Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Dec 1924

Vol. 9 No. 23

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL, 1924.—THIRD STAGE.

SECTION 1.

For the purpose of determining the amount of benefit to which, having regard to the proportion of benefit to contributions fixed by paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act, any person is entitled, but for no other purpose, no account shall be taken after the passing of this Act notwithstanding anything contained in the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1924, of any benefit which may have been received by such person during or in respect of the Third Benefit Year established by the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1924.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I move:—

Section 1.—In line 16, before the words "no account" to insert the letter "(a)"; in line 20 after the figures "1924" to insert the word "and," and to add a new paragraph at the end as follows:—

(b) during the Fourth Benefit Year each of the total number of contributions actually paid in respect of such persons since the 8th day of November, 1920, shall be treated as equivalent to three contributions or such lesser number of contributions (not being less than one) as the Minister may from time to time prescribe by regulations made for the purpose.

The great defect of the Bill is that while it provides an extension of benefits for contributors who have a fairly large number of contributions to their credit, it makes no provision for those who may have very few contributions to their credit. In other words, if a man now unemployed was insured prior to 1920, and, owing to the boom years of the war built up a big reserve of contributions to his credit, or, if he was in fairly constant employment since 1920, he would be entitled to nearly the maximum benefit allowed under the Bill up to the period of March next. On the other hand, a man who got very little employment since 1920, and who was unlucky enough not to have been in an insurable occupation prior to 1920, will have very little, if any, benefit to gain from the Bill. The object of the amendment is to remove this defect by multiplying every contribution by a maximum of three, or by a smaller figure, where multiplication by three would be excessive, having regard to the maximum period over which benefit could be drawn. I think the defect the amendment seeks to remove must be apparent.

It should be the object of the Bill to give the most relief to those requiring it. As it stands, the Bill will benefit those who have been lucky enough to be in fairly constant employment, while the man who was unlucky enough to have very little employment will gain practically nothing. The Minister will probably tell me that this is not the only measure the Government have adopted to deal with the unemployment problem, and that there are certain monies provided for works of reconstruction, and for the relief of unemployment. Even though monies are provided there is no guarantee that the class of people I seek to bring in under the Bill will be employed. It is quite possible that the man with a fairly large number of stamps to his credit will be employed, and that the man with no stamps to his credit, will be left unemployed. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)

Deputy Morrissey has explained that the effect of this amendment would be to multiply by three, and he based that on the contention that there are certain people whose contributions would not be revived to any great extent, and that he seeks to bring in. It must be remembered that the contributions have been multiplied already three times and over. I said on the Second Reading that we had almost got to the point when this was no longer an insurable measure; when it was almost uncovenanted benefit. We leave ourselves in the position that on no actuarial basis could it be made to appear a contributory scheme. It seems to me also that if I did accept the amendment, and by regulation, multiplied by one, I would leave the thing as it was. I could do by regulation what I do more openly in the Bill. The question of the extra money to which the Deputy has referred does come into consideration. If we are going to be forced to put an additional £150,000 on to the Unemployment Insurance Bill, it will be necessary to take that amount off some of the other money allocated for the relief of distress in the present benefit year. This amendment will multiply contributions to the point where it will not be possible to say that this is an insurable scheme, but will be uncovenanted benefit. I do not propose to discuss that now. The money will be swallowed up by the addition of this amendment, and would necessarily have to come off other monies already allocated for relief schemes. The more of these sums that are multiplied up the longer is there going to be for the payment back of these monies, and the longer is the burden of repayment going to be put on industry. One of the next things we would have to consider, after a Bill for unemployment, would be that, possibly, the Minister for Finance would have to have a Bill for the relief of industry, with regard to taxation.

Mr. GOOD

That is overdue.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister has explained that the provisions of this amendment are really taken out of the 1923 Act for which the Minister himself was responsible by law. It is not much satisfaction, of course, to the person who would be brought into benefit under this section, if it were accepted, to find himself excluded and to learn that we have kept within the scheme of insurance, or that people in Connemara are being supported out of the grant, or that some time in the future the fund would have to be made up out of taxation, so that there would be a longer period before the fund could be replenished. This may be all very true, but it does not give any satisfaction or food to the person who ought to be brought into insurance or, certainly, into benefit by this Bill. It is intended to meet the case of the most needy person, the longest unemployed, who has not had an opportunity of accumulating credit, and these are people, of course, who are the most needy.

After all, as I have said before, the fact that one is only one unit in a thousand, and that there are 999 suffering with that individual, does not make the hunger of that individual any less. I was hopeful that the Minister might be persuaded to bring into benefit these people who are the most needy of the unemployed persons, those who have been unemployed longest, and who happen to be living in districts where trade has been hardest hit. One would have thought that the first provision would have been made for them. To say that relief schemes are a foot and that if this is added relief schemes must fall short, should not in my opinion be put forward as an argument. If relief schemes are going to assist these people they will not go on the unemployment fund during the time they are employed, and if relief measures are not going to assist them the existence of such schemes does not bring food to their kitchen table. After all, that is the essential factor that is of moment to these people. Quite rightly, we must take into account all the circumstances, but the one big and overpowering factor affecting people who are hungry is hunger and the need for provision being made for them. This is an attempt, at least, to bring these people into the position, shall I say, to give value for wages when they get employment, otherwise you are going to have men and women too hungry, too debilitated, to give value for employment when it comes. On that account alone, it would be worth while bringing such persons into benefit.

Mr. HEWAT

I think Deputy Johnson, in putting forward this claim for people who are, as he says, most in need, rather ignores an aspect of the question which I would like to put before the Dáil. The trend of this legislation, which has been going on for some time, is, I think, to establish in the minds of the people that this sort of grant is going to continue in perpetuity. That, I think, would be a very harmful view for them to take. The Minister, I take it, is extending the provisions and, in fact, straining his insurance scheme to the point of bankruptcy in his anxiety to provide for the state of unemployment which we all know has existed in the country, but when you come to deal with people who are out of benefit, one has to examine the general trend of the case. May we not assume that people who have got employment, even periodically, are those people who are anxious to get employment, and the people who have not got employment, during the long period like that referred to, may be and very often are, people not too anxious to get employment at all. Of course, there may be specific cases where I would be wrong, but I say notwithstanding the unemployment—of course, the unemployment has been there and has been rather prolonged—the men who have really been anxious for work have during that time been able to get, if not constant, at least, intermittent work.

Mr. JOHNSON

This is not intended to affect these people.

Mr. HEWAT

As I understand it, this is to provide for cases where no stamps are available.

Mr. JOHNSON

Only where a few stamps are available, where work has not been constant, and where credits have not accumulated.

Mr. HEWAT

For how long?

Mr. JOHNSON

For four years.

Mr. HEWAT

For a period of four years the persons whom the Deputy is advocating should be continued in benefit, have got occasional spells of work.

Mr. JOHNSON

Their credits have run out more quickly than those who had greater luck.

Mr. HEWAT

At best I think that may be encouraging people, as the Deputy will agree, and may bring in cases where anxiety to work has not been as apparent as one would wish.

Mr. CORISH

It does not follow.

Mr. HEWAT

Looking at it from the general aspect of the case, Deputy Johnson asks that a further sum of money should be provided in this direction, but I think that the measure of the ability of the funds to bear any extra strain is certainly going to make it very difficult to carry on the funds on the basis of an insurance fund. I think the Minister has already put the fund to the maximum strain which it can bear, and to add anything more would only bring it to breaking point.

Mr. CORISH

I have listened with great attention to the statements made by Deputy Hewat. One of his statements was that the Minister is straining his insurance scheme to the point of bankruptcy. I think Deputy Hewat will realise that at the moment he is living in a very abnormal state of affairs. We have had very abnormal unemployment for the last three or four years and the necessity has, I think, been brought home to the Government to cater for this unemployment. In England and Northern Ireland there is what is called the dole system in its entirety, and I doubt very much if the contribution of the workers in those two areas is able to meet the strain placed on these insurance funds. The Minister has used a very peculiar argument.

He has said in reply to Deputy Morrissey that if there is to be a further extension of unemployment benefit it would be necessary to take the extra money out of the relief schemes. I do not think that is a fair way to put it. It would be all right for the Minister to use that argument if he were going to employ men who would not be entitled to any benefit. I take it that it will be laid down as a rule that in the event of local authorities putting up a scheme to get some of this relief money that the Minister for Local Government, or the Minister for Industry and Commerce, as the case may be, will insist that the men to be employed will be procured through the machinery of the Labour Exchange. If that is so, the Labour Exchange will only be able to control the supply of men in receipt of benefit, and with whom they have been in constant intercourse day after day.

If he is going to secure that people not entitled to benefit would be employed under the relief schemes, there would be something in his argument, but it would be almost impossible for the Labour Exchanges to get in touch with people who will not be entitled to benefit. In speaking on the Second Reading I suggested to the Minister that for these benefits this year he should have varied the terms of the Act with a view to bringing in what is called the dole system, in view of the fact that Christmas is included in the period. Everyone would like to see some sort of happiness in the home of the worker during that period. It is a time when people are expected to live properly, and I think even yet on the Report Stage the Minister might do something in this direction. I do not think it is too much to ask. On examination of the figures he will find that it will not cost too much to bring in the people Deputy Morrissey wishes to bring in by this amendment.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I often wished I was speaking from the opposition side, with no sense of responsibility. I have to set all the factors one against the other, and to arrive at what seems to be the most equitable course under the circumstances. If there was a policy that maintenance must be provided for everybody, and if there was money to carry out such a policy, then this Act would be criminally inequitable.

Mr. CORISH

Is there a desire?

Mr. JOHNSON

Where there is a will there is a way.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is not a matter of will; it is a case of whether there is money, and the way it is to be found. If there was a seriously considered view taken of the whole financial situation here, of the number of unemployed, and the way to get them employed, which is by increased trade, the realisation that every increase or additional burden put on unemployment insurance is a burden on the only source from which it can afterwards get employment benefit, then I think Deputies on the Labour Benches would not speak as they have done. Everybody with any humanity would wish that people should be kept in a decent way, but we are not in such an ideal situation that we can say that is a policy which can be carried out. It may be something to aim at. It is a humane idea, but we are up against hard facts, and the whole situation has to be looked at in the light of this information.

We have tried to set aside certain money which will have to be used in an unextravagant way, for you are putting men at a work which is not their normal occupation, and you have money set aside to keep people employed and to keep body and soul together, and give some chance for things to revive. Here is a proposition to multiply every contribution by three. Take the figures I gave on the Second Reading, and the effect of the Bill will be seen to be this, that it is to give 16 weeks benefit for 33,000 out of 50,000; that is, 66 per cent. of the whole, and of the remaining 17,000, 13,000 will have benefit for a period not less than 4½ weeks. That is below the average of what that remaining number will have. If you multiply as suggested here, it means that 33,000 applicants will receive full benefit this year, and carry something over to next year.

Mr. JOHNSON

What is suggested in the amendment will not carry them over.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The amendment, unless blocked by regulations, would carry something over to the next year.

Mr. JOHNSON

The amendment is not intended to carry them over.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The amendment will have to be looked at in the light of the section to which it is an amendment, and the fact that the Bill is, to a certain extent, an amendment of previous Acts. Contribution benefit not exhausted in any one benefit year is carried over to next year.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister agree to make it a maximum of 16 weeks?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That again is blocked by another financial consideration. I am speaking now of the amendment. It may be that Deputy Morrissey did not intend there should be any carry-over, but that is the effect of the amendment, and it is, in viewing it from that particular point of view I said the increased cost would be over £100,000, and the financial state of things would not allow it. That cannot be tolerated.

Mr. CORISH

That is the effect of this amendment?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes, I am speaking of the amendment as it ought to be interpreted, and not the amendment as interpreted by Deputy Morrissey. It is an amendment aiming to carry over benefit not blocked by any regulations which I have the power to make under this section. That is not a situation we can contemplate with equanimity, that by an amendment of this sort you are going to add over £100,000. It would be something less than that, taking the meaning Deputy Morrissey intended it to have, but it would add a considerable amount to it. It is said it is not fair for me to assert that any money absorbed in this way would have to come off relief schemes. That is a thing that has to be faced. It is an absolute necessity. It is a harsh thing to say, but where there is a limited sum of money what you absorb in some way will have to come off some other fund, and the fullest provision possible has been made to meet the situation between this and the early spring.

Mr. CORISH

Would it not be fair to say that the relief scheme will to a great extent relieve the unemployment fund?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If I thought that the moneys set apart for relief schemes were going to have the effect the Deputy suggests, I would not have extended this Bill at all. I believe it is going to take a considerable time for employment to start under these relief schemes.

Mr. CORISH

I hope not.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It will take at least four weeks before they get fully under way: Suppose it only takes the four weeks, that means four thousand of the total of unemployed will not have benefit to carry them over the waiting period until the work does start.

The other point has been made that you have no guarantee that the people aimed at in this amendment will be the people actually getting employment under any of the schemes. I do not say that can be absolutely guaranteed, but provision can be made that people who are in benefit should not be given work until those who are not in benefit are extended or absorbed on schemes. I do not know whether Deputies on the other side will consider that a good thing to do. It may be, and it is a thing that could be considered.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think it is worth considering.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

We could see if, by regulation, instruction or advice, that sort of thing could be done. Perhaps it might meet the situation in some way, but it does not give the guarantee the Deputies want. That involves a considerable sum of money, and that sum is not there to put up for this purpose.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I would like to inform the Minister that what he has said convinces me all the more that his scheme fails absolutely to meet the situation. When he tells us that the amendment would mean at least another £100,000, then we begin to get some idea of the number of people practically destitute and, perhaps, on the verge of starvation. The Minister says it is all a question of finance and the getting of money. I venture to suggest there are certain things the Government would make sure of getting money for if it were necessary. I want to emphasise that if we have thirty or thirty-three thousand people in this country, with their dependents, practically destitute and on the verge of starvation, then it is the duty of the Government to see that those people shall not die from starvation, although possibly the Minister may deny that.

I put it to him—he has, in fact, already admitted it—that there is a very large number of people at the moment in the country in a very bad way. It is the duty of the Minister and the Government to come to the relief of those people. It certainly is one of the responsibilities of the Government. That is the claim I make. When a particular Party is returned here and that Party forms a Government, taking upon itself the responsibility of running the country, it is its duty to see the people of the country shall not die of hunger. Deputy Hewat said the reason that the people whom this amendment is framed to relieve do not get employment is because they are not anxious to work. I wonder has Deputy Hewat any real idea of the number of unemployed in Ireland. What he has put forward might be very feasible in normal times; but does he not realise—if he does not he ought to—there is such a large number of unemployed in this country that no matter how anxious to work men are, they all cannot get work? That is the trouble.

Mr. HEWAT

I know so many cases in which men are not anxious to work that it makes me somewhat doubtful; but I would accept any figures that the Deputy can produce.

Mr. JOHNSON

This amendment is one way to ensure that they will not be paid where any work offers. This amendment ensures that.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I am not going to stand up and say there are not people in this country who would prefer to get money for being idle rather than to work. I am not going to say that for one moment; but I do suggest to the Deputy that there are hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of unemployed who would be very glad to get any sort of work.

Mr. HEWAT

I agree.

Mr. MORRISSEY

That is my point. They have tried, and are trying to get work, and are very anxious to work in order to support themselves and their families. When they have failed in their efforts to get work, it is the duty of the Government to come to their assistance.

Mr. HEWAT

If you could discriminate between the two classes, the problem would be much easier than it is at present.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Exactly. This amendment will not give any benefit to a man who has not some stamps on his card. It will authorise no benefit in those circumstances, and Deputy Hewat can be quite easy in his mind that the type of person he is afraid will get benefit if the amendment is accepted, will not get benefit. I put it to the Minister that whether it is by means of this Bill or otherwise, it is the duty of the Government—and a duty they cannot shirk—to provide sustenance for people who require it. I would impress upon him that he should try to frame some regulation, or issue some instructions, to provide that unemployed people who have no prospect of getting unemployment benefit should be the first to be relieved under this scheme. As far as we on these benches are concerned, we are quite satisfied to give all the assistance we can. The Minister said he would like to be sitting on those benches with no sense of responsibility. Let me tell him, and any others who may think with him, that we on these benches have a full sense of our responsibility, and it is because of the feeling of responsibility we have to the people we represent that this amendment is submitted. It is our responsibility to bring home to the Minister and his colleagues their responsibility with regard to unemployed people who cannot get any relief.

The Dáil adjourned at 6.40 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m., An Ceann Comhairle in the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think it is necessary to dispel a misunderstanding, of intention at least, if not of the purport of this amendment. It provides that during the fourth benefit year each of the total number of contributions paid shall be treated as equivalent to three, or such lesser number of contributions as the Minister may from time to time prescribe by regulations made for the purpose—for the purpose of doing something within the fourth benefit year. It was thought that that would have made it clear that the proposal in the amendment is not to go beyond the intentions in the Bill in respect to the fourth benefit year. I anticipate that we shall probably have to have another Bill before the end of the fourth benefit year, and, therefore, in the amendment it is only intended to cover the fourth benefit year in any case. However, the Minister suggests that the drafting will probably give credits beyond the fourth benefit year. In that case, if we can have the general intentions accepted by the Minister, we might find means of improving the drafting.

In respect to the general case that the Minister has made on the ground that the amendment would impose too great a charge upon the fund, inasmuch as it gives insured persons the possible maximum of 16 weeks, whereas their actual credits might only give them a maximum of, say, 5 weeks, I think that the claim is quite a reasonable one. But if the Minister is insisting that it is because of the amount that this would impose upon the fund, I would ask him to agree at least to ensure that unemployed persons would be entitled, shall I say, to benefit to the extent of three stamps for one, or not exceeding that, provided that instead of sixteen weeks ensured to such persons it shall be, say, ten out of the sixteen. We have, I think, particulars which would suggest that there have been nearly 10,000 persons who, in the previous benefit year, were only entitled to a maximum of three weeks' benefit. Unless we can show that employment has generally improved, there will be a fair proportion of those persons who will not have more than three weeks for the fourth benefit year, and for the rest of the sixteen weeks. That is, thirteen other weeks they will be in the position of unemployed persons without means. The fewer they are, the greater the improvement there may be in trade, the greater the effect that this relief fund expenditure will have, the less the chances are that these persons will have to fall upon the unemployment insurance.

But I submit that we ought to make the utmost possible provision for these people who have suffered the greatest on account of unemployment, people who during the last three years have not been able to accumulate reserves, against whom the troubled times and the industrial depression have worked the heaviest damage. Those are the people, at any rate, that should be brought into the position of receiving benefits under this scheme. If it is a question of the impossibility of meeting the requirements of the amendment, inasmuch as it, perhaps, goes a little bit beyond what the Minister thinks is possible, I would urge that he should meet the case to some degree more than it is met by the Bill in its original form. We must bear in mind that within this period of four years many young men have come into manhood. They were not employed regularly; the opportunities of regular employment have not offered. They have taken on short jobs here and there. They have had a few stamps to credit in one, two or three years, but have not been able to accumulate reserves of benefit.

These are the people that are going to be hit hardest and, unfortunately, they are the people who will be most liable to indiscreet action, to say nothing harder, because of their continual unemployment; they are the people who will suffer most in their ability to undertake useful employment effectively when it does offer. For all these considerations, I would urge the Minister to endeavour to meet the cases of these unfortunate people who have had a lesser share of employment since 1920 than the rest of the people.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy has made a case on a statement made by me when replying on the last day. That statement I have to correct, and I shall correct it in a moment. The Deputy is arguing that because the phrase "during the fourth benefit year" is used in this amendment, that that limits the whole effect of this multiplication to the benefit year that we are now in. It might limit the multiplication, but the multiplication will be a single act, which will take place within the fourth benefit year, and then the other clauses of the code generally will come on, providing that the unexhausted contributions in any one year will go into the next year. The words used in this amendment are "during the fourth benefit year." The effect is that here and now you do the multiplication. But the result of the multiplication flows over into the next benefit year.

It is quite clear now that Deputy Morrissey meant not merely to have the multiplication done here and now but to restrict the operation of his amendment to the fourth benefit year. In arguing against the Deputy previously, I said that the effect of his proposal, as put here, would be just as I have described it—that although the act of multiplying would take place now, the result would overflow into the next benefit year. I described that as involving a cost to the State of about £100,000. That was wrong. What Deputy Morrissey actually seeks to do would cost £100,000. What his amendment, as phrased, would do, would cost four times that amount. What his actual intention is—that is, not to have any carry-over beyond this benefit year— would cost £100,000. That was what I referred to when I spoke previously, and not to the amendment in extended operation, which he says he does not mean and which it is quite clear he did not mean.

It is then argued that the mere statement of that fact—that it would involve an extra payment of £100,000— shows how far short this measure falls of meeting the existing situation. That is one way of looking at it. You can argue that this £100,000 is a huge figure and that it shows how great the deficit is and how far the present measure falls short of meeting the existing situation. You can say that it is a pretty useless measure, in view of that. But that is a statement which would only be made by people who do not realise the enormous sums of money paid out yearly under the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Twenty thousand people drawing benefit continuously would cost the State, with administration expenses, a quarter of a million a quarter, or about £1,000,000 per annum. That is merely for twenty thousand people. When you look at this question in the light of that sum of £100,000, it does seem big, and it is a reasonable argument, superficially, to say that it means that a considerable number of people will be without benefit. But work it down to terms of people and weeks and it reveals the fact that, say, seven thousand people—to put it roughly—will be without benefit over a period of fourteen weeks. If we put it the other way, 14,000 people will be without benefit for seven weeks. Deputy Johnson has just spoken of 10,000 persons who came into the third benefit year, having three weeks' benefit or less, and said that consequently, even with this unamended proposal, these 10,000 people will only be put in benefit to the extent, at most, of three weeks. That, I think, is a wrong deduction from the figures I gave on Second Reading. I assume the Deputy is making that deduction.

Mr. JOHNSON

I agree that the figure may be too great, but I suggest that approximately it is right.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Not by any means. The Deputy spoke of 10,000. I hold that about 3,000 persons would have benefit accruing to them of three weeks or less. That is the estimate. If the Deputy will take the second series of figures given by me on Second Reading he will see that I stated that 6,000 claimants would be entitled, if this Bill became law, to from one day to 36 days' benefit—that is, from one day to six weeks. The real estimate, I think, would be about 2,000, but certainly not more than 3,000 will have benefit accruing to them only to the extent of three weeks. The other figures I gave are really the important figures in this connection. The effect of the Bill, as it stands, will be to provide 16 weeks' full benefit for from 20,000 to 33,000 people. I do not say that 33,000 people will begin to receive benefit after the passing of this Bill and go on automatically. Some of them will have received benefit up to the date of the passing of the Bill, but, looking at the fourth benefit year as a whole, 33,000 people will be entitled to 16 weeks' benefit. Of the remaining 17,000, 13,000 will be entitled to not less than 4½ weeks' benefit. That leaves 4,000 under the four and a half weeks' benefit mark.

The question of relief works has been brought in. The suggestion that has been thrown out regarding employment of non-benefit persons is one that we can meet by sending forward the names. That will meet the situation to a certain degree, but it will not be a definite guarantee that there will be no overlapping and that people without benefit will not be deprived of work to the advantage of people who actually have benefit. But we will attend to it as well as possible.

Deputy Morrissey referred rightly to my use of the word "responsible." I did use the word but I think the tone in which I used it showed that I was referring to a particular type of responsibility. Deputies on this side have to view a situation from many aspects. Deputies on the Labour Benches have only to view a question from one or two aspects. That was what I intended to suggest by the use of the word "responsible," and I had no intention of applying the term in the sense suggested.

Mr. JOHNSON

Has the Minister taken into account the people in many small towns and in many large towns where there will be no relief schemes, or the case of women for whom there has been no suggestion of relief schemes, as far as I know, who are going to be left with the possible four weeks out of 16 during which they will obtain unemployment benefit? They are left then for the balance of that period if they cannot get employment, helpless, drifting, waiting, and this is sharpening the iron in their souls against everything that appertains to the State. I wish the Minister would think in terms of the odd few rather than even the large numbers. I feel that you would get groups of people in the large towns or smaller towns who are away from the possibility of relief schemes, away from the possibility of employment developing rapidly under any schemes that may be brought forward and who are going to be left stranded during all these weeks, over this period, and this is a winter period during which they will certainly suffer more physically than they would in a summer period. I wish it were possible for the Minister to amend the Bill so as to include these people in some more benefit than they are getting under the Bill.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I would like to make one more appeal to the Minister to try to do something that would relieve the position of those people whom the Minister speaks of and who number roughly 4,000. I am prepared to accept the number as being right. I am sure it is right. But you have got to take into consideration those who are depending on the 4,000. The Minister makes a point about the 4,000. He might say the fewer the number the lesser the charge. I would put it to the Minister that after all those people have a right to expect that something should be done for them; especially, as Deputy Johnson, says, when we are in the midst of the winter period, and the Minister very well knows that this is going to be the hardest winter we have had even for the last three or four years, because owing to the failure of crops and other things there has been a very great increase in the cost of living, and a very great increase in the prices of the absolute necessaries of life, such as flour, bacon, milk, potatoes and other things.

Those people are certainly in a very wretched position, and they have nothing very promising to look forward to. The Minister has stressed the point as to what the amendment would mean if it were accepted, but if he is prepared to try to meet the case in any way I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. If he is prepared to look into the matter—I was going to say between now and the Report Stage, but the remaining stages are to be taken to-night—in some way, I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment. I think an effort ought to be made to meet the case.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is extremely difficult to make any promise of the sort. I did not set out to get the result, and I do not say the Bill will result, in seeing that everybody, without exception and without any possibility of exception, is going to be relieved by way of unemployment insurance. I think Deputies should realise without going into the figures what has been done. If the money that has been given under relief schemes and all the other things is totted up, and if the situation is looked at properly, it will be seen that a very definite and a very whole-hearted attempt has been made to meet the situation.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Agreed.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy speaks of 4,000. It comes down to something about that, possibly lower. It is a well-known fact that even with the 87,000 unemployed in the country, the army at present is under strength. There has not been a sufficient influx of recruits to get it up to strength. There are possibilities in other respects, but while I have very definite evidence of the seriousness of the situation in the country, still we have to face a fact like that, that there is employment going, and there are so many thousands unemployed, while the stream of recruits is not sufficient to bring the strength of the Army up to what it was arranged in some arbitrary way. That is a matter that has to be taken into consideration, that there are avenues of employment not yet availed of. And when Deputy Johnson talks of people that if they cannot beg or borrow must steal, you must remember that there is room in the Army for some thousands of men, and nobody can say that you have got to the point where the alternative is begging, borrowing, or stealing.

Mr. JOHNSON

But there is a physical standard and an age standard.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Standards which I understand have been lowered. Modifications have been made in these standards. There was a very high medical standard especially with regard to one point. That has been lowered to see if a greater number of recruits could be obtained. That has to be taken into consideration, and it is not fair to put up simply this, that do what these people can, there are 4,000 people who must starve if you do not make provision for them by way of unemployment insurance, that would mean an expenditure of £100,000.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Does the Minister realise that it is those who would be most suitable for the Army that are most likely to get employment?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

But not those who are most likely to be on the unemployment insurance fund. I do not think the Deputy's argument has any force with regard to this. This thing can be looked into, but I do not say at the moment that there is any likelihood of an amendment of the Bill so as to do what the Deputy sets out to do. Possibly there is an appreciation of the fact that certain people will not be met by this, and that will have to be met in some other way. That is not very consoling to those who want every one of those 4,000 people catered for, but it is the most that can be said with honesty or any belief that something can be done for them. I could not undertake to agree to the amendment itself or to any modification of it. The situation can be looked at, keeping in mind all the Deputy has said. It may be met in some other way, but no pledge can be given that it will be met.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Section 2 was agreed to.

SECTION 3.

(1) Every person enlisted in the military forces of Saorstát Eireann whose period of service terminated on or before the 29th day of June, 1924, not being a person to whom Section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1924, applies shall, subject to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1924, relating to the payment of Unemployment Benefit so far as they are not inconsistent with this section, be entitled to receive payments (in this Act referred to as "Special Benefit") at weekly or other prescribed periods during the Fourth Benefit Year, at such rates as are authorised by or under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1924, for persons entitled to Unemployment Benefit and Increased Benefit so long as the Statutory conditions specified in the Principal Act continue to be fulfilled and so long as he is a person who would not be disqualified under that Act to receive Unemployment Benefit.

Provided that proof of continuous unemployment prior to the date of the passing of this Act shall be accepted for the purpose of a claim to Special Benefit.

(2) For the purpose of qualifying any person to receive Special Benefit under this section, but for no other purpose, there shall be deemed to have been paid in respect of him into an Unemployment Fund (in this Act referred to as "The Special Unemployment Fund") such number of contributions as are sufficient to qualify him.

(3) No person shall receive more Special Benefit than in the proportion of one week's Special Benefit for every six contributions deemed to have been paid for him under the last preceding sub-section.

(4) No person shall receive Special Benefit for more than fourteen weeks in the Fourth Benefit Year or in respect of any period of less than one day.

(5) For the purposes of this section there shall be established, under the control and management of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as "the Minister") a fund called the Special Unemployment Fund into which shall be paid, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas such sum or sums as may be required for providing Special Benefit under this section and out of which Special Benefit shall be payable.

(6) Section 11 of the Principal Act and sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922, shall apply to all claims for Special Benefit and all questions which shall arise in connection with such claims and as to whether any person is a person to whom this section applies.

(7) The Minister may make rules providing for any matters incidental to the receipt of Special Benefit.

Mr. JOHNSON

I beg to move amendment No. 2:—

Before sub-section (7) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

This section shall apply to every person to whom sub-section (4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1924, applies to such extent as may be necessary to ensure that every such person shall receive not less by way of Unemployment Benefit, Increased Benefit and Special Benefit than he would be entitled to receive as Special Benefit if the said Section 4 had not applied to him.

As the section stands, it is possible for a person who was in insurance to be in a worse position than a person who is not in insurance—that is to say, a person who had been in the Army and was in insurance could be in a worse position during unemployment than his neighbour who was not in insurance but who was also in the Army. So far as this section is concerned between two unemployed persons, both of whom had been in the army, the man who had been insured and had made some provisions through insurance for the period of unemployment may be worse off than the man who had made no provision for himself in that respect. The object of the amendment is to endeavour to ensure that an unemployed ex-soldier shall not be allowed to be in a worse position by virtue of the fact that he had been previously insured. That seems to be an unassailable proposition unless you are going deliberately to penalise a man for having been insured. I would hope that it is not necessary to enlarge upon that, and I think the amendment does fulfil the intention, which is to bring the two classes of persons on to a level; that there should be no hardship applied to the ex-soldier because of the fact he had stamps to his credit or that he had been insured.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The effect of the amendment is to give every ex-National soldier, whether he was previously in an insurable occupation or not, the right to the maximum of 14 weeks, whereas the Bill confines that right of a maximum of 14 weeks to those who had not been previously in an insurable occupation. Deputy Johnson has but one way of looking at it, with the result maybe that a man who was in an insurable occupation may find himself with less weeks benefit to his credit than a man who had never been in an insurable occupation—that is to say, if you take over the fourth benefit year. He put it as an unassailable proposition that a man who had been in an insurable occupation should be at least as much entitled to insurable unemployment money as a man who never was in an insurable occupation. That is unassailable, but how we differ is as to what is the period over which that should be granted. The ex-National Army man who had been in insurable occupation had been drawing, if he needed it, unemployment money in two benefit years.

The ex-National Army man who had not been in insurable occupation has drawn no benefit up to this. The man who had not been previously in an insurable occupation, and had nothing to do, will get the maximum up to 14 weeks; the other man will get a multiple over him, or as much as three times whatever was due to him, not merely what was due in stamps, but under the special provisions for ex-soldiers that was originally established under the 1923 Act. Now, to the ex-service man previously in insurable occupation the average is received over 14 weeks, so that the ex-National Army man, who was not in insurable occupation and received no benefit up to date, is now having paid back to him in one lump, if you look at it, what the other ex-National Army man had paid to him, or is about to have paid to him, in three divisions, so that is not unfair at all. We are now giving a 14 weeks maximum to the ex-soldier who needs it most—those who got no benefit before.

Mr. JOHNSON

Surely that does not prove that he needs it most. The man may have been in first-class occupation before he joined the Army, and had no need to insure. He joins the Army service, and after a period comes out and comes into unemployment, or he might have been employed for a short time; he will not be in need nearly as much as the man who was in unemployment before he joined the Army.

Mr. CORISH

A man might be in an occupation, but might not have been in insurable employment, and he might have gone into the same occupation after he came out of the Army, and only became unemployed about a fortnight ago, and still he would draw the 14 weeks.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

All this chopping of argument would leave me without provision for ex-Army men insurable and uninsurable; there is no need to labour all this about the man in occupation and the man not.

Mr. JOHNSON

Do not talk about the greater need.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I talk about the greater need deliberately, and I define it in that particular way. Looking at the matter in lump, I find 30,000 men now out of the Army. Fifteen thousand previously had occupations that entitled them to insurance. Ten thousand applied for benefit and got it. The remaining 15,000, unless the Deputy on the other side would deduct a percentage of them, found employment as soon as they left the Army, but have lost their employment since. They are reduced to the position Deputy Johnson describes—that is, that if they do not beg or borrow they must steal; but we look at it so that they may not say that there are 15,000 men without any provision for them from the State by way of benefit. We say we will make it up to them now, and we give this maximum of 14 weeks. With regard to the others, we say what we have given under the terms of the 1923 Act we extend under the 1924 Act, and we are reviving now in the third benefit year the contribution they had firstly revived for them under the 1924 Act, and we say, looking at it broadly, that those who had not been in insurable occupations and are now coming on the Insurance Fund for the first time, deserve it, and some of them more, than people who got the same benefit previously.

Mr. JOHNSON

The difference between the Minister and myself amounts to this. He is placed in the possession of certain figures and looks at the matter in a broad way and draws certain deductions from his figures. I am thinking of two men living in some street in the same town or village. One working in the building trade, say, and was insured before he went into the army. The other was working in another occupation, a foundry, a farmer, or a shop porter, and had not been insured for many years. Perhaps he had followed the advice of some irresponsible members of the Sinn Fein organisation, which we had to try to counter in many ways, and he refused to be insured because he was told if he did so he would be bolstering the British Government in Ireland. However, for one reason or another, he was not insured, whereas his brother or neighbour living side by side with him was insured. They both went into the army and they come into unemployment benefit, and the one finds himself penalised because he was insured and the other finds himself benefited because he was not insured.

That is the way it strikes me, and that is the way it would appeal to these men. You can talk about how it works out broadly and on averages, but, unfortunately, the individual, the man who has a grievance, the man who feels himself penalised, does not think of averages at all; he is not thinking of the matter as it affects 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000 men; he is thinking about how it affects himself and his family, and you are going to create a great deal of dissatisfaction within the ranks of the ex-soldiers because of penalisation owing to the fact that a man was insured. The Minister makes the case that there was not any real penalisation, that the person who was not insured would have got the same benefit, or, if he did not get the benefit, the benefit was there, because of his insurance, and he ought to take that into account. Again, that is not going to meet the case, that you have gone out of your insurance scheme in respect of ex-soldiers; you have brought them into a special relationship to the unemployment fund, but you say to the ex-soldiers who prior to joining the Army were insured that they have to remain on the insurance basis, while their friends, their neighbours, who had not been insured, are to be treated in a special way; you are bringing them out of insurance; you are putting them on what is called the dole system of uncovenanted benefit for a period of fourteen weeks. Certainly that will strike many men as being an unfair discrimination against the man who was in an insurable occupation in favour of the man who was not in an insurable occupation, where they both joined the Army and find themselves unemployed at the same time.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy has been rather unfortunate in two statements of the touching episode to which he refers. I think he said one ex-soldier employed in the building trade——

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not mind; any insurable occupation.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It was an unfortunate choice, because the ex-National soldier who has been in the building trade would find himself, if he were out of employment, with a full sixteen weeks' benefit. Those who were in the building trade have had a big number of contributions to their credit.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is so, in a town where the Unemployment Act was generally recognised and adopted.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Let me take the other point. I think the Deputy referred to two men living in the same village. I do not know if he added "since they left the Army."

Mr. JOHNSON

Any time.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

But I would like him to add it for the purpose of my argument. A was not in an insurable occupation, and B. was, and up to this B. has had tremendous dissatisfaction because he has seen A. over a lengthy period since he left the Army drawing——

Mr. JOHNSON

No, they are both employed up to date; neither of them is unemployed.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is taking a particular case. Then I want to change it; I want to take two ex-National Army men, both unemployed since they left the Army, which is the more usual thing, and living in the same village, A. previously in an insurable occupation and B. not. B. has had a tremendous sense of dissatisfaction up to this, because A. has been drawing benefit for some number of weeks in each benefit year and he has not, and now the thing changes. Remember, A. is not deprived of benefit; he again has his contributions multiplied, whatever they may be. B. gets all the maximum of fourteen weeks. Now, if A. is to be dissatisfied that B., who heretofore has got nothing, is to get the full fourteen weeks in this benefit year, that is to be set-off against the dissatisfaction that B. had previously in seeing A. getting all these contributions and all these payments. Think what the insured soldier did get up to this. You require, first of all, for any ex-National Army man to get benefit that he must have had twenty contributions at any time, or ten since a particular date, and if that condition were fulfilled in the average number of cases, he would be entitled to twenty-four periods of benefit. That was revived under the 1924 Act, that in the fourth benefit year, whatever portion has been exceeded in the third is again being revived. The uninsured man up to date has had nothing; he is now put into full benefit for a maximum of fourteen weeks. I think the balance has been held fairly evenly between the two sets of this particular group of ex-National service men; the man who had an insurable occupation and who had some stamps to his credit has got them multiplied by three, has not merely got the stamps multiplied, but has got the stamps put to his credit——

Mr. CORISH

Would it be possible at all for an ex-National Army man who had been insured prior to his joining the Army to have the total of his benefit during the third and fourth benefit years less than fourteen weeks? That is to say, could he draw six weeks in each period? Would that be the position?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It would, yes.

Mr. CORISH

Would that not create a peculiar situation?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Let me state again that it is possible that the ex-soldier who had been in an insurable occupation will in this benefit year draw less than fourteen, or that in the two years, the third and fourth, it is possible. I have stated already that the number of weeks to which the average ex-service man would be entitled in the third and fourth benefit year is much higher than fourteen. But what the Deputy points out is possible, that either in the fourth benefit year, or in the third and fourth together, a man previously insured would have less insurance money to draw than a man who was not previously in an insurable occupation.

Mr. CORISH

Would the Minister say what proportion of ex-Army men would receive less—the total of the two years? I know it is not easy to say offhand, but would it be high?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is impossible now of course to give the Deputy any figures with regard to what the number would be.

Mr. CORISH

I quite understand that. I am wondering would it be high.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

But the minimum must be at least twelve weeks; the minimum that any ex-soldier, previously insured, would have in the two benefit years, the third and fourth, would be twelve. The average is over fourteen. If you look at it simply from the point of view of the angle of the fourth benefit year, or the angle of any previous payments a case can be made, an anomaly can be shown, that a man previously insured will get less money this particular year than a man not previously insured. But when you look at the average of the whole period since the two groups left the Army, the balance is definitely against the man who was not previously insured.

Mr. CORISH

Would the Minister admit that it would not cost so very much to put something into the Bill which would enable an Army man who has been insured to get fourteen weeks at least over the two benefit years, to put him on the same level as the other, and thereby get rid of confusion? If the average was twelve weeks for the two parties, the Government themselves would have a better case to answer arguments, and it would not cost them very much.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Government is not very much swayed by these little considerations.

Mr. CORISH

Only by by-elections.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

They are far away. I do not know that the person whom Deputy Corish wants to please would really make the calculation over the third and fourth benefit years. The man who will be dissatisfied will found his case for dissatisfaction on a legitimate grievance, on the fact that from the passing of this Bill he will get less than the man previously insured.

Mr. CORISH

If it were nothing else what I suggest would provide ordinary Deputies with an answer when they go down the country and are asked these questions. Ministers are here in their offices; I know that they have plenty to do; I am not complaining about that, but it would be very easy for a member of the Government Party, or any other Party, to put up a good case in support of the Government if the Government were to do something like what I have suggested. I submit that it would not cost very much.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think it is quite right that it would not cost us very much, but I do not think that that grievance is so big that it requires to be met. Take one other point. When is it expected that this Bill will be passed? When will payments begin to be made on foot of it? How many weeks will have to run before the end of the fourth benefit year? I do not think that there will be sufficient time to enable the ex-soldier not previously insured, coming under the operation of this clause, to get fourteen weeks. He will probably go down below the average of what the ex-National Army previously insured would have got over the third and fourth year.

Mr. CORISH

Could you not make the payments retrospective as you did in the other Bills? Otherwise, the Bill is all cant. I would ask the Minister to consider that suggestion as it would get away from a lot of confusion.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Is the Deputy serious in saying that the Bill does not mean anything; that it is all cant?

Mr. CORISH

There is a lot of it cant. If you promise to give 14 weeks and you have not sufficient time to give them 14 weeks——

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It depends on how quickly the Bill goes through. We are faced by a situation in which it would have been possible to give 14 weeks. I will promise to look into the matter as to the number of people it is going to affect. If it is considered necessary there may be a possibility of amending it in the Seanad, but I do not think there is much hope of that being done. The ex-soldier who had really a grievance is the ex-soldier who was not previously in an insurable occupation. He has now been met, as fully as anybody could meet him, in this fourth benefit year.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Professor THRIFT

On behalf of Major Cooper, I beg to move:—

Before sub-section 6 to add a new sub-section as follows:—

"Special Benefit under this section shall be payable to any persons demobilised from the military forces of Saorstát Eireann who reside outside the jurisdiction of the Saorstát under conditions to be prescribed by the Minister with the approval of the Minister for Finance."

I think the point was raised on the Second Reading, and I think it was rather stated by the Minister that he was prepared to consider it. I do not know that it really requires argument. It is obviously a case that might arise and it would appear certainly, as such, to deserve consideration.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not think that I gave any undertaking at all that this would be accepted and I do not think any words of mine could have led Deputy Bryan Cooper to think that it would be accepted. I did ask, on Second Reading, that certain arguments on certain points which might have been brought with regard to our attempts to secure reciprocity with regard to benefits, should be postponed and that either by a motion, or some night on the adjournment, that these points should be discussed. This is totally a new thing. The amendment says that "special benefit under this section shall be payable to any demobilised ex-service men who reside outside the jurisdiction of the Saorstát under conditions to be prescribed by the Minister with the approval of the Minister for Finance." Now, that is very far flung. I could imagine the cases of ex-National Army men who have emigrated to Australia——

Professor THRIFT

Permissive.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I may pay these people, and if I do set out to pay in one case, there is no logical reason why I should not pay all.

There are no definite conditions, just "conditions to be prescribed by the Minister with the approval of the Minister for Finance." That is to say, the principle is that we are being asked to provide out of the funds of the State, moneys to be paid to people who are outside our jurisdiction and outside our authority, to people who have, for some reason or other, taken themselves outside the area of our jurisdiction. I do not think it is a reasonable proposition, and I do not think it is a reasonable proposition to be put up in this vague way. We have, under the previous Acts, power to enter into arrangements with regard to reciprocity—if that is what the Deputy was talking about, as I think it was, when he referred to what I said on the Second Reading— but this is entirely a novel principle and I do not think it could be accepted.

Professor THRIFT

I did not mean to imply that the Minister pledged himself to accept the principle of this amendment, but my recollection was that he was inclined to consider it. I must say the case that occurred to my mind when I read the amendment was something of this kind, that there might have been serving in the forces of the Free State certain people who would wish to have been citizens of the Free State. I may say frankly I can imagine the case of people who have come from quite close to the Border, who enlisted in the forces of the Free State, and afterwards either because they could not get employment in the Free State or for other reasons, may have gone to the other side. I can quite imagine many cases of a special kind like that in which the Minister would consider that these people deserve well of the Free State; having served in the Free State forces but not being able to find employment in the Free State, they have gone beyond the borders of the Free State. I think the far-flung case which the Minister has cited is outside the range of probability. I do not think a person in Australia would be likely to claim benefit. I have done my part if I have got the Minister even to consider the matter.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Between this and the Report Stage to-night?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON

I beg to move:—

To insert a new sub-section before Section 4, as follows:—

In any case where the Minister is satisfied that a claimant for benefit has suffered exceptional unemployment and that his opportunities for securing employment have been exceptionally restricted by reason of destruction of property to which the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, applies, the Minister may authorise the payment of Unemployment Benefit and Increased Benefit to the claimant, without regard to the number of contributions paid in respect of him, up to the maximum period for which benefit is payable under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1924.

This is to give the Minister a certain discretion to provide benefit, regardless of contributions—that is, uncovenanted benefits, in special cases, but subject to the ordinary conditions in other respects. It is intended to apply to cases like Balbriggan or Mallow where there was great damage done which threw a great many people out of employment owing to burning of factories, and where there has been no possibility of getting employment by the people who were disemployed owing to those acts. An attempt has been made to bring in a definition by using the Compensation Act of 1923 so as to give the Minister something to go upon in defining the particular kind of cases referred to.

The case is important as affecting a comparatively small number of people. It deals with exceptional unemployment, and it provides that the Minister has an opportunity to meet the case of men and women, and particularly of women, in those places where, owing to extraordinary circumstances, unemployment has been chronic since the year of the destruction, and where they had no opportunity to develop credits because of that destruction. The particular cases are left to the discretion of the Minister, and while I admit that the phraseology, perhaps, makes it a little bit difficult to understand without reference to the various Acts referred to, I think it is fairly safe in defining the kind of case that it is proposed to deal with. There are one or two hundred people affected, and a fair proportion of those have not had an opportunity of employment since the time of the destruction. It is hoped that the Minister will accept this extra power to use his discretion in respect of special benefits in the cases I have mentioned. I expect the Minister to accept the amendment and earn the gratitude of quite a number of people who have had a long period of suffering in an extraordinary situation unparalleled in the general problem of unemployment in the country.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This would put on me the obligation of considering every case where a claim might be made and not in the two hundred cases Deputy Johnson has decided should make a claim. Every claimant might come along and urge destruction of property. It might not necessarily be in the town where the property was destroyed. The destruction of property in one town might have a repercussion on that trade generally all over Ireland, and I would have to find out in each case whether I was satisfied that exceptional unemployment had arisen and whether the opportunities for employment had been restricted. You would require a staff of judges to work that out.

Mr. JOHNSON

We would give you a voluntary staff.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

A voluntary staff might involve me in more payments than the fees of a judicial staff. It would be quite impossible to carry this out through the medium of the ordinary exchanges. Referees and umpires could not tackle this task, and it would be quite impossible to carry it out without heavy administrative expenses. If one had an assurance that the application would be restricted to the two hundred it would be a different thing. I do not think that the example the Deputy took, that of Balbriggan, is a good one. Supposing there were only 200 claimants whose claims were to be examined and it was restricted to them it would be all right, but the Deputy knows that if this were passed everyone would be able to make a claim and show a case that unemployment was due to an exceptional situation which was due to the destruction of property. It is owing to the impossibility of getting speedy decisions and anything approaching to justice and owing to the administrative cost that would be entailed that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister would have access to the employer, and he would know quite easily from him if the employment was caused by the destruction of that particular factory. I think there is machinery easily adaptable in this scheme of Unemployment Insurance to show if the claim was due to the place having been destroyed. I do not think it is beyond the point of reasonable practicability of administering the proposals in such a way as to limit it to the claims of those persons who suffer unemployment directly from the destruction of property, and whose chances of re-employment have been nil because of that destruction. I think if the Minister would agree to the proposition, that the direct unemployment arose from the destruction of the late employers' property, he would find the number of cases comparatively small.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Let me take it on the example the Deputy brought forward, Balbriggan. It is a fact that all hosiery places are at present depressed. There is great depression in that trade. Possibly it would be easy enough to find out from the owner of the destroyed Balbriggan premises what proportion of unemployment was caused immediately after it by the destruction, but it would be very hard to estimate now what proportion of the Balbriggan workers—even if the place was still going—would be thrown out of employment by reason of the depression that is common to the hosiery business at the moment. If I had to discriminate on that point, I am afraid the gratitude I would earn from those who would get some benefit under this Bill would be completely outweighed by the criticism of those I would have to judge as suffering simply from ordinary trade depression. It is entirely unworkable, and putting the cause down as directly to destruction of a building would not be any great help. Certainly, it would by no means justify me in the minds of those precluded from getting special benefit under the section.

Amendment put, and declared lost.

Question—"That Section 4 stand part of the Bill"—put, and agreed to.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Question—"That Section 5 stand part of the Bill"—put, and agreed to.

The Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.