I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill which, on the face of it, bears the explanation that ordinarily would have to be given in regard to it. It simply reduces to the rates set out in the First Schedule, the rates now being paid. It also makes consequential amendments, one of which is in regard to the rate to be paid by the State. Up to date that has been phrased in a particular way. We take it that it is to be three-sevenths of the aggregate amount of the contribution paid by the insured person or employer or, in the case of an exempted person, three-sevenths of the contribution paid by the employer. It keeps roughly the State payments in the same proportion to the new scale paid by the employer and the person insured. Section 3 makes a change of a consequential type also, namely, the amount of money that would come in from the contributions to the State is reduced as the amount of the first lot is reduced in Section 2 (2). The old fraction which used to be allocated by way of administrative expenses would not be sufficient. The amount is kept roughly at the same figure as before and the fraction, since the sum is small, has to be larger. We go from one-tenth which was contained in the Principal Act and from one-eighth which was in the Amending Act of 1922 to one-fifth of the entire sum. In the last sub-section, namely, Section 5 (2) it states that the Act shall come into operation on such a day as shall be fixed for that purpose by an order of the Minister. The reason for that is that it is a matter of some speculation as to when the Bill can come into force after it has been passed into law, because some time will be required to get the new stamps of the new denominations brought out. Even though I could try to shorten that period by taking action a little bit ahead, once the Bill has got to a certain stage there will be some time required even after the Bill becomes law. It will not be possible to fix a date in the Bill unless it is put far back, and consequently I am taking power to fix that date by order.
Supplementary Estimate. - Unemployment Insurance Bill, 1930—Second Stage.
I think the Minister has treated the Dáil in a very cavalier fashion in introducing this Bill with out giving any adequate explanation of the effect which its passage will have on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. One would expect that he would have told the Dáil what the cost to the fund would be, and what the other financial consequences would be, both to the employer, to the employee, to the State and to the person in receipt of benefit. Merely to present the Bill to the Dáil with a brief explanation of the significance of certain sections, an explanation which is obvious to anybody who reads the Bill, seems to indicate that he is taking his duties in a very slipshod manner. The Dáil is entitled to ask and to get from the Minister a much more detailed examination of the financial consequences of the Bill than he thought fit to give. I do not know if it would be in order to ask him to give it now.
I gave it already in the debate on the President's statement.
Are Deputies not entitled to ask——
The Deputy can ask the Minister for any information concerning the Bill now.
I shall give a sample question: how much the Minister estimates one-fifth of the income of the fund will be for the purposes of comparison with the one-eighth in the past?
One-fifth of £670,000.
Surely the income is going to be reduced?
It will be £670,000 in future.
I want to put the position in this way: the State is entitled to take from the funds an amount equal to an eighth of the revenue for the purpose of meeting administration. The revenue of the fund will be varied in some way by the reduction in contributions, and the Bill proposes to alter one-eighth to one-fifth of the fund. I think we should be informed by the Minister what the effect of the alteration will be, and how, in the first case, the amount of revenue to the fund will be diminished by the diminution of contributions, and to what extent the amount which the State is entitled to take from the fund for administration purposes will be altered by the alteration in the percentage.
I said that the differentiation between one-fifth of the present reduced sum and the one-eighth of the old sum was likely to make no difference. The exact amount will be the same—that is one-fifth of the reduced sum of £670,000. Up to date there has been spent about £140,000 and this allows for £136,000.
In other words, the Minister does not anticipate that the sum which the State will receive from the fund will be altered in any way?
It is about the same.
The Minister gave an incorrect figure. I think the cost of administration may have been £140,000 as the Minister stated, but the Minister was not entitled to get from the fund £140,000. The amount which he estimated he would be entitled to receive was £110,000. There was a deficiency. The cost of administration exceeded the amount which the Minister was entitled to take from the fund. Do I understand that he now expects that deficiency to be removed?
In the old days a certain amount of money came from the fund, but there was £20,000 short. That used to be made up by the taxpayer. In the future it will come from the fund. It is a matter of bookkeeping.
The Minister has thought fit to give a little more information. The position concerning the Unemployment Insurance Fund, as the Minister explained when we were discussing the President's statement here on Wednesday week, was that funds were coming into it to a greater extent than they were going out of it and that consequently the amount due to the Exchequer in consequence of the borrowings which took place prior to 1926 was being repaid at a rapid rate. While we approve of the decision to slow up the rate of repayment to the Exchequer we think that the Dáil should take very careful note of the consequences of that decision. A reduction in the rate of repayment to the Exchequer would involve a reduction in the rate of cancellation of the debt incurred by the Exchequer in order to provide funds to meet demand for benefit during the period when extended and uncovenanted benefits were in operation. In a disguised way that means that relief will be given to industry out of borrowed money, a procedure which is of very doubtful wisdom and very doubtful financial rectitude, but which nevertheless may be justified in the circumstances of the moment.
I think the Minister should have explained the implications of the Bill in relation to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the Exchequer when introducing it, and should have pointed out to the Dáil that in fact this slowing up of the rate of repayment to the Exchequer would mean that money borrowed by the Exchequer for the fund would remain outstanding for a longer period, the effect being that the national debt is being maintained at a level higher than it would otherwise be maintained, to enable the State to give this proposed relief to industry. The Minister, or the President, in his statement announced that the total cost to the fund would be in or about £300,000. Of that, £64,000 will go towards the reduction of taxation, and £225,000 to the employers and the insured workers themselves.
The question which the Dáil must ask, and which must be decided, is whether the manner in which it is proposed to use that £300,000 in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, is in fact the most suitable under the circumstances that now exist. The Government proposes to use the entire amount for the purpose of reducing contributions. The reduction in contributions would undoubtedly be of advantage to the workers and the employers concerned, but in view of the fact that this Bill has been introduced largely for the purpose of dealing with a situation in which exceptional distress is prevalent, we think that the manner of the utilisation of that £300,000 should have been more carefully examined than it appears to have been by the Minister, with a view to seeing whether or not the sum could be put to much more advantageous use and expended in a manner which would give more widespread relief in the quarters where relief is needed now, than the proposals contained in the Bill will do.
It is difficult to work out what the full financial consequences of the proposal in the Bill will be £225,000 will come back to industry. Some part of the amount given in relief to employers will come back to the State again in increased income tax. The State will receive a direct benefit estimated at £64,000 and, in addition, will be relieved, we are now informed, to an amount equal to about £20,000, hitherto paid to defray the cost of administration.
No.
The Minister stated that the cost of administration up to the present was about £140,000, of which he got £110,000 from the fund, and that the balance of £30,000, or whatever it was, had to be met by the taxpayer. Now he anticipates that he will get about £136,000 from the fund. With the cost of administration remaining the same, the taxpayer will have to provide £4,000.
All from the taxpayer?
The expenditure this year?
Entirely.
The amount which the State contributes to the fund is determined by the revenue from the sale of stamps. The amount which it gets back from the fund is determined in the same way. In the past the State had to find an additional £20,000.
In the past the taxpayer had to find £120,000, which was channelled out through the fund, and had to find £20,000 which was channelled through allied services. The taxpayer had both charges to meet. Now he will meet the £140,000 in one lump sum. Therefore, as far as the taxpayer is concerned, there is no difference in the amount.
That is not quite clear to me. The more people there are in insurable occupations, the more there will be in the fund, but that does not mean that the cost of administration will go up at the same time.
The cost of administration will remain the same. Where is the difference, from the taxpayer's point of view, in paying £120,000 to one fund and £20,000 to another by way of allied services, and paying £140,000 in one lump sum?
At any rate we can have all this cleared up on the Committee Stage of the Bill. The principal question that I want to get decided now is, whether or not the relief which has been given should be given in the form of a reduction in contributions. That, I think, is the main question at issue in this Bill. The consequential effects of it on the Unemployment Insurance Fund, or the taxpayer, can be dealt with separately. If the finances of the unemployment insurance scheme were being recast at all, then in our opinion first consideration should have been given to the advisability of removing certain anomalies in the existing scheme. Reference was made yesterday by the Minister to one of these in reply to a Parliamentary Question. There is at present a six-day waiting period for a short-time man. We think it should be reduced to three. The Minister explained that it was not possible to reduce the waiting period to three days without recasting the finances of the scheme. The finances of the scheme are being recast, and we think that advantage should have been taken of this opportunity to have a general reduction in the waiting period from six days to three.
Why?
Because a fair amount of hardship is inflicted upon insured workers who become unemployed by the fact that they have to wait six days before they become entitled to benefit. We think that if the Minister himself ever had the experience of being unemployed, or had been in touch with people who have had the experience of being unemployed, he would have known something about that. It is, in fact, one of the hardships about which insured persons talk most frequently. We would like to see it removed, and we think it is quite possible to remove it. The extra cost on the fund would be small, and the administrative difficulties nil. It would only require an amendment to the Act and a slight adjustment of the finances. Insured workers who became unemployed would then become entitled to draw benefit after the expiration of three days instead of six days as is necessary under the existing Act.
In the existing Act there is also a provision which debars workers from the receipt of benefit for, I think, more than six months in any insurance year. It is very difficult to understand why that provision was thought necessary when the unemployment insurance scheme was being devised. It is probable that when the 1920 Act was being passed through the British Parliament it was intended to deal only with workers temporarily disengaged, due to seasonal changes or a temporary disorganisation of industry, and the possibility of a man being out of employment for a period of six months was considered to be remote. Now we have got to face the reality that a number of people are out of employment not merely for six months but for years at a time. This Act was not devised to deal with that class of worker, but there appears to be no reason why such a worker, so long as he is entitled to benefit, should not be allowed to draw it. It has occurred that workers who, for a long period, have been in insurable employment and become disemployed find themselves debarred from the right of drawing benefit for a period, although they had stamps to their credit which would entitle them to benefit. When the finances of the scheme are being recast, as they are in this Bill, that anomaly should be removed, and the undoubted hardships which result from the existence of that provision in the original Act abolished.
The main question, however, is whether the money available in the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be used to reduce contributions or increase benefits. It can be used in one way or the other. In the circumstances now existing it would appear that there is a much stronger case for increasing the benefits payable under the Act than for decreasing the contributions payable. The amount received by unemployed persons is very small in relation to the normal cost of providing the absolute necessities of life for a man and his family, and the number who are entitled to receive that benefit is in any case quite small. In fact, less than half the persons who are registered as unemployed at the labour exchanges are in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit, and a good case could be made for utilising this £300,000 to deal with people in such a position as they are in in preference to giving relief to employers and the taxpayers.
It seems in fact an amazing performance that the Government should come in one day to the Dáil and propose the expenditure of £300,000 for the relief of unemployment, while at the same time relief of taxation to the extent of £64,000 is given out of the revenue of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I thought the Minister in introducing this Bill would have given an outline of the reasons which prompted the Executive Council to decide upon a reduction in contributions rather than an increase or an extension of benefits. It is quite possible that good reasons for that decision exist but, so far, no one has given us any indication whatever as to their nature. We are left to conclude that the Government were more concerned to give a demonstration of the prosperity which they allege we enjoy than to provide the actualities of relief for those in distress. Most of the acts which the Government have taken during the past three or four days were prompted by political considerations alone. I think the introduction of this Bill in this form is also prompted by political considerations alone. Of course, an attempt has been made to pretend that the Government were concerned only with the necessities of the situation and that they would scorn the suggestion that they are attempting to make political capital out of their administration, but anyone who has listened to the speeches delivered here, and who understood their significance, would know that the stage has been set for an appeal to the people and that these measures are only the first move in the General Election game.
If the Government were concerned to provide relief for a class of person who is in very urgent need of it to-day, that is the worker who has exhausted his right to benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Fund, who is still unemployed, and who has very little hope of employment, or if they were concerned to lessen the hardship inflicted in the course of the administration of the Act, the proposals contained in this Bill would be very different to those that are in it. They were not so concerned, and they are taking the easy course. It is very easy to decide to spend £300,000 by a reduction of contributions. That requires no great thought on the part of the Minister and no great exertion on the part of his Department. It is the lazy man's method of dealing with a complicated situation and the situation is complicated. There is probably no more complicated code on the statute book than that relating to the unemployment insurance scheme. I do not pretend to understand it. I do not think there is any one in this House who pretends to have mastered that code.
Not due to laziness, I hope?
I do not think so. I have tried to do it and failed. It seems to us that in consequence of the complicated nature of the code there are unnecessary hardships inflicted on those concerned, which could be removed when there is available a sum of £300,000 with which to do so.
I might also draw the Minister's attention to the fact that some time ago we discussed the question of entering into a reciprocal arrangement with England in relation to the receipt of unemployment insurance benefit, which would permit of Irish migratory labourers becoming entitled to unemployment insurance benefit when they are unemployed here. The Minister explained that it was found impossible heretofore to effect any such arrangement with England and that the cost of providing the benefit out of the Irish Free State fund would be heavy. I think he mentioned a sum of £50,000. I am speaking from memory. If that is so, surely there was a case for ear-marking that £50,000 out of this £300,000 for that purpose. If the Minister was determined to use the rest for the reduction of contributions, then the difference to the individual employer or the individual worker would be slight, if, in fact, there would be any difference at all. We think that whereas the Dáil cannot fail to pass this Bill, because by rejecting it we would only leave the position the same as heretofore, it should pass it with the determination to endeavour to change its provisions, in so far as the Standing Orders permit us to do so, in a very drastic manner when it comes to the Committee Stage.
I hope the Dáil will not take Deputy Lemass at his word in connection with his last statement. I want to state that until Deputy Lemass uttered his last sentence I did not know what his Party was going to do. As far as this Party are concerned, we are going to vote against it. I do not agree with what Deputy Lemass stated, that we have to vote for the Bill because if we did not we would make the position worse. I do not agree with the Deputy because then we will be in this position, that if we do not vote for it, and if the Government is not prepared to introduce another Bill to give effect to what we think should be given effect to, the position will be that in another twelve months, instead of having a deficit of £300,000, there will be a credit balance of about £35,000. I am sure the Deputy will join with me in hoping that at that time there will be a Government in power that will be inclined to use that surplus for the benefit of the unemployed rather than for employers and those fortunate enough to be employed to-day.
I join with you there.
Perhaps the Deputy will see that we may still have a chance of defeating this measure.
It is not very hopeful.
At the outset, I would like to say that if we had not to consider those who are unemployed, if we had not a big unemployment problem to-day, and if the present Government had not very considerably reduced the unemployment benefit that was in operation when they came into office, and when the State was set up, then we would not be against this proposal. I know that we will be told, as I think we have been told already by the President, that this is going to help industry, and that it will help employment. I want to say that I do not believe that this is going to do any such thing. We were told when the Government decided to alter the rates, or to reduce super-tax on the people who were fortunate enough to be liable for super-tax, that it was to help industry and to create more employment. I wonder would the Minister contend that it had that effect. The same claim was made when the Government decided to reduce income-tax, that it was to help industry. Now we have the claim made that this £225,000, together with the sum of £64,000, will go to the relief of the taxpayers, and is going to save industry. The 3d. per week, which will go to the men who are fortunate enough under the existing conditions in this country to be employed, is not going to make a very great difference to them. I am satisfied that very little of the saving to the employers will be put back into industry. The greater part of it, if not all, will go to swell whatever profits they are making at present.
Or to reduce losses?
If the Deputy likes we will take it that way. I do not believe that the largest contributors to this Unemployment Insurance Fund, the three biggest industrial concerns in the country, are held up from expanding because of the amount of unemployment insurance they have to pay, and I want to say that I have not heard very much objection either from the employer's side or from the employee's as to the contribution which they have had to pay, but there is certainly a very great objection and a great complaint from the unemployed; but what is the position?
I want to make this again clear as far as I can make it clear, because even during the last couple of days I have heard the word "doles" used very loosely by all parties in this House. There is no dole given to anyone to-day in this country and there has not been any dole for years. The position to-day is, before a man is entitled to draw one penny of unemployment insurance benefit he must have at least a minimum of twelve stamps to his credit. Before he can have his twelve stamps to his credit he must get at least three months' work; assuming that at the end of that three months he becomes unemployed and fulfills the other conditions laid down, he is entitled to twelve days' unemployment benefit, a day's payment for every stamp to his credit and no more. As Deputy Lemass pointed out with regard to the maximum allowed under the existing Act, if a man has been employed for seven or eight years constantly and has to his credit three hundred, four hundred or five hundred stamps and is then unfortunate enough to be thrown out of employment for twelve months the maximum benefit allowed to him in any one year is 156 days.
On the question of the six waiting days I agree with Deputy Lemass that I do not see the necessity for it. So far as national health insurance is concerned the waiting period is only three days, but it is even worse than that. If a man has put in four of his six waiting days and then gets a day's work he has to start all over again, and naturally rather than do that many men are inclined to refuse a day's work, so that they can complete in a day or two their six waiting days, because if men do one day's work they have to wait six days after before they can qualify, and as we know in some of the county districts it might be a month and even six weeks before a man gets his first payment. That is a fact. This surplus has been brought about, in my opinion, first and foremost by a very drastic reduction of the benefits to which the unemployed men and women were entitled before this State was set up; secondly, I believe, to better and greater compliance with the Act, and on that I am all with the Minister and only hope that he will keep pushing for even greater compliance. I have mentioned this matter here in this House on a good many occasions for the last seven or eight years. Then we have got to remember also that up to the end of 1928 men or women who had reached the age of 65 years and had a certain number of stamps to their credit were entitled to are fund on their contributions plus two and a half per cent. compound interest. The Minister wiped that out, I think, at the end of 1928. I say it is most unfair that money, if I might use the word in this connection, seeing that we are still £300,000 in debt, that has been gathered together in that way at the expense of those who are unemployed, should be used for the benefit of those who are employed and for their employers.
I would like to make another point. Perhaps this might appeal to some of the farmer Deputies in this House. As the result of very drastic reductions which were made in the rates of benefit which existed at the time the State was set up, and reducing it down to a day's pay for every stamp to every man's credit, those men were compelled, having no unemployment benefit to get, and unable to get employment, to apply for home help, and the county boards of help and the relieving officers were compelled under law, unless they wanted to see those men and their families hungry and starving, to give them relief out of the rates. I say there is no real saving whatever. Looking at the matter from a national point of view, it is merely transferring the burden from national taxation to local rates. I prefer to see it the other way, that rather than being local it should be a national charge.
The point I want to make is, there is really no saving, and I know, speaking for the county which I represent, that a considerable amount of the sum paid out in home help has to be paid out to people, to able-bodied men and their dependents because they cannot get work and they are not entitled to unemployment benefit. I agree again with Deputy Lemass that it seems to be almost ridiculous to be giving £300,000 for the relief of unemployment and at the same time taking £300,000 from another fund which should be given to relieve unemployment, to give it to those already provided for.
I was rather surprised at Deputy Lemass when he stated that he was hoping that we would be able to amend this Bill in such a drastic way in Committee as to meet what he would like to have brought about, and have this money put to the uses he and I would like to have it put. I may say, so far as this Party are concerned, we are absolutely satisfied that it would be utterly impossible to amend this Bill to have the money used in the way we want to have it—that is, for the relief of the unemployed and the destitute. Therefore, we have no other course left to us except to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. If the fund were solvent, and if the unemployed in this country were getting anything like the unemployment benefit they should get, and are entitled to get, if not only they and their dependents are to be kept alive, the only way to use this money is to use it in their interests and those who are not provided for, and for that reason we will vote against this Bill because, under this Bill, you cannot provide that this money will go to the unemployed. If the Dáil agrees to the Second Reading of this Bill, then, in the opinion of this Party, the Dáil is committed to the spending of this money in the interests of those who, I say, are already provided for.
I join with Deputy Morrissey in opposing the Second Reading of the Bill. We all know the difficulty of reimposing any contribution that may be taken off at any given time. I feel, with Deputy Morrissey, that rather than reduce the contributions paid by the employed and the employer we should seek to increase the benefits. My experience is similar to that of Deputy Morrissey. So far as Cork City is concerned, at any rate, I have had no complaints whatsoever, either from employers or employees, about the rate of contributions, but I have had several complaints from the employees, and indeed from some very decent employers, that the unemployment benefits which operate elsewhere, the uncovenanted benefits, as they are sometimes called, do not obtain in our own country.
There is another aspect of the case which I would commend to the Minister's attention. Would it not be far better to employ any surplus that may accrue to this fund in ameliorating other social conditions? Even if the fund, as we are now told, is solvent, would it not be better to continue the old rate of contribution and extend the benefits, or, if not to extending the benefits, to employ the money so accumulated in other ways. It might so strengthen the Central Fund that we might be able, one of these days, to pay something towards widows' and orphans' pensions, for instance.
There is another point that I would like the Minister to take into consideration before this Bill reaches the Committee Stage, if it does reach the Committee Stage. It is the fact that men discharged from the National Army are not able to draw anything from the unemployment fund, not even in respect of the moneys which they contributed before they joined the Army. Even though a soldier has contributed for five or six years to this fund he is unable, on discharge from the Army, to draw anything by way of Unemployment Insurance Fund money. There was a provision in the 1920 Act which enabled the Minister to refund contributions paid by persons when they had reached the age of 65. As Deputy Morrissey has touched upon that matter and elaborated somewhat on it, I do not wish to repeat what he said. But it is a thing that should be commended, and I commend it to the Minister's attention, that something should be done to restore this provision which enabled employed contributors to this Unemployment Insurance Fund to get a refund of their money, plus a certain rate of interest, on attaining the age of 65.
Under the old Acts—I think it was Section 8, sub-section (4) of the 1920 Act—provision was made for the case I mention of ex-army men and others. I see in the remission of these contributions one danger perhaps that is more important than any of the others, that is that once you take off a contribution of this character you will find it very difficult to reimpose it, I feel that there are other avenues through which distress should be relieved than by reducing the contribution at present paid by those who are lucky enough, as Deputy Morrissey said, to be in employment, and in reducing the contribution paid by employers who have to pay this contribution, even though, as Deputy Good said, it might mean a reduction in their losses, though I have very great doubt as to the number who are living on their losses.
I would also suggest that it is about time that we had a complete revision of this kind of legislation or rather legislation dealing with unemployment and unemployed persons. The one peculiar anomaly is even though a person were employed five, six or seven years on his becoming unemployed he could only draw 156 days in any one year. Again, as Deputy Morrissey pointed out, he must have twelve stamps to his credit. In other words, he must have worked for at least three months before again becoming entitled to unemployment benefit. I feel at any rate, with all the members of our Party, that we cannot support a measure of this kind. We feel that instead of reducing the contributions paid by both parties to the fund the number of days in which unemployed persons should receive benefit should be increased. In fact, I would go further than that and say it would be incumbent on the State if they do not feel in the position to provide work for the unemployed, at least, to see to it that the unemployed man or woman who is willing to work and cannot get it should have some kind of financial assistance during their period of unemployment. For these reasons, amongst others, I am not prepared to support this measure, and intend to vote against it.
Repeatedly from these benches we have raised the question of reciprocal arrangements in regard to unemployment insurance benefit between the Government on the one hand and the British Government and the Government of the Six Counties on the other, and the Minister has told us that as far as lay in his power he endeavoured to get reciprocal arrangements entered into. I have come to the conclusion, as a result of this Bill being introduced to-day by the Minister, that he was not sincere in regard to those remarks. It is well known that quite a large number of workers go across to England, Scotland or Wales, or across the Border into the Six Counties, and work in insurable occupations. Having worked there for quite long periods they find when they return to the Saorstát that they are denied any benefits from the British Unemployment Insurance Fund, the Six County Unemployment Insurance Fund or the Free State Unemployment Insurance Fund. I have pointed out repeatedly in this House that, in my opinion, the reason why neither Miss Bondfield, the British Minister of Labour, nor Mr. Andrews, the Six Counties Minister of Labour, will not enter into reciprocal arrangements is owing to the fact that the benefits that we pay are at a lower rate than the benefits paid in England, Scotland, Wales or the Six Counties. I understand that the Six Counties Minister for Labour has already informed the Minister's Department that as far as the Six Counties are concerned they are prepared to enter into reciprocal arrangements with the Saorstát Government as soon as the Government here are prepared to bring up their benefits to the rates that are being paid in the Six Counties.
He informed the Deputy's trade union of that, I think.
Mr. Andrews has publicly made that statement.
He made it to the Deputy's trade union. Did they accept it?
I do not think he made it to my trade union.
He made it, certainly, to a representative body.
I know that Mr. Andrews, Minister for Labour, speaking at Larne, Co. Antrim, a number of years ago, said definitely that he was prepared to enter into reciprocal arrangements as soon as the same rate of benefit as in the Six Counties was paid here.
Does the Deputy think that is a good argument?
If the Minister did not interrupt I could develop the argument in such a way that he would come to the conclusion it was good. I believe if the Minister increased the benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, reciprocal arrangements could have been entered into as far as the Six County Government is concerned. The Minister told us that when he entered into negotiations with Miss Bondfield, the British Minister for Labour, she stated that she was not prepared to enter into reciprocal arrangements because there were greater numbers of workers who went to England, Scotland and Wales than came from these countries to the Saorstát. The Minister said here that in order to get reciprocal arrangements for unemployment insurance benefit it would cost the State £33,000. By the savings effected under this Act, the Minister, if he so desired, could agree to pay that £33,000. As a result large numbers of workers who emigrate from Mayo and Donegal and other counties to England, Scotland and Wales and who work there in insurable occupations and have week after week unemployment insurance contributions deducted from their wages, could, when they come back to live in the Saorstát, become entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
I was sorry when the Minister decided to recast the Unemployment Insurance Act that he did not endeavour to recast it in such a way as would bring those employed in the agricultural industry—I refer to agricultural workers—under the Unemployment Insurance Act, even in a modified form. I think the Minister will admit that this measure when it was first introduced in the British House of Commons was framed to suit the needs of Britain, and it must be recognised as far as Britain is concerned that the number engaged in industrial occupations is much greater than the numbers employed in agricultural pursuits in Great Britain.
In this country it is the other way about. Although the greatest numbers of workers are employed in agriculture you find what is known as the Unemployment Insurance Act does not apply to the most deserving class, the agricultural workers. I intend to vote against this Bill, although I realise that it might confer a little benefit on some employees to have their contributions reduced. I think the Minister would have done much better by aiming at the greatest good for the greatest number. He could have done that by continuing to keep the contributions as they are and by giving extended benefit. He could have also wiped out the cheese-paring policy in regard to the administration of the present Act, under which large numbers of applicants who ordinarily should be entitled to benefit are refused benefits when they apply for them.
Yesterday week, when the President came here with his propagandist statement I suggested, when criticising that statement, that it would have been much more honest if, instead of indicating his intention to introduce this Bill and reduce the subscriptions to the Unemployment Fund, he would indicate a more sincere appreciation of the problem of unemployment by expressing his intention to extend the benefits to the unemployed. I am very glad the Labour Party has taken up that attitude. I want to re-echo everything Deputy Morrissey has said in that connection. I would like to ask the Minister what is meant by stating that this is a benefit to the employee and the employer. We were told by the President last week that this would be a great fillip to industry. Has there been any representation from industrialists in this country for this reduction in subscriptions to the Unemployment Fund? I think I can undertake to say there have certainly been no representations made on that score from any representatives of the employees. I can undertake further to say that those in employment are quite prepared to continue paying the contribution to the Unemployment Fund simply because they have no guarantee that to-morrow they themselves may not be thrown on the unemployed market. They have no objection to paying the contribution provided that it will mean further assistance to the unemployed.
I cannot believe that this is intended seriously as even a sop to the employed workers. Threepence per week as a contribution certainly may mean something to the big industrialists, but are they not well able to bear the present burden? Up to the present we have had no complaint from any source about this contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. If there have been secret representations made by the industrialists we should be told from what source they emanate. Side by side with the President's flourish of trumpets, when he told us this great reduction would mean a fillip to industry and save the employed workers the munificent sum of threepence a week, he mentioned that he found it necessary to introduce a relief grant of £300,000. Where is the consistency? You have a sum of £300,000 in relief and a reduction in the Unemployment Fund. That is another form of window dressing in order to show, what he himself stated, that we were the only country in Europe having an Unemployment Insurance Fund in such a healthy condition.
I repeat what I said last Wednesday, that if the Government wish to interest themselves seriously in the welfare of those of the majority—of those for whom this fund was originally intended—they should withdraw this Bill and introduce a measure extending the period of benefit. We should, each and all of us, bear in mind what the original purpose and original intentions of the Unemployment Insurance Act was. That Act was for the purpose of insuring the workers against unemployment. It was not an Act introduced for the purpose of building up a fund which, for some particular period, would be used to give a fillip to industry and be a benefit to employers. There was never any such intention expressed when this Act was originally introduced. Surely it will be agreed that it is primarily an Act to secure the workers against unemployment. That being so, and the fund being in this condition in which we are told now it is, so as to be able to afford this reduction, why not be consistent and carry out the spirit in which the Act was originally brought into being and increase the benefits to those for whom it was introduced?
There are, as has been pointed out by several speakers from the Labour Benches, many anomalies in the present Act. I think Deputy Lemass dealt with this point also, and it is one which requires remedying. An insured worker pays unemployment insurance for a period during which he or she is employed, be it one, two, ten or fifteen years, and then through no fault on his or her part becomes unemployed. They are only permitted to draw 156 days' unemployment benefit. Then they are denied any further benefit for a period of three months. One cannot possibly see the justice of that, particularly in the case of people who have been paying into the fund for long periods. There is no provision made to meet that. That applies with equal force to the person who has been paying into the fund for ten or fifteen years, just as it applies to the person who is only due to come into benefit.
I seriously suggest to the Minister that he should withdraw this Bill and try and reconsider the position from the humane point of view, from the point of view of the people whom it was intended first of all to assist. He will find that there are many avenues through which he can use the money which is now available on account of the healthy state of the fund. He can do that without reducing contributions. Reducing contributions is not the best way of dealing with the present situation. If the contributions are now reduced is it feasible to expect that under, another set of circumstances he can come before the House and expect that he can have them increased? There is no demand for this reduction of contributions, and it will not serve any real genuine purpose. The principle of the Bill is what I am primarily concerned with. I appeal to the Minister to withdraw this measure and try to find other ways of using that available money for the benefit of those who are first entitled to it.
I am in agreement with this Bill in many respects. I must disagree with Deputy Cooney altogether when he states that employers ought not to receive any consideration whatever from the Government. Does Deputy Cooney realise that in one particular industry alone overhead charges have a very big influence on the estimates submitted by those engaged in that particular industry? Take, for instance, housing. When a builder makes an estimate for a housing contract he has to take everything into consideration, and amongst other things there will be unemployment insurance. If there is a reduction in the amount payable by the employer, naturally, he will be able to send in a lower tender. Is not that a help towards cheapening the cost of house building in this country, which I am sure, judging by the shortage of houses, is a real necessity?
I disagree with the idea that seems to prevail throughout this country that employers and employees are two different sets of people altogether and that their interests are not identical. I hold the opinion as a trade unionist of long standing that what is good for the employer is in many cases good also for the employee. I am a member of a trade union for the past 33 years. I do not look upon the employers as the enemy. The capitalist is a friend to the worker—to the man who has to do his work—by upholding the interest of the particular industry in which he is engaged.
What does he look on you as—a machine?
Instead of trying to create class distinction in this country it would be better for the country as a whole to see a good spirit between the employer and the employee.
Hear, hear.
The only criticism I would like to offer is that the Minister has not succeeded in having some agreement with the British Government in regard to those workers who have, of necessity, at different periods of the year to emigrate to England, Scotland or Wales. These workers have perhaps 150 or 200 stamps to their credit before they emigrate from the Free State. They go over to England and work there for some time, and, perhaps, through a shortage of work they are forced to come back again. They find they are not entitled to the unemployment benefit. I have known workers from the Free State who, when out of work here, put in their claim at the local labour exchange and were awarded the maximum amount of benefit, which is somewhere in the vicinity of 156 days. These workers very often instead of loitering about here in the Free State drawing six months' benefit preferred to cross over to England in search of work. It is a hardship that when these men come back they will not receive any unemployment benefit.
I understand that one of the conditions required for the granting of benefit is that a man must have 12 stamps here. In other words, he must have worked for 12 weeks. I think that is a distinct hardship, and if the Minister could make arrangements with the Government of Great Britain that would do away with this hardship I think it would meet with the approval of the workers of this country in general, especially that section of the workers who have been going over to England. This unemployment insurance is a very intricate question, and it is one which has created difficulties in all countries. The Act is very difficult of interpretation, and it is one which, in my opinion, has conferred, and I suppose, if wisely looked after, will confer great benefits on the workers. I think, taking everything into consideration, that the Government is, in my opinion, to be congratulated in having introduced this Bill. I hold that anything that tends to lessen the cost of production is good for the country in general. When we consider the resources of this country I think there should be general agreement on all sides that before there can be any appreciable reduction in the amount of unemployment it will be necessary that the cost of everything in general in regard to our industries must come down. That is the opinion I have held for a very considerable time, and I am strengthened in that opinion from the experience of the past seven or eight years. We all talk about the creation of work and everything else but we have the example to-day even in Great Britain, where there is in power a Government friendly to the working classes, yet they are up against a very difficult proposition, and one they find it more difficult to solve than they contemplated. I am not criticising the Labour Government; I am a friend of Labour, but I always look at things from the position I am placed in myself. And I think the time has arrived when there should be less inclination or tendency to create the impression that employers, as a rule, are the enemies of the working classes, and vice versa. No such thing. It is only by co-operation between both that we can go ahead and overcome the difficulties that exist in this country as in other countries.
I shall ask the members of our Party to go into the Lobby with the Labour Party against this Bill. The speech that we listened to might well be made against unemployment insurance in general. Every argument that has been put forward could be put forward against the whole idea of unemployment insurance. From the moment that we had the first intimation from the President of the solvency of the Unemployment Insurance Fund it surprised me very much to be told that the solvency of the fund was to be used in this way, because it seemed to me the natural thing that this strong position of the fund should be used in some way to extend the benefits to the unemployed. This Bill is intended to help undoubtedly on the one hand the employer and on the other the person employed, and actually working. As I said, one would imagine that any money available should be used to extend the benefits to the unemployed in the present conditions. I think it has been open, under the Act, to the Minister, at any time, to vary the rates and the period of unemployed benefit. It was open to the Minister to raise the rates and to diminish the period if he thought the necessity of keeping the fund solvent required it. Now conversely, it seems to me it should follow that when the fund is in a condition in which the period could be extended that we should use it in that way.
As far as I am concerned this is a very simple matter. This fund was intended to provide insured persons against a period of unemployment, and to my mind, it should be strained even to the point of solvency so as to give the greatest possible benefit to the people it was intended to benefit. The money available is not being used in that way, and that is my reason for asking our Party to vote against it.
The speech we listened to from Deputy Coburn was certainly a most extraordinary one especially when he told us it was the speech of a trade unionist.
Yes of thirty-three years' standing.
Then the Deputy has a lot to learn. I am as anxious as anybody to lower the overhead expenses of industry in this country, but surely that should not be done out of the savings of the unemployed. That may be a peculiar statement, but that certainly is the position, because it is due to the tightening up of the Unemployment Insurance Act that this fund is now approaching solvency. For the past four or five years, it was almost impossible for a man living in a rural area and working on the roads for the county council to get benefit. Time and time again questions have been put from various parts of this House in connection with the claims of men who work on the roads for about nine months out of the year to know why they do not get benefit. The reason invariably put forward by the Minister is that the man has two or three acres of land. I cannot understand how the Minister could expect a man to be able to keep himself and a wife and family out of a couple of acres of land. I know an industrious man who tries to till his land in his spare time. He has to keep himself in vegetables and other things, and finds it necessary to go to the county council and work on the roads. I know one particular case that came under my notice in the last month in my own constituency, where a man had been working for the railway company as a casual worker—he was almost permanent, I may say. He had practically ten months' employment in the year, and he had twelve children, and because he had three or four acres of land he was denied unemployment benefit. In God's name, how could that man be expected to maintain himself and his wife and twelve children out of three or four acres of land?
The tightening up at that particular stage of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and it has been tightened up very much, is responsible for the position in which we are to-day, when the President said that the fund was reaching to a state of solvency. We also have the case of a man working on the roads in a rural area who might be lucky enough to pay £2 or £3 for a horse and cart. That man is working the greater part of the year on the roads. He becomes unemployed, makes application for unemployment insurance benefit. He has been stamping his cards and he is now refused unemployment benefit. He is looked on as a contractor. I think there is a very big difference between a man of that type and a contractor. If relief is to be afforded to anybody it is to people of that type.
Deputy Cassidy referred to the fact that no reciprocal arrangement was made between the Free State and the Government of the Six Counties and the British Government. I think that the Minister was very lax as far as that is concerned. One would like to know while he was over in London for five or six weeks in the present year if any representations were made in the course of the Conference there on behalf of the people for whom we desire reciprocal arrangements. There are a number of sailors in this country and a very large number in my own constituency and they have perforce to go across to the other side in order to get a berth. They come home after two or three years' voyage. Their cards are stamped with British stamps; they have had to pay Unemployment Insurance and National Health Insurance. If they are idle two or three months they cannot draw any benefit. It is particularly hard upon those people at the moment, in view of the fact that unemployment prevails very widely in the shipping centres and that there are hundreds of ships lying idle in Liverpool, Cardiff and other ports. Many of these ships were manned by Irish sailors. They are unemployed now and yet they cannot get the unemployment benefit. It is a great hardship, and the Government, if it does not attend to a matter of that kind, shows a certain amount of laxity towards its citizens.
I would also like to refer to a point raised by Deputy Cooney, Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Anthony, and that is the question of the qualifying period for benefit. There are men who have worked for fourteen or fifteen years and who never had a day's idleness during that time, but who, when the slump came, became unemployed, and when these men were idle for about twelve months their insurance stamps immediately became ineffective. That is a great hardship. If the Minister has this money to spare, surely it is cases of that kind that should be relieved. I know of a particular case in my constituency where a large industry was closed down last year. The men had been working there since the Act came into operation in 1911. The firm went into liquidation, and during the last year of its life the men's cards were not stamped. They became unemployed and not one of them was entitled to benefit. That matter has been reported to the Department, but nothing has been done. These men are now walking the streets and are receiving no benefit, notwithstanding the fact that they have been stamping their cards since the advent of the Insurance Act in 1911. If there is money available, it is cases such as these that should be taken into consideration. The Labour Party, and I am sure other parties, are as anxious as Deputy Coburn to cut down overhead expenses in industry, but, as I said, it should not be done at the expense of the unemployed who have paid insurance contributions for a lengthy period and are disqualified by reason of certain clauses of this Act.
The Deputy made a statement that a man with a few acres of land who had paid his contributions each week to the Unemployment Insurance Fund has been denied benefit. The circumstances govern each case, of course, but I know for a fact that men who were engaged in an insurable occupation and who also had a few acres of land have received unemployment benefit. I do not think, therefore, that as a rule this fund is administered so tightly as to deprive such men of benefit.
Complaint has been made that I did not give certain figures in connection with this matter that I might have been expected to give and, by way of interruption, I said that I had already given the figures required. However, in case they have been lost sight of, I shall give them again. At one time the fund was in debt to the extent of £1,300,000 odd—over one and a quarter millions. It has been in successive years reduced by reason of the fact that the income, taking the average for the last two or three years, exceeds outgoings by about £330,000. The fund is, or will be on 1st January next, about £300,000 in debt. If we continue going on as we are going on for another year we would wipe out that deficit and have, as Deputy Morrissey said, about £35,000 in hand. The reduction that we propose averages threepence on the part of the employer and threepence on the part of the employee. It is different in the case of women, but it tots up, between men, women and children, to a saving to the employer and the employee of about £224,000 in the year, and a saving to the State of something over £60,000. The effect on the insured person, therefore, is that he pays less and gets exactly the same benefit as before. The individual insured person pays less—threepence if he is a man, twopence if a woman, and 1½d. in the case of children. As far as benefit is concerned, it is exactly the same.
It was said by one speaker that this was a very dubious type of operation— financing or subsidising industry out of borrowed money. In fact, what we are doing is stopping that practice. For several years past industry has been paying off by reason of the fact that at one time it was subsidised out of borrowed money. There was a time when the fund went into debt, and if a subsidy had not been given both to the industrialist and his employees at that time, the contributions would have had to be raised. They were not raised; the money was borrowed, and the deficit has been wiped off by degrees. We think that at this particular point, with business somewhat on the up-grade, it is well to give whatever fillip there may be, and I think it is a considerable fillip, by handing back to these people who are paying into, not merely an unemployment fund, but an unemployment insurance fund, moneys that are being taken from them to a larger extent than is required, to give the exact benefit they are being given to-day, under the same conditions in which they are now being given.
Defects in the Insurance Fund have been pointed out. All of them are urged by people who take up a different point of view with regard to this fund from our point of view. We regard this as an unemployment fund and an unemployment insurance fund, and we regard it as the proper type of unemployment insurance system to have for the ordinary type of unemployment that happens in ordinary periods of industrial activity in countries.
[Professor Thrift took the Chair.]
What about abnormal periods?
If the ordinary period is not there, then the abnormal circumstances ought to be met by abnormal methods, not by an unemployment insurance fund, not by a tax upon industry, first and foremost on industry, as this fund is. Hence the arguments that have been used against the waiting period, against the fact that only six months' benefit can be paid in any year irrespective of the number of contributions to a man's credit, are irrelevant to people who have the point of view with regard to this Bill that we have.
The waiting period has been referred to, and the argument used that in the six-day waiting period a man often neglects the chance to get one day's work because he would interrupt the waiting period and have to start the six days all over again. If people object to six days and plump for three days, I do not know why they should not cut down the time to the next day. Certainly the same interruption would be caused in a three-day period, and the same man would as easily abandon a single day's work if it would interrupt the three-day period. There is not the same pressure exactly, but there is pressure. I should like people who are considering this, not in the abnormal circumstances of countries that are in abnormal states of unemployment, but in the ordinary way, to think where the six-day waiting period came from. It came from the trade unions. It was borrowed by the British Government, when the Unemployment Insurance Scheme was being established, from the trade union practice, which was that where members, who then used to receive benefit from trade union funds, fell out of employment they were kept waiting for a week, because the trade unions' attitude towards their own members at that time was that if it were only a week's unemployment a man was suffering he really should have enough in hand to get over that, and that the week was a thing they did not regard. The system was borrowed from the trade unions and the trade unions' practice prior to the establishment of the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
The Minister must be aware that it does not obtain now.
Oh, no.
Will the Minister say to what particular trade union he refers?
I am referring to the general practice of trade unions in England at the time.
It was the exception rather than the rule.
No, by no means. It was stated to be founded on the general practice of the trade unions at that time.
Since the times became normal it has altered.
Is the Minister aware that the trade union committees could not meet within the week to decide these cases? They had not permanent officials.
I am not aware of that. I am aware that it was due to the fact that it was the trade union practice at the time. Their attitude was that if the unemployment lasted only for the week it was not worth considering. They thought a mail had enough on hands to tide over that period. If that is denied here by certain people, I believe that my statement can be verified. With regard to the period of six months' maximum benefit, that is again a very good safeguard in an ordinary unemployment insurance system. You must put some incentive on people to look for work and the incentive is there, namely, that if they remain out of work apart from all other things, they will be paid only up to a maximum of six months. They know when they enter into the scheme that this is the maximum and that no matter what stands to their credit they will have to space out the benefit to the best advantage, because they will only get six months' benefit in any one year. To change that would involve not only the £300,000 we are seeking at the moment, but it would require a complete actuarial calculation and a complete revision of the whole scheme.
Several people think that we are decreasing taxation by the £64,000 taken out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. We are doing nothing of the sort. We are keeping the scheme in the proportion that the State paid before, but we do hold, just as the State was previously mulcted by paying towards the insurance scheme, in proportion to the contributions from the two parties mainly concerned— the employer and the insured persons —that now when their contributions have been reduced, the State has a right to expect some reduction also. Deputy Lemass feels that we are getting not merely £64,000, but an additional £20,000. I have tried to explain the fallacy of that. At the moment the State pays a certain sum of money as a third party to the scheme. It pays more and has always paid more than the total amount granted at any time for administration purposes. Up to date there has been a certain percentage of the total income of the fund set aside for administration. The actual cost of administration has never been confined to that percentage. The State has paid to allied services certain sums of money sometimes as low as £20,000 and sometimes as high as £50,000. For the future the State is consolidating those two payments. The State is being mulcted as before for the same amount, but instead of paying one-third on a certain subtraction from the fund plus a contribution to allied services, it is now paying the total amount in one sum. The State is getting £64,000 remission and nothing else, and even £64,000 is a bit doubtful. It is not quite correct. It is the least accurate of the calculations.
The Minister has not made that clear.
That may not be my fault. Deputy Murphy spoke of better compliance with the Act. Better compliance is always urged when there is an increase in the revenue of the funds. We do not believe there has been any better percentage of compliance in the last five years. At no time has there been any confusion in regard to compliance. There has been at all times a reluctance on the part of certain employees to urge their claims, but we do not believe that the number of people who failed to urge their claims has been lessened in any marked way. There was always that number. We believe there has been a betterment of the situation, but it has been very, very slight.
Deputy Anthony wants further social legislation. I think that claim should be put up independently. The merits of the case should be argued and when that case is put forward, if there is a case to be made for widows and orphans, it should be made, and we should see the source from which the Deputy thinks the benefits which the Deputy would like for widows and orphans should be drawn. I would like to hear from him later whether he thinks they should come from industry instead of from the general tax-payer. He should make up his mind on that point before he argues that a scheme which appertains only to industrial workers should proceed to give benefits to a large number of people described as widows and orphans, irrespective of whether the widowhood or orphanhood arose out of industry.
On the question of ex-National Army men, I am in more sympathy with the Deputy. We have been trying to get some scheme whereby we could ease the conditions under which ex-National Army men could get back into employment, but there have been administrative difficulties of a very complicated type. I have not given up hope that some solution will be found, and the cost is not the consideration that keeps a scheme back. Deputy Cassidy, as usual, has referred to the case of migratory labourers. I would like to hear the discussion between him and the Trade Union Congress when they read what he has said to-night, because they distinctly stated that they did not believe that there was any force or any cogency in the argument put up by the Minister which the Deputy quoted.
Of course, the men fell between two Ministers.
They may have, but they stated, in falling, that the fault did not lie with me. They have laughed at and poured scorn on the argument that it is because there is not the same benefit paid here that the reciprocal arrangements have not been entered into. I would like to hear the discussion between Deputy Cassidy and the leaders of the trade unions when he goes back to the tomorrow.
What I said I am prepared to stand over.
The Deputy may be prepared to stand over it, but that does not say it is right. I say that the body which tried to bring my Department and the Northern Minister together reported, after full consideration of the facts, that the fault did not lie with me. Deputy Cassidy said that he does not believe we were sincere.
Since that time the Minister for Labour in the North has definitely stated that he is prepared to enter into reciprocal arrangements if you are prepared to pay the same benefits.
I am not prepared to have the benefits we pay ordered from that quarter.
No, but in the interests of the workers here.
And the Trade Union Congress did not agree that that should be done, and did not believe that there was any force in that particular argument.
The Trade Union Congress agreed that the same benefits should be paid here as there.
But not for the purpose of that arrangement. They take a particular line here in regard to social legislation, but on the argument as between this system and the Northern one, the Trade Union Congress have not the same views.
Yes.
But not for the purpose of getting reciprocal arrangements. That is the only point I am arguing on here. Attempts were made to cloud that. I am still prepared to enter into negotiations with either the British or the Northern Government in regard to this matter, and the seven or eight alternatives which we suggested are still open. I will wait with interest to see what the outcome will be.
Statements have been made with regard to the unemployment fund that it was certainly never built up for the purpose of these remissions. A section of the original Act of 1920 shows distinctly that when the Act was framed the rates were almost experimental. There was a definite promise when the Act was brought in that if it were found that the rates caused a swelling of the fund to a point where it was not required, there would be reductions. Provision was made in a section of the Act that if the fund was sufficient or insufficient changes could be made. The only time at which the point which Deputy de Valera referred to, the point with regard to modifications in respect of periods, would arise would be in the event of the fund becoming insolvent. If the fund tended to become insolvent, then the rates might be increased and the periods would have been changed adversely to the workers.
Why not use that conversely?
The Deputy argued from the Act itself, and said that there must have been something in the minds of the framers. I say that the only way that they envisaged a change being made was in the event of the fund becoming insolvent, and then the change would be adverse to the workers. In another paragraph they looked to a change in the contributions. There they envisaged either a state of insufficiency or of sufficiency in the funds, and they allowed for these remissions. They very definitely looked to a change such as we are now making in the rates if the rates were found to increase the income of the fund beyond the point that was desirable.
There has been one other point urged against the scheme as a whole but not against the Bill. That is the point with regard to what is called the entrance fee payable by a man after he drops out of insurable occupation. The fact has been referred to that a man must have twelve stamps to his credit before he is accounted a worker in insurable occupation and that if he falls out of insurable employment at any time, he must before he re-enters pay a re-entrance fee by way of three months' work. That is so. That is a provision in the Act which is quite sound.
Yes, in normal circumstances.
The circumstances which I am dealing with are not abnormal. Abnormal circumstances can be dealt with in another way. I am still sticking rigidly to the fact that this is an unemployment insurance scheme built up in contributions, and that no payments will be made except on foot of contributions to a man's credit. The whole calculation was based on that, and the twelve stamps and the six waiting days are all factors that have to be taken into consideration.
A point was raised by Deputy Morrissey in regard to the refunds that workers had a right to demand at the age of 60. Both Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Corish referred to that and said that we had taken away that right. We did take away that right, but we paid for it. We said at one time in particular that we were not going to allow these contributions to pile up and allow a man to take them away with interest at a certain time, but we said that on application being made within a limited period, we would wipe out that part of the scheme. We did it on the basis of compensation. We paid the full value of the contributions at a particular time. The only change we made was that instead of allowing that to go on and pile up until people came to the age of 60, we said: "Claim now within the period and we will pay." We did pay. If we took the right away we paid for it on the basis of compensation and with interest. There has been no harsh treatment of the insurable contributors on that point.
I was wondering if this debate could possibly end without reference to the road worker who has two acres of land. I think it remained for the last Deputy who spoke from the Labour Benches to refer to such persons. The way that Deputy Corish expressed it was that these road workers were ruled out of benefit because the Minister said that the men had a couple of acres. The Minister never says anything with regard to these people. The Umpire says it. The Umpire has to decide whether these people fulfil the statutory conditions. One of the statutory conditions is: "Is the man really unemployed; is he available for occupation, and is no other occupation open to him?" On that the Umpire is quite independent of my office and he does not depend on instructions issued from the office. He, as an independent judge on these matters, has to decide the claim, and takes into consideration everything that a man should take into consideration in these cases, namely, the previous history, the time of the year, the extent of his holding, the type of the soil, etc. If the Umpire decides that at a particular period of the year that type of person would be classed as employed——
A Deputy
Even on two acres of land.
Even on two acres of land.
A Deputy
He is well paid.
That does not come into the consideration. If he were badly paid he might be harder on the claimant. This matter has been raised on many occasions and time and again I have asked that the individual cases should be given to me even by the bundle. I stated over and over again that 75 per cent. of the people who hold land are settled with straight away, and that a certain percentage have to go through a Court of Referees and the Umpire. Some are determined against the applicant, and some are determined in his favour. It is a strange circumstance that I have asked for returns over and over again, and that, in this year, there have been less than 170 people to date turned down because they are, as the phrase runs, "not unemployed." That phrase covers those of the landholders who would be turned down. That figure would more than cover the land people.
The other point raised was the question of the £300,000. It has been said that there is no consistency in reducing unemployment insurance contributions and expending £300,000, divided between the employer, the employee and the State in the proportions that have been stated, and at the same time coming forward with the Relief Vote or £300,000. There are two points on which that can be argued. First of all it was alleged that the group of people for whom relief was required were those who had been affected in an agricultural way by the bad conditions of this year.
Deputy O'Connell has a motion on the Order Paper stating that the Dáil is of opinion that the Executive Council should do various things "so as to enable unemployed men and small farmers who have been seriously affected by bad harvests and the fall in wholesale prices to earn a livelihood during the coming winter and spring." Deputy O'Connell has in mind the type of people for whom we intend mainly the £300,000 by way of relief.
Mr. O'Connell
The unemployed?
People who have been affected "by bad harvests and the fall in wholesale prices."
Mr. O'Connell
They are different matters.
Very well, I will leave it that Deputy O'Connell did not mean it. We did. The people who are seriously affected, and for whom plaint has been made at this time this year, are agriculturists, and it is on their behalf that we intend most of the £300,000 should be expended. What we are dealing with now is another type of relief. Although the 3d. per week has been derided by a number of people, it is some measure of relief in the case of various people. It is some substantial relief in the total relief given to industry, relief that has often been demanded, despite what has been said by Deputy Cooney. Representations have frequently been made that this was one of the burdens pressing upon industry. Reverting to the line of argument on which I started, this unemployment insurance scheme has to deal with normal conditions. Our idea is that the normal conditions with regard to unemployment in this country, the conditions that we have at the moment in insurable occupations, allow us to make this reduction of almost £300,000.
There are abnormal circumstances affecting other portions of the community, and we deal with them in an abnormal way. We have our £300,000 Relief Vote, and that is the only way in which these things can be segregated. There must be a definite distinction made between normal conditions and the things that occur now and again. We think that having that fund built up by the employers and employees in industry, when it gets to the point that the income is in excess of the outgoings by about £330,000 per annum, that then it is time to reduce the contributions while at the same time keeping benefits as they are. I think the scheme is sound in the benefits that we give. I cannot say that I have not heard complaints with regard to the smallness of the benefits, but I certainly have not heard any great volume of complaint with regard to that. I have heard a great deal of complaint that the whole scheme has not been extended to cover people who were not covered by the insurance scheme. I have heard the complaint that it should be turned into a system of dole, a thing which it has never been in this country. We would regard that as a bad way of facing up to abnormal circumstances. We prefer always to have industry dealt with in a normal way by ordinary legislation running over a number of years, and when abnormal circumstances come about, then to meet them by way of relief votes or other temporary expedients. There were three other points raised, but as these will fall for consideration on the Committee Stage of the Bill I am not going to deal with them now.
I think Deputy Corish, in the course of his speech, stated that in a Wexford factory which has been closed the cards of the men who had been employed there had not been stamped for twelve months. I want to know if the Minister is aware of that.
Mr. Hogan (Clare):
Reverting to the position of people who are employed and pay contributions, according to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and who, when they apply for unemployment insurance benefit, cannot get it because they are not considered unemployed according to certain sections of the Acts, I would point out that a very considerable number is affected. Seeing that the Minister is not willing to amend the legislation, so as to include these people for insurance benefit, would he consider the of allowing their contributions to accrue, as was the case in the earlier Acts, so that they could receive the accumulated amount with 2½ per cent. compound interest when they came to the age of 60? According to the terms of the Act as it stands, they are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefit. Surely they are entitled to their accumulated contributions.
The Minister stated that the waiting period was taken from the trades unions. Did the trades unions recommend the waiting period, and if so, what unions?
There is no waiting period now.
It is recommended by practice.
Mr. Murphy
I think Deputy Corish said that the factory in Wexford was closed, and that for one year the cards had not been stamped.
It was in liquidation, having gone bankrupt.
Mr. Murphy
But they had not been in liquidation at the time.
The thing is quite possible, but I should say it is very exceptional.
I am not blaming the Department, but I say that it is a terrible hardship on the men.
It is quite possible but very exceptional.
But very unlikely.
If an unemployed person does not take the trouble to look after his own rights, but relies on an inspector to find out the facts, then what Deputy Corish has said may happen, but it is very exceptional.
As the Minister knows where men are employed constantly their cards are sent to the Labour Exchange, and these men thought that that would have been done. When they were paid off they found that it had not been done, and that the cards were not stamped.
Mr. Murphy
Is it not a punishable offence?
When they are found out.
It can be recovered by an action for the recovery of debt in the ordinary way.
Tá
- Aird, William.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Coburn, James.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.