bill can apply only to people who intend to come back but none of us knows what the situation will be at the end of the emergency. Most of these people have gone to Great Britain; therefore we can discuss this matter from the point of view of people in Great Britain. It is quite possible that the promise made by Great Britain to supply substantial quantities of clothing and various other things to Europe may mean that there will be a period of from one to two or three years of very considerable employment there. If there is corresponding employment here it would be, of course, desirable that these people should come back, but if, by any chance, we had not got employment to offer them here, I should not like them to be placed in the position that if they did not return within one year they would not get the benefit of the Bill. No one can tell what the position will be when we come to the end of the emergency. For that reason I would prefer if, instead of having a rigid period of one year, we could provide for such a period as the Minister might by Order prescribe, a period which might be more than one year and less than three or four years. I think the Bill would have been better if it contained such a provision.

Did Senator Douglas not hear the Parliamentary Secretary assure me that time was not the decisive factor and that anyone who returns between one and three years after the emergency would be entitled to benefit?

I am afraid I should have to read the Bill again to deal with that.

I do not think that is quite correct, and if I did convey that meaning I am sorry. The provision in the Bill is, as Senator Douglas has pointed out, that "such person has returned to the State at any time not later than 12 months after the expiration of the emergency period" so that a person, as the Bill stands, who returned at a later period than 12 months after the emergency would not be in benefit.

He may be three years away before that.

The only point that occurred to me was that it might not be to our advantage to compel people to come back here before we had employment for them, otherwise we would be placing them in a false position. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider dealing with the matter in the way I have suggested, namely, to take power to fix the period by Order, a period which might be more than 12 months but not less than three or four years.

I would suggest that we should allow the Bill to pass as it stands and that point could be met whenever the emergency comes to an end. We are anxious to get this Bill through if possible before the adjournment, and for that reason I would ask the Seanad to pass the Bill as it stands.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

I suggest that we take it now.

If this were our last meeting or if we were not going to meet next week, I would accept the suggestion to take all the stages now, but if there is anything in the point which I have already raised on the Bill, then I suggest we might postpone the further stages until next week to give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity of going into the matter. We certainly must meet before the adjournment because the House cannot adjourn without passing the Appropriation Bill. If the Parliamentary Secretary would undertake to consider the point. I have raised before our meeting next week, I for my part undertake not to oppose taking all the further stages next week.

I think Senator Douglas' suggestion is worthy of consideration. If the Committee Stage is postponed until next week, the Parliamentary Secretary could look into this point or it might occur to Senator Douglas to put down an amendment which would be to the satisfaction of all concerned.

I shall have the point examined.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, May 27th.
Top
Share