The Minister has stated that this additional sum is required because more stamps were purchased, arising out of the fact that more people are in employment than was anticipated when the original Estimate was prepared. It is, of course, a common failing of members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party to exaggerate the position concerning employment in the Free State. They always like to represent the position as being somewhat better than it is. I think that the Minister's statement that this additional sum is necessitated by the fact that more people are in employment can be questioned. An examination of the figures available seems to show that the increase in the number of persons insured under the Act is due, not to any increase in the amount of employment available, but to more rigorous enforcement of the Acts. If one examines the figures relating to the total number of people insured under the Acts for the various years since the establishment of the Free State, one notices that the number recorded in June, 1926, was higher than the number for any subsequent year until 1928. On 3rd June, 1922, the number of persons insured under the Acts was 261,000. The number fell in the next year to 242,000, and then remained at about the 250,000 mark until the year 1928, when it suddenly jumped to 280,000. It rose then on 7th January of this year to 284,000. Now, the increase in the number of persons employed under the Acts between July, 1927, and October, 1928, was not due to any big volume of employment being suddenly made available for our people. The increase during that period in the number of persons insured was actually 35,000, but during the same period the number of registered unemployed increased also by 4,000. If we examine the figures relating to building operations, for example, we notice that the number of houses built in 1928 was substantially less than in 1927. There is no evidence in any sphere of industrial activity that additional employment was found in 1928 for 35,000 additional workers. If we examine the figures given in the census of occupations, in respect of 1926, we notice that there were returned, as being engaged in occupations insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, a number of workers exceeding 300,000, but the actual number of workers insured in that particular year was, I think, about 250,000.
In other words, there was evidence that there was in 1926 a considerable amount of evasion of the Acts by employers and employees. If the Department of Industry and Commerce have been more successful in the enforcement of the Acts since then, as the figures seem to indicate, that is something upon which they can be congratulated. I do not think, however, that there is any reason to believe that the volume of employed in the country has increased as the Minister has sought to make us believe by his introductory speech. Only this day week I received from the Minister a return showing the number of persons in receipt of Unemployment Insurance benefits on 2nd January, 1929, and the 1st January, 1930, and I notice that the number has increased by 15 per cent. in that period. Similarly, I notice that the number of workers registered as unemployed, at the Dublin Exchange, increased during that period also. The number of workers at Limerick, Athlone, Galway and Sligo Exchanges, also increased. In the other smaller Exchanges the numbers show a decrease. The only big Exchange in which there is a decrease is Cork, where the decrease, no doubt, is accounted for by the increased employment in Messrs. Fords' works.
I do not think there is any reason to believe that the employment situation has substantially improved during the past year, despite the fact that this additional Estimate is now before us. In connection with these figures there is one other matter that I should like to refer to. On the 8th of January, 1930, Deputy MacEoin gave an interview to the "Boston Herald" in which he said unemployment in the Free State was not particularly bothersome and that there was, in fact, only 10,000 unemployed at the time. On the 7th January, 1930, the actual number on the register, as unemployed, was 24,886, and the number of registered unemployed is approximately about half the actual number of persons seeking work.
There is another matter I would like the Minister to refer to. There appears upon this Estimate an Appropriation-in-Aid of £5,900, the additional amount estimated to be received from the Unemployment Fund consequent on the increased income of the fund referred to in Sub-head G. The Government is entitled to take one-eighth of the income of the fund for the purpose of meeting administration expenses. The total amount estimated for administration purposes for the year 1929-30 was £94,738; the one-eighth of the estimated revenue of the fund appropriated by the original Estimate amounted to £114,689, and now an additional £5,900 is being taken out of the Fund for administration purposes. In other words, the Department is taking from the Unemployment Insurance Fund an amount of approximately £26,000 more than the estimated expenditure on administration as shown in the Unemployment Insurance Vote. When this matter was mentioned in the Dáil before, the Minister for Industry and Commerce explained that a certain part of the cost of administering unemployment insurance was borne upon the Vote for his own Department. I have no doubt that explanation is correct, although I find it very hard to believe that the cost of administering unemployment insurance borne by the Minister's Department amounts to £26,000. I think it is very unsatisfactory that the Dáil has no means of knowing the exact cost of administering the Unemployment Insurance Acts. It is very desirable that the entire cost of administration in that connection should be brought under one Vote. I would like the Minister to tell us whether or not the £120,000 taken from the Unemployment Insurance Fund does, in fact, meet the entire cost of administration, or if the general taxpayer has to contribute anything towards that cost. It seems to me, however, no matter what additional work may be done in connection with this Vote by officials from the Minister's Department, that it is not unlikely that there is a surplus left after all administration expenses have been met which is being used in relief of general taxation. If that is the case it is most undesirable and, I think, illegal.
