I have received, during the course of the year, quite a number of complaints from persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in Dublin, that the attitude of the officials in the employment exchanges here is somewhat harsher than in the opinion of these persons it should be. In fact, statements were made to me of a very strong nature, and I was told that workers who became unemployed and desired to claim benefit were not treated as insured persons receiving benefits for which they had paid premiums but as paupers seeking charity. I believe these statements were, in the main, exaggerated, but I have heard so many of them, and they were of such a nature, that I believe there must be some cause for them. I think it would be advisable for the Minister to take steps to see if there is any real ground for them at all. Personally, I cannot give him any evidence that these statements are either true or untrue, but I was surprised by the number of occasions on which they were made to me and the vehemence with which they were made by individuals who had experience of going to claim benefit. It is possibly due to the fact that in Dublin the work of the officials in the exchanges is much heavier and more onerous than in the other exchanges, and that consequently the atmosphere becomes less human and more mechanical, but I think there must be some ground for complaint in view of the number of complaints that are made.
I would like if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us whether the unemployment insurance code has been reconsidered by his Department with a view to effecting improvements in administration and a reduction of costs. A Bill was introduced in the British Parliament last year which attempted, amongst other things, to amend the machinery for the determination of claims. I do not know if the particular proposals of that Bill have been considered by the Department here with a view to investigating their applicability to this country; neither do I know—I would like to be informed, if it is not out of order—whether the Department has considered the advisability of adopting what was probably the main proposal in the British Bill, that is, the reduction of the age of entry into insurance from sixteen to fifteen. The effect of that reduction in Britain was expected to be an increase in revenue to the fund, and there is no reason to believe that the effect would not be the same here.
I would like also to know if there is any additional cost involved in maintaining the Labour Exchanges as distinct from the machinery for the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. If there is any considerable additional cost involved, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether, in his opinion, the work done by these Exchanges justifies itself. There has been a considerable decline in the last six or seven years in the use that has been made of the Labour Exchange machinery. The Minister for Industry and Commerce told me, in reply to a question some time ago, the number of vacancies notified at and filled through employment exchanges, and it was obvious that although there is still a large number of vacancies notified and filled each year the number represents a very substantial decrease upon the numbers of other previous years. 16,800 vacancies were notified in 1929, and 14,830 were filled. I do not know if that number is, in the opinion of the Minister, sufficiently large to justify the maintenance of the machinery if that machinery, in fact, involves anything like considerable additional cost. It is quite possible, I admit, that the maintenance of that machinery does not involve any cost that would not be necessary if the machinery of the Unemployment Insurance Acts was to be maintained. I would like to know if the question was considered.
The cost of administering the Unemployment Insurance Act appears to be about 10/- per head of insured persons and about 30 per cent. of the benefits paid, and in my opinion that is high. I think the figure of 10/- per head falls to be compared with the allowance for administration expenses under the National Health Insurance Acts, which is at present 4/9 or 4/10 per head. Although it is extremely likely that under any circumstances the cost per head of administering the Unemployment Insurance Act would be heavier than the cost of administering the National Health Act, it does not seem to me that it should necessarily be double. If it could be reduced, it would mean that the deficit in the fund could be wiped off much more rapidly than is being done, and possibly in time a reduction in premiums could be effected or an increase in benefits could be paid. I suppose it would be out of order to discuss the matter of a reciprocal arrangement?