Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 4 May 1928

Vol. 23 No. 9

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 60—UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £150,726 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929. chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Arachais Díomhaointis agus Malartán Fostuíochta, maraon le síntiúisí do Chiste an Díomhaointis.

That a sum not exceeding £150,726 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Unemployment Insurance and Employment Exchanges, including contributions to the Unemployment Fund.

There is nothing new in this Vote. It is the Vote we have been passing from year to year. The items are set out in an explanatory note. Of course, the money required for the payment of benefits under the Act is derived from three sources. We have the Government contribution and the employers' and workers' contributions. The contribution of the State is fixed. It will vary in the proportion of about one-third of the joint contribution of the employer and the worker. From the questions that have been asked during the year it is evident that some Deputies are interested in the question or think that the applicants for benefit under the Act have been, some of them, harshly treated. It is well for Deputies and workers to understand that several appeals can be taken from a decision refusing an application for unemployment benefit. If an appeal is turned down in the first instance the matter then goes to the chief insurance officer, then to the Court of Referees, then to an umpire, and finally to the Minister for his decision. No injustice is done to the worker, and I think that in every case brought forward during the year it was evident that the worker got every fair play.

I would like to ask for some information in connection with this Vote. It appears to me that the reduction under sub-head G—State contribution to the Unemployment Fund—which I understand is based on the amount received from the sale of stamps, shows a reduction. Does that indicate that the Minister anticipates that during the coming year there will be a reduction in the number of people in insurable employment? We have found it difficult to get accurate information concerning the progress made in increasing the number of employed persons, and this figure would appear to indicate that the Ministry anticipate that the number of employed will be decreased during the year. The same conclusion would be arrived at from the reduction under sub-head J— Appropriations-in-Aid. I understand the Government are entitled to take an amount equal to one-tenth of the contributions received for the purpose of defraying expenses. Again, it would appear that the contributions that would be received from the sale of stamps would be reduced during the coming year. I understand also that the amount which the Government is entitled to take as an Appropriation-in-Aid is to meet the working expenses of the Act. The amount mentioned here—£112,000—exceeds by £9,000 the total estimated expenses under the Act during the year. I would be very glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain first of all if it is anticipated that the number of people in insured occupations will be reduced during the year, and, if so, for what reason that reduced Estimate is put in; secondly, why it is intended to take as an Appropriation-in-Aid from the Fund a sum exceeding by £9,000 the total estimated expenditure for the administration of the Act.

There are a few points I would like to raise on this Vote and they are mainly ones that were raised before. Last year, I asked the Minister to look into, and see if he could change, the forms that are sent out to applicants for unemployment benefit. What usually happens when a person makes application for unemployment benefit is that after some time he receives a form stating that his claim has been disallowed under Section 8 (4), or something like that. The applicant does not know anything about Section 8 (4) or whatever the Section of the Act may be, and does not know why his claim has been disallowed. I would suggest that the Minister might get a form which would be more explanatory.

With regard to the question of registration, which was dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary, he was quite right when he said that persons living a long distance from the nearest branch unemployment exchange need not attend every week, or every day, to sign the form but they have to attend to register and make their claim and, in many parts of the country, they have to travel from ten to twenty miles. I think that some change should be made in order to obviate what is an undoubted hardship on those applying for unemployment benefit. In passing I might also say that it has been brought to my notice recently that there is very great delay in many cases in coming to a decision on claims. I had a case last week where a person applied for unemployment benefit and heard nothing further about the matter for two months. He then received 2/6 and had to make a fresh claim, of which he heard nothing up to last week. He may have heard about it since but it seems to me that there cannot be any good reason for a delay of two months. It is certainly a great hardship on a man who is unemployed, with stamps to his credit, and who makes an application, to have to try to exist for two months without benefit.

The main point I want to deal with, and it has been dealt with very often here before, is that of disallowing benefit on the grounds that the applicant is not unemployed, in other words that he has land. Of course, I know that the Minister denies absolutely that this is general, but we claim that it is general, and I can give, I think, dozens of cases in my own constituency. I will just give one case as an illustration. A man with four acres of poor land, who worked all last summer and part of the autumn with the North Tipperary County Council, made an application when the employment ceased. It was refused on the ground that he was not unemployed; in other words that he could get employment. It must be remembered that this was in the month of December. I would like the Minister to explain what employment a man could find on four acres of rather poor land in that month. If it were this time of the year it might be argued that the man was not unemployed—that he would have work to do for himself— but surely that argument could not hold in the month of December. That is one case, and it is typical of very many others. There is very great dissatisfaction in that respect with the administration of this Department, and while I would not for a moment argue that such men should be exempt from paying towards unemployment benefit if they were in insurable employment, because I can see the dangers of that, still I hold that if they are compelled to pay they ought to be entitled to the benefit when they can prove that they are unemployed. These are the principal grievances so far as the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Fund is concerned. I think it is not an exaggeration to say that there are probably thousands of such cases in the country.

It is not an exaggeration; it is a complete misstatement.

That is the Minister's view. If the Minister were coming into contact daily with these people, or coming into contact with cases where a claim was disallowed because the applicant had four acres or two acres, even whether the number would be 200 or 2,000, the hardship remains, and we are asking the Minister to remove that hardship. My contention is that, if a person contributes while in insurable employment he is, when disemployed, entitled to get the unemployment benefit. I would like, if it were possible, that the Parliamentary Secretary would give us information setting out how many persons over fifty years of age, and how many persons over sixty years of age, have applied for refunds. The Parliamentary Secretary may not be able to give that information offhand, and if not I suppose I can get it afterwards by means of a question. I would like the Minister to deal with the question of the disallowance of claims on the ground that the applicants have land.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how the conversations or negotiations that were entered into with the British and the Northern Governments regarding reciprocity are going on? The Minister is no doubt, aware that many Irishmen are being discharged from British-registered ships, and that there are many workers on the Border who have stamps to their credit but who cannot get payment because an agreement has not been arrived at between the three Governments. Some time ago this matter was raised here, and we were told that there were difficulties in the way, that the Northern and the British Governments could not come to any agreement with our Government. There are very many hardships as a result. I would go so far as to say that there are many thousands in the Free State who have large numbers of stamps to their credit who are unemployed and who cannot get any benefits out of this Act, although they have paid for them. These men were principally the crews of ships, and men who have been working across the Border. I am sure that many Deputies got complaints some time ago from the Belleek pottery workers and other workers in that district regarding men who lived just on our side and worked just across the Border, and the reverse case—men who worked on our side and who lived just across the Border. These people have been deprived of benefit for many years. I would like to know whether further conversations will be held with representatives of the two Governments with a view to removing the hardship in the case of these men.

Deputy Morrissey mentioned the case of people who, while in employment, paid for stamps, and who, when unemployed, cannot get any benefit. The number of these people is far greater even than Deputy Morrissey has stated. The Parliamentary Secretary is probably aware that in his own constituency these people number several hundreds, and in the neighbouring constituency of Roscommon there are also hundreds. In the Arigna mines practically every miner is affected by this position, and it affects all the road workers in the rural areas. I would like to know—perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give us the information now—the number of people who have been refused benefit on those grounds in the Sligo Labour Exchange during the last twelve months. He will find that the number of these people in Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon alone practically comes to a thousand. When Deputy Morrissey said that the number affected runs into thousands in the whole country he was not exaggerating at all, because in the West of Ireland alone I think that the number would be at least a thousand.

I wish to join with Deputy Morrissey and Deputy O'Dowd in pointing out the hardship this matter inflicts on many people. I have before me a pitiable letter from my own county written by a road worker who is really very badly off. He tells me that he has seventy-eight stamps in his book. He had been working for the county council for a considerable time, but he happened to own a small amount of land which is absolutely useless to him. He has no stock but a couple of goats, and for some time he was in receipt of home help. He tells me that although he has this number of stamps on his book he is unable to get anything. Why are such men made to pay towards unemployment insurance at all? If they are deprived of the benefits they should not be asked to pay.

I think that when Deputies criticise this Estimate they should remember that the Minister is very tightly bound down by statute in the administration of these particular moneys. The whole administration of this fund is controlled by a statute enacted in 1920. In common with Deputy Lemass, when I first looked at this Vote and saw that it was being reduced for the coming year I formed the opinion that some hardship was likely to result to the unemployed. But if Deputy Lemass will look at it again he will see that the reduction does not actually mean an actual reduction of this grant.

What does it mean?

It means a tendency to reduce the number of unemployed. I had a very long argument with the officials on this particular point, and I was very obtuse—I frankly make the admission.

I thought that the Vote meant what Deputy Lemass has suggested, but it was proved conclusively to me that it actually meant the reverse. It was pointed out to me that a greater amount of unemployment means that the grant must be actually greater. If the grant is reduced it means that the number of unemployed is automatically reduced.

Wipe out the grant altogether and you wipe out unemployment.

For 1924-5 the State contribution to this fund amounted to £244,000; for 1925-6 it was £221,000, and for 1926-7 £222,000. On this question of the reduction of the grant I might point out that a vast improvement in unemployment might take place, and might not be reflected in the Vote. I can only explain my meaning by suggesting—as I am sure Deputy Lemass has heard from our platforms very frequently—that by the new tariffs 10,000 extra hands were employed. Out of this 10,000 there are quite a number of hands who do not come within the ambit of this Act at all. A number of juveniles under 16 obtained employment in the various tobacco factories, jam factories, sweet factories and clothing factories, and none of this extra employment is reflected in this Vote. I think Deputy Lemass is fair, and I point these things out to him to show that this Vote is really a very ridiculous thing to base any argument on. You can scarcely form any conclusion either from the increase or the diminution of it, but I suggest that it really means a reduction in unemployment rather than the point of view that Deputy Lemass has taken.

I am also interested, like Deputy Morrissey, in the small holders of land. I am quite sure that Deputy Morrissey knows more about the difficulty of the problem than I do. He has far greater experience of it. But I think that he will admit it is exceedingly difficult to deal with. Two factors enter into it by which the Minister is undoubtedly bound: (1) they must be unemployed; (2) they must be unable to find suitable employment. The Minister is rigidly bound by these stipulations and has no liberty of action. If they exist, the unfortunate person must abide by the result according to the statute. I would point out that the real question that should be put to the Minister is: did these people receive sympathetic treatment? Information I have obtained shows that undoubtedly this particular class of people has been sympathetically treated, so far as the powers of the Minister went. I have been informed that in 75 per cent. of the cases claims for unemployment have been paid to small holders. In 1926-7 the claims numbered 2,595; the claims allowed numbered 1,820; and the claims disallowed, 775. That did not finish it, as the question of appeal arises. The number of appeals was 378, of which 198 were allowed and only 179 disallowed. So that I respectfully suggest to Deputy Morrissey that as far as the Minister is concerned he has done everything in his power to help the people affected by this particular part of the question.

Like Deputy A. Byrne I have raised the question of reciprocity time and again, and I have been worrying the Minister so much that I have almost become a nuisance to the staff. This is one of the most difficult aspects of the question that remains to be dealt with. How it can be dealt with I do not know, but I suggest that some consideration should be given to the Minister for the part he has played and the restricted power that he has to deal with it. Deputy A. Byrne knows as well as I do that the British Government was approached for a financial adjustment of this question as to migrant workers. At first they agreed to the suggestion, but when they found out what it really meant, and that we were going to get a good thing out of the agreement they refused on second thoughts. They saw that the number of Irish migrants to Great Britain was exceedingly large. I have lived in England and I can vouch for the truth of that. On the other hand, the number of migrants from Great Britain to the Free State is almost negligible, so that this is really an aspect of the question which the Minister has no power to deal with. Of course the criticism has been exceedingly reasonable, but I suggest to Deputies that they should bear in mind the restricted liberty which the Minister enjoys and the restricted power at his disposal for the administration of the Act.

I hope the Minister is satisfied with the explanation of Deputy Byrne as to some of the matters raised, when he tells us, for instance, that because the contribution to the unemployment fund is reduced it means a reduction in the number of unemployed. I wonder did the Deputy ever think of such people exhausting their right to benefit which would be a cause for the reduction in the Government contribution? He also reminded Deputy Lemass about the number of juveniles employed in the factories. I wonder did he ever consider that juveniles are not registered on the unemployment list for benefit?

I suggested that that is why the Vote was a very unreliable index as to the actual state of unemployment.

Mr. HOGAN

There is also the fact that a number of people of 16, 17 and 18 years of age were never employed and never registered. Does the Deputy think of these? Now I come to the main criticism I have to make of this Vote. We are accustomed to the Minister telling us that he cannot find the true index to the number of unemployed because the people do not register. He asks why the people do not put their names on the list. I suggest that there are a good many reasons for them not registering, and I will give him one from my own county. In Co. Clare there are three Exchanges. From Whitegate the nearest Exchange is at Limerick or Ennis, both of which are 30 miles away. Between Whitegate and Ennis there are such towns as Scariff and Tulla, one of which is 18 miles away and the other 12. Yet the Minister tells us that he cannot find any reason why people do not register! He wants them to walk 30 miles from Whitegate to Limerick or Ennis in order to register.

They should use the Post Office.

Mr. HOGAN

Does the Minister deny that people have to attend at the Exchange in the first instance in order to register?

They can send letters.

Mr. HOGAN

I want an unequivocal answer. Does he deny that these people have to attend at the Exchange in the first instance in order to register?

People who are 30 miles away have no necessity to do that.

Mr. HOGAN

Then people who are 18 miles away?

Certainly not.

Mr. HOGAN

It is a wonder that that information is not more generally known.

I gave it out here a dozen times.

Mr. HOGAN

I never heard it until now.

The Deputy should have been attending, and should have conveyed it to his constituents.

Mr. HOGAN

I have attended.

I mean attended to what I said.

Mr. HOGAN

I invariably try to attend to what the Minister says. There is no good in trying to get out of the position in that way. People have come to me who have been told by the officials that they have to attend at the Exchange to register in the first instance, and that subsequently they can send in the necessary forms.

People can——

Let the Minister stand up and make a statement.

Mr. HOGAN

I will give way to the Minister.

People outside a six-mile radius have not to attend.

Has that information been conveyed to the officials?

The officials in the Exchanges know that outside a six-mile radius people need not attend at the Exchange.

It appears that they do not know.

Is that to be taken as evidence against me and against what I said? Surely I am entitled to as much credence as the Deputy?

Mr. HOGAN

I am not asking the Minister to take what I say. I have been told by people who have had to go thirty miles to attend. It is no use in pretending now that there is not a complete register of the unemployed because people have to walk twenty or thirty miles to register. We never had any statement to the contrary explicitly made until now.

I am also anxious about the class of people to whom Deputy Morrissey referred who have patches of land and who work for the county councils. There are a great number of those people in my constituency. They register and their contribution for unemployment is stopped. They have perhaps three or four acres of mountain; they have been working for the county council which is their principal means of occupation for ten or fourteen years past. Yet they are told that they do not come under the terms of certain provisions of the Unemployment Act. There is no consideration for them. They are sent to the court of referees which means that they are taken from parts of my county down to Limerick and have to pay their expenses. The matter is going on eternally and it is nearly time that the Minister should make some regulation as to what the position of these people is, and as to what amount of land or income they must have in order to show that they do not come under the provisions of the Unemployment Act.

I suggested before to the Minister that he should consider the advisability of allowing the court of referees to do something like circuit work and to travel from one county to another instead of bringing people from the farthest part of the County Clare— Ballyvaughan—to Limerick and putting them to very considerable expense and inconvenience and then getting no return either in the form of benefit or recompense for the expense they incurred. I should like that the Minister would give some explanation on all these matters, and some assurance that he is prepared to consider any suggestions made to him on these lines.

I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister the position of workers who go to England, and, having worked there for a year, come back, and when they make their claim for unemployment benefit find that it is denied them. I have one or two specific cases in mind. A worker in the building trade was placed on the unemployment list here; he then migrated to England and was awarded 152 days' benefit, but, as I pointed out here before, instead of staying at home and drawing that benefit week by week until the total benefit allowed was exhausted, he went to England and worked for six months, was then disemployed and came home. I am sure the Minister will agree that these workers should, at least, be entitled to the benefit granted to them previous to going to England. It seems that according to the Unemployment Act they must have twelve additional stamps upon their cards before they receive the benefit they were granted. I could give specific instances of cases of hardship as far as these particular workers are concerned.

I hold, no matter what difficulties are in the way, that in the matter of Great Britain or Northern Ireland and the Free State there should be reciprocal arrangements between the three Governments. Reciprocal arrangements have been secured as far as the professional classes are concerned. The dentists, the medical profession and the legal profession have reciprocal arrangements. It seems to me there is no question of partition as far as they are concerned, and the same applies on the question of income tax. I cannot see why there could not be some arrangements made whereby the workers who migrate to England, and are compelled to pay unemployment insurance there, should get benefit when they return to the Free State. There are very great hardships, as I have already said, as regards the building workers, because there are numbers of them in the County of Louth who have been amalgamated with the R.U.B.T.W. of Great Britain. The fact that the unemployment benefit is denied to these workers also means that they are denied what is called the Friendly Society benefit rates. So that it is a double grievance so far as these particular workers are concerned. I would like if the Minister could give this aspect of the situation very grave attention in the near future. Deputy J.J. Byrne, I think it was, seemed to try to convey to the House the idea that the numbers unemployed are less this year simply because the Estimate is reduced, but, as Deputy Hogan very truly remarked, there are large numbers of people unemployed who refuse to go to the Labour Exchanges for the simple reason that it is no use to do so. Their benefits had been exhausted during the slack time. These are not taken into account. I would be very glad if unemployment had declined, but, so far as I can see, I believe this country has not seen rock-bottom as far as unemployment is concerned. I do not mind what people may say at Clery's Restaurant and in public hotels in the city to the effect that there is a good time ahead. I believe that unemployment is going to increase. I only hope that some serious step will be taken to deal with the many points brought before the Minister in connection with the worker and the Unemployment Insurance Act. Candidly and honestly I say I wish we were not discussing this question of unemployment at all and that we could get rid of it. But as long as it is there, and as long as the workers have to contribute to unemployment insurance, I think the least that should be done is to give them the benefit to which they are entitled. I hope and trust the Minister will do something in connection with those workers who have migrated to England and Northern Ireland and have to contribute under the Unemployment Act in these countries, but are denied the benefit here in Saorstát Eireann when they come back.

I wish to join with other Deputies in their remarks in regard to the migratory labour problem. My constituency is very largely affected, and it is extremely important that the Minister should do something immediately to alleviate the difficulty there. There are about 6,000 migratory labourers in South Mayo. I do not know the numbers of North Mayo, but there the problem is very serious also, and requires immediate attention. The people in my district are nearly all very poor, and depend largely on what they earn by migrating to England and Scotland. They suffer very much from the fact that they are not in a position to claim or receive unemployment benefit due to them in respect of payments contributed while out of the country.

There are just a few matters to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister in connection with unemployment insurance. A number of workers employed in woollen mills and saw mills find themselves in a very serious position. They work, say, for a period of six weeks and become unemployed in the seventh week. They make their claim at the local Exchange office, and have to give a six days' waiting notice before they receive any benefit. Then they resume work again for a couple of weeks. Their second period of employment may extend over a continuous period of seven weeks. They become unemployed in the eighth week, and have to give a six days' waiting notice again before they can receive any unemployment benefit. That is a great hardship on these workers. As these people do not work at anything except in the mills I would urge that they should be regarded as being in continuous employment. I do not think a break of a couple of weeks should be used to deprive them of unemployment benefit. The people only engage in mill work. I think the two periods I referred to should be regarded, for unemployment benefit purposes, as a continuous period.

It is anticipated that at the end of this year a big number of men will be leaving the National Army. I would like to know what provision the Minister proposes to make for these men. As they will have no stamps to their credit they will be unable to get credit. Under the Act of 1924 no person can get benefit unless he has had twelve weeks' work in the year with a corresponding number of stamps. The Act provides that these men, leaving the National Army, will not be entitled to any benefit. That means that, at the end of the year, we will have thousands of men thrown on the labour market and joining the ranks of the unemployed. There will be no work for them. I hope the Minister will be able to do something for men leaving the National Army who find it impossible to get work.

Deputy Lemass raised a point in connection with the figures in the Vote. The figures are affected in two ways. One is that a refund was received during the last financial year by way of an adjustment arrived at with the British Government for closing the funds and in connection with former payments which had been made. When we introduced our Supplementary Estimate in February last we dealt with the figures then disclosed for actual expenditure. The original figure for 1926-27 was an estimate, but when we came to the Supplementary Estimate we were able to deal with the actual expenditure. That necessitated the adjustment referred to by Deputy Lemass. We had savings under the following sub-heads: sub-head A, £12,000; sub-head B, £250; sub-head C, £150; sub-head E, £100; and sub-head F, £40. Under Appropriations-in-Aid the saving was £11,650. That arose in the final adjustment of the accounts as disclosed on the actual basis of expenditure and receipts, and last year was abnormal to that extent.

Deputy Morrissey raised a point in connection with delay in dealing with certain cases. I am sure the Deputy knows that there has been delay only in very few cases. The percentage of delay is very small. In looking over the figures for the year, I find that 98 per cent. of the cases were dealt with on the spot by the local branch managers. In only about 2 per cent. of the cases was there delay. Wherever there has been delay it was caused by some irregularity in the claim. That, naturally, had to be inquired into. Generally speaking, the administration of the funds in that respect does not necessitate any serious delay or inconvenience.

Might I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that I did not suggest there was any widespread delay, but only in certain cases?

In certain cases. I would be glad if the Deputy brought to my notice any particular case of hardship that has come to his notice, and I will have it inquired into. As to the question of registering at the different exchanges, I think the procedure in regard to that has now been made pretty clear. Deputy Morrissey and, I think, Deputy Hogan, referred to it. It is not now necessary for a worker to attend personally to register if he lives over six miles from the nearest employment exchange.

Several Deputies dealt with the question known as reciprocity, and about the endeavours that we have made to have reciprocal arrangements made with the Northern Government and the British Government in connection with our insured workers. I refer Deputies to the position as disclosed in the answer given by the Minister on the 19th December, 1924. We exhausted every means, by negotiations and suggestions on our part, to obtain reciprocity, but we failed. It was admitted by all parties in the Saorstát that we, on our part, had done everything possible to secure it, and that we had gone as far as it was possible for us to go. The reason why reciprocity could not be obtained was because of the decision of the other Governments not to agree to a working arrangement. The present position is that if one of our nationals is working in England or in Northern Ireland he has to have his cards stamped with the stamps issued in those places, and when he is unemployed he can claim benefit from either of the two Governments. He can only get benefit from our funds for the stamps affixed here during the time he was working in the Saorstát.

The question of land cases was raised by several Deputies. It was stated that small land-holders were treated harshly on account of the fact that, while working on the roads or otherwise, they had to pay for insurance stamps, and then, that when it came to a question of claiming unemployment benefit they were not allowed any. I have a fairly exhaustive list dealing with that matter before me. Of course we are governed by statute, but there is no statute prohibiting such a worker obtaining benefit. Each case is examined entirely on its merits. It is gone into in the same way as other claims. The case comes first from the local branch manager, then to the chief insurance officer, and then to the Board of Referees, and finally to the Umpire and the Minister. I have a table before me dealing with these cases.

Let me take a typical case, that of an applicant whose occupation is that of a road labourer. His age is 34. He held ten acres of land, the valuation being £2 10s. and the rent £1 18s. 6d. The area tilled was half an acre. The stock of the holding is not stated. The other persons residing on holding with the applicant were his mother, aged 69 years, his sister, 30 years, and his wife, 23 years. The applicant assisted in cultivating the half-acre. This case went ultimately to the Umpire, and the final decision arrived at was to allow the claim.

There are several cases of that kind. The total number of these claims received in the period 19/6/'26 to 1/7/'27 was 2,595. Of these 775 were disallowed by the chief insurance officer; 1,820 were allowed. Appeals were lodged in 378 cases. The Court of Referees received 377. The discrepancy is explained by allowance of one case at appeal stage. The Court of Referees made certain recommendations. They allowed 198 cases, and disallowed 179. The chief insurance officer, on the Court of Referees' recommendation, agreed with 318 and disagreed with 59. The cases were then submitted to the Umpire, and the Umpire's final decision was to allow eight and to disallow eighty-seven.

Out of the total number of land cases finally examined there were only 87 cases disallowed out of a total of 2,595. Deputies can see, therefore, that each case was carefully examined. Of course we are governed entirely by statute in all these cases. Deputies will realise that it is a fairly difficult fund to administer, and that the officers concerned require to have great tact and knowledge in dealing with cases. I think that on the whole they are doing their work to the satisfaction of the various parties concerned.

With regard to the question of reciprocity, I would like to ask if the Minister has considered the position of Irish nationals who are serving on British ships and if he has put forward their claims before the British authorities? As the Minister possibly knows, Irishmen serving on British ships, though they may have to pay towards unemployment benefit, are not entitled to any benefit if domiciled in this country. That causes great hardship to men living in places like Dublin and Cork and in my own constituency of Waterford. I know men who served on British ships and who are unemployed to-day. They are entitled to no unemployment benefit. I would like to know if the Minister has taken any steps in regard to this matter, and, if so, what the results have been. Of course nine-tenths of the ships on which Irish seamen serve are ships that sail under the British flag. That being so, I think it is only right that something should be done for these men.

That matter was dealt with in connection with the general question of reciprocity between Great Britain and Ireland but we are at a standstill on it. On the general question of reciprocity, the question of seamen was adverted to at the start. They are a special problem in themselves. They are differentiated from others because of this fact—I do not know whether Deputy Redmond may have meant his words to be an accurate expression of what he thinks to be the case—that they have not to pay contributions. The master of the ship pays. The whole question of reciprocity stands as the Parliamentary Secretary has stated. I explained the position very fully a few years ago in reply to a question put here. Since then repeated attempts have been made to get the matter dealt with. It was taken up at one stage by officials of the Trade Union Congress here who also dealt with a similar matter in Northern Ireland. They succeeded in bringing officials from both sides into a conference. Those who were present at that conference, and saw the results of it, agreed that the propositions put forward by the officials representing our side were definitely reasonable, that they exhausted all possible alternatives and that the Northern Government showed no disposition to accept any of these alternatives. Deputy Coburn said he did not see why in a matter with Great Britain and Northern Ireland there could not be reciprocity. There can be reciprocity. If Great Britain and Northern Ireland say no, there is not going to be, and that is the difficulty we are in.

My question was more with regard to the British Government.

I am only pointing out the steps that we took to deal with the reciprocity question in general. The Northern situation was the more immediate one, because we have so many of our people crossing the Border to get work for certain periods and then coming home again.

Perhaps the British Government would be more amenable than the Northern Government.

It was the British Government that broke off negotiations in the first instance. Deputy Lemass raised a question about the appropriations-in-aid. He referred to the figure of £112,000 under sub-head J and said the expenditure was so much less than the sum estimated. The Deputy must remember that there are other expenses in connection with unemployment to be taken into account. For instance, on my own Vote there would have to be an allocation of a certain amount of salary for certain chief officials who deal with unemployment insurance as well as with other matters, and there is no allowance made for certain types of staffs. As to the amount which is borne on my own Vote, the main Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce, portion of it will have to be allocated against unemployment insurance administration. In addition to that and other Votes, there are moneys to be paid for Government premises and Post Office charges for services rendered to the unemployment exchanges, as well as charges to the Stationery Office for services rendered. The £112,000 is the maximum appropriation allowed under the Act, and that is pretty fully charged against unemployment insurance.

Deputy Morrissey asked a question as to refunds under the 1926 Act. The figures with regard to payments to date are: In the case of those 50 years and over, 7,500 people received payments amounting to £25,000. In the case of people of 60 and over, there were 1,270 individuals concerned, and the payments amounted to £11,000.

The Parliamentary Secretary dealt with land cases in one way. I want to deal with them in another way, the way that I have always dealt with them. There is no regulation—I have often repeated this and I do not think it is denied—for forbidding people getting the benefit of unemployment insurance if otherwise entitled to it simply because they have land. Whether they get it or not depends upon the adjudication in each case. I have asked Deputy Murphy—I think the Deputy has been rather persistent in this matter as well as Deputy Mullins and others—on several occasions to bring forward cases. We can only deal with this on the basis of cases brought forward. The Parliamentary Secretary has shown that there is no great percentage of land cases turned down. It is only on that basis that one can find out whether there is such hardship in individual cases as would make a prima facie case against the administration. On the landholders' side, I would like to have certain cases brought forward so that we could have all the circumstances gone into: the area of the land, the person's industrial history, the value of the land occupied and other items. Only, however, when we get individual cases can we take a proper decision on the matter.

Motion put and agreed to.
Progress ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported.
Barr
Roinn