Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Dec 1946

Vol. 33 No. 4

Unemployment Insurance Bill, 1946—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

This is a Bill which, I hope, the Seanad will agree to pass through all its stages. It is designed to implement an agreement with the British Government which has already been the subject of legislation passed by the British Parliament.

I think Senators are familiar with the purpose of the Bill. At various times during previous years we have approached the British authorities with a view to securing an arrangement for the payment of unemployment insurance benefit in respect of contributions paid in one country to the workers concerned when unemployed and resident in the other country. Arising out of the most recent approach upon that question to the British authorities, there emerged a suggestion from them that we should make an arrangement covering persons ordinarily resident here who had served in the British forces during the war. The British demobilisation scheme, like our own, involved placing demobilised soldiers in full benefit in their unemployment insurance fund, but their law, like our own, prohibited the payment of unemployment insurance benefit to persons resident outside their territory. We agreed to assist them in carrying through the arrangement for the benefit of these men. The arrangement is briefly this, that we will pay, through our Exchange, to persons qualified to receive British unemployment insurance benefit because of service with the British forces, the equivalent amount of benefit which they would receive if resident in Great Britain and the British will make good the cost to us. That arrangement will be of immediate benefit to some unknown number of men who served in the British forces during the war, who returned to this country and who are unemployed here.

It will be understood that the normal machinery for unemployment insurance in this country will operate; the same tests of eligibility for benefit will be applied by the same officers, with the same right of appeal to the courts of referees or, in certain circumstances, to the umpire. The possibility of a wider and more permanent arrangement covering civilian workers was raised and it is contemplated that discussions on an arrangement of that character will be begun in the near future. The British Government recently passed the National Insurance Act, which empowers them to enter into reciprocal arrangements of that character. The relevant part of that Act will not be brought into force until 1948, but, prior to its coming into force in Great Britain, it is hoped discussions will reveal the possibility of a permanent reciprocal arrangement which we would welcome. If such arrangement could be made, we shall be prepared to implement it by legislation here.

I mentioned that the British demobilisation scheme was similar to our own and their law prohibiting the payment of benefit to persons resident outside their territory was similar to the law enforced here. Soldiers serving in our forces during the war were also placed in the unemployment insurance fund. Those of them permanently resident in Northern Ireland were not entitled to draw benefit because they were resident outside our territory. Instead of making a reciprocal arrangement for the payment of benefit to those ex-soldiers of the Irish forces, similar to that which applied to ex-soldiers of the British forces, we have decided to pay them benefit. The number of such men unemployed at present is so small that a formal arrangement was not considered necessary. As a matter of fact, not more than one dozen people have claimed benefit on the grounds that they were entitled to benefit from our fund but were debarred on the one point of residence outside our territory.

We are making in this Bill the necessary provisions to entitle us to continue to pay benefit to these men even though they are resident outside our territory. Certain consequential arrangements are necessary to make sure that the right to benefit is not made inoperative by reason of the fact that no contributions were paid into the fund during the period since these men were demobilised. A man is not entitled to benefit even though he has contributions to credit unless he has had a certain period of employment in each year. We are getting over that by the introduction of certain provisions. Men who served in the British forces and who came back here and are unemployed will be able to get benefit through our employment exchanges at the rates applicable in Great Britain and at the expense of the British Unemployment Insurance Fund. Men who served in our forces and who are resident outside our territory and unemployed will be able to get benefit from our fund paid direct by our unemployment insurance authorities to them as long as they are unemployed.

What about women?

The same applies to women—man embraces woman in this regard. There is one other thing I might mention. The British unemployment insurance benefit scheme does not contemplate the payment of additional benefit except in respect of a wife or an adult dependent and one child because under the British children's allowances scheme the children's allowances are paid in respect of children in excess of one and their scheme of administration is different from ours. Our children's allowances scheme provides for the payment of children's allowances in respect of children in excess of two and these are payable irrespective of the circumstances of the family; even if the husband is unemployed and is drawing unemployment benefit, the allowances continue to be payable just as they were when he was in employment. In order to meet that difference in the provisions of both Acts it is provided here that additional benefit will be payable out of the British fund to these persons claiming under this scheme in respect only of an adult dependent and two dependent children. They will not, however, be prevented from drawing the children's allowances here under our children's allowances scheme because they are in receipt of special unemployment insurance benefit, as they would have been if they had been resident in Great Britain. That makes some slight difference in the amount of money which a man with a fairly large family would draw from the British fund while resident here as compared with what he would draw if he were resident in Great Britain but it was the simplest arrangement for meeting the difficulty arising out of the divergence of the development of social services there as compared with this country.

I am in entire agreement with the Bill and am glad an arrangement has been come to with regard to these people. The Bill, and the arrangement upon which it is based, is an example, in spite of political separation, of how interlocked we are in a variety of ways with Great Britain. I am glad the arrangement has been made and I share the Minister's hope—and I wish the Minister success in any effort that is made—to extend it to industrial workers as distinct from persons who served in the British armed forces, whether men or women. That has been going on for a very long time and never has been brought to success by either Government here. I hope that this Bill, the reception this Bill gets, and the way this Bill works, will enable the Minister for Industry and Commerce to come to an agreement with regard to the great many Irish people who went over there to work and who come back here from time to time. If such an arrangement were made, it would be a great advance for all the people concerned and, without any more ado, I welcome the Bill. I approve of it and I hope we will pass it.

The valuable aspect of this Bill is the fact that, for the first time in 23 years, it has broken down a barrier which has prevented any arrangement being made to provide payment of benefit where people become unemployed outside the territory in respect of which their unemployment contributions have been paid. This is a matter in which a number of people in this country have been very interested over all that period. Personally, I contended that the British were, in fact, obliged to enter into an arrangement of this kind because of the fact that they had ratified the Washington Convention on Unemployment and I also was keen that that would be applied because of its repercussions on the people from this part of the country who would be unemployed in Northern Ireland. The fact that this scheme has been worked out between the two Governments lends hope, I think, to the desire expressed by the Minister and by Senator Hayes that it will be applied on a much more extensive scale. This may be regarded, I think, merely, as the corner-stone in the arrangements which will eventually have to be made if justice is to be done.

The House will remember that the matter was raised here about a year ago. This time last year we had a discussion on the subject. At that time some attempt was made to calculate the amount of money which had been accumulated in Great Britain in respect of employers' and workers' contributions proper to the citizens of this country who, in the normal way, would return here to live if they ceased being employed in Great Britain. The sum was very substantial and I think the arrangement which is ratified in the Bill offers a hope that it will be extended so that the ordinary Irish worker in Great Britain, working in a factory or in the fields, or anywhere else, will become entitled to that on his return. The hardship such a worker now suffers is very great. He is paying the contributions in Great Britain. His employer pays contributions on his behalf. He has nothing to his credit when he comes back here. He is unemployed. He cannot get work or benefit although in fact there is a substantial sum lying to his credit in the unemployment fund in Britain.

Therefore, the House would be justified in giving the Minister any facilities he may need in getting this Bill through all stages here as rapidly as possible so that the persons concerned may become entitled to benefit at the earliest possible moment.

I think Senators will observe that the draftsmanship of this Bill is obscure in many respects, except to an expert on unemployment insurance. It will be difficult for the ordinary reader to say how the Bill will be applied, who is entitled to benefit and the rate of benefit that will be paid. In the Dáil the Minister indicated that it was intended to prepare some pamphlets or literature explaining the provisions of the Bill. It is very necessary that that should be done at the earliest possible moment because, it is not only that it is difficult to say who is entitled to benefit, but it is very difficult to say, from reading the Bill, under what conditions the benefits are payable. The Minister's speech, of course, makes clear enough what is going to be done but his speech will not get wide publicity—it is not nearly as important as some of the things that get into the newspapers—and the ordinary person outside will have very little knowledge as to his rights under this Bill. I would urge that some steps should be taken the moment the Bill is passed to make known to the public at large who are entitled to benefit and, roughly, the rates of benefit to which they are entitled and the circumstances under which they are provided.

On behalf of the Trade Union Congress I want to say how much we welcome this Bill and to congratulate the Minister on the success of his efforts to bring about this reciprocal arrangement, and particularly on his statement that discussions are to take place with a view to the extension of this reciprocal arrangement. The only point I want to make to the Minister is that when these discussions are taking place we would be indebted to him if he would bring in the question of workmen's compensation and the treatment of Eire nationals in regard to workmen's compensation. There have been many instances of men in employment in Britain meeting with an accident and coming back to Eire to recuperate and, as soon as they set foot on our soil, their workmen's compensation ceases. I know there is difficulty about this because of the fact that in Britain they have taken in workmen's compensation under their national insurance scheme. We have not done that up to now. That will probably cause a good deal of difficulty. I have spoken to people about this very important question of the treatment by insurance companies of men who have met with accidents and I am assured that the insurance companies are desirous of being in a position to pay compensation to Eire nationals who have met with accidents in Britain and have come back here to live or to recuperate, in some cases, to die. I would be very much obliged, and the trade union movement would be very much obliged to the Minister if, when these discussions take place, he would bear that particular point in mind.

I want to add my support to this Bill and to compliment the Minister on the fact that he has been able to achieve so much. There is no doubt that there has been a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction about the state of affairs that has existed. The co-operation which has made this Bill possible is a happy augury for the future. We are in close proximity to our neighbour, whether we like it or not, and anything that affects the people who move from one country to the other is of vital importance to us all. This is a splendid piece of work and I am with those who hope it will become law as quickly as possible.

With regard to the point raised by Senator Duffy, I mentioned in the Dáil the intention of publishing a leaflet explaining the rates of benefit which will be operative under this scheme. In all other respects the administration of the scheme will be identical with the administration of our own unemployment insurance scheme. The claimant must fulfil the same conditions and go through the same procedure. The only change is that he will be claiming upon the British fund and will be paid at the British rates.

I hope that the discussions which are about to take place will lead to a reciprocal arrangement covering industrial workers. However, it would be foolish to shut our eyes to the fact that there are some very real difficulties. We will enhance the prospects of securing a permanent arrangement relating to ordinary civilian workers, if we demonstrate that we administer this scheme scrupulously and with full regard to the interests of the British Unemployment Insurance Fund as well as to the interests of the person claiming here. If there should appear to be any disposition to pay out British money to Irish claimants with less care or less scrutiny of the justification of claims than we would make in the case of payments from our own fund, then clearly we would prejudice the prospects of a wider and more permanent arrangement.

I am very interested in the point raised by Senator Kyle. It is desirable that, if possible, there should be a similar arrangement in regard to payment of benefit in respect of temporary disablement under the workmen's compensation scheme. Again, let us appreciate that there are real practical difficulties. There is the practical difficulty of affording satisfactory evidence of continuing disablement. As everyone concerned with the administration of workmen's compensation knows, that is a matter of very considerable difficulty. In fact, the successful efforts of many workers to claim continuing disablement after they have recovered from the injury has resulted in a very steady and substantial increase in the cost of workmen's compensation insurance in this country.

The weak spot in any workmen's compensation scheme is the difficulty of preventing persons continuing to draw benefit after their moral claim to it has expired. Clearly that difficulty is considerably greater if the person is in another jurisdiction than if he is resident in the territory of the State. The whole trend of thought is in favour of having reciprocal arrangements of that nature between countries where there is a regular movement for workers to employment. We must recognise that far more Irish people go for employment in Great Britain than English people come here. Consequently, any arrangements involving payment in respect of that employment in our territory will be more costly to the British authorities than to ourselves. Therefore, it will be necessary to satisfy them that arrangements can be made to keep that cost down to a proper minimum and particularly that there will be no lax administration on this side which might increase the cost to them. However, these matters will be discussed in relation to unemployment insurance during the present year and in relation to other aspects of social insurance schemes when the new Act is in force in Great Britain and the law here has been changed to empower the Government to enter into an arrangement of that kind.

I would like to ask a question. When is our unemployment benefit likely to be brought up to the British level?

That is a matter for consideration. The unemployment benefits are payable out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, which has been built up out of the contributions by work-people and employers. The British benefits are in many respects higher, but their contributions are also higher, particularly in the case of women and juveniles. It is a matter which can be considered, so long as it is appreciated that increased benefits out of our fund, having regard to the general incidence of unemployment here, would necessitate a substantial increase in contributions as well.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the Committee Stage now.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."

I wonder if it is possible to set out or give any indication of the sums referred to in sub-section (1) (b).

I think it will meet the point if we act as I indicated we intended to act, namely, to publish at the exchanges a schedule of the benefits payable and to make a leaflet available which claimants can take home and study.

I understand that. My point is that there is actually nothing guaranteed by statute.

Does the Senator understand that, in this regard, we are acting as agents for the British unemployment insurance authorities? We will pay the benefits which they prescribe and for which they make the money available. We know the rates of benefit applicable at the moment. If they want to change the rates of benefit presumably the new rates would apply here as in Great Britain, but I do not know that any such change is contemplated. The position is that we pay out of their funds the benefits which they make available.

Who decides a claim for benefit?

We decide the claim, but not the amount. If a person claims, a question may arise as to whether he is unemployed at all or not, or as to whether he is available for employment. That will be decided as if the person were claiming on the Irish fund. It will be decided by the unemployment officer, subject as usual to appeal to the court of referees and subject, on a legal issue, to appeal to the umpire. The claim will be dealt with as if it were on the Irish fund but, having decided in favour of the claimant, the payment will be at the British rates, we will recover the amount from the British fund.

Is there any need to defer a decision, say, in respect of additions for dependents, until it is known whether the British are prepared to admit the claim?

No. There will be no need to defer a decision on any such point as that. That will be decided here as if the person were claiming on the Irish fund. The only possibility of delay would be in ascertaining whether, in fact, the person had any claim on the British fund. He may not be qualified under the scheme at all, or he may have exhausted his current benefits in Great Britain before returning here. Therefore, there will have to be an inquiry to the British as to whether the claimant is in benefit or not, but after that it will be decided according to the Irish law.

Have we any indication as to the period of time elapsing between an inquiry on a claim here from Great Britain and the decision as to whether the claim is right or not?

I could not say that. An effort will be made to make it as short as possible, but I could not say how long it will take.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."

In regard to the period in which proceedings may be taken for the recovery of overpayments, how is this to be determined?

What we are doing is applying the existing law here to these payments. The same procedure will be followed, the same period will apply, and in every other respect a case will be dealt with as if it were our own law that we were administering.

I wonder if the Minister is perfectly satisfied that a person who receives benefit from the British fund illegally could be proceeded against as if he had received it from the Irish fund.

That is the purpose of Section 8 as regards the benefits and the purpose of Section 9 as regards overpayments. It is to adapt our law as regards the purpose of these overpayments.

Question put and agreed to.
Remaining sections and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.
Top
Share