Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Feb 1939

Vol. 74 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 61—Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance.

Mr. Lemass

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £233,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1939, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Arachais Díomhaointis agus Malartán Fostaíochta (maraon le síntiúisí do Chiste an Díomhaointis) agus i dtaobh Conganta Dhíomhaointis (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; Uimh. 38 de 1935; agus Uimh. 2 de 1938).

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £233,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1939, for 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; No. 38 of 1935; and No. 2 of 1938).

As Deputies will have seen from the Estimate, this supplementary sum is required because of the necessity of making increased provision under two heads—(1) in actual cost of unemployment assistance, an additional £175,000, and (2) deficiencies in Appropriations-in-Aid, £68,000. In regard to the additional £175,000 required for unemployment assistance the position is that the amount of £1,160,000 voted for unemployment assistance in the current financial year will be insufficient. In estimating that amount regard was had chiefly to the actual expenditure in the previous financial year, so far as it was known at the time when the Estimate was prepared, and, of course, to the increased rates of unemployment assistance which had become payable as from the 26th January, 1938, following the enactment of the Unemployment Assistance Act of that year. It is now apparent that the amount voted will not suffice for the payments of unemployment assistance which are likely to be made during the remaining weeks of the financial year. The weekly number of recipients of unemployment assistance has been higher throughout the year than in the preceding financial year. The increase in the number of recipients of unemployment assistance in the first weeks of the 1938-39 financial year over the corresponding weeks of the previous financial year was approximately 10,000, but in succeeding weeks the increase gradually diminished until, towards the end of the year, it practically disappeared. Since that date, however, there has been an increase also recorded in the number of recipients. Whatever the reasons for that increase in the number of persons receiving unemployment assistance, it is clear that the additional provision must be made if the statutory obligation of the Government to pay unemployment assistance at the prescribed rates and under the prescribed circumstances is to be fulfilled.

Included in the Estimate of £720,900 for Appropriations-in-Aid, are six items. The particular item which will fail to yield the amount estimated is Item No. 4, that is, Receipts from County Borough and Urban Area Councils under Section 26 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933, as amended by the Unemployment Assistance (Amendment) Act, of 1938, from which it was estimated that an amount of £225,000 would be received. The yield from that source will fall short of the Estimate by some £68,000.

The appropriate section of the 1933 Act requires the four County Boroughs, the Borough of Dun Laoghaire and the twelve urban districts that are "urban areas" for the purposes of the Act, to pay to the Minister for Industry and Commerce a specified poundage rate on their rateable values at the beginning of the immediately preceding financial year. In the cases of the County Borough of Dublin and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire the rateable value is the rateable value as deemed to be reduced by Section 69 of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930, and, in the case of the County Borough of Limerick, as deemed to be reduced by Section 28 of the Limerick City Management Act of 1934. It was intended that this obligation would require payment at the specified poundage rate of 1/8 for the four County Boroughs and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, and 9d. for the other twelve urban areas, on the total valuations of the areas less only the specified deductions authorised by the Acts in the cases of Dublin, Dun Laoghaire and Limerick. Some of the councils, however, are reading the obligation as requiring them to pay the prescribed poundage rate, on not their total valuations, but the valuations as reduced by the valuations or the portions of valuations of properties that are not productive of rates. The descriptions of these properties which are not productive, or are only partially productive, of rates are very varied, including such descriptions as new buildings, council houses, half-annuals, gradual rating scheme, reconstructed buildings, vacant buildings, premises affected by Housing Acts, and so forth. During this year, many of the councils which have hitherto paid the prescribed poundage rate on their total valuations have not made payments on the valuations of the properties that did not produce rates. In addition they have made recoveries from current payments of the amounts paid by them in previous years on such non-productive valuations. In consequence, the yield from that source, which was estimated to amount to £225,000 is expected to yield only £157,000, that is £68,000 less than the estimated yield.

The interpretation taken by the councils of their obligations reduces considerably the payments which it was intended they should be required to make under the Unemployment Assistance Acts and, without prolonged litigation, the matter could not be determined. Recipients of unemployment assistance resident in those areas receive the higher rates of assistance prescribed by the Acts and the payments required from the councils were intended to enable the higher rates to be paid in those areas. The whole position is being examined with a view to having the matter adjusted but, in the meantime, during the current financial year, the shortage of £68,000 in the expected yield from that source must be met.

It is estimated that there will be a saving of £10,000 on the other subheads of the Vote and this will reduce the total of £243,000 to the amount of £233,000 for which the Supplementary Vote provides.

Mr. D. Morrissey

It is to be regretted, I think, that the Minister did not give some more information to the House regarding this additional sum of £175,000. It is, to say the least of it, sad reading for this House and for the country that, at this time of the year, and seven years after the present Minister took office, we should be faced with the position that he has to come before this House for a further sum of £175,000 to meet the ever-increasing numbers of unemployed in this country. The Minister, when making his Estimate, apparently thought that there was a reasonable hope that the numbers would decrease. We find that there has been no decrease in the numbers of those who are merely existing in this country or the thousands of families who are living, one might say, on the brink of starvation. When one remembers that the maximum amount which can be paid out of this £175,000 to any married unemployed man outside the cities and the boroughs and urban districts mentioned by the Minister, whether he has five, six, seven or eight children, is 12/6 per week, and when one remembers that in urban districts with populations from 4,000 and 5,000 up to 6,000, many of these men are living in houses the rent of which is the first charge on that 12/6, and that the rents run from 2/6 to 4/- and even higher, I think we are entitled to ask the Minister whether, even now, at the end of seven years there is the slightest hope or the slightest possibility of his ever being able to make any impression whatever on the numbers of unemployed in this country. We are entitled particularly to ask that from the man who told us that this money would not be required because he had a plan to solve the whole unemployment problem and who has repeated that year after year.

The only thing that surprised me when the Minister was making these statements in putting this Estimate before the House was that, side by side with asking for this £175,000, he did not tell the House and the country that the numbers of unemployed had been considerably reduced in this country. That has been his cry year after year, and we find, as I say, that notwithstanding all the tariffs and all the prohibition orders, and all the emigration, in the Minister's own words, in the first weeks of last year there was an increase of 10,000 recipients of unemployment assistance over the corresponding period of the previous year. Then there was a gradual decline, and now, in the most severe part of the year, we have that upward tendency again, and so marked is the increase that, on a total estimate of £1,160,000, he must get an increase of £175,000. I am not surprised that the Minister confined his remarks almost exclusively to the deficiencies of the local authorities, and to the £68,000 set out here. I realise that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the Minister to say anything about the unemployment situation. When one remembers the promises he held out to these men, the promises he made to them and to this House year after year, right up to a few months ago, and compares those promises with the actual position with which we are faced, which calls for an additional £175,000 to keep a number of unfortunate unemployed struggling along and barely existing, one can understand his silence on the point. The Minister did not give us any idea of the increase in numbers; he did not put before the House the total number compared with this time 12 months, or any reason as to why he was so far out in the Estimate. After all, £175,000 increase on a total Estimate of £1,160,000 shows that the Minister and his Department were very much at fault in framing the original Estimate.

I do not want to take up any time in talking further about the matter. It is one which, God knows, has been talked enough about here, and even more so outside the House by the Minister and his colleagues. There is nothing that I can say on it that I have not said on many occasions already and the only thing we can say is that, with the passage of the years, the problem becomes more grave, and the chances of these men securing employment seem to become less. The Minister will probably be inclined to question that, but I do not think anybody, looking at the problem as we see it to-day, can question it. I do not believe that even the Minister himself would suggest now that there is a possibility of his tariff policy, his quotas, prohibitions and so on, absorbing into employment very many of the men now unemployed, nor do I think he will contend that there is any immediate prospect of many of these men being absorbed into agriculture in view of its condition to-day. I should like to hear from the Minister what he thinks about the position to-day, whether he can offer any prospect of an improvement or whether he wants us to face up to the fact that, when the Estimate for the coming year comes before us, it will be considerably more than it was for the year just passing out, and whether these men are to take it that they must continue trying to exist on this miserable allowance—I am speaking now about those parts of the country outside the areas covered by this £68,000—ranging from 6/- to 12/6 a week.

Mr. Lemass

Many of these amounts were increased. That is not the maximum.

Mr. Morrissey

Would the Minister say what is the maximum?

Mr. Lemass

The 12/6 rate went up to 14/-.

Mr. Morrissey

I admit that I had the old figure in mind and I accept the Minister's correction. There has been a slight improvement, but while I am glad to acknowledge even that slight improvement in the scale, it was not at all sufficient to cover the increase in the cost of living which took place since the fixing of the original amount of 12/6. I think that will be admitted by practically every member of the House. Deputies have to face this fact, that we have a fairly big percentage of the population trying to live on this amount of money and, in these times of high prices and so on, it is utterly impossible for them to do so. A man may do it for a short period, if there is a prospect before him of ultimately getting employment from which he can hope to obtain something in the nature of a reasonable wage, but the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate seems to me to suggest that the position is almost a despairing one, that there is very little prospect whatever of the vast majority of these men getting anything other than temporary work, and that work merely a three or four days a week type, little removed from unemployment assistance itself.

It is no pleasure to me to have to bring this matter before the House. I have on numerous occasions stated what I think about it. I think the Minister has a grave responsibility in the matter, a graver responsibility perhaps than any other member of the House, occupying the position he now occupies, could or would have, in view of his own statements. I should certainly like to hear from him, and I hope I shall hear from him, that he has brighter hopes for the coming 12 months in regard to the unemployment situation than I can have in view of this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Davin

The most striking feature of the original Estimate, as well as this Supplementary Estimate, is the extent to which the Government expects the ratepayers in certain areas to provide maintenance for the unemployed. This Government, and any other Government worthy of the name which cannot find work for a section of the population, should see to it that the maintenance of the unemployed, while looking for work, will be a national charge. The local ratepayer should certainly not be expected to provide 50 per cent. of the total cost of maintenance. In the original Estimate, the ratepayers in certain localities were expected to provide £720,000. That has turned out to amount to only £652,000, leaving £68,000 to be provided. Apart from that altogether, I think we are entitled to have from the Minister, especially when he asks for such a large increase, more details as to how it is he was so far out in the original Estimate. Where have the 10,000 additional unemployed come from? Have they been discovered in the non-urbanised areas, that is, outside the boroughs and the urban council areas? Has a high percentage of the increased unemployed been found in the urban areas and the borough areas? Let the Minister give us what figures he has, so that we may have a picture of the position and so that we may see where he erred in framing the original Estimate.

Those of us who know anything about the extent to which emigration has been going on to England in the past year or two know perfectly well that the majority of those emigrating have come from the rural areas, and to whatever extent we have had emigration from those areas in the past couple of years, the Exchequer has been relieved by the fact that these people have gone to another country to find employment, or to impose themselves as an obligation on the country to which they have gone, in the event of their failing to find employment there. I know that a certain amount of unemployment has been caused here and there, following the Trade Agreement with Great Britain, but so far as I can find out, the people who were thrown out of employment, following that agreement, were not thrown on the Unemployment Assistance Fund. The majority of them, I am sure, were in benefit in the Unemployment Insurance Fund and were not thrown on unemployment assistance in the past year. What percentage, at any rate, of the increased unemployed has been found in the rural areas as against the additional unemployed discovered during the course of the year in the urban areas and in the borough areas, and what is, mainly, the cause of the increase both in the rural as well as the urban and borough areas in the country?

This Government cannot now complain that they are being hindered and hampered by Labour Deputies in this House and prevented from pursuing the policy that they told us they had for the relief of unemployment. The Minister, and the Government at that time, told us that they had a plan for the cure of unemployment. At any rate, they have a clear field now for the fulfilment of the promises they made in 1932, and they can put those promises into effect without any assistance from anybody here. Let the Minister now produce the plan that was made in 1932.

Mr. Brennan

It is rusty now.

Mr. Davin

Well, yes. Of course certain things have occurred, in the years between, that might have upset that plan, but whatever may have happened in those years there is nothing now to prevent the Minister from putting the plan into effect. He has a complete majority of the House to enable him to put his plan into effect. He has a clear field, not only to increase the number of the employed but, according to the plan they announced, to do away altogether with unemployment in this country. I do not subscribe to the idea that the present rate of unemployment assistance is sufficient to maintain those who have to look for unemployment assistance either in rural or in urban and borough areas. From my experience—and I am sure that everybody here who has any knowledge of the matter will bear me cut—the unemployed and the destitute were treated in a far more generous manner when the question of relief was a matter of local rates than they are treated under this Act.

An Ceann Comhairle

I should like to remind the Deputy that the rates paid are statutory, and that it is not permissible to discuss Statutes on Estimates, either main or Supplementary Estimates. Passing references may be made, but a discussion of the rates, or of the passing of the Acts concerned, is not in order.

Mr. Davin

Yes, Sir, I understand that, but I am only pointing out that when we look to the State for money for the purpose of giving work to the unemployed on relief works, we are told that the State cannot afford it. That is what we are told—that the State cannot afford it. That is what we are told by this Christian-minded Government and by this Christian-minded Minister for Industry and Commerce. They cannot find an additional £100,000 let us say, to provide more generous treatment for the unemployed, but they can find money for other purposes. No money can be found for the constructive purpose of providing men with work—the State cannot afford it, we are told—but plenty of money can be found for destructive purposes. The Minister, or the Government, cannot find money for constructive purposes, but when it comes to a question of getting money for destructive purposes, this Government, with the bankers who are behind them, can provide plenty of money. However, I suppose we will hear more about that during the next few days when we are asked to vote the £850,000, odd, for implements of destruction. Of course, the Minister has been treating the House very lightly, but I think that, after all, he should take the House into his confidence in this matter and give us some particulars as to where the additional unemployed have been found here, in spite of the fact that emigration to Great Britain is still going on. After all, if emigration to Great Britain is still going on, he is relieved to the extent, at any rate, of further burdens on the Unemployment Assistance Fund, and also relieved in other ways. If the Minister were to give us a complete picture of present conditions, perhaps he would be able to give us a better reason for asking for this sum, or perhaps he might be able to give us some idea as to why the plans —which, I suggest, are now getting rusty—for the relief of unemployment, are not being put into effect. Possibly, he might give us some idea as to when he is going to put his plan into effect for providing employment for our population rather than unemployment assistance.

Mr. Corish

Like Deputy Davin, I should like to know why there is a deficiency in the amount of money expected from the urban councils. It seems to me to be peculiar that there should be such a deficiency, in view of the Bill passed last year to enable urban authorities of a lesser population to make certain payments which would enable the unemployed in these areas to obtain higher unemployment assistance benefits. In view of that fact, it seems peculiar to me that the amount now is less by £68,000 than what was estimated for. As far as we can see, the valuation of urban areas has increased by reason of the number of houses that are being built for the working classes, and so on. In this connection, perhaps I might mention a question that was asked in the House to-day about a man who was cut off from unemployment assistance. The Minister's answer was that it was because the man concerned was transferred from a rural area to an urban area. The case is concerned with Wexford. Now, the position in this case is a very peculiar one, in so far as the man concerned had lived just outside an urban area—just outside Wexford. He lived in one of a row of houses, 80 per cent. of which were inside the urban area and the rest of which were outside it. A very severe storm occurred at Christmas, this man's house was blown down, and he had to seek refuge with friends inside the area. Immediately that he did so, his unemployment assistance was stopped. The Minister, in effect, says that he has no authority to deal with that case, but I submit that that is a case of absolute hardship. It was bad enough for the man to lose his house, but it was worse to be victimised now to the extent of being cut off from unemployment assistance because he has had to take refuge in another house. Of course, I quite appreciate the reasons which cause the Minister to put that particular clause into the Act. The object of that clause was to prevent people coming in from rural areas to urban areas and trying to get unemployment assistance, and I think there was a three-months' disqualification inserted. However, I submit that something ought to be done to enable the Minister to use his discretion in a case of that kind where there is very definite hardship.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy advocating legislation, by any chance?

Mr. Corish

Well, I do not know, Sir, but I think that it should be possible to devise some method of dealing with cases of definite hardship such as this. I think that the Minister himself will admit that it is a case of absolute hardship. This man did not deliberately leave a rural area to seek work in an urban area, or to qualify for a higher benefit. What happened was that circumstances, over which he had no control,—an act of God, so to speak,—forced him to live elsewhere, and I think that the Minister should seek powers to enable him to deal with a case of that kind. As I say, it is a case of special hardship, and perhaps there might be some way in which this man's case could be met.

Mr. Brennan

It is very disappointing to find that, at this hour of the day, we have this application from the Minister. Certainly, there does not seem to be very much left of the Minister's earlier promises and hopes of the kind referred to by Deputy Davin. When the Minister, at this stage, has to ask that a further sum of money should be devoted to this purpose, I think it is very discouraging to all of us, and particularly to the people down the country. Deputy Davin referred to the inequity of asking ratepayers to make certain contributions towards the Unemployment Fund. As a matter of fact, there is one side of this question which has been lost sight of altogether. It was something that I, at least, had hoped would remedy itself in the near future, but from to-day's Estimate I am afraid there is no hope left—that is, that the Government, in order to relieve unemployment, instead of putting that wonderful plan of theirs into operation raided and seized funds which belonged to the ratepayers under ordinary methods of administration. They have now allocated that fund in what they call E.S.V. grants all over the country, on condition that the ratepayers make a further contribution to these grants.

Recently we had a discussion about this at the Roscommon County Council, and there was some hope that perhaps the figure would decrease in the near future. But I must say that it is very disappointing to find the Minister asking to-day for a further £175,000. There does not seem to be any hope left that the Fianna Fáil plan for the relief of unemployment is going to operate. Perhaps some of us never thought it would operate. We certainly think that it is the responsibility of the Minister to find some solution for the situation other than compelling the ratepayers to come to his assistance and take the burden off his shoulders. I protest against it, I have always done so, and I shall continue to do so. It is the Government's job, if it is anybody's; it is not the ratepayers.

Mr. Lemass

It is very difficult to give estimates relating to the number of unemployed which could be regarded as reliable, because the available information is always of doubtful origin. Therefore, it is important, when speaking of the number of unemployed or quoting statistics, that we should be quite clear to use these statistics in relation to the facts with which they deal and not to use terms loosely. I am not saying that in reference to any Deputy, because I think that if there is any problem in relation to which it is important that the public, and particularly the members of the Dáil, should have accurate information, it is the problem of unemployment. If we are going to get from the people, or from the House, the contribution, the sacrifice that will be necessary if adequate plans for dealing with unemployment are to be formulated, it is essential that the full facts should be known. While I do not propose to discuss these plans now, or to deal in any elaborate way with the situation, I should like to get the facts clearly stated, at any rate, in relation to this Estimate.

The fact that we have to bring in an increased Estimate is not in itself proof of anything, except that our original Estimate was too low. We might, in fact, have estimated for a reduction in the number of unemployed, and be compelled to introduce a Supplementary Estimate now, which would by itself be proof of an increase in unemployment, or an increase in the number of persons receiving unemployment assistance, which is an entirely different matter But, in fact, we know that over a period during last year the number of persons receiving unemployment assistance—and I want to distinguish between persons receiving unemployment assistance and the unemployed—was increased. About May, which was the worst period last year, it was 10,000 above the number for the corresponding date for the previous year; but it declined, until towards the end of the year there was no such increase at all. Now, that increase in the number of persons receiving unemployment assistance occurred simultaneously with an increase in the number of persons employed, and that is a factor which Deputies should not leave out of account. According to the available statistics, there was a larger number of people in employment last year than in the previous year. The number of unemployment insurance stamps was greater; the number of National Health Insurance stamps sold was greater; and, more interesting still, the average period of employment was longer last year than in the previous years. I am making that statement on the basis of the estimated average number of contributions per individual.

Mr. Corish

Per individual or per week?

Mr. Lemass

Per individual.

Mr. Morrissey

Do not forget the three-day week.

Mr. Corish

You are getting two stamps for every week.

Mr. Lemass

Not necessarily. However, leave that out of account. The circumstances in that regard were no different last year from the previous year.

Mr. Corish

They were.

Mr. Lemass

They were not.

Mr. Corish

Considerably. Up to last year, relief grants were only given for the winter period, while last year they were given for what was called the spring and summer period. They started at the end of May.

Mr. Lemass

On the contrary, the outstanding fact is that the number of persons employed on relief schemes last year was substantially less than in 1937.

Mr. Corish

There were more schemes in operation last year than ever before.

Mr. Lemass

The number of persons employed on relief works was substantially less than in the previous year, on the average.

Mr. Davin

What are the figures?

Mr. Lemass

I can give you the figures for individual months. I do not know whether I have the figures for the whole year. The number of persons employed, on the average, on minor employment land reclamation schemes was practically the same, and on all relief schemes was 22,971—that was the average figure per month—in 1937, and 19,447 in 1938; a decrease of 3,524 in the average number employed monthly on relief schemes.

Mr. Corish

That is the average. Will the Minister find out what it was for May, 1937?

Mr. Lemass

In February, 1937, there were 50,000 persons employed, and in February, 1938, 37,300. In May, 1937, there were 16,000 employed, and in May, 1938, 12,256.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should wait for the Minister's figures.

Mr. Lemass

I am quoting from a memorandum on employment and unemployment. This is the latest edition of it. I am not sure that it has been published, but it is in print. Copies have been furnished periodically to Deputies as they come out, and they will get a copy of this for themselves. That return shows that what I have said is correct. I do not want Deputies to draw any wider conclusion from it than I do myself. The number of persons employed on relief schemes was less, on the average, in the important months of the year. The number of persons employed increased. Judged by the number of stamps sold, the average number of persons employed weekly in 1937 was 253,000. The average number employed weekly in 1938 was 257,000, judged by the number of stamps sold per individual. The period of work, on the average, was longer in 1938 than in 1937. At the same time, the number of persons receiving unemployment assistance was higher.

Mr. Morrissey

Am I to take it from the Minister's statement that the position last year was this, that although there were more people in employment, there were more people unemployed?

Mr. Lemass

There were more people getting unemployment assistance.

Mr. Morrissey

But they would not get unemployment assistance unless they were unemployed.

Mr. Lemass

Yes, that is so.

Mr. Morrissey

Therefore, the position the Minister is trying to establish is that the more people there are getting unemployment assistance, the more people there are in employment.

Mr. Lemass

Mind you that could happen.

Mr. Morrissey

There is a third leg to it—we had more people in employment, more people getting unemployment assistance and more people emigrating.

Mr. Davin

And with all that a lower population.

Mr. Lemass

Yes, it has happened several times in the past six years that we have had an increase in unemployment and an increase in the number employed. They had similar experiences in Great Britain. I was trying to get some facts stated for the House in the hope that they would result in some appreciation of the problem with which we are dealing. The facts are as I have stated. There must be an explanation. There is one consideration which Deputies should keep in mind—there is in this country a great number of people who come in and out of insurable employment as circumstances or their own interests dictate. It is quite clear that we have not yet reached a position in which our live register statistics give us a clear picture of the number of unemployed. Deputies have made a lot of reference to the Fianna Fáil plan. The Fianna Fáil plan was a simple one.

Mr. Morrissey

So it was.

Mr. Lemass

The Fianna Fáil plan was that we should make at home the goods we were importing and give employment thereby to our own people here. We said on the figures of the unemployed then published that it was possible to put into work here all the people they had at that time on the unemployed register. How many were then on the register? The number was 30,000 odd.

Mr. Morrissey

The Fianna Fáil plan said they would put 84,601 additional people in employment.

Mr. Lemass

We said we could put into additional employment the number of people on the live register and when we came into office the number on the live register was 30,000. Is that denied now?

Mr. Morrissey

No, it is not denied.

Mr. Lemass

So far as is known that was the number of unemployed in the country. We did put 84,000 additional people into employment.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister's Government put twice as many out of employment by their various policies since.

Mr. Lemass

We put nobody out of employment. It is quite clear that the live register of 1931, or in any previous year, was no more a picture of the unemployed than it was a picture of the moon or of the number of inhabitants in the moon. But it was on the basis of that information that it was confidently asserted that it would be comparatively easy to create new employment to absorb that number of unemployed. But we absorbed three times that number into employment since. There are still large numbers registered at the labour exchanges.

Mr. Corish

The Minister did not accept the figures on the register in 1931 as accurate. He said at the time there were 100,000 unemployed.

Mr. Lemass

I agree that I did not accept those figures on that register. If there had been a live register in 1931, prepared upon the same basis as the live register to-day the total unemployed then would be 250,000 people, or else people are coming into the country and going out of the country of whom we have no record. That is the only possible explanation if there is any sense in statistics at all. Our information is not yet complete. Last year we had an additional number of people on the register receiving unemployment assistance. We do say that at that time the number of people employed had considerably increased.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister is basing that statement on the number of stamps sold and he knows that is not accurate.

Mr. Lemass

On the number of insurance stamps.

Mr. Morrissey

It was a matter of two stamps for every week's work.

Mr. Lemass

We cannot actually check up on anything. There was the return of the additional people employed in the protected industries; upon works of construction and so on; the register at the exchanges and the sale of stamps. All these things point in the same direction and it is fair to assume that when they are all pointing in the same direction they are pointing in the right direction.

Mr. Davin

Can the Minister check up on the relief stamps?

Mr. Lemass

A very large proportion of those on relief works are not required to stamp their cards at all. I am not saying that the amount of work given under the relief schemes has a direct bearing upon the employment statistics but there was a smaller number of people employed on relief schemes. In 1938, the number of unemployed, according to our statistics, increased. It is quite clear that we have still an unemployment problem of considerable magnitude. That is a problem that cannot be settled by making debating points across the floor here. If we are to get that problem tackled on the right lines, we have first to make sure that we know all about it and that is what we have been trying to get definite information on, so that the public would appreciate the need there was for the impositions put upon the taxpayers and the ratepayers in order to alleviate the hardships of the unemployed.

Deputies Brennan and Davin have been objecting to any impositions on the ratepayers of special areas for the purpose of the unemployment assistance schemes. The Deputy says that we are charged with the responsibility for making some provision for meeting the needs of the destitute through unemployment, and that the responsibility for that duty rests upon the Government. I agree with him. We are setting out to rectify that position. But the Government, in dealing with that matter, must not put one citizen who is destitute by reason of unemployment in a better position than another citizen. Consequently the Government scheme should provide for a flat rate of unemployment assistance all round, or a rate which would be the same for a man living in Dublin, Wexford, or in a rural area. But Deputies must recognise that the provision which would be necessary to help a man in a rural area would be altogether inadequate for a man in a large town or city. Consequently, it was decided that these rates should be supplemented, first of all in respect of a number of the larger towns, and, secondly, in respect of the cities. But we did say the additional cost of providing unemployment assistance over and above the standard national rate should be provided, not by the taxpayers in general, but by the special communities which are getting the benefit of that assistance. That is why this Appropriation-in-Aid on this Vote appears, and why this charge is put upon local authorities. The sole purpose of that charge is to enable these higher rates of benefit to be paid in the areas from which the charge is collected.

Mr. Brennan

That is the first time that case has been made.

Mr. Lemass

Certain local authorities have contested the basis upon which the amount was assessed. The question was whether they were to pay upon the basis of their total valuation or to deduct in respect of property that was not productive of rates. Some authorities failed to pay the full amount we claimed, by reason of the fact that they were not required to do it, and this year local authorities have deducted from the current payment the amount they claim for overpayment.

Mr. Corish

Not all of them.

Mr. Lemass

We are rectifying that matter in this Estimate. We have a Supplementary Estimate in order to get the position right. I do not think that on this Appropriation we can discuss plans for dealing with the unemployment problem as a whole. I think it would be more suitable to do so on some such occasion as a Vote on Account or on the Central Fund Bill, or on a discussion on the main Estimates, when Government policy can be debated freely, or through a motion by the Opposition. There is no desire on my part to shirk any such discussion, provided it is a question of ways and means to alleviate the position, and not merely the allocation of blame. I think that we can, in our circumstances at the present time, afford to forget Party differences, because we all have a common aim. If we have, we may be able to agree on a method of working which need not take into account the fundamental differences in policy that divide us on tariffs or something like that.

Mr. Davin

But the Minister has Ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Lemass

I have, and I am not shirking it. Neither does the Government desire to shirk it.

Mr. Davin

What about the plan? Will the Minister produce it?

Mr. Lemass

The plan has produced the results that we claimed for it. It has produced even greater results than we expected. Some Deputy asked for the districts in which the greatest increase in the number of unemployed occurred. It would perhaps be true to say that the increase was general all round. The statistics are affected to some extent by the distribution of relief work and to some extent by other causes. On a particular date, namely, the 28th November, 1938, as compared with the 29th November, 1937, the position then was that there had been an increase of approximately 18 per cent. in the number of persons registered in the four county boroughs, a small increase of 4 per cent. in the rest of Leinster, a decrease of 0.2 per cent. in the rest of Munster, a decrease of 14.3 per cent. in Connaught, and a decrease of 23.3 per cent. in the three Ulster counties. If the position on the date were typical of the position throughout the whole of the year, it could be said that there was a substantial decrease in the number registered in the West and Northern Counties, and a substantial increase in the county boroughs, but that would be a rash conclusion to jump to—that the figures for that date were typical throughout the year. On that particular date the position was that the total for 1938 was 1.3 per cent. less than in 1937. Abnormal circumstances prevailed here last year. One must not leave out of account the abnormal trade position following the London Agreement of last April, which undoubtedly affected employment in a number of occupations. Due to it a substantial increase was recorded in April and May. The number of persons registered can be said to be due perhaps to temporary circumstances which have since ceased to operate to some extent.

Mr. Morrissey

How does that square with the increase which the Minister maintains has taken place in the numbers in employment?

Mr. Lemass

I suggest that we must not make the mistake of comparing figures with one another that have really no relation to one another. I was quoting figures of the number of persons in employment and the number of persons registered. I was quoting the yearly average figure. That figure has no relation to the circumstances in April, May or November or to any other particular period. I have given one explanation of the figures. It may not be the right explanation but I want the figures to be understood.

Mr. Davin

Could the Minister tell me the percentage of unemployment assistance paid to people residing in rural areas as compared to those residing in urban or borough areas?

Mr. Corish

The Minister made no comment on the particular case that I put to him.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy referred to the case of a man living just outside the county borough area whose house was destroyed by a storm, and who came to live with relatives inside the borough area, and whose unemployment assistance was stopped. The Deputy knows that it is necessary that we should have some restriction upon the free movement of persons, drawing unemployment assistance, from rural into borough or urban areas——

Mr. Corish

I appreciate that.

Mr. Lemass

——because of the higher rate of payment involved in the one case. No matter where we fix the boundary there is bound to be some person living just inside, or just outside of it, who will have a grievance. The Deputy mentioned a very hard case. I appreciate the hardship which the circumstances involved for that individual, but there is no way out of it so far as the law is concerned. That is the law. A person is entitled to one rate if he lives in a rural area, and to a different rate of he lives in a borough or urban area. A person living in a rural area, if he transfers to another area, is not entitled to draw unemployment assistance for a period of time. In this particular case the person lived outside the area, only a few yards outside of it, and went to live a few yards inside. The general rule with regard to this is good, even though it worked harshly in his case. There must be some restriction. The only way you could deal with a case such as this is to give some discretion to the Minister. That, obviously, would be opening the door to grave dangers. Even if the exercise of that discretion was controlled as carefully as possible, you would still get people to believe that a preference was being given to one person or another, and that it was being given for political or other reasons. I am afraid that if you were to do that you would be creating a very dangerous position.

Mr. Corish

This was not a political storm.

Mr. Lemass

I would be utterly opposed to the giving of such a discretion.

Mr. Corish

Supposing, for the sake of argument—and I believe this is what happened in this case—that this man's house was going to be repaired, and that he was going back to live in it, would that not justify the Minister in paying him at least the rural rate until his house had been put right? I am sure the Minister will see that great hardship was involved in this case.

Mr. Lemass

Well, there is the old saying that hard cases make bad law. This is a hard case, undoubtedly, and in the circumstances described to me I would certainly be inclined to say pay him the rural rate, but suppose that we were to do that, in practice what would happen? It would mean that you would have to pay a weekly sum to enable persons in rural areas to maintain themselves in towns or cities until they got work.

Vote put and agreed to.