Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 4 Nov 1932

Vol. 44 No. 9

Vote 60—Unemployment Insurance (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £55,726 chun slánuithe na sume is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1933, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Arachais Díomhaointis agus Malartán Fostuíochta, maraon le síntiúisí do Chiste an Díomhaointis.

That a sum not exceeding £55,726 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Unemployment Insurance and Employment Exchanges, including contributions to the Unemployment Fund.—(Minister for Industry and Commerce).

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I do not propose to unduly delay the Dáil over this Estimate, but there were some points raised in the discussion last night that, I think, should be referred to before the discussion terminates. In my concluding remarks last night I referred to the various criticisms that had been advanced in respect of the regulations made defining the order of preference to be observed in placing men in employment on schemes of work financed out of State funds. I pointed out that the idea behind these regulations was two-fold: first, to ensure that in no possible circumstances should political influence operate in the selection of men for work; and, secondly, to ensure that so long as there was not sufficient work for all, such work as was available would be given to those who were in, relatively, the greatest need of it.

These two declarations of policy represent the intentions of the Executive Council, and the regulations which were made were designed to give effect to that policy. If the regulations are defective in any way, or if they do not give effect to that policy in full, they can and will be modified, but that has not yet been demonstrated. In fact, as I understand from the statements made, it is admitted that the regulations are satisfactory, but that cases have been known in which their operation might be subject to criticism. I pointed out that any general regulation, no matter how carefully framed or no matter how praiseworthy the intention behind it, was bound to operate contrary to the intention in individual cases and that that could not be avoided. The experience of my Department, however, is that the working of the regulations has been, on the whole, satisfactory. The number of complaints we have received have been remarkably few in all the circumstances. They are confined to a few localities, and in these localities to a very small number of individual cases when one has regard to the total number of persons placed in employment under these schemes. The only substantial ground for criticism advanced is that the branch manager, unavoidably, occasionally places in employment a person with other means of livelihood when destitute persons are available. I pointed out that that was due to the fact that the employment exchanges are now being called upon to do work for which they were not originally designed. Originally, they were merely designed to enable unemployed men seeking work to get in touch with employers of labour. At the present time we are endeavouring to use the exchanges, not merely for that purpose, but also to determine the relative degrees of hardship existing between classes and individuals in the community, in the selection of people for relief work. It has taken some little time to adapt the exchange machinery to carry out that additional function. It is anticipated, however, that the difficulties which have arisen heretofore will be obviated when the information to be ascertained by the new registration form has been analysed and becomes available to branch managers. A suggestion was made that, in cases where a large number of persons were being selected in a particular district for a relief scheme, the branch manager might get the advice of the local relieving officer. That is a suggestion which I will have examined.

The other points related to the significance of the figure of registered unemployed. Deputy McGilligan stated that we had to take three figures into account. First, the figure of registered unemployed at this period last year; second, the figure of unemployed persons revealed by the Census of 1926, and thirdly, the present figure. He gave his opinion of what significance was to be attached to each of these figures. Under the old system, the number of registered unemployed represented part, and probably the most considerable part, of the persons who were ordinarily in insurable employment and who were seeking such insurable employment in urban areas. It was not contended —and I do not think it is seriously contended by anybody—that it could be regarded as an index of the number of unemployed persons in the country. The Census of 1926, despite obvious difficulties to which the Deputy referred, did give us a figure. It showed a total number of 78,000 people out of work from various causes.

Mr. McGilligan

No—not working.

Mr. Lemass

Not working from various causes. Deputy McGilligan stated that he had had that analysed and came to the conclusion, as a result of the analysis, that included in that figure there were only about 50,000 who could be described as people anxious to get work but unable to obtain it. That analysis is possibly correct and we would get more satisfactory results if we approached this problem with a figure of about 50,000 in mind. I think that the situation has improved somewhat since then. The present figure of 90,000 represents, as I said, not merely the persons without work or other means of livelihood and anxious to get it, but a number of additional classes. It represents, to some extent, the volume of unemployment and under-employment in the country. It includes a number of people who are in work but are able and willing to take additional work such as road work or other relief work, if it were offered to them. It includes such classes as small shopkeepers, small landowners, or people in receipt of pensions, who would not be destitute if work were not available for them. I gave it as my opinion that 50 per cent. of that figure represents the number of genuinely unemployed persons for whom work should be found if they are not to endure severe hardship. We will have more definite information on that point in the near future when the analysis of the information supplied upon the new registration forms has been completed.

Deputy McGilligan referred also to the debt in the Fund. He adverted to the fact that the indebtedness of the Fund showed an increase in this year over last year. He was careful to admit that the increased indebtedness might, to some extent, be due to the fact that the reduction in contributions, which took place at the beginning of last year, was not justifiable in full. At the beginning of 1931 a Bill was introduced here reducing the contributions payable by employers. At the time I strenuously opposed the passage of that measure, as also did other Deputies in the House. Our contention was that if the position of the Fund had improved, and if there were sums available which could be utilised for the reduction of contributions, they should be used instead for the payment of additional benefit.

Mr. McGilligan

Were there funds available?

Mr. Lemass

Relatively speaking, yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Although the Fund was in debt by £250,000?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

That is a new idea of a Fund in debt.

Mr. Lemass

The debt of the Fund was being reduced in a very rapid way, and one could contemplate without any uneasiness of mind the slowing up of the rate of reduction. The Minister did that. He introduced a Bill to slow up the rate of reduction, and utilised part of the surplus revenue available for the reduction of contributions. But he cut it much too fine. He reduced the contributions much more than they should have been reduced, and within a week of my taking office as Minister for Industry and Commerce I was informed that a sum of £25,000 or £27,000 had to be borrowed to make good a deficiency in the Fund.

There is another reason for the increase in deficit. I referred to it here last night. I stated that one of the instructions given to Branch Managers in selecting persons for relief work was that they should choose persons not entitled to benefit in preference to those who are so entitled. Quite obviously there are two courses possible. We can make up our minds to save the Fund and give work to those entitled to benefit, thus reducing the drain upon the Fund, or else we can take the opposite course, and allow those people to get in full whatever benefit they are entitled to, confining the work to those not in benefit. We decided upon the latter course although we realised that it would produce an increase in the number of persons drawing benefit, and diminish the resources of the Fund. We think, however, we adopted the right course, despite those facts, because obviously it is the best way to diminish hardship amongst unemployed persons.

Deputy McGilligan made quite a number of points of doubtful relevancy, and I do not propose to deal with them all. He adduced the figures which I gave him yesterday in reply to a Parliamentary Question, in regard to the total annual contribution in a number of years. He stated dogmatically that there was vastly increased unemployment in the country since the Fianna Fáil Government came into power, but the figures I supplied him with—the figures upon which he purported to base that contention— proved quite the contrary. They proved that the contribution income in this year had not increased in comparison with last year and previous years,—that it had not been increased relatively more than last year was increased over the previous year, but they certainly do not support the contention that there is vastly increased unemployment in the country. Even though they do not support the opposite contention, that there is vastly increased employment in the country, they do indicate that there is some increase in employment.

We can discuss unemployment as such on another occasion. It does not arise on this Vote. The discussions here were confined merely to questions on the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, but I would like to say that it is a fact that a large number of people have been placed in employment as a result of the protection afforded to various industries here. It is undoubtedly also a fact that there are efforts to promote employment in other quarters, and I would ask the Deputy when putting those two facts in relation to each other to ask this question: "What would be the situation here if the protection given to those industries were withdrawn?"

Deputy Norton raised the question of reciprocal arrangements with Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I want to say definitely that I see no hope whatever of getting reciprocal arrangements with Great Britain or Northern Ireland. That is not a consequence of the present relationship that exists between the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom. The late Government did everything possible— I would like to say that for fear there would be any misunderstanding of the position—to secure reciprocal arrangements. Every possible device and every possible method of securing them was at one time or another submitted to the Northern Ireland and British Government and in each case they were rejected. In fact the Northern Ireland Government introduced an Unemployment Act in the Parliament there which practically ruled out the possibility of reciprocal arrangements altogether. When this Government came into office we attempted to reopen the question and to try and get discussions going again upon one or other of the alternative methods by which reciprocal arrangements could be achieved. We were not successful in that, and I see no prospect of success until there has been a change of mind in the other quarter.

Deputy Norton also refers to various proposals which have been made by the Irish Trades Union Congress for the amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I met a deputation on unemployment from the Trades Union Congress and we discussed various matters under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Some of their proposals involved merely administrative changes, and in respect of at least one of them a change in the method of administration had been made, designed to meet the point raised by them. Others of their proposals involved legislation, and not merely legislation but the securing of increased revenue for the Fund by raising the contribution. That is a matter which will require careful consideration in all the circumstances. I stated that I strongly opposed the decision of the late Government to reduce the contributions in 1931. I think it should not have been done, but now that it has been done it is not easy to get back to the original position. It is all the more difficult because of the fact that the late Government reduced contributions unduly and put us in the position that if the Fund is to be put on a sound basis we have to increase the contributions in any case without giving any corresponding increase in benefit. However, the matter is being examined, and the views of interested parties are being ascertained.

I think these were the only matters raised except that mentioned by Deputy McGilligan in the concluding part of his speech. He read out a fairly logical announcement which appeared on behalf of the Fianna Fáil organisation at one time—an announcement to the effect that if people bought Irish goods there would be more employment in Ireland. I take it the Deputy's sneer at that particular announcement is to be understood as opposition on his part to the idea contained in it. If persons buy more Irish goods there will be more employment in Ireland——

Mr. McGilligan

That is not all that is said here.

Mr. Lemass

——and I would advise the Deputy to consider the advisability of advocating the same point of view.

Mr. McGilligan

They start with a different premise in this advertisement.

Mr. Dillon

There are two things which I would like to ask the Minister, if I am at liberty to do so now. He used this language while he was speaking this morning, that he had made arrangements that in no possible circumstances could political influences operate in the giving of work to unemployed persons. I want to tell the Minister that I think he will do a perfect service if he prevails on the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to see that a similar arrangement operates for all the local authorities in this country. I have in my pocket at present a letter from an unemployed man with a wife and two children, who was promised work by the county surveyor, and who, when he went to get the work, was told by the county surveyor that the local Fianna Fáil Cumann had warned him that it was as much as his job was worth to give work to that man because he was a supporter of Cumann na nGaedheal. I will place in the hands of the Minister full particulars at his convenience.

Mr. Lemass

If the county surveyor was referring to work on relief schemes he had no right whatever to promise a man employment. A county surveyor has no right to promise employment. The persons for employment are selected through the instrumentality of the Labour Exchanges and neither Fianna Fáil clubs nor the county surveyor has anything to do with it.

Mr. Dillon

I agree that Fianna Fáil has nothing to do with it. I am not saying it was a Relief Scheme, I am saying it was a scheme under the Local Authority, which authority is under the Department of Local Government and I assume when the Minister uses that language he speaks with the approval of the entire Executive Council.

Now I want to say one other word about the Minister's employment scheme. I do not know why it is, although apparently there is plenty of goodwill in the matter of dealing with the unemployment problem in Dublin, whenever it comes to getting relief some kind of paralysis seems to fall not only on the local authority but on the Executive as well. It must be common knowledge to anybody who walks down Cumberland Street or any other slum in this city that there is ample room there for the adoption of an unemployment scheme.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely the Deputy does not desire to discuss the Dublin tenement problem on a vote for Unemployment Insurance?

Mr. Dillon

There is ample opportunity for employment there in providing accommodation for these people.

Mr. Lemass

On a point of order, we are now discussing the unemployment vote.

Mr. Dillon

Now if the Minister reads the Vote he will find what I am getting at. There is ample employment there for a very large number of men who are at present on the Unemployment Fund. I propose, in this House at an early opportunity, to ask the Minister at least to investigate the possibility of devoting the amount we are now paying for unemployment relief to providing work.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy cannot advocate legislation on this Vote.

Mr. Dillon

I am not advocating legislation at all. I asked the Minister to inquire into the possibility as to whether a scheme could not be evolved whereby persons in receipt of out-of-work insurance benefit could not be employed upon schemes of public utility such as housing or any public service of that kind, and their unemployment benefit which is at present charged upon the fund which the Minister is now seeking to borrow money for, and which we are discussing under this Estimate—

Mr. Lemass

Am I to reply to statements dealing with the unemployment problem or are we discussing——

An Ceann Comhairle

The House is discussing the administration of Unemployment Insurance.

Mr. McGilligan

Surely the question of the fund debt would arise.

An Ceann Comhairle

Certainly, but not the problem of the tenements.

Mr. Dillon

I am perfectly clear that I am free on this Vote to recommend to the Minister ways and means of reducing the expenses and reducing the indebtedness of the fund which is at present before the House.

Mr. Lemass

It does not arise on this discussion.

Mr. Dillon

I am in the hands of the Ceann Comhairle.

Mr. Lemass

I submit the Deputy is a little bit late——

A Deputy

Answer the question.

Mr. Aiken

What is the question, there is no question.

Mr. McGilligan

You would not understand it so it is not worth while.

Mr. Dillon

I repeat that I have already asked the Minister to consider, at least the possibility, whether a scheme could not be evolved with a view to reducing the expenses of the unemployment insurance fund where-by persons who are ordinarily in receipt of unemployment insurance might not be employed on schemes of public utility so that in these schemes a part of the benefits which they are receiving might be shared. I do not know why the Minister is so disturbed ——

Mr. Lemass

I am disturbed because the Deputy is allowed to make a speech that I would not be allowed to make.

Mr. McGilligan

That is a bad test.

Mr. Dillon

If the Ceann Comhairle so rules I will not proceed, but I will not be brought to order by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I have already pointed out that to my mind—I am reluctant to press forward what I wish to say although I believe I am in order. I do not want to leave the Minister under the impression that I am taking an unfair advantage of him. I shall not say another word if the Minister feels that I am opening a question which would put him at a disadvantage, if he cannot answer me fully now.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy had been here last night he could have made any point he was entitled to on the administration of the unemployment insurance scheme.

Mr. Dillon

I have not the slightest desire to unduly embarrass the Minister. I am not trying to steal a march on him, and I have no desire whatever to invole the Ceann Comhairle in reopening a debate on a contentious and difficult question. The suggestion I make to the Minister is not with the intention of making it difficult for him.

Mr. Lemass

It has nothing to do with the matter before the House.

Mr. Dillon

That is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle, but I will not press the question now. I hope to have another opportunity to bring the matter before the House when it can be properly raised. I think it is a pity the Minister resents its introduction so violently but I see his difficulty.

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter was discussed fully on Vote 56.

Mr. Dillon

I take it, sir, you have ruled I can discuss it now, but I think as the Minister feels he has not been given an opportunity of answering me fully I will make such proposition on another occasion. But I think it is a matter that ought to be discussed and I think it is a matter that ought to be looked into. I believe it is a scheme that would be of material assistance to the Minister in over-coming the difficulties which I am quite certain he has. I will not press the matter further except to ask him to look into the matter I mentioned at the beginning which is the question of the impartiality of the public authorities in this country in giving employment to unemployed men without any reference to political bias; I ask him to look into those questions from a purely administrative point of view with a view to assisting himself in the difficulties he must overcome.

Mr. Lemass

I should like to point out as regards what the Deputy said concerning housing in Dublin, that a very generous provision is being made by the Executive Council to encourage the building of houses and the Dublin Corporation is proceeding with the construction of dwelling-houses here as rapidly as the machinery will permit. I discussed this matter with the Minister for Local Government last week and he told me that he was informed by the Dublin Corporation that it was not physically possible for them to proceed faster than they are doing. That is a matter which is still being examined, because if the machinery of the Dublin Corporation does not permit of faster progress we will have to supplement that machinery in some other way, and I can assure the Deputy that any method we can think of in reducing the Unemployment Fund is not being overlooked.

Mr. Anthony

I want to ask the Minister in view of the position brought about by the policy of the Minister for Agriculture and the large amount of unemployment caused through and by that policy would he consider——

Mr. Lemass

Are we going to have all these irrelevant speeches?

An Ceann Comhairle

I have not yet heard Deputy Anthony's question.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Anthony is not referring to the administration of the Unemployment Fund.

Mr. Anthony

I think the Minister is very disorderly. In view of the numerous cases of agricultural labourers who at present are not provided for by way of unemployment insurance, would the Minister consider, in conjunction with the Minister for Finance and any other Minister who may be as disorderly as the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the desirability of introducing legislation——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot advocate legislation on an Estimate.

Mr. Anthony

Would he consider——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not permissible to advocate legislation on Estimates.

Mr. Anthony

I quite see, but I am asking him whether he would consider the desirability of doing so.

Mr. J. Brodrick

I should like to know from the Minister whether in a case where you have two individuals, one receiving benefit and the other not in benefit, the man not in benefit is to get preference in any work that is going?

Mr. Lemass

That is one of the factors taken into account, but I would ask the Deputy to bear in mind that there are two other regulations, one which requires a preference for married men and the other which requires a preference for persons longest out of employment. I take it that as far as the question of length of unemployment is concerned, that coincides with the question of whether a person is in benefit or not and the preference would be given to those who are not in benefit but on the subject of the major regulations which requires a preference for married persons with dependants, I do not think it would affect it.

Mr. Brodrick

I inquired into this matter. I do not know what instructions have been issued, but engineers in charge of work in some parts of the country believe that they have got to employ those in benefit first.

Mr. Lemass

The instruction is directly to the contrary.

Mr. Moore

Is not the exchange manager's duty one of recommendation or must he compel an employer to take on a person who, he says, is to get first preference?

Mr. Lemass

In all ordinary employment the exchange merely provides the employer with the names of suitable workmen of the required category who are available for employment, but on a relief scheme financed by State funds the exchange manager selects the persons.

Mr. Moore

Those entitled to unemployment benefit would be tradesmen largely. In making recommendations in individual cases is the exchange manager to insist that persons out of benefit against those who are in benefit must be employed regardless of what the employer may think as to their individual qualifications?

Mr. Lemass

Oh no. The Deputy misunderstands the position. I am talking of unskilled labour. If you require a skilled bricklayer, a carpenter or a stonecutter you must get a qualified man, but in so far as the selection of people for unskilled relief work is concerned, then the regulations operate.

Mr. Moore

I am speaking only of those who come under the unemployment insurance provisions.

Mr. O'Neill

There was one matter raised by Deputy Dillon the answer to which I did not hear from the Minister, that is if political prejudice would be allowed to weigh in giving work under the relief schemes. I did not quite catch the Minister's reply but I take it he does not approve or will not tolerate any political prejudice being aroused either by county surveyors or by managers of branch unemployment exchanges. Do I understand him to say that he would not tolerate that?

Mr. Lemass

What I said was that the system of administration we have devised was designed to make it impossible for political prejudice to operate. There is a definite preference laid down.

Mr. O'Neill

Apart from the ordinary preference you will not tolerate political prejudice being brought to bear to deprive a man of work?

Mr. Lemass

Definitely the scheme was designed to make it impossible for political prejudice to operate.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister might answer the question "yes" or "no." Will political prejudice be allowed to operate to deprive an unemployed man of his livelihood?

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy had been here last night when we were discussing that matter——

Mr. Dillon

I am asking the Minister a straight question and he will not answer it, that is, will political prejudice be allowed to operate to deny a deserving man work?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy does not recognise a straight answer when he receives it. I replied to that question for fifteen minutes last night. I pointed out that when we came into office employment exchanges were being operated in such a way as to give political preferences, and I pointed out that the present regulations were designed to smash that system. That is the purpose of the present scheme.

Mr. Brasier

Might I ask the Minister whether the policy of the Local Government Department in spreading their unemployment work over four or five months in the winter is not cutting directly across the principle of unemployment insurance? It means that these men are suffering very severe losses and that only one out of every ten will get employment. Will he see that that is rectified?

Mr. Lemass

It does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Hogan (An Clár):

In the new form which the Minister says is being prepared for Labour Exchanges is there a space provided to ascertain whether the applicant has any other means so that these cases can be investigated?

Mr. Lemass

The form is designed to get that information.

Vote put and agreed to.