asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he is aware that a number of fish workers from the Rosses (County Donegal) district, who are at present employed at Scottish fishing ports, are compelled to pay unemployment insurance contributions; and whether he will arrange for these workers to be paid unemployment insurance benefit when they return to County Donegal; and, if not, whether he will take the matter up with the British Ministry for Labour to get these workers exempt from paying such contributions; or failing that, secure for them a refund of the contributions which they have paid.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fishworkers and Unemployment Insurance.
I have no definite information respecting the conditions under which the fishworkers in question are employed or as to whether they are liable to compulsory insurance, but having regard to the nature of the employment mentioned in the question, I think it probable that the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There is no legal power to pay benefit in the Saorstát on contributions paid in Great Britain, nor has the British Ministry of Labour power to exempt, or to refund contributions to insurable workers on the ground that they are not permanently resident in Great Britain. I would have no hope that the British Ministry of Labour would agree to exempt Saorstát workers in Great Britain from obligations with which British workers must comply.
Since the question of reciprocal arrangements in regard to unemployment insurance was raised in the House has the Minister made any further representations to the British Ministry of Labour in order to get reciprocal arrangements?
I do not know how that arises on the question, but the answer is "yes." There was a long conference in March of this year.
May I ask the Minister if these negotiations are still taking place?
No.
Has the Minister given it up as hopeless?
I would not like to say that.
Then I suggest that the Minister should take further steps.
Why?
In order to get benefit for the workers who have paid contributions.
But if the parties to a conference tell you that they will not consider a thing until after a certain report has been received on the other side there does not seem to be much good in taking an attitude that would look like nagging.
Nothing succeeds unless it is attempted. Would the Minister consider taking up the question again with the British Ministry of Labour?
There is nothing that might lead to failure so easily as indiscreet intervention.
I suggest that it is not indiscreet when people are paying contributions for which they receive no benefit.
I cannot accept that as a statement of fact.