Vote 61—Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance.

Mr. Lemass

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £955,625 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1937, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Arachais Díomhaointis agus Malartán Fostuíochta (maraon le síntiúisí do Chiste an Díomhaointis) agus i dtaobh Conganta Díomhaointis (9 Edw. 7, c. 7; 10 agus 11 Geo. 5, c. 30; 11 Geo. 5, c. 1; 11 agus 12 Geo. 5, c. 15; 12 Geo. 5, c. 7; Uimh. 17 de 1923; Uimh. 26 agus Uimh. 59 de 1924; Uimh. 21 de 1926; Uimh. 33 de 1930; Uimh. 44 agus Uimh. 46 de 1933; agus Uimh. 38 de 1935) agus i dtaobh seirbhísí áirithe fén Acht um Beithígh agus Caoire do Mharbhadh, 1934 (Uimh. 42 de 1934).

That a sum not exceeding £955,625 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, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses in connection with Unemployment Insurance and Employment Exchanges (including contributions to the Unemployment Fund) and Unemployment Assistance (9 Edw. 7, c. 7; 10 and 11 Geo. 5, c. 30; 11 Geo. 5, c. 1; 11 and 12 Geo. 5, c. 15; 12 Geo. 5, c.7; No. 17 of 1923; Nos. 26 and 59 of 1924; No. 21 of 1926; No. 33 of 1930; Nos. 44 and 46 of 1933; and No. 38 of 1935) and certain services under the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act, 1934 (No. 42 of 1934).

For an explanation of the various sub-heads I refer Deputies to the notes which are attached to the Estimate. Provision is made for an increase in staff which is found necessary in consequence of the extended operations of the Department. It is considered desirable that the facilities available in connection with the exchanges and branch employment offices should be extended as widely as possible and certain provision is being made to that end in the Estimate for this year. There are two sub-heads under which there are substantial changes. Subhead G, which provides for the State contribution to the Unemployment Fund, records an increase of £12,000. The contribution from the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund is determined by statute. It is a sum which has a fixed relationship to the revenue of the fund from the sale of insurance stamps, and in anticipation of the increase in employment that occurred during the past few years being continued during the course of the present year, provision has to be made for an increase in Exchequer contribution. On the other hand, we have estimated that the amount required for unemployment assistance in the course of the current year will be £110,000 less than last year. The Appropriations-in-Aid show little change. They are explained in the notes attached to the Estimate. There is, consequently, a net decrease in the Estimate of £89,042. The services provided for out of this Vote are three in number. There is the service of the labour exchanges, the service of unemployment insurance, and the service of unemployment assistance. These three services have become fused in one another and are at present virtually administered as one service. The labour exchanges were originally established for the purpose of bringing into touch with one another persons seeking employment and employers who were in search of workpeople. That service has been always the main function of the local offices of the Department, but through the stress of other work, particularly during the past couple of years, it has tended to become overshadowed. It is the intention in the near future to revive this important function of the Department, and to require local officers to engage in a vigorous canvassing campaign for the purpose of ascertaining employers' local requirements, and inducing them to satisfy their requirements through the medium of the local offices.

In the course of the past year, from 2nd April, 1935, to 9th March, 1936, there were 64,897 vacancies notified to the Department, and of these 51,136 were filled through the Department. It is worthy of comment, I think, that the activities of the Department in the matter of filling vacancies has been considerably extended during the course of the past three or four years. The number of vacancies filled in the year ending April, 1930, was 16,020; in the year ending April, 1931, 22,931; in the year ending April, 1933, 96,069, and in the following year, 71,916. The number fell off in the year ending April, 1935, to 26,036. I mention that fact because reference has been made to it here, and apparently a misunderstanding exists as to the reason for the decline in the number of vacancies filled for that year. It was represented that that was due to a diminution in the volume of employment available. That is not correct. It was due entirely to the fact that the Unemployment Assistance Act was brought into operation during that year, and required all the attention of the officers of the Department situated in exchanges or branch employment offices, with the result that the function of the Department, in the matter of filling vacancies notified to it, could not be performed, and various administrative changes were made in order to relieve them of obligation in that respect during that period. The Department is now assuming its ordinary functions in that regard, and, for that reason, for the period of 12 months I mentioned, the number of vacancies filled rose again to 51,130. In connection with unemployment insurance there was no change during the course of the year, either legislatively or administratively. The number of persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act has, however, risen considerably, and is now the highest recorded. The total number of persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act during the period 1934-35 was 399,710, a figure which has to be compared with 314,368 for the financial year 1931-32, an increase of 86,000.

General Mulcahy

In full-time employment?

Mr. Lemass

No, that is the number of persons insured. The number of persons claiming insurance benefit expressed as a total percentage of the insured population has shown a steady decline during the course of the past year. The number of claims for unemployment insurance benefit expressed as a percentage of the total number of persons insured under the Act on the 2nd April was 4.9 per cent., compared with 6.9 per cent. for 2nd April, 1931. In August, 1935, the Unemployment Assistance (Amendment) Act became law and in consequence of that Act certain changes in the administration of the unemployment assistance scheme came into effect. In particular, new machinery was devised and established for the consideration and determination of appeals by persons who were dissatisfied, either as to the assessment of their means for the purposes of the Act or who had been refused qualification certificates. As Deputies will remember, there was outstanding a very large number of these appeals and the matter was the subject of complaint here. I am glad to say that the new machinery has been completely effective in wiping off these arrears of appeals and at the present time there are no appeals other than current appeals outstanding.

The section of the Department provided for in this Estimate deals with the matter of the granting of permits to aliens to undertake employment in the Saorstát. Certain people have been addressing themselves in public to the question of the granting of permits to aliens to get employment here and any Deputy who wishes to refer to the matter can do so in the discussion on this Vote. I ask Deputies to bear in mind, however, that the persons who are described as aliens for the purposes of the Aliens Act do not include British citizens, and it is only in respect to persons who are defined as aliens under these Acts that the Department has any function, in respect to the granting or refusing of permits to undertake employment here. A person who is an alien within the meaning of the Aliens Act, cannot undertake employment in the Saorstát without a permit from the Department. A number of these permits have been issued. It has been the policy of the Department to issue them where the alien had technical qualifications of the kind necessary to permit of some industrial activity being inaugurated in the Saorstát or of the work of some particular company being continued. In fact, the general test which has been applied, in considering applications from these firms, is whether the grant of the permit will or will not increase the prospect of Saorstát nationals getting employment here.

There are, of course, I know, a number of people who consider that in certain of the new industries that have been established an undue proportion of aliens have been employed. I cannot accept that point of view. Particular reference has been made in that connection to the sugar industry. The sugar industry, as Deputies are aware, is a very large industry involving some £2,000,000 capital, and we could not take the risk that the efficiency of that industry would be impaired by any defect in the technical qualifications of those responsible for its direction and management. On that account we have had to sanction the employment of aliens in a number of the technical posts in the service of the sugar company. I can say, however, that the total number of aliens employed in connection with the four factories now established in the Saorstát is less than the number originally employed in the Carlow factory when it first got going.

It is, of course, the intention of the Government that Saorstát citizens should be trained in all classes of technical work associated with the sugar industry, and we are getting the co-operation of the sugar company to that end. In fact, considerable progress has been made in the education of Saorstát citizens employed by the company in the technical operations of the industry, and they are replacing alien workers to an increasing extent every year. But there are certain posts in each of the sugar factories which involve such an amount of experience and technical knowledge that it is likely to be some considerable time before any of our citizens will have been sufficiently trained and qualified to occupy these posts without risk to the fortunes of the company. In all cases, or in practically all cases where a permit is issued for the employment of an alien, a condition is attached that the service of the alien will be utilised for the purpose of training a Saorstát national in the work concerned and, in fact, a number of our citizens have got a technical training in various classes of industry on that account which might not have been easily procured otherwise.

I do not know that it is necessary to refer to any other matters in connection with the administration of this service. We have had certain questions in connection with it raised in the course of the past 12 months on Supplementary Estimates or otherwise. I notice, however, that recently local authorities—and I might mention in particular the Dublin Board of Assistance—have been making adverse comments on the administration of the Unemployment Assistance Act, particularly in the City of Dublin. It is, perhaps, not fully appreciated by the great body of the citizens that the Dublin Board of Assistance is a Party caucus. It is a body composed entirely of members of the Opposition Party, and it has allowed itself to be influenced by political considerations to an undue extent in the discharge of its functions, particularly in the course of the past year. Persons who may have been influenced by statements made by members of the board should be fully informed as to the motives from which they originated.

Recently some comment has been made on the fact that certain persons have been debarred from receiving unemployment assistance on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking work. I do not know that anybody will seriously contend that the State should provide unemployment assistance for persons of whom it can be correctly said that they are not genuinely seeking work. The whole purpose of the Unemployment Assistance Act is to provide State aid for persons who are in a bona fide manner endeavouring to obtain employment, and who, through no fault of their own, are unable to secure it. If, therefore, in accordance with the machinery of the Act, a person is held to be not genuinely seeking work, he is, obviously, not a person to receive assistance. Any complaint which may arise on the action of the officers concerned in debarring certain persons from receiving unemployment assistance, on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking work, must be due to the belief that these persons have been so held in the wrong. In that connection, I can merely state that the general policy of the Department is, if possible, to give the benefit of the doubt in favour of the applicant. The consideration of each case is undertaken by an unemployment assistance officer, in the first instance, and on his determination there is an appeal. In all cases there is an appeal taken to the local court of referees which, as Deputies are aware, is a body free from Departmental influence. It consists of a neutral person as chairman appointed by the Minister—a solicitor or a barrister, or somebody with legal training—a representative of the organised workers in the area of the court, and also a representative of the employers. The representative of the workers and the representative of the employers are taken in rotation from a panel of representatives which is prepared regularly. It is that court which determines an appeal from an unemployment assistance officer's decision as to whether a person is or is not qualified to receive unemployment assistance. In certain cases there is a further appeal to the umpire, who is a legal personage. He acts, in relation to the Unemployment Assistance Act, in a manner similar to that in which he acts in relation to the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is the umpire a neutral person?

Mr. Lemass

He is a barrister who is appointed for that purpose and paid fees in relation to the number of appeals taken to him. The same man has acted in that capacity for a long time. His functions under the Unemployment Insurance Act are similar to those which he discharges under the Unemployment Assistance Act. The appeals that come to him are mainly on questions of law. The actual determination of the facts relating to the question as to whether a person is qualified to receive unemployment assistance is usually done finally by the court of referees. The determinations of the umpire upon a test case, in which an interpretation of the law arises, are communicated to the courts of referees, and naturally influence their decisions in subsequent similar cases as they arise.

That is not correct. The Unemployment Assistance Act did not supersede the boards of assistance. Those boards were left in existence with exactly the same obligations and exactly the same powers as they always had, but we took out of the class of persons who were being helped by those boards one definite class, that is persons who are fit for work, who are genuinely seeking it, and not able to find it through no fault of their own, and we gave those people a statutory right to unemployment assistance. The board of assistance distributes home help at its discretion. It does so after the investigation of individual cases, and having regard to the circumstances of individual cases. Persons who conform to certain conditions are of right entitled to unemployment assistance payments and must get them. The board of assistance can give or withhold assistance at its discretion, having regard to the nature of the case, and the Dublin Board of Assistance is in a position which any body of politicians would love to be in. They can give out assistance, and if they increase the rates the blame is going to go to their opponents. I do not think that there was ever a body of politicians in Parliamentary history so ideally situated as the Fine Gael members of the Dublin Board of Assistance.

Discussed by whom? Not by the Minister?

Mr. Lemass

The amount paid out in benefit during the year was £544,917.

Well, I thought the Minister would try to get a little nearer to the truth as a Minister than he does as a politician. If the Minister is not aware of the fact that we have a far greater number of unemployed in this country than ever before, most other people are aware of it. The unemployed are aware of it and possibly, too, the people who have to support them and maintain them in some way are aware of it. The Minister did not indicate to this House in any way what steps his Department are taking to get the only real solution for reducing this very large amount which must be provided for maintenance. The real solution is the provision of work, but he did not say a word about that. The Minister told us that the main function of what he called the labour exchange —the proper official title is the employment exchange—was to place people in employment. But the Minister did not tell us to what extent, if any, they had placed those people in what might be called ordinary employment. He gave us figures of 64,000 odd as the number placed in employment through the employment exchanges. To what extent are relief schemes responsible for absorbing these numbers? To what extent is road work responsible, and to what extent are housing schemes responsible? I would like to get from the Minister some idea of the number placed in ordinary normal employment through the employment exchanges, but the Minister did not tell us. He kept away from it. Then he told us it was his intention to embark upon a canvassing campaign to place people in employment in this country. It is not by a canvassing campaign that people can be put into employment, but it is by the opening up of works to enable people to give employment so as to absorb the unemployed workers. If work is there the unemployed will find it without the assistance of the Minister or his Department.

Mr. Lemass

Is the Deputy not misrepresenting what I said? I said we were to embark upon a canvassing campaign to get employers to recruit additional workers through the medium of the exchanges.

Mr. Morrissey

What is the difference? What is the object of that?

Is it not so that the Minister will be able to say next year, "We placed so many thousands in employment, and these men would never have got that employment only for the activities of our Department?"

Mr. Lemass

I never said that.

Mr. Morrissey

Is not that what it amounts to? Is it not a fact that if employment is there the unemployed will find it without the assistance of the Department?

They have still a very good reason to register.

Mr. Anthony

Notwithstanding all that the Minister has said and all the rosy promises that he, and the various members of his Party, made at the last general election, when they produced that wonderful plan about which we have heard so much, and which, in a most indirect way, Deputy Morrissey has just touched on, the problem of unemployment to-day remains as bad, if not infinitely worse, than it did when the Minister and his Party produced that wonderful plan. The Minister is usually very adept at solving most of our industrial problems, quite apart altogether from unemployment, the gravest of the whole lot—solving them to his own satisfaction, on paper. But it is very poor satisfaction indeed, and very poor solace and comfort to the unemployed men in Cork and Dublin, or any other portion of the Saorstát, who, notwithstanding a heartbreaking search for work day after day, cannot find the employment about which the Minister speaks here whenever he rises to address the House on industrial matters.

I know what the position in Cork City was and what its position is to-day on the industrial side. I know that so far as Cork City is concerned there was never so much unemployment. Personally I do not stand for the work shy; I do not stand for the person who signs at the employment exchange for the purpose of receiving money for nothing. I am quite on the Minister's side in that respect. But the Minister has at his disposal, and his Department at its disposal, a very easy remedy, a very easy method, of finding out whether the person who registers for work is or is not genuinely seeking employment. The remedy is this. Offer to that person work of any kind for which that person is suited, and then, if that person refuses the work, it is very easy to ascertain whether he or she is genuinely seeking employment.

Now I commend that to the Minister; he might try it as an experiment. I have no doubt whatever that here, as elsewhere, there may be people who are work-shy, but I speak for a large number of persons who come to me day after day, and week after week, and who are genuinely seeking employment and who, because of this section of the Act which deals with that particular class of persons, are refused unemployment assistance.

The Minister, with a great flourish of trumpets and his back-bencher followers, with an equally great flourish of trumpets, proclaimed the great relief that the ratepayers were to get under this Act and what they could reasonably anticipate when the Act became operative. What is the experience? It is this: that while the expenditure on poor relief—outdoor relief, as it used to be called—is not going down, expenditure on home assistance is going up. These are facts that cannot be controverted. Now, if, as the Minister predicted, home assistance figures would go down and expenditure under it would be lessened—if that has happened and if it is true—it is easy for the Minister to contradict the statement I make now or else admit that it is true. It is natural, of course, that those persons who are refused unemployment assistance or State benefit should turn to the home assistance authorities for relief. That kind of relief has been readily given, but then the Minister should recollect that we were told that this question would be made a national one, instead of a local one, and that the ignominy of applying for home assistance or outdoor relief would no longer be tolerated in this country and that everyone could apply for work, and could go to the unemployment exchanges with their chests out and their heads up and demand from the nation all the beneficence allowed them. But promise and fulfilment are two different things.

Are we to take it from the Minister that a prima facie case is made out, according to the Act, that a person who is for a long period unemployed is to be deemed to be one not genuinely seeking work? I do see the force of the objection on the part of the Department, and an objection which I would stand over, to the use of the nation's money for subsidising work-shy persons if they are found to be present. But I suggest a way to the Minister which I commend to him and to his officials and others who have the administration of these funds. Unemployed persons deprived of assistance by the officials frequently blame the officials and the Court of Referees. In most cases such persons are wrong. My experience of the Court of Referees is that in all cases they give due attention to the claim of the unemployed person, but neither the officials nor the Court of Referees can be blamed if they interpret the Act in the way the Minister says it should be interpreted. It is a question of policy not so much as administration. I have the greatest sympathy with many of the officials of the labour exchanges who are endeavouring to translate the policy of the Government. It is the unemployment officials and the Court of Referees who are in the front-line trenches, bearing the brunt of the battle arising out of the Minister's policy.

The House should understand, and the Minister should understand, that no matter how sympathetic, or well disposed or kindly disposed the officials at the exchanges may be or the Court of Referees may be, it is a question of policy that decides these things. It is the interpretation of the section of the Act in the way the Minister wants it interpreted that matters. I would make this suggestion to the Minister. He might ask both officials and the Court of Referees through the head officer, the manager of the local labour exchange and the President of the Court of Referees respectively, to make a more liberal interpretation of those three or four words "not genuinely seeking work." Undoubtedly, grave hardship has been inflicted upon a very large number of deserving people, and it is adding insult to injury to tell an unfortunate creature unemployed for two or three years that he or she is deprived of benefit because not genuinely seeking work. I feel sure, however I may differ from the Minister in many respects, that he is a man of initiative and of some human feeling. I think that he has a full grasp of the effect of the Act and that in the reports from the managers of the labour exchanges, and the Court of Referees, he will see there has been grave hardship inflicted upon the persons to whom I have referred. I ask the Minister as one who has some respect, and regard, and, also, a little sympathy with the particular job he has to do, to consider the suggestion of issuing instructions for wider and more humane interpretation of four words I have quoted. If that were done it would cost the State, perhaps, something extra but it would be money well spent and would be spent in fulfilment of the Minister's own undertaking, when he told the country that when the Act became operative it would mean, in practice, that the amount paid out in home assistance would be lessened very considerably. I am now talking of the effect that this would have on the man who, in my interpretation, is genuinely seeking work if his claim is met from the Unemployment Assistance Fund instead of home assistance. I am talking of the moral effect that will have on a man, and to me, at any rate it is of great importance to see the morale of our people kept up even at the expenditure of a little more of money. I ask the Minister to act as far as possible on the suggestion I have just made to him. It would have, perhaps, a better and more far-reaching effect than even an increase of the money assistance given to the majority of those who are entitled to draw that benefit. I again impress on the Minister, at the risk of repetition, that the points I have raised are worthy of his consideration, if he has any respect or regard for the morale of our people who are genuinely seeking work.

Mr. Everett

The Minister stated that he had not received any reports or complaints of difficulties in connection with the operation of the period order procedure but that, on the contrary, he had received reports of difficulty in securing agricultural workers in many parts of the country. I should like to refer to an area which has suffered considerably in connection with many matters for which this Government is not responsible. An industrial area has closed down and it happens that, in that area, very few farmers employ men. In the constituency I represent the farmers are not able to avail of the agricultural policy of the Government. That is not due to any fault on their part. They live a long way from the Carlow beet factory in mountainous territory, and the land is not suitable for the growing of wheat. I want to ask the Minister to make a special exemption in respect of the period order for single men in that area. They are unable to find employment in Avoca and other rural areas. The farmers do not require them, and the position in which we will find ourselves will be that the majority of single men, being unable to obtain unemployment assistance, will have to receive grants from the board of health. I see the Minister's difficulty in making exceptions but, where a special case can be put up, as it can be put up on behalf of our county, and where the men are willing but are unable to obtain work, due to the causes I have indicated, I do not think the period order should apply.

Again, the Minister has referred to the sympathetic view which the Court of Referees takes. Unfortunately, in our county, the Minister has not sanctioned any Court of Referees. While there are a few complaints regarding excessive charges in respect of the means test, I can well understand the mentality of a Court of Referees sitting in Dublin to decide the value to the man in the country of a few drills of potatoes. A man in West Wicklow, in order to avail of the Court of Referees, must travel to Carlow. He may get a voucher on the bus, but there is no voucher to bring him the ten or 15 miles to the main road where he will get the bus. The journey to Carlow might involve two days if the man lived at Rathangan, Hollywood or any such area. A man in East Wicklow may have to go to Dublin, and he may forfeit his rights rather than do that. I ask the Minister to meet the difficulty in Wicklow. I do not suggest that people in Bray should have the services of a special Court of Referees, but I suggest that there should be one at least in Arklow, to take in East Wicklow, and one in Blessington. An order is sent to the Guards who advise men as to work in certain areas. I should be only too anxious, through our organisation, to assist men in procuring work. I am sure the Minister appreciates our position, and I ask that a special exemption be made in the areas I have just mentioned. I ask the Minister, too, to take special note of the hardship to a man in West Wicklow of having to attend a Court of Referees in Dublin or Carlow. I make a special appeal to the Minister to take into consideration the case of the man who will be deprived of unemployment assistance under this Order and the difficulty which the boards of health have, owing to the financial position, in providing assistance for these men.

Mr. Minch

Deputy Everett has mentioned a very important point with reference to the Court of Referees and the distances which unemployed men have to travel in order to have their cases heard. He referred to West Wicklow men having to travel to Carlow to put their case before the referees. These men have no means for travelling long distances. They have to borrow a bicycle, or try to "jump" lorries. On numerous occasions I have interviewed these men, and I should like to emphasise Deputy Everett's point. Is there any way by which the referees could be brought on different days to different centres? For instance, if the Carlow referee were asked to attend at Athy on a certain day, it would save considerable hardship. Deputy Everett's point is one to which the Minister and his officials should give serious consideration. My suggestion might help only in a few cases, but it would help in those cases where help is most needed. Putting aside unemployment statistics and the pros and cons of industrial activity in solving unemployment, I often wonder if we have come to the point where we should consider the obligations of citizenship. I think the time has been reached when representative citizens throughout the country who have a desire to help their fellow-men should take up the question of forming clubs for unemployed men and try and bring about, particularly in the rural areas, a relief of the terrible drudgery suffered by the unemployed, and prevent that loss of morale on the part of our young men which has been referred to. In this matter, citizens and industrialists, as well as the Government, have a duty to perform. The time has arrived when we might copy the methods of other countries, not necessarily Great Britain, where this question has been tackled and where a lead has been given.

General Mulcahy

If the financial position of the country is such that we need not pay any attention to it, does the Minister tell us that the reason that he is cutting down these payments and extending the employment periods is because there is more employment in the country? If there is more employment in the country, will the Minister tell us why the permanent agricultural labourers employed in 1935 were 617 less in number than in 1931, and why there were 1,055 less employed in 1935 than in 1934? It is very hard to understand why the Minister will not address himself to an explicit examination of the matter. It is very hard to understand why he holds, in the casual way in which he does, that there is more employment in the country in view of the figures which he has given us.

The Minister, in reply to a Parliamentary question, told us that in the following counties agricultural employees, including fathers of families and heads of houses, were less in 1935 than in 1934 by the numbers indicated —Carlow, 697; Kilkenny, 40; Leix, 171; Longford, 455; Westmeath, 404; Wexford, 31; and Wicklow, 30. There might be some explanation for the decrease in employment in Leinster counties, where there was a reduction in the beet acreage in order to transfer part of that acreage to Munster and Connaught, but let us take the other counties. In Clare there were 784 less employed in 1934 than in 1935; in Cork, 309; Kerry, 99; Limerick, 604; Tipperary, 375; Galway, 993; Leitrim, 2; Mayo, 1,172; Roscommon, 694; Sligo, 459; and Cavan, 437 less. Although the Minister, in comparatively recent weeks, gave the House the information that the number of persons employed in agriculture last year in these counties was less by the figures I have quoted, he has told us that there is more agricultural employment available, and that that is why he issued his employment period Orders. The Minister for Finance, as Deputy Morrissey and, I think, Deputy Anthony have said, indicated to the local authorities that he was going to relieve them considerably of the burden of home assistance by the introduction of unemployment assistance payments. The figures given to-day by the Minister indicate that the total amount of unemployment assistance paid in the month of March last over the country as a whole, excluding Dublin and the area around it—Balrothery and Rathdown—was £102,500. Nevertheless, the amount of home assistance paid by local authorities in the month of March this year was greater than it was in the month of March before Fianna Fáil took over. Therefore, the situation that presents itself to the bodies in the country responsible for relieving the poor, in spite of an expenditure of over £100,000, not including Dublin City or the area surrounding it, is of such a nature that, in spite of the difficulty of getting in rates in the present economic condition of the farmers, they are called upon to collect and pay out more money in home assistance than they were doing before the Unemployment Assistance Act was introduced. In view of these considerations, the Minister has a duty to consider whether his action in introducing the employment period Orders is dictated by any knowledge of his that the country cannot bear the expenditure that is going on at the present time, and would require a more careful explanation from him of the figures which he has disclosed with regard to employment in agriculture; that is, if we are going to believe that he is treating this matter in a serious-minded way at all.

Mr. T.J. Murphy

I was surprised to hear that the Minister was of opinion that the Unemployment Assistance Act was working smoothly. I think, if he makes inquiries, he will find that the position is quite different. In the part of the country that I know best there is widespread dissatisfaction with the present position in regard to unemployment assistance. I want to refer to some of the sources that cause a good deal of delay and consequent dissatisfaction in connection with the Act. The Minister must be aware that a good deal of the time of the officials charged with the administration of the Act is taken up with the investigation of anonymous complaints. I venture to suggest that it should be easy to establish that a great many of these complaints are entirely groundless. Quite a number of them have been so proved to be. The Minister and his department must be aware that a great many complaints arise purely from motives of malice. I know that within the last 12 months, in West Cork, one person was responsible for the suspension of the payment of unemployment assistance to 15 persons. That was because of bogus offers of employment. In the case of those who were made the victims of such complaints, long delays occurred before the payment of assistance was renewed. I suggest to the Minister that the period of these delays might be considerably shortened. Somebody with a kink in him, or because of a local prejudice, sends an unsigned complaint to the labour exchange, and benefit is promptly suspended in the case of some deserving person.

It is inevitable, I suppose, that there should be an investigation when a complaint is made, and a suspension of benefit, because of the fact that a very small percentage of the complaints made may prove to be genuine. What I have to complain about is the long delay that takes place, arising out of such complaints, before payment of assistance is resumed. These complaints are investigated by the Guards promptly enough, but in too many cases several weeks elapse before a final decision is come to and payment resumed. That is an extremely serious matter for the persons concerned as well as for their dependents. It involves, too, the transfer of such people to home assistance funds pending a decision in their cases. Several Deputies have referred to that in the course of the debate.

I suggest that it ought to be possible, without doing away with the necessity for making inquiries and of establishing the bona fides of claimants, to shorten considerably the period during which investigations are carried out. The only complaints, I suggest to the Minister, that should be acted upon are those which bear satisfactory proof of being genuine. We all know that you have in every country evilly disposed persons, people with a petty grudge of some kind against a neighbour. Such people think that the easiest way to inflict immediate hardship is to send in an anonymous complaint. Only too often, unfortunately, that happens to be so.

With regard to certain remarks that have been made about offers of work of any kind, I would like to join issue with Deputy Anthony on that. I am aware that offers of work have been made to people at a wage of 3/- or 4/- a week. I consider that it is a perfectly proper thing for an unemployed person to refuse offers of that kind. They are not reasonable offers of work and ought not to be regarded as such either by the unemployed person or by the officials of the Department. I think there ought to be some definite standard of wages—low and miserable enough as they are in agriculture or in whatever work is usually performed by the person—to determine what is a reasonable offer of work. I want to add my voice to what has been said in regard to the large numbers of people who have had their unemployment assistance suspended or who have been finally refused assistance on the grounds that they were not genuinely seeking work. I think it is a great hardship on people, some of whom have unfortunately been idle for a year or two, or have only done a little work in between, that although they are willing to work and are available for work, the fact that they are on assistance for a fairly long period seems to weight the scales heavily against them in any investigation of their case afterwards. It is not intended, perhaps, that that should be so, but, judging by the results, one is forced to the conclusion that that is the case in many instances. A very large number of widows with children have from time to time been deprived of unemployment assistance on that plea. I have known a number of cases which were so decided. I should very much like if the Minister would make more inquiries as to how this provision is operating, because it seems to me that in a fairly large number of cases it operates very unfairly indeed.

The most general complaint that one hears about the administration of the Act is in regard to delays. One hears about the determination of a claim against an applicant, and then the machinery of the Act is available for the applicant; he is entitled to seek to have that decision reversed by the Court of Referees. But there is sometimes a fairly long delay before the case comes before the Court of Referees. Perhaps delays of that kind are unavoidable, but they make the position of the unemployment person, who is without any provision in the meantime, very difficult. That, however, is not the kind of delay that I want to complain about. What I want to complain about is the delay that very often occurs after the decision of the Court of Referees has been given. I have been present at sittings of Courts of Referees and have personal knowledge and recollection of certain decisions. Several weeks sometimes elapsed before the applicant is informed of what the position is. The delay in that case seems to me to be with the headquarters of the Department, where a further examination of such decisions is necessitated, but it should not necessitate the very considerable delay which takes place before the decision is given in a great number of cases.

Reference has been made to the employment periods. I want to suggest to the Minister that there is no justification for employment periods at all in the case of persons who have holdings with a valuation of about £4, because such people hold land which is equivalent to the plot attached to a labourer's cottage. 99.9 per cent. of the people concerned are workers, pure and simple, for the whole 12 months of the year. One, two, or three weeks in the year would provide ample time for them to do the work necessary on their own holdings.

Mr. Lemass

The average valuation of land is 10/- an acre and, therefore, on the average a holding with a valuation of £4 must be eight acres.

Mr. Murphy

I suggest to the Minister that a £4 valuation represents a very small holding. There might be seven or eight acres, but only one or two acres might be suitable for tillage purposes. The bulk of it, in the cases I have referred to, is rough grazing land which is not the subject of any labour by the holder at any time during the year. I do suggest to the Minister that the employment period Orders operate very harshly against such people. If they are unable to get portion of the work that is available on the roads, in the way of carting if they have a horse, or in the way of manual labour, they are available to work for their neighbours, and the bulk of them get their living in that way. To suggest that they would require 18 or 19 weeks, or even a small portion of that time, to do work on their own holdings, is to suggest what is an utter impossibility in a very large number of cases that I know of.

Like Deputy Everett, I want to draw the Minister's attention to what I think might be remedied by a further examination of the position. In West Cork the sittings of the Court of Referees are held in Bantry, and they cover a stretch of country from Allihies Mines to Clonakilty—certainly in the neighbourhood of 70 miles. They cover also, as far as West Cork is concerned, up to 100 islands off the coast. A large number of the islands are not of very great significance in this respect, because the number of applications that would arise there are very small. But in places like Cape Clear and Sherkin, where there is a very large number of persons, who, by reason of their position in life, would seem to be normally persons eligible for unemployment assistance, I suggest that involves very considerable hardship. In regard to Cape Clear, which is the largest of the islands, with a population of something like 500, the cost of travelling to the mainland is in the neighbourhood of £1 if one is to make a special journey, or a proportionate part of that sum if one is fortunate enough to be able to travel with other people who are making the same journey. In addition, there is the very long journey from Baltimore to Bantry. It may not be possible, but if it is possible to establish sittings of the court in rotation in certain towns in West Cork, or in some sub-division of the area, it would certainly very considerably facilitate the persons concerned. I make that suggestion to the Minister in the belief that if it is possible to do anything along those lines he will consider the matter.

There certainly is very serious dissatisfaction with the present working of the Act. Delays account for the greatest number of the complaints that one does hear, and I wish to emphasise what has been said from other quarters in that connection. I was sorry to hear in the course of this debate arguments which seem to me to have no other result than to put the position of the unemployed people of this country in a very unfavourable light. Deputy Anthony for instance said, with a fervour associated with his laying down of certain principles of one kind or another, that we have very many work-shy people in the country. I think that is a slander on the working people of this country. Coming from the same county as Deputy Anthony I want to refute that most emphatically here. I have come in contact with working people in very many parts of Cork county—and I think what is true of that county is true of the country as a whole—and one could meet 200 or 300 people without being able to point to one person to whom that allegation would apply. I very much resent the making of statements of that kind here. Why does one have to apologise, in this or any other assembly, when making a plea for unemployed persons? Why does one always have to adopt the sanctimonious attitude of segregating, as is attempted to be done, the genuine unemployed from the impostors one always hears associated with discussions of this kind? They do not exist, and it is an unfair reflection on the workers of the country that the statement should be made.

The working people of the country who have to endure the horrors of unemployment have to put up with other things which are sometimes very little less humiliating. One hears in certain organisations constant reference to what is described as the dole. I think that people in this country, many of whom are getting assistance and subsidies of one kind or another at the hands of the State, are no less in receipt of the dole than the people who have to be helped in the way in which they ought to be helped in any civilised country because they are unable to get work. There are a great many living people in this country at present in the enjoyment of means which they never earned and which were originally obtained by methods that were very questionable and doubtful, and I resent the atmosphere in which discussions of this kind, both in this House and in other parts of the country, amongst certain very comfortable and well-fed people, take place.

I want to assure Deputy Minch, who spoke a moment ago, that there is no desire in this, or, I think, in any other quarter of the House, to treat suggestions for easing the difficulties of unemployment with any flippancy, but it does seem a puny contribution to a debate of this kind to suggest certain tiny social efforts for unemployed persons while the core of the whole problem seems to remain untouched. I put up the suggestions I have made to the Minister in the certain knowledge that I can talk with some degree of accuracy about this position. They are not put up for the purpose of making the Minister's task in this matter more difficult than it is, but in the belief that they will enable him to ease a great many of the difficulties that obtain at present, and permit the benefits of the Act, limited and poor and inadequate as they are, to flow uninterruptedly into the homes of people, so long as there are victims of unemployment in the country.

Mrs. Redmond

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, in my constituency, there are a number of people, principally British ex-servicemen, who, by reason of the fact that they have a small pension, are not entitled to draw unemployment assistance. For that reason they cannot become registered as unemployed and are, therefore, not entitled to go on the roll as unemployed men, and are not entitled to work, notwithstanding the fact that the small pension they get is not sufficient to maintain them. I think it is an extraordinary state of affairs that there are men anxious for work who, through no fault of their own, are debarred simply because they have a small pension, and who cannot become registered unemployed because they are in receipt of this pension. I ask the Minister in all sincerity to have their cases investigated with a view to ascertaining whether he could not give them some sort of genuine claim, and put them on the same basis as their fellow-men who are on the unemployed list and who get preference in the matter of employment. These men want work and they are most anxious to do everything that would put them on this list and make them entitled to work. At present, they are simply told, when they go to the exchange, that they are not entitled to work by reason of the fact that they have a paltry pension of 15/- and, in some cases, less. They have actually less than men who are getting unemployment assistance, and I appeal to the Minister to have their cases investigated.

Mr. Norton

There are a few matters I should like to refer to. One is the question of the remuneration paid to branch managers of employment exchanges throughout the country. There are two types of persons concerned. One is the manager, who is a regular civil servant and remunerated on the Civil Service scale of pay. The other is the branch manager, who is paid a rate of pay in accordance with the volume of work in his office. I think the normal maximum pay in respect of the latter category of people is approximately £5 per week, and many of those who are so employed find it necessary to employ staffs to deal with the volume of work in the office. If the Minister makes inquiries, I think he will find that by the time these staffs are paid, the amount of money left to the branch manager, on whom the ultimate responsibility for administration devolves, is probably less than the rate of pay to, let us say, building labourers in any town where building labourers are properly organised.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy believe that?

Mr. Norton

Not only do I believe it, but I will prove it to the Minister. I should like the Minister to be able to quote cases showing the remuneration of branch managers, the amount paid to their individual staffs, the amount paid to the individual members of the staffs, and the balance left to the branch manager. For instance, I should like the Minister to tell me what remuneration is left to those persons employed in exchanges who have about £3 per week as managers. What residue is held by them after they have met their commitments in the ordinary way to the staff they employ and the other necessary commitments which are involved? Then we shall have some idea as to what the Minister considers to be a fair standard of remuneration. I should like the Minister also to make some inquiries as to the rates paid to the staff employed by branch managers of that kind.

In my opinion, and I have some experience of these matters, the rates of wages paid to the staff in these cases are utterly inadequate. The branch manager is being treated unfairly by the Minister, who fixes a low rate of remuneration for him, and he, in turn, because he is being squeezed by the Minister on top, finds it necessary to squeeze his own employees underneath. The scale paid to the branch manager is inadequate, and out of that inadequate salary he finds it difficult to pay an adequate salary to the persons whom he employs. If the Minister would make inquiries into that matter—personal inquiries into individual cases—and were to undertake an examination of all the cases, I think he will have no difficulty in realising that the employees of these branch managers are very badly paid.

Bad payment in the main is due to the fact that branch managers themselves are also badly paid. Where, therefore, one employee is badly paid, he is compelled to employ others, and the reflex of his low wages is bound to be felt by those whom he employs. The Minister is responsible, because he pays these branch managers a low rate for the responsible work which they do for the State. Deputies who have had experience of that work know that a considerable volume of work is dealt with in these offices. These people are doing work comparable to the work done by civil servants employed in other offices. They are administering the same Act, and doing the same sort of work; perhaps the volume done in these offices is not the same, but the individual output of the branch manager is as good as the output of the civil servant, who is branch manager in another type of office. I do not see any reason for differentiation between the scale paid to those branch managers in one office and the scale paid to civil servants who are branch managers in other offices.

I am surprised at Deputy Anthony.

Mr. Anthony

Well, I am not up in the clouds like other people. My head is not in the clouds. This is an election stunt. The Deputy wants to be able to say: "I said so and so for the unemployed."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies will please hear Deputy Norton on the Estimate.

Mr. Norton

I was pointing to the effort that is being made in certain interested quarters to endeavour to show that certain unemployed persons prefer to receive unemployment benefit rather than to accept work. As one who has some knowledge of the sufferings of the unemployed and who knows the anxiety that exists in the ranks of the unemployed for work which will enable them to obtain a decent income, I say that if work is available to unemployed persons they are only too eager to grasp at the opportunity of getting that work. I am sure that every Deputy who takes an interest in the problem of unemployed persons is aware from personal experience that, if there is any employment available, unemployed persons make every possible effort to secure whatever employment is available. I suppose many Deputies, like myself, have had the regular experience of being interviewed by unemployed persons and of receiving communications from such persons, all denoting that so far as the unemployed are concerned they, at all events, have a much higher conception of their responsibilities to their wives and those dependent upon them than to depend, and force their dependents to depend, upon the small pittance which they receive under the Unemployment Assistance Act rather than seek work at better wages if that work were available.

We are not now discussing Deputy Morrissey, and perhaps Deputy Norton will confine his attention to the Estimate.

Mr. Norton

I was pointing out that this is an Estimate for £1,400,000, and it is submitted to us this year because the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not willing to put into operation the plan which he put forward up to 1932. In that year we were told by the President that there was no reason why unemployment should exist in this country. In the same period the present Minister for Defence said that we ought surely be glad that we had so many unemployed, because they would be available to do the enormous amount of constructional work that would immediately follow the advent of a Fianna Fáil Government.

It certainly is a point of order.

Mr. Norton

There should be a rule against impertinence also, and if there was the Deputy would offend against it every minute of the day. If you rule, a Chinn Comhairle, that this discussion is not in order, I will pass from that.

We now come to the item for unemployment assistance, which shows that the benefits this year amount to £1,500,000, as compared with £161,000 in 1935-36. I think the House will recollect that on the Budget last year the Minister for Finance submitted, and he was supported in subsequent discussions by the Minister for Indusary and Commerce, that one of the reasons for reducing unemployment assistance benefit was that the Government expected the inter-departmental committee to report on the scheme of work to be put into operation, and that as the work, devised by that committee, would put such a large number of people into employment, that was one of the reasons why the sum for unemployment benefit was reduced.

I think I am entitled to ascertain what has been done in that direction? Until the recent employment period Order was reached there were 143,000 persons registered as unemployed at the employment exchanges. Unless those 143,000 persons have satisfied the rigid test of being unemployed, or unless the overwhelming majority have satisfied that test, the reduction of the Estimate for unemployment assistance benefit has made no impression whatever upon the problem of providing work, because the number of persons registered at the employment exchanges this year is as great, if not greater, than the number registered last year.

That brings me to the point that the reduction of the Unemployment Assistance Estimate last year and again this year has been made for economic reasons, and not because the Government is able or will be able to provide any scheme of work as a result of the activities of the inter-departmental Committee. I am afraid the Government is cultivating the mentality, that it is cheaper to have unemployment assistance benefit than to provide schemes of work. A mentality of that kind which I am afraid is all too evident, in respect of the Government's policy, is calculated to keep within the country the very serious unemployment problem which exists in our midst to-day. If the Government is impregnated with the notion that it is cheaper to keep people under the Unemployment Assistance Act than to provide large scale schemes of work or to reduce working hours so as to absorb a greater number of people in employment, then I am afraid we are going to have Unemployment Assistance Estimates to provide for the unemployed instead of that scheme of regular work, with decent rates of wages, which every unemployed person would prefer to any form of unemployment assistance benefit.

I do not desire to return to it. I do not think I have returned to the point on which you ruled recently. What I am endeavouring to do is to show the Minister that a much more effective way of dealing with the problem would be to undertake large-scale public work and national development, and so provide productive employment for unemployed persons instead of the miserable sums they receive to-day. Having said that, I do not intend to continue the discussion for one moment further.

Mr. Corish

I want to emphasise the points made in connection with the number of people dealt with recently by the Minister in his Department as a type not seriously seeking employment. One could understand that position being taken up by the Minister if things were normal in the country. But in view of the fact that there is a huge unemployment problem here, it is very hard to understand that mentality. I think it will be understood that there is widespread dissatisfaction prevailing because of the chaotic state of affairs under the administration of the Act. As Deputy Morrissey pointed out, numbers of men are kept waiting unduly long at the labour exchanges. I do not want to blame the local managers, who are doing their best under very exceptional circumstances. I think it will be admitted by everybody that the managers are sending on claims in due time. What I complain of is the length of time the claims are kept in Dublin, and there is no chance of claimants having their claims paid retrospectively. Time after time Deputies find it their duty to get into touch with the Department, but we usually receive the same stereotyped reply: "The matter is engaging the attention of the Department and will be dealt with in due course."

That "due course" means, in practically every case, six to seven weeks. In the meantime, the unfortunate man who has made his claim in the ordinary, statutory way is on the verge of starvation. Deputy Morrissey, I think, asked how the Minister or his Department arrived at the decision that a man is not genuinely seeking employment. How is that defined, and what evidence is required from a man who has been in receipt of unemployment assistance for some time in order to satisfy the local manager, the Court of Referees or the Department, as the case may be, that he is still entitled to it? That requirement has created alarm in a great many parts of the country. In my own constituency the majority, if not all, the men drawing unemployment assistance would rather be working than be humiliated in an endeavour to secure unemployment assistance. They have almost to go down on their knees in order to obtain unemployment assistance. I have had men with me, in my capacity as Mayor of Wexford, asking for letters to show that they have been seeking work from the Corporation or from other bodies with which I am connected. When the Unemployment Assistance Bill was before the House, it was pointed out by the Minister and by Deputies on his side of the House that assistance under the Bill would replace home assistance or home help. As Deputy Anthony pointed out, it was explained that men could go to the exchanges with chests out and heads erect and that there would be no humiliation or degradation such as was supposed to surround the receipt of home assistance. They were to get this unemployment assistance so long as they were unemployed. I think the Minister will admit that it is very hard for men to secure employment at present in view of the abnormality of the position. Advantage has been taken of the tightening up which is proceeding at the moment to get men to accept positions at a very low wage. I know of cases in my own constituency where men in the agricultural areas have been offered work at from 6/- to 8/- a week, and have been told very definitely that unless they were prepared to take work at that wage they would be wiped off the unemployment assistance register. I hope that that is not the policy of the Minister. If that is his policy, these people are going to be a menace to other workers. As a matter of fact, they will be a menace to the whole community if they are going to be used, through the medium of the Unemployment Assistance Act, to reduce wages all over the country. I think it would be better, in these circumstances, if we had never heard of the Unemployment Assistance Act. Before I leave that point, I want to suggest to the Minister that the investigation being carried out at present is absolutely uncalled-for, and that 99 per cent. of the men in receipt of unemployment assistance would rather be working than going to the labour exchanges, day after day, to secure the miserable pittance allowed them under the Act.

In the Estimates this year the Government are saving something like £110,000 in this connection. I suggest that, before that saving was made, or at the same time as it was being made, some relief should have been given to the ratepayers. The ratepayers' contribution is £2,000 more this year than it was last year, while the Ministry are saving £110,000. I had an amendment down when the Bill was passing through the House to secure that the net result of the levy of a 9d. rate for the smaller boroughs would be all that would be required to be paid to the Government. The Minister rejected that amendment. What is happening at present in a great number of the urban areas, such as Clonmel, Wexford and Sligo, where the people are supposed to pay this 9d. rate? What they are actually paying is 10d. in the £. That is due to the fact that certain concessions are given through the medium of various Acts of Parliament recently passed, which allow rebates. To secure that the Minister is paid at the full 9d. rate, it is necessary for the boroughs concerned to levy 10d. in the £. One would think that, when the Ministry were saving under the Unemployment Assistance Act, they would give some relief to the ratepayers, aspecially as a great many, if not all, of the people they are paying off as not genuinely seeking employment are thrown back on the rates. There is no doubt about that. Everybody who has had anything to do in recent months with the administration of county boards of health knows that the people who are rejected in this way automatically come back on the local rates. The Minister will, I think, agree that that is very unfair, especially in view of the fact that in urban areas of certain population the people are called upon to pay at the rate of 10d. in the £ in connection with this Act, while they were told very definitely, when the Bill was passing through the House, that even though they were to pay a 9d. rate under the Act, what they would pay out with one hand they would take in with the other by way of saving in board of health administration. I suggest that the Minister should loosen his hold on the position so far as the present investigation is concerned.

Another matter to which I should like to refer was touched upon by Deputy Norton. That is the question of anonymous letters. As Deputy Morrissey pointed out, many evil-minded people, with a spite against their neighbours, would write a letter to the manager of the employment exchange saying that there was a certain amount of money going into the house of a particular person. Immediately that letter is received, that person's benefit is held up. It may be held up for five, six, or seven weeks while investigations are proceeding. I made it my business on many occasions to call to the local exchange to find out why benefit had been stopped. I have invariably found that the reason was the receipt by the manager of the exchange of anonymous letters. What I really object to in this connection is the length of time it takes to have a matter of that kind investigated. In the meantime, the unfortunate man, his wife and children are hungry. If the Minister thinks it necessary, in the interest of administration, to take notice of these anonymous letters, I suggest that it should be possible to carry out any investigations necessary inside a week, so that the unemployed man would be able to get back his benefit at the end of the following week if it were found that there was no justification for the anonymous letter. I hope the Minister will do something to withdraw the very rigorous regulations that are in operation in so far as drawing benefit under the Unemployment Assistance Act is concerned.

Mr. Pattison

I am astounded at the Minister's praise for the officials of this particular Department. It is painful, to say the least of it, to Deputies who have any experience of communicating with the Department to have to sit here and listen to the Minister actually praising them. As the Minister is aware, I put certain cases before him recently, and in view of the facts set out in the communication, I do not know how he could praise them in the fashion he did to-day. Two years ago, when Deputies began to put down questions concerning unemployment assistance claims, the Minister asked them to refrain from doing so in order to give the officials of the Department an opportunity to get on with the work. Deputies obliged the Minister and did not put down questions, but, as far as my experience goes, there is more chaos to-day than two years ago. There seems to be no regard whatever for people who are forced to seek unemployment assistance. We had a reference to the Court of Referees and how fairly cases were considered and dealt with. It was pointed out that the Court of Referees consisted of local people who understood local conditions. The Minister must not be aware of a certain list of questions which was sent to branch managers from Dublin Castle recently. A child could give the decision which the Department required, provided he went by that list of questions. That seems to be all the legal knowledge that is required now. We were told to-day that the chairman should be only a lawyer or a person with legal knowledge. Having attended a recent court on behalf of the union I represent, I could see a big difference in it in comparison with courts in years gone by. There is nothing in the nature of fair play or a desire to see justice done to an applicant. Fine, decent, able-bodied young men in the City of Kilkenny were struck off the unemployment list lately on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking work. These were young men who are nearly gone frantic looking for work. The Unemployment Assistance Bill was before the House for a number of months before it was passed into law, but apparently no effort was made by the Department to set up machinery to administer it. It is well known that at a certain time certain necessary official forms were not provided in the offices of the employment exchanges.

I was present on a couple of occasions when decisions on cases were given by Courts of Referees in Kilkenny in favour of the applicants, and they were notified later officially that the courts had recommended disallowance of their claims. I put the facts in these cases before the Minister, but apparently no heed is paid to the views of public representatives. As far as the Department of Industry and Commerce is concerned, the responsibility of public representatives seems to have no value. Since the new procedure of cutting off genuine applicants commenced the life of a member of this House living in an urban district—in fact, the life of any public representative—has become almost intolerable. Members of the Executive Council may have got out of touch with this section of the people, and may know nothing about them, but I should like to hear from the Minister, when replying, what he proposes to do to have this latest act of tyranny from Dublin Castle put an end to. The people there are safely housed, and, as I said the other day to some people, they are allowed by the present Executive Council to carry out the old-time tyranny. On one occasion in Cork the President stated—it was before he became President—that if the unemployed were not recognised as a State responsibility, and if unemployment was not destroyed, it would destroy the State. I am sorry to say that the latest action against the unemployed does not indicate that the officials in Dublin Castle intend to obey the President. On the discussion that will take place on the Estimates for Public Works I expect to have something more to say about unemployment. I ask the Minister to take some action and to see that the latest tyranny is ended, so that those genuinely seeking work—many of them well known to Deputies in the constituency—and who, through no fault of their own, cannot get it, will not be treated in this way. I hope the Minister will investigate all these cases. As far as I am concerned he will have my co-operation.

Mr. O'Neill

I should like to know from the Minister if anything has been done with regard to a matter I raised on a previous occasion: the position of fishermen employed on the share system on boats. When they take up positions in these boats they are immediately scheduled as working, and therefore break their claims. They may be working, but they are earning no money. Sometimes they may have a series of blank weeks, solely because they are scheduled as working, although earning no money. That is a great hardship on them. I believe the same question has arisen in other places around the coast. The Minister promised to give the matter sympathetic consideration and to have a special definition made for men in that class of employment. I should like to know if anything has been done as the present regulations in many cases constitute a hardship.

Mr. Lemass

A number of matters which were referred to by speakers to-day can be more adequately dealt with on some other occasion. The references which have been made to the total amount of unemployment in the country require some examination now, however questionable their relevancy to the debate may be. We have had continuously the number of persons on the live register quoted as the number of persons unemployed. That is not correct. In fact, it has been repeatedly explained that it is entirely erroneous to assume that the number on the live register represents the number of persons unemployed. If one examines the live register, and analyses it, one finds that the persons on it can be divided into a number of categories. There are first, those who are entitled to unemployment insurance benefit. That number at the present time is a very small proportion of the total number of persons following insurable employment. The proportion is less than 5 per cent., and it is reasonable to assume that they represent the number of persons in seasonal occupations—who are in process of transfer from one job to another, house-builders, constructional trade workers, carpenters and people of that kind, are at times in process of moving from one job of work to another and who at the moment are temporarily employed. That is the nature of their employment. It is not unreasonable to assume a number which is less than 5 per cent. of the total insurable can be so classified.

These persons do not constitute a problem. In so far as we have a problem of unemployment, these people are not part of it. There are others on the live register who are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefit or to unemployment assistance at the present time of the year. They would be such persons as those in the category covered by the first employment period Order. The landholder of over £4 valuation, who had been excluded from unemployment assistance by that Order, would in the ordinary course, if unemployed, maintain registration because he continues to be entitled to preference for works financed out of State funds, if such works are available in his area. The number of persons on the register entitled to unemployment assistance can be divided into two classes—those with means and those without means. It is necessary for Deputies and others. who come to the consideration of the unemployment problem, to realise that out of that figure there is a very large proportion—much more than 50 per cent., in fact—of persons who in the past were never regarded as unemployed—that is, in the main, small landholders and the sons of farmers living with their fathers on the fathers' farms. At no time in the past were these people regarded as unemployed, and the efforts which have been made by Deputies to compare our live register people with the census figure for "out-of-works" are completely futile, because the census figure for "out-of-works" does not include— expressly does not include—persons who were in occupation of uneconomic holdings of land, or the sons of landholders living with their fathers on the fathers' farms in the census year. If one were to quote from the census figures, and add to the total of "out-of-works" the number of landowners and the sons of landowners who would have been qualified to draw unemployment assistance in 1926, if there had been unemployment assistance in that year, one would get a total figure far in excess of any figure we have reached under the present system of administration.

I do not want to quote the present figure for the number of persons drawing unemployment assistance because Deputies might contend that it is unduly low. It is round about 80,000 I think at the present time. To a certain extent that figure has been brought down by the operation of the First Employment Period Order although that Order, it may be assumed, only affects 5,000 or 6,000 persons at the most. Going back to the 1st March, before the First Employment Period Order came into operation, there were 114,000 persons claiming unemployment assistance and of these 78,000 were described as persons having means. In the main, those persons who were described as having means were small landowners and the sons of small landowners. The number of persons who were described as being without means was 36,000. I say here, with a full knowledge of all the facts, that if we could find employment for 40,000 people, and put off our register these 40,000 from amongst those who are receiving unemployment assistance and who are without means, we would have settled our unemployment problem. There would be a land problem still existing, the problem of eliminating the uneconomic holding, a problem that has existed for many years. There would still be the problem that there are too many people trying, to get a livelihood on the land.

Deputies who study the agricultural census taken in 1926 and the enumeration taken in 1929 will find that the output per individual employed, the acreage per individual, and every other index in these years, point to the fact that there were more people on the land than the land was capable of giving an adequate livelihood to, judging by Danish standards, Dutch standards or any other European standards. That problem of underemployment on the land has persisted since the State was established and it will persist for some time although the operation of the tillage policy, of which Deputies are aware, is helping to eliminate it. The significance of the increase in the number of persons employed in agriculture to which Deputy Mulcahy referred is not that the actual increase is small. It is that that increase has taken place despite the fact that the great majority previously employed in agriculture were not fully employed and the extent to which their labours could be employed on increased production, before additional help had to be engaged, is an indication of the amount of increased production that was possible without increasing agricultural employment. There has been an increase in production and agricultural employment has increased.

The way in which Deputy Mulcahy quoted figures here to-day was a good example of the Deputy's usual tactics. He was supplied here with a list of the numbers of persons employed in agriculture in different counties. It is easy with such a list to pick out a particular townland or county-side, and to say that in that particular part of Ireland, the number of persons employed in agriculture decreased. I am quite sure that if the Deputy surveys the statistics for every townland or every electoral district, he will find some circumstance which indicates an unfavourable tendency, but the total number of persons employed in agriculture over the whole of the Saorstát has increased during this Government's term of office. That is the essential fact.

I cannot undertake that. Reference was made by Deputy Mrs. Redmond to the position of British ex-servicemen. I should like to deal with that matter, because it is one concerning which misunderstanding exists in other places than this House. In relation to the employment exchanges, in relation to the matter of registering for work, and in relation to the matter of receiving work, British ex-servicemen are in no different position to any other members of the community. What has given rise to the misunderstanding is the fact that, in the calculation of means for the purposes of the Unemployment Assistance Act, pensions have necessarily to be taken into account. The pensions to which those men are entitled are regarded as means, and in the case of many of them they are of such amount that they are disqualified under the Act from receiving a qualification certificate. In so far, however, as they are disqualified from receiving qualification certificates under the Unemployment Assistance Act, they are in no different position to any other person having means of the same value.

Yes, but I submit that they should have an opportunity of stating their case to the Minister.

Mr. O'Neill

I want to put a couple of points to the Minister about the position of fishermen to which I have already referred. Would the Minister define to the House how these fishermen stand in the matter of unemployment assistance?

Mr. Lemass

Mr. Lemass

I would require notice of that question.

Question: "That the Estimate be referred back for re-consideration"— put and declared lost.

Vote put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 30 Apr 1936

Vote 61—Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Apr 1936