Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 28 Jun 1929

Vol. 30 No. 16

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 60—Unemployment Insurance.

Mr. Blythe

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £146,499 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, 1930, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Arachais Díomhaointis agus Malartán Fostuíochta, maraon le síntiúisí do Chiste an Díomhaointis.

That a sum not exceeding £146,499 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, 1930, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Unemployment Insurance and Employment Exchanges, including contributions to the Unemployment Fund.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Dolan)

There is nothing new in any of the figures that appear under the different headings in this Estimate. The only sub-head that calls for any particular mention would be Sub-head G—Contributions to Unemployment Fund—in which there is an increase of £5,000. This is somewhat reduced by the consequent increase in the appropriations-in-aid. It is a rather good indication, because the amount of this contribution is calculated on the general contributions made by employer and employees, so that it shows there is more employment in the country when this amount goes up. There is nothing else that calls for special mention. The sums shown are for the general administration of the Act, and during the year there has been very little trouble in its administration. The officials of the Department have administered it as equitably as is possible in all the circumstances.

Mr. Lemass

I wonder would it be in order to initiate on this Estimate a discussion with reference to the action which the Government are taking, or propose to take, to decrease the volume of unemployment in the country. There are, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, two sub-heads the size of which is determined by the number of persons in insurable occupations. If the number of persons in insurable occupations increases, the contributions which the Government will have to make under Sub-head G will be increased, and the appropriation-in-aid can be increased as well, whereas, if the Government continue their present policy of inactivity in relation to unemployment, it is likely that the number of persons in insurable occupations will be decreased, and that, consequently, these sub-heads will show a variation accordingly.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy wants to initiate a debate on unemployment, but that cannot be done on this particular Estimate, which is for the money required to administer the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the employment exchanges, etc. It would not be proper to have a debate on the Government's policy with regard to unemployment on this particular Estimate. That matter must be debated either on the Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or on an amendment which is already on the Paper in the name of Deputy O'Connell to Vote 3, under which the Deputy intends to raise certain matters with regard to the Government's attitude towards unemployment, but not, I think, very widely. Since that amendment is already on the Paper, the Deputy will have to wait until that comes up.

Mr. Lemass

I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would inform us as to the present position with relation to the making of a reciprocal arrangement with the Government of Northern Ireland in the matter of unemployment insurance.

An Ceann Comhairle

That was raised already on the Estimate for the Minister for External Affairs, and was actually dealt with by the Minister on that Estimate. Deputy Coburn, I think, and other Deputies raised it. The Deputy may remember that I was a little surprised to hear unemployment insurance mentioned on the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs, but it transpired that it was in fact a question for the Minister for External Affairs.

Mr. Lemass

I take it it would not be in order to raise the matter on this Vote?

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think so.

Mr. Lemass

To get down then to the matter of the administration of the Vote, the Parliamentary Secretary made reference to the fact that the increase shown under Sub-head G indicates an anticipated increase in the number of persons in insurable occupations in the course of the year. I am very glad to hear that, because I must say that my own interpretation as to an increase coincides with his. Last year a decrease in the sub-head was shown, and when I asked if that was an indication that the Government anticipated a smaller number of persons in insurable occupations during the year I was informed it was quite the contrary and that a decrease in the sub-head indicated an increase in the number of persons in employment. In fact, Deputy Byrne said he was definitely assured by the officials of the Department that that was the significance of the decrease then shown. If a decrease in the sub-head indicated an increase in the volume of employment last year, and an increase has the same significance this year, then the figures must be fixed purely by chance. My own interpretation of the Acts, and it is the common sense interpretation, is that an increase here indicates an increase in the number of persons in insurable occupations, because the contribution which the Government have to make to the unemployment fund is determined by the revenue from the sale of stamps.

I should like to raise the question of the appropriations-in-aid. The Government are entitled to take a sum equal to one-eighth of the revenue fund to meet the expenses of administering the Acts. This year, as last year, they obviously propose to take the full amount to which they are entitled, but the expenses of administration shown in this particular Vote are about £10,000 less than the amount they propose to take as appropriations-in-aid. The Minister for Industry and Commerce explained last year that that was due to the fact that certain work was done by officials of his own Department in respect to the administration of these Acts not shown in this Vote. I think it would be very desirable to have included in the Estimate for Unemployment Insurance all the expenditure incurred by the Government in the administration of Unemployment Insurance. It is unsatisfactory to have a certain amount shown here which is obviously less than the Government anticipated to spend and to know that certain others items should be included, without having any definite indication as to what these items are, or what proportion of the Vote for the Department of the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be included. It may be that the Government are merely anxious to get as much money as they can, and to take the statutory maximum from the fund for administration purposes, but they are not entitled to do that unless the cost of administering the Acts is equal to or exceeds the statutory maximum they are entitled to take.

If the cost is equal to or exceeds the amount shown as appropriation-in-aid then it should be shown in one or other of the sub-heads. Any other arrangement is, I think, most unsatisfactory and does not enable the Dáil to realise fully the cost of administering those Acts. I think it is desirable that the Dáil should know exactly the relationship which the cost of administration bears to the benefits conferred. I am not sure if the Government have examined the question of the suitability of these Acts to the conditions prevailing in this country. They were not originally passed with any consideration of the particular circumstances prevailing in the Irish Free State at all. They were passed for the purpose of dealing with an abnormal situation in a highly industrialised country such as Britain. Whether they can be improved to meet the different situation which exists here is a matter which I think should be examined. I do not know whether the Government have examined, or propose to examine it, or, having examined it, have found that the Acts could not be improved. I am, of course, aware that a number of Unemployment Insurance Acts have been passed here, some of them making minor alterations in the original Act, but none of them altering the scheme in any fundamental way. They were passed merely to affect the application of the scheme in times of particular stress. If the Government are contemplating any change in the Unemployment Insurance Acts we would be glad to be informed as to what line they contemplate taking in future. It would be well if Deputies were put in a position to see clearly whether the cost of administering the present Acts is excessive in relation to the benefits conferred. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with that matter when concluding the debate.

Mr. Morrissey

There are just a few small points I would like to make. I think that we might have had a more ample statement from the Parliamentary Secretary than he gave us when introducing this Estimate. I was expecting to hear from him something in regard to the new scheme of remuneration for branch managers and the general working of the branch employment exchanges. I take it that the reduction in Sub-head A is due to the very large reductions which were made during the year in the salaries and wages of branch managers. In some cases reductions to the extent of fifty per cent. have taken place. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is satisfied that those exchanges are working as smoothly and as well under the new as they were under the old scheme. I think that he might also have given us some idea of the number of cases brought before the Courts of Referees, and ultimately before the umpire during the year and whether the Department is satisfied that the Courts of Referees, as at present constituted, and the machinery under which they work are suitable. Personally I am very doubtful of that because if an unemployed person wishes to appeal against the decision of an insurance officer to a court of referees, in many cases that court is twenty, thirty, or even fifty miles from where the man lives and, if he desires to appear before the court in support of his appeal, he must travel at his own expense which, of course, makes it almost impossible for nearly all of those who desire to attend to go there because we know that a man who is unemployed for some time and who is appealing his case will not have the money to pay the expenses involved.

I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would also give some information in regard to Sub-head H. "Payment to Associations— £350," and if he would tell us what these associations are, what work they perform, and why the State should make a contribution of £350. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would also explain, in view of what I have just said, how the sum of £100, which has been advanced to work-people for fares, is paid out, on what basis it is allowed, and under what circumstances. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should have explained, and I hope he will explain, the reasons for the Department taking the steps which they did take during the last twelve months to make such a very drastic change with regard to payments to branch managers. Some of these men had their salaries reduced, as I have already pointed out, by as much as fifty per cent., according to my information. I think that that is far too drastic. There may have been a case for some rearrangement. I know that in the case of some of the branch managers who were employed by the present Government, although they had much more work to do than those who were employed under the British, their salaries and wages were much less. In that way there may have been a case for the rearrangement of salaries and wages, but I do not think that any case could be made for drastic reductions of from thirty to fifty per cent. in many cases. Under these circumstances I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should give the information I have asked for.

Mr. Briscoe

I would like to refer to the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary, in which he stated that according to the information which he has got from officials regarding the administration of the Acts they are working smoothly. That may be so, so far as the officials are concerned, but so far as insured persons who become unemployed are concerned, I do not think that the Acts are being administered to their satisfaction. It is from that point of view that I would put two or three points before the Parliamentary Secretary to see if some relief could not be given in cases of hardship arising under the administration of the Acts. A typical case with which I have had to deal is this: A man in an insurable occupation has a job here which he has held for five or six years or perhaps longer, but then he becomes unemployed, through no fault of his, and, not being of the type who wants to go immediately and draw unemployment benefit, he seeks employment elsewhere. He then gets work in England, but has to leave his family here, and he is employed across the water for a year or nine months, when he again gets unemployed. Having exhausted every possible means of trying to get work he is forced to return home, where he proceeds to the Unemployment Exchange to draw benefit which has been accruing during the previous five years. He then discovers that he is debarred from drawing benefit because he has no contribution to his credit within the financial year. I contend that that situation arises solely because there is no arrangement in this country with the Six Counties or England to cover such cases. That is not the fault of the individual.

An Ceann Comhairle

Nor is it the fault of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Deputy cannot raise the question of reciprocal arrangement on this Vote. It was raised already on another Vote. What the Deputy is raising is a defect in legislation. He began by dealing with administration, but he is now dealing with legislation. I allowed him to proceed in order that I might see what point he was making. Clearly it is that point.

Mr. Briscoe

Very well. I will leave that point. The next matter to which I wish to refer concerns the administration itself. On several occasions it has happened that individuals employed in fairly large concerns, on presenting their claims for unemployment benefit, found that they were held up and delayed in getting benefit for a considerable time owing to the fact that some other individual of the same name was employed on the same premises. That is due to no fault of the individual concerned, but the Department delays a considerable time before giving that man benefit. I would urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary that the claims of people who are dependent on a week's wages, or on benefit when they are out of work, should be dealt with in a more expeditious manner. I do not say the officials in the Department are to blame. It is the system which is to blame. The claim has to be sent from one office to another, and it takes several weeks to establish the identity of the person making the claim. Another point to which the Parliamentary Secretary might pay some attention is that some employers, although they have deducted the contributions from their employees, do not stamp their cards, with the result that when any of these employees becomes unemployed he is unable to get benefit. I had to deal with a few cases of that kind, and there appears to be a considerable amount of laxity on the part of the Department in following up employers and forcing them to stamp their cards. Several months elapse in some cases before they force the issue. The man's card is then finally stamped and he is paid benefit. He gets the arrears in one lump sum, whereas if he were paid his benefit from week to week, he might be able to keep his home going and be in a better frame of mind to seek employment elsewhere. I think that some steps should be taken to administer the matter on a more expeditious basis.

Deputy Lemass pointed out the position with regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid and the amount charged for administration purposes. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to elucidate the position as much as possible, because while it appears on the one hand, that the Department or the Government is entitled to recoup itself up to a certain percentage out of the fund for administration purposes, in fact the Government is making a profit on the transaction. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give as much detailed information as he can on the points raised by Deputy Lemass in that respect.

Mr. H. Broderick

There are a few matters to which I would like to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. The first matter is that of the spending up of claims. Deputies generally may not be well aware of how people who are unemployed make claims. Generally persons who become unemployed are paid off on Saturday. They cannot make their claims on Saturday, because the Labour Exchanges are closed. They have to wait until the following Monday. The unemployed person makes a claim at the local Labour Exchange on Monday, and it is then sent on to the Head Office. It will probably take three weeks to have the case investigated here in Dublin. The unemployed person is very lucky if the reply is received in a fortnight's time. If it is back in a fortnight's time he receives three days' unemployment benefit. He may be three weeks or a month away from work before receiving this benefit. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see that the investigation of claims should be speeded up as much as possible. Another matter to which I wish to refer concerns continuation of unemployment. Take the case of persons employed in woollen mills or saw mills for several weeks. A slack period may come on occasionally, and some of these persons may be left off for a week. The same form has to be gone through in every case, and the person has to wait six days clear without getting anything. Probably he goes back to work the following week, so that he gets nothing for his period of unemployment. If the employer does not discharge him within six weeks that person never draws a halfpenny out of the Unemployment Fund. If he is working for six weeks, and if he is out again on the seventh week, he has to wait six clear days, and go through the same form again. I wonder if it would be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to remedy that grave defect in the Act?

I also desire to draw attention to the position of a roadworker who may have a small holding of four or five acres. The majority of such people have pretty large families of young children. Some of their sons might be fifteen or sixteen years of age. The procedure is that when this roadworker becomes unemployed he lodges his claim, but he is told that he is not unemployed because he has a holding of land on which he should be working if there is any work for him to do on it. The claim is disallowed, he appeals and the case comes before the Court of Referees. In a good many cases, the claims are passed by the Court of Referees, but on the other hand, if the man happens to have done any work on his holding, he gets nothing. Another matter to which I wish to refer has been dealt with to some extent by Deputy Briscoe. That is the question of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act by employers. A man may have been working with a particular employer for a number of years, but no stamps are put on his card. When that man becomes unemployed and proceeds to the Labour Exchange to lodge his claim he has no card to produce. He tells the officials at the Labour Exchange that he has been working for a particular employer, or a number of employers, as the case may be. The branch manager then takes up the matter with the employer and asks him to comply with the Act. He refuses and the unemployed man is deprived of unemployment benefit. The Act says that the unemployed man must then bring his employer into court. The employer must be brought into court by this unfortunate man, who may have a young family. He must sue the employer and compel him to stamp his card. That should not be the case. A certain number of weeks elapse before the Department will take up his case. If the employer insists on not stamping the cards the Department takes him into court and he is made pay up by the District Justice. When that is done the unemployed person is paid his benefit. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should try to remedy that matter, and that there should not be a delay of three or four weeks before action is taken against the employer. The unemployed people have not money to sue employers. The Parliamentary Secretary should have this matter remedied by the Department.

Mr. E. Doyle

A matter which I would like to bring before the Parliamentary Secretary has been referred to by Deputy Broderick. That is the case of people working for county councils on roads, and who own small holdings of five or six acres. I had one case before me quite recently and I asked the Minister a question six weeks ago in reference to a man who had two or three children and who was formerly employed on the roads.

When he went to seek unemployment insurance his case was turned down. He was brought before the Court of Referees and had to travel a distance of about twenty-five miles. The Court of Referees upheld his claim and contended that he was entitled to unemployment insurance. Then he came before the umpire and his case was turned down. The man was working all his life time. His father owns the holding. As a matter of fact, this man is not entitled to receive unemployment insurance. I contend that condition of affairs is not alone unfair but unjust. A man with a wife and two or three children is denied even means of providing for himself and his family. I think that is a matter that the Parliamentary Secretary ought at least to consider seriously.

With reference to the case of branch managers, to which Deputy Morrissey referred, I have known the case of one particular branch manager, and when he took up this job a few years ago there were only a few hundred people on the insurance list. Now there are thousands. His work has been considerably increased, and his salary has been considerably decreased. I think that is not the manner in which people who have very responsible positions and through whose hands thousands of pounds go yearly, should be treated. I think people like that should have a decent salary, so that they can be relied on to give good service. I have no more to say on the matter, but I would be very glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would consider seriously the case I have made.

Mr. Anthony

I would like when the Parliamentary Secretary is replying, if he would inform us if any steps have been taken by our Government to secure something in the nature of reciprocity as far as this unemployment scheme is concerned.

An Ceann Comhairle

This matter was raised on a previous Vote. It is not on the Parliamentary Secretary's Vote that it should be raised.

Mr. Anthony

I have only a few words to say with regard to what Deputy Doyle said with reference to the small holders and the disqualification that exists at the moment, which is all very provocative, particularly in view of the fact that these men have to pay. It is only justice to ask, as these men are compelled to contribute, and do not see the benefits they will get, that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should not allow the system to continue whereby deductions are made from men's wages, and when they become unemployed they receive no unemployment benefit.

Mr. McGilligan

They do.

Mr. Anthony

In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it is stopped and they do not get it. Another thing the Minister for Industry and Commerce might consider is the fact that certain employers evade their responsibilities by every means in their power. I have come across certain cases in Cork City where men who have contributed for a number of years, and who, on the occasion of losing their employment, applied in the ordinary way to the Labour Exchange, but found that their cards were not fully stamped. Whilst a certain onus is put on the men, the State frequently steps in and prosecutes the offending employer, but there are certain cases which the Minister should consider with a view to remedying the state of affairs I complain of, particularly this. In one case the employer had used stamps which had been used before. Proceedings were taken against him in the law courts, and he was punished, but in punishing the employer the contributor or employee was also punished, because on application to the local branch of the Labour Exchange he was informed that he could not be paid, and that the onus was on him to prosecute the defaulting employer. That is a type of case which, I fear, has become rather frequent in the country.

There is another class of evasion which perhaps is more frequent, and that is the case where employers up and down the country, when engaging men or, in some cases, women, suggest to them that they need not be insured persons, the result being that there are many thousands of workers in this country who, though insurable under this Act, are not insured. I am not one, at any time, who would advocate invoking the aid of the police force in a matter of this kind, but we have a very active, intelligent police force at the moment, and I would suggest that we can very usefully add to their other duties that of making inquiries. I do not want to set up a kind of inquisition, but I do suggest that inquiries could be made of workers in the various areas as to whether or not they were insured. Many great hardships are caused on account of this grievance. These workers become unemployed and have nothing to fall back on. They would not, in the ordinary circumstances when employed, miss the few pence a week, and the benefit would be something for them. It is the dual responsibility of the State and the employer to see that they have this at the end of their time to fall back on.

The results are frequently not very obvious. I cannot say that they are frequently brought to the public notice, because amongst this particular class of labour—the migrant class—we have numbers of people who are too proud to beg and often conceal their poverty. They would consider themselves in the light of informers if they were to go to the police authorities or any other State authorities and make complaints. The fact is—it is conduct frequently acquiesced in by some of the workers, and I am not altogether blaming this class of employer—that this is very general. It should be taken notice of, because it throws a large number of men and women on the roads. In the long run it is the citizen who foots the bill, whether it be in the shape of rates or taxes. I suggest it would make socially for a better state of things if those people were looked after as they are entitled to be, seeing that we have legislation dealing with matters of this kind. This is a class of social legislation which, I agree, might be easily abused, but at the same time it has one side to its activities which have a very decent effect on the social life of the country. This gesture on behalf of the State is frequently termed "the dole.""The dole" is a term which we absolutely reject. It is no dole, no charity. It is a form of insurance to which the State, the man, and his employer contribute. So, therefore, as far as we are concerned, we do not recognise that term at all. I commend to the notice of the Minister the suggestion I have made with regard to some of the defaulting employers. I will go so far as to say that even though stress of circumstances might compel workmen or women to engage with employers of the kind I have referred to, I would not spare the workman or woman more than the employer, because all those things react on the State, very much to its disadvantage.

Mr. Fahy

There is just one point that I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister. It is this: It is particularly true in the West of Ireland that the roadworkers are small farmers, or the sons of small farmers. They have to contribute to the Unemployment Fund. Very frequently they do not get benefits, owing to the fact that they have small holdings. It would be very difficult and I think unworkable to decide beforehand that such people should not contribute to the fund, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether it would not be possible, in case it is subsequently decided that they are not entitled to unemployment benefit, to refund to such men the amounts they have contributed to the Unemployment Fund while employed.

Mr. Cassidy

I noticed last night, with some surprise, that when the Parliamentary Secretary referred to this Estimate five minutes before the adjournment he endeavoured to rush the Estimate through the House inside the space of five minutes and in endeavouring to do so he referred to it as a routine Estimate. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary, probably unknowingly, has by use of the expression "routine" really summarised the views of the Government in regard to the unemployment problem, and also in regard to the Unemployment Insurance problem. In presenting the Estimate to-day, he made reference to the fact that it was increased by £5,000 in comparison with last year, due to the fact that there was a greater amount coming from the Appropriation Account for this Estimate than there had been hitherto. At the same time, the Parliamentary Secretary did not tell the House that the Estimate for this year is reduced by over £9,000 as compared with the year 1927-28. Why that should be I fail to understand, in view of the fact that the unemployment problem to-day is much larger than it was two or three years ago.

Mr. McGilligan

Because that is a wrong deduction.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

Where are your figures?

Mr. McGilligan

Here.

Mr. Cassidy

I understand the Estimate for 1927-28 was £249,200, and that this year the Estimate is £240,000. These are the figures in the official Estimates. I do not think I am incorrect in quoting them. I cannot see any reason why this year the Estimate, as presented to the House, should be over £9,000 lower than it was two years ago, because I believe that the unemployment problem is even more acute to-day than it was two or three years ago. As I said, I do not believe the Government are paying attention to this particular question in the manner in which they should. We of the Labour Party believe, and I have reiterated it on a number of occasions in this House, that the principal duty of any Government in any country should be to look after the welfare of the people of the country.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy was not here when Deputy Lemass put as a point of order to me, when rising to speak on this matter, whether he could discuss Government measures to deal with unemployment. It was ruled on this particular Estimate that the question of the Government's attitude towards what is called the unemployment problem could not be discussed. There are other occasions for doing it. This is not the occasion. The amendment to Vote No. 3 will give, not perhaps a very wide opportunity, but a certain opportunity for dealing with that matter. I understand that Deputy O'Connell's amendment is intended to deal with it to some extent, and the Deputy may be able to say something on that. This Estimate merely deals with the expenses of the administration of the Unemployment Insurance and the Unemployment Exchanges. The Deputy cannot deal with the unemployment problem generally and the Government's attitude towards it. It is altogether outside the scope of this particular Estimate.

Mr. Cassidy

I accept your ruling in regard to that. At the same time, I submit that I am entitled to refer to the amount of money voted this year. That being so, I consider that the sum of money voted is not adequate, because we of the Labour Party believe that the unemployed should have adequate maintenance.

The Parliamentary Secretary, in his opening remarks this morning, made use of these words: "Very little trouble has been experienced in the past year, as far as the administration of the Act is concerned." I noticed a report in yesterday's "Independent" of remarks made by District Justice Kenny at Granard. He stated: "It is very hard for the unfortunate people in the country to understand the Act, and God help anyone depending on it." Those words were used with reference to the National Health Insurance Act, but I think they apply, with even added force, to the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Mr. McGilligan

That is really good evidence!

Mr. Cassidy

In order to prove what I say, I will quote for the information of the House an extract from a letter which I received from a Labour county councillor in regard to the difficulties experienced by workers who are legitimately entitled to benefit and who are unable to get it. In the course of this letter, he says: "I would like to say that I have gathered from those who are legitimately trying to get their unemployment benefit that it is as difficult for them to get it as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle." Reference has been made to the position of small farmers by Deputy Fahy. The position is that a number of small farmers who have uneconomic holdings, and who are employed by the county councils on the road, after being employed for three or four months, and having a sufficient number of stamps upon their cards to entitle them to obtain benefit, when they apply to the branch offices are refused. I presume that the reason they are refused is because they hold a few acres of land. Some time ago I raised this question. I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce told me at that time that his Department did not take into consideration the number of acres of land held by an applicant for unemployment insurance benefit. I think that is his contention.

Mr. McGilligan

I said it should not depend on that, that that is not the only circumstance.

Mr. Cassidy

It did not depend on that at all.

Mr. McGilligan

I did not say it did not depend on that at all. It is one of the factors, but not the only one.

Mr. Cassidy

I have here before me a letter from a manager of one of the Employment Exchanges in which he asks an applicant who applied to go before the Court of Referees, "How much of your holding is under tillage?"

Mr. McGilligan

A sane question.

Mr. Cassidy

I think it is most unfair, as far as a small farmer, more especially in the congested areas, is concerned, when he is employed on road work for a period of three, four or five months, that after he is knocked off the road work he is refused benefit. As far as the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned, he has stated that very little difficulty was experienced in the administration of the Act. I am certain that some of the workers experience very great difficulties.

Another matter to which I would desire to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary is to the position of workers whose employers refuse to stamp unemployment insurance cards. It is all very well for the Department to say that as far as such an employee is concerned he has a legal remedy, that he can go to the courts and force the employer to stamp the cards. That may be so up to a certain point, but I would ask any Deputy to visualise the position of an employee towards an employer in that case. He knows that if he takes the employer to court he will have no hope of getting employment from him again. During the coming year I hope that the Department will look into this matter, and see that the onus and responsibility for getting an employer to stamp cards will not be thrown on the employee.

Another question with regard to the administration of the Act to which I would like to refer concerns an employer who has been adjudicated a bankrupt. I understand that certain evidence dealing with this matter was tendered before the Bankruptcy Commission. If an employer becomes bankrupt, and has failed to stamp an employee's insurance card, the employee has no legal redress, even if he takes the employer to court, owing to the fact that the latter has been adjudicated a bankrupt. As far as applicants for benefit are concerned, especially in rural areas, very often they receive communications from the manager of the branch insurance exchanges telling them that their applications have been turned down under section so-and-so of the Act. An ordinary labourer cannot be expected to be a walking encyclopedia as far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned, and I suggest that in future branch managers should state in plain language why a claim has been turned down. Again, if an employer appeals to the Court of Referees to get his case heard, very often he is told that the Court of Referees has considered his application and that it has been turned down, but no reason whatever is given. Very often they will not allow him to appeal to the umpire. If he is allowed to appeal to the umpire, very often we find that the case has been turned down, but no reason is given, and even when a Deputy takes up the matter with the Department it claims privilege, and says that the umpire is not compelled to give a reason as to why a claim was turned down. Another matter which has been in abeyance for a long time is the question of reciprocal arrangements between the Free State and the British authorities.

An Ceann Comhairle

That question was ruled out on three occasions.

Mr. Cassidy

I respectfully submit that, as far as this particular question is concerned, it has a direct bearing on the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act as far as benefits for the workers are concerned.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have explained that three times in the Deputy's absence, and I do not think I need explain it any more. It was raised already on another Vote.

Mr. Cassidy

Very well, I suppose I will get an opportunity later on, whether on the Adjournment or otherwise.

An Ceann Comhairle

The occasion has passed now. It was done already.

Mr. Cassidy

I would like to say that I think the time has come when there should be a more business-like arrangement in regard to the administration of the Act. There should not be so much red tapeism as far as the difficulties experienced by workers are concerned, and I hope that when the House is asked to pass this Estimate next year—if the unemployment problem is not cured in the meantime—the Minister will see his way to introduce a Supplementary Estimate, so that uncovenanted benefit can be extended to workers, that they will not be cut off benefit after six months, and then thrown on the rates or have to go to the workhouse.

Mr. McGilligan

I was interested to find that the old problem of the landowner had come up again to-day and had come up expressed in the usual vague way. Deputy Anthony raised it first. Deputy Anthony committed himself to the statement that in 99 cases of 100 no benefit is paid. Deputy Fahy put it a little milder in his explanation. He said that mainly in congested districts he found that people who got on the fund by reason of being in an insurable occupation for a period found that they were turned down owing to the fact that they had small holdings. I want to deny that again, but apparently my denial of it does not do much good. Nevertheless, I am going to continue in that course. No man is turned down simply because he has land. A tremendous number of other circumstances are taken into consideration—the amount of the holding, the type of land, the period of the year, how the land is used, and what the applicant's previous industrial history was, and in face of all that, a decision is given.

Mr. Cassidy

Might I point out to the Minister that apparently the branch managers are not aware of that, because in many cases they turned down applicants. The applicants get disheartened and do not appeal to the court of referees. I do not think that the branch managers look upon it in the same way as the Minister does.

Mr. McGilligan

The branch managers have had that type of instruction delivered to them over and over again. No manager is sent to control a branch without having for a certain period an officer from headquarters with him. That officer has more or less to induct him into the office and give him information about all points that are likely to arise as to these difficult cases—and these are notably difficult cases. Deputies from every Party have occasionally come to me with cases which they consider constitute a hardship, founded on the statement that they were turned down simply because the applicants had land, but to that extent that is not a fact. When I ask them to bring me cases so that I can get the details considered I find that a number of the objections disappear. If Deputies of all Parties would conspire in the matter to bring cases before me I would be pleased to help them. They could make a selection of the very best cases, cases in which men have a very few acres of land, or else where the land is almost worthless, cases in which they consider that men have been turned down at a period of the year in which land of the type held is no good to the men. Let me get a number of these cases and I will see what amendments can be made. But it is absurd to state here, as has been stated over and over again, that 99 per cent. of the cases have been turned down in cases where the decision was on the question as to whether the man had land or had not. This case has been made very often. It was made last year on this debate, and I want to refer to the figures again. In the period from 19th June, 1926 to 1st July, 1927, there were a certain number of claims of small landowners, and the question was sent for decision. The number of claims received at headquarters was 2,595. The insurance officer, after considering each case, allowed 1,820.

Mr. Cassidy

And how many appealed and were turned down?

Mr. McGilligan

Let me go on. The Deputy cannot get everything in the one breath. Out of the 2,595 sent in, 1,800 were allowed right off the reel, 775 were turned down, and 378 of the 775 turned down appealed to the Court of Referees. The Court of Referees recommended that 198 should be allowed and that 179 should be disallowed. With some of the recommendations to allow the insurance officer did not agree, and he sent forward 59 cases on his own to the umpire. These 59, with 36 additional applications that in some way or other arose before the umpire, came up for decision, and the umpire allowed eight and disallowed 87. Now, of the whole number, between cases allowed in the first instance by the insurance officer and cases ultimately allowed on appeal, 1,966 of the 2,595 cases questioned were allowed, or about 75 per cent. not one per cent., as Deputy Anthony would have us believe. With reference to this phrase about a camel going through the eye of a needle I never knew a camel yet that could go through the eye of a needle, but 75 per cent. of these cases got through here.

Mr. Anthony

I never mentioned a camel at all. I left that to Deputy Cassidy.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Fahy comes along with a contribution to the solution of this problem. He suggests that if it be decided not to pay a landowner who has come into insurable employment, and who has stamps to his credit, then we should refund the contributions to him. That is just a little better than the suggestion that no unemployment insurance contributions should be paid by these people at all. I do not think that the Labour Party would hold with the view that they should be regarded as non-insurable, because the result of that would obviously be that the small landowners would get all the work on the roads. What is the difference between that and the other suggestion? I presume, if you are going to refund to the landowner in a case where his claim was turned down, in justice there would have to be refunds both to the employer and to the State, and we get the same position, except that we do not declare it.

Mr. Fahy

Why should the State or the employer get it back?

Mr. McGilligan

I want to hear a case made why the employee should get it back and why the other two should not. There are three parties building up the fund—the State, the employer and the employee. All three pay. Each case comes up when, for a particular reason, a man's claim to benefit is not allowed, the reason being that there is employment available for him. Now, this Unemployment Insurance Fund insures against unemployment, and if it is decided by the umpire, by the Court of Referees and by the insurance officer, that there is employment for that man, it is suggested that the State should pay back that man his contributions. That is not looking at the scheme as an insurance against unemployment, but is looking at it as a sort of savings bank.

Mr. Lemass

But the employment that is available for the man after he leaves the work on the road is not insurable employment. The point you want to provide against is that there will not be an inducement to employers to employ landowners only, who will not be entitled to benefit. The only way to do that is to make the employer contribute, irrespective of whom he employs.

Mr. McGilligan

Nonsense. Why not say that the girl who had been employed in Player's factory, having originally been in domestic service, and who has gone back to domestic service, having stamps to her credit, should be entitled to benefit? That is the same type of case. Domestic service is not an insurable occupation. The land-owner is actually in possession of his land at the time when the court decides that the land is of value to him and gives him employment. How can one logically divide those two cases? Remember that the Insurance Fund is built up on the basis of actuarial calculations on certain rates. If we are to say to certain people: "Of course, you have paid in, but we regard you as entitled to a refund of one-third of your contributions," we are going to make a change in the fund. It would mean that the other type of people, the men who have no land to fall back on, would have to pay more.

The "Dundalk Democrat" of the 1st inst. contains a report of a meeting of the Dundalk Trade and Labour Council. One member said: "The first consideration should be the protection of the funds, so that they would be available for those who paid for them when required"—a very sensible view. "He did not think that men with farms of ten to fifteen acres, or even less, should be entitled to benefit." That is a clear-cut statement. He would not have them because a man had land, not with all the attendant circumstances, but simply for that fact, "and especially when they let their land by con-acre, or let it run wild." Then he said, "Numerous cases of this sort were before the court recently." I would like people to get their heads together, and produce cases in regard to which they say there is a hardship. I do not believe that any hardship has been shown at all from the time of my introduction to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think I met the allegations that were made, that there were tremendous hardships in the case of those men who paid and never got benefit. I have had people from outside coming to me to say that cases were very hard to decide. I have been looking into this question year after year, and I have asked Deputies to bring me cases, either openly in the House or privately. Since that invitation was issued one case was raised by Deputy Ward, a comparatively hopeless case, from the point of view of the people who wished to show that there is hardship.

If we do agree that there is hardship, let us get some sort of agreement as to how to settle it. It will not be settled on the lines of not asking the men to pay, or of refunding to the employee when his claim is turned down, because when it is turned down it is for the reason that the thing against which he is insured is not present. He is insured against unemployment; employment is there, based on a variety of circumstances, and that is the only reason why his claim is turned down. I would appeal to Deputies to keep this thing out of the region simply of the yearly discussion on this Vote that there has been. Let there be amalgamation of Parties on this thing, and let us get the best cases that can be brought forward, so that we can see if there is hardship, and arrive at some decision as to easing the situation. But we have a number of other things to bear in mind as well as single cases. We have the fund to build up. We are depending on that fund mainly on people who are in insurable occupations all the time. That was the main consideration in establishing the fund, and that should be kept before people's minds.

On other points I have really nothing to say, except that on a previous Estimate a Deputy referred to vacancies, and how far employment exchanges were anything except unemployment exchanges—just for registering unemployment. I stated before that the average number of vacancies notified and filled was about 16,000. The list I have before me for the period ended May 6th, 1929, shows that 17,252 vacancies were filled by means of the employment exchanges.

Mr. Lemass

In the year?

Mr. McGilligan

In the year ended 6th May, 1929. I could not make out the point to which Deputy Cassidy referred with regard to the drop in the State contribution. I thought first that he was referring to Sub-head G. That is really only a test with regard to the increase in employment. An increase in employment is clearly shown when the State contribution goes up, because the State contribution goes up proportionately to the amount subscribed by employers and employees. That is subscribed only when people are in employment. Consequently if there is an increased contribution, that is decidedly the clearest indication that one can have that there is an increase in employment, though the measure of it is a little vague. The State contribution has gone up year by year.

Mr. Lemass

That item showed a decrease for last year.

Mr. McGilligan

It showed a decrease over the previous year, because in the previous year there was a windfall by reason of £49,000 being paid by the British Government in respect of ex-soldiers. The fund gained by that, and an amount proportionate to that sum had to be contributed by the Government. But the normal State grant estimated for 1927-28 was £249,200. Last year it was £235,000, and this year it is £240,000.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Minister state if the last figure is an estimate of the amount of the contribution which will be made by the State this year, or if it is calculated upon any definite basis?

Mr. McGilligan

It arises mainly out of the previous year. We take quarters of the year in conjunction with quarters in the previous year.

Mr. Lemass

I would be glad if the Minister would deal with the point raised by Deputy Morrissey, and explain why the reduction in the allowances and remuneration of branch managers has been decided on. There is some confusion as to whether these reductions are necessary and whether they are not too severe.

Mr. McGilligan

I will not deal with that at the moment.

Mr. Dolan

The Minister has dealt with some of the more important points raised on this Vote.

Deputy Lemass raised a question with regard to some items which are included in other Votes. That is a matter of accountancy, and they are all clearly set out under the different headings. If the Deputy looks at this particular Estimate he will see that we give an indication on page 247 of the different amounts estimated under the different Votes. Under Vote No. 56 we have the sum of £11,500; under Vote 11 we have an estimated sum for office accommodation, buildings, furniture, etc., and we have provision for other items under Vote 17. All these items are ultimately borne by the Departments concerned. There is no intention of introducing legislation to make any change in the incidence of the Insurance Acts. Of course we are constantly examining the position from the point of view of getting better administration of the office. Anything that can be done in that way is being done from time to time by re-arrangement. Deputy Morrissey referred to the working of the branches, and complained that in many instances there were delays, and that the workers had to travel long distances at their own expense. The position in that respect is quite simple, and quite easy to understand. In 98 per cent. of the claims that are made, payment is awarded after the first waiting week. I have not the exact figures before me, but I venture to say that in only about 2 per cent. of the cases is there any difficulty whatever, so that all this question of delay, trouble, and inconvenience concerns only a very small percentage of insured persons. The branches do everything possible to facilitate the workers, and the machinery in connection with them runs quite smoothly. Payment is made after the first waiting week, which is the statutory period for waiting. We have a scheme for the setting up of associations of work-people who provide, out of their own fund, benefits for their own members. We have a scheme for the making of contributions-in-aid towards the expenses of the work thereby incurred. That represents the £350 to which Deputy Morrissey refers.

Mr. Lemass

I take it that there is only one such association under the scheme at the present time.

Mr. Dolan

No.

Mr. Anthony

I know of one myself in Cork.

Mr. Dolan

It is laid down by statute how such arrangements can be made. It is open to any association to make arrangements with the Department concerned. The Court of Referees has been referred to constantly. One would think from the references that have been made to it that it had no sympathy with the workers or with anything that would facilitate the working of the Act. The Court of Referees is composed of a representative of the workers, a representative of the employers, and an independent chairman with legal qualifications. The Court of Referees gives judicial and fair decisions in every case that comes before it. If there is a prima facie case, there is very little trouble. Even in cases where the worker disagrees with a decision reached by the Court of Referees, if there is the least likelihood of a worker succeeding on appeal, then his expenses are paid. He gets a voucher that will enable him to attend, but in a case where it is obvious that there is no chance of a decision already reached being reversed, and where the issuing of vouchers for the attendance of workers or witnesses in a case of that kind would only be adding on unnecessary expense, then vouchers are not issued.

Deputy Morrissey wanted an explanation of the meaning of advances to work-people. When the employment exchanges secure work for a person who has to travel a distance, it is customary, if that person has not the money to pay his train fare, to advance the money to him until he is in a position to repay it. That is the meaning of "advances to workers." There is no question of delay in the payment of benefit. I think I have already dealt with that. With regard to the question raised by Deputy Briscoe as to the neglect of employers to stamp cards, what happens is this: there are two parties involved in the affixing of insurance stamps, and it is the duty of the employee to see that his card is stamped by the employer. Immediately that it is brought to the notice of the officials of the Department that an employer has not stamped cards, we come down on him at once, and a prosecution is instituted. There is no question at that stage of the worker having to institute proceedings himself to have his card stamped. Deputy Broderick, and I think some other Deputies, mentioned that there had been delay in the investigation of the claims of workers going out of benefit. That is much the same question as the stamping of cards. The Deputy said that the worker must bring the employer to court. That is not so. The question with regard to road workers, and the question raised by Deputy Cassidy, have already been dealt with by the Minister. The statement made by District Justice Kenny was not in reference to the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Mr. Cassidy

It applies equally.

Mr. Dolan

On the National Health Insurance Act Deputy Morrissey thought that the total of reductions under Sub-head AA was on account of the reductions in the salaries paid to branch managers. That is not so. All the reduction is not accounted for under that particular head. A considerable sum is accounted for under the head of reduction of salaries to branch managers. This question has already been dealt with very fully by the Minister by way of question and answer. It was raised by Deputy Lemass, and the questions and answers dealing with it will be found in the Official Debates, column 1016. The position about these branch managers is that they are part-time employees. When they were originally employed they were engaged as part-time employees, and their salaries were fixed in proportion to the amount of work they would have to perform. In some instances, if the new scale of salaries had not been brought in, some of these men would be receiving even less than what they are receiving under the new scale which has been adopted. We have adopted a scale which, in our opinion, is quite reasonable and fair for the amount of work that these men do, and the work of their offices has not been interfered with. It is proceeding smoothly and efficiently. We are satisfied that everything that should be attended to is being attended to, and that the interest of the different parties concerned in the working of unemployment insurance is being looked after. The great thing the employment exchanges do is that they bring together the worker and the employee. They act as a clearing-house and get one in touch with the other. Over a period of years our average of workers placed in employment through the medium of the labour exchange would be about 17,000 per annum. We consider that the employment exchanges are doing very great work indeed, and they make for a more harmonious association between employer and the employee.

Mr. Corish

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary when we may expect to have a report in connection with the burning of the stamps in the offices of the Wexford County Council last January? As the Minister is aware, the men have been awaiting benefits because their stamps cannot be traced.

Mr. McGilligan

That will depend entirely on the report received from the National Health Insurance inspectors.

Mr. Corish

When is it expected? This is going on since last January.

Mr. McGilligan

It is a difficult case, and I had better not prejudice it by saying anything on it.

Mr. Anthony

Could the Minister tell us the number of unemployed in Saorstát Eireann on the occasion of the last census? We have been asking for a return as to the number of unemployed for years.

Mr. McGilligan

I have explained over and over again that the volumes in connection with the census are issued in a particular order as it best fits in with the type of work the Statistical Branch is doing. I stated what the order was to be. The volume will come as soon as it can be got out, but it is not being delayed for any reason that I know.

Mr. Cassidy

In view of the fact that a discussion on reciprocal arrangements has been ruled out, I wonder would I be in order in asking whether negotiations have taken place in the matter?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has supplied the reason why he cannot be in order.

Mr. McGilligan

This matter of reciprocal arrangements with Northern Ireland was the subject of discussion, and almost the subject of complaint, by representatives of the Free State at Geneva. As a result, there is a promise that certain approaches will be made to the Northern Government with a view to getting arrangements for reciprocity. We have always had approaches with a view to getting reciprocal arrangements, but we have not succeeded in getting receiprocity.

Mr. Lemass

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that his Department should consider the advisability of issuing a White Paper explaining the law with reference to unemployment insurance as it now exists, like the British Government did in 1927. A number of Acts have been passed making alterations in the original Insurance Act. It would convenience those concerned in the administration of the Act, and those who are entitled to benefit under it, if they could set out in a concise form the present legal position in relation to unemployment insurance.

Mr. McGilligan

I am not sure that there have been any changes in this country which will affect the vast majority of the people who either pay contributions into the Unemployment Insurance Fund or are likely to receive benefit. Nevertheless, if it seems likely that some such summary, as suggested, would explain the matter better and save the Deputies from asking questions, I will look into it.

Mr. Lemass

It would save the Deputies from looking up so many Acts.

Mr. Dolan

Deputy Morrissey asked for the number of cases referred to the Court of Referees. The total number of cases heard in the year ending 31st May were 4,161; recommended to be allowed, 2,195; disallowed, 1,966. In the same period the number of cases referred to the umpire were 193; allowed, 25; disallowed, 167; referred back to the Court of Referees, 1.

Vote put and agreed to.