Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 May 1940

Vol. 80 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 59—Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance (Resumed).

I desire to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce what steps, if any, have been taken during the past 12 months to endeavour to effect a reciprocity agreement between this country and the British Government and the Six County Government in respect of unemployment insurance benefit. The Minister has had an opportunity of looking into the position of Irish workmen who are employed in Great Britain and the Six Counties either as migratory labourers or as craftsmen in some capacity or another. He will have ascertained that an Irish workman may go to England and may affix unemployment insurance stamps to his unemployment insurance card during a period of one, two or five years, or he may go to Britain or the Six Counties and work for a substantial period in each year, but if he returns to his home he is deprived under this Administration of the unemployment insurance benefit to which he contributed while in employment in Britain or the Six Counties.

Manifestly that is a hardship and a very considerable hardship on the workers concerned who are not able to get employment here but find it necessary to go to Great Britain. There they are required under legislation to stamp unemployment insurance cards, and that process of stamping simply means a wage tax on the workers who are not able to get anything in the way of benefit on returning to this country. A strange anomaly exists in connection with the present situation. If a worker goes to Great Britain, takes his wife and family with him and loses his employment there he may get insurance in Great Britain and get an allowance for his wife and children even though they return to this country while he remains in Great Britain. But if he takes the step of coming back to this country he not only forfeits benefit for himself, but forfeits as well benefit for his wife and children. In view of the fact that the whole outflow of population is from this country to Great Britain, it is clear that the British Government is at present exacting a wage tax from workers from this country who go to Great Britain for substantially long periods. The Minister's predecessor intimated that the question of reciprocity between this Government and England is under consideration. I would like to know what progress has been made in dealing with the matter in the last 12 months? At international Labour conventions the British Government has a heavy responsibility thrown upon it to conclude reciprocity of agreements in cases like this. I would like to know if in the past year an effort has been made to reopen the matter with the British Government, and, if so, how the case now stands?

Mr. W.J. Broderick rose.

The Allies.

Yes, an alliance in demanding justice. In the regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Acts there are many anomalies which bear rather unjustly and very heavily on certain sections of the insured. I am convinced that it cannot be a question of law, that it is simply not statutory but some Departmental regulation that brings about that state of affairs. I can give the Minister a case in which one man signs on for four days in the week for three weeks and is entitled to no benefit and in which in a similar three weeks another man signs on for only ten days. The first man is denied any payment until he has signed on for six additional days, but the second man, although his employment in the period was less, gets paid without signing for any additional period. He is immediately entitled to benefit under the regulations. This bears extremely hard on those men because they are deprived of the unemployment assistance and many other amenities from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Then again you have the extraordinary position in the case of the casual workers and dockers, whose employment is so irregular that it is possible for those men to sign for two days in the week and never receive any benefit. We take it they sign on Monday and Tuesday, work on Wednesday and Thursday and are idle on Friday and Saturday. That sort of thing can continue indefinitely and it has continued ever since the institution of the Unemployment Insurance Act 27 years ago. Yet while in that position they are entitled to no benefit.

With other Deputies I have been on deputations to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister and we have discussed this matter. I readily admit that the Parliamentary Secretary entered into this thing very sympathetically and recognised the anomaly in the position and the hardship that was imposed on these men. I gather from the Parliamentary Secretary that our appeal was turned down on the score of expense. I do not think that point can be sustained because in the financial year 1938-39, on the figures given in the House last night, there was a revenue over all liabilities on the Unemployment Insurance Fund of £283,000 and that money was transferred to other funds. Surely Sir, you will readily admit that it was these men and the employers who created that fund and they have the first claim to be justly treated before that money is allocated for another purpose. I think the regulations ought to be amended. It is extremely hard that these men after paying for years are not entitled to benefit. All those benefits are denied them. This is an extraordinary hardship especially so as I am aware that all the employers of the country are prepared to co-operate with the Minister in amending these regulations. I know the employers of Waterford and Cork have signified their intention of co-operating in this matter with the Minister.

Last year the entire fund came to £1,230,000. This was made up of contributions by the insured and the employers of £957,000 and a State grant of £273,000. It is extraordinary when you look at the State grant to find that a sum of £283,000 was transferred to other liabilities of the Exchequer, in fact to discover that the Unemployment Insurance Act was used as a revenue-bearing instrument. It is extraordinary that it should be the means of making this contribution to the Exchequer while the insured people are denied benefit. The people and their employers contributed to the insurance fund, yet they are denied benefit from it. I think it is very unjust that these men should be put in a position where they are denied assistance from the fund they helped to create. After all "insurance" means security, but "security" is denied here. I suggest to the Minister that these regulations of the Department, if the regulations be the cause of hardship on the workers, ought to be so altered as to make those men entitled to benefit under those funds. Nothing tends more to irritate insured people than the feeling that they are compelled to contribute for unemployment insurance, that a fund is created which is ample to make reasonable provision for them, and still they are denied that provision owing to the working of these regulations with regard to unemployment insurance benefit. In ordinary justice I think these regulations ought to be amended so that they can get the benefit which is now denied them.

We were told by the Minister yesterday to be realists and I claim to be a realist in matters of this kind. The Minister said that we were asking him to remove regulations so as to make it easier for the unemployed to draw unemployment benefit and that we were making mendicants of the unemployed. I think it only fair to say here on behalf of the unemployed that that statement was unworthy of any Minister. If anybody has made sacrifices for this country, the workers and the unemployed have made sacrifices. During the economic war nobody suffered more than the unemployed and the casual workers, especially dockers, and during all that period no murmur was heard from these people as to what they were suffering. I know what these people did suffer and, as I say, it is unworthy of the Minister to make the statement that he made. If anything is responsible for making mendicants of these people, I say that the policy of the Minister is responsible to a great extent. What I feel about the whole matter is that the attitude of the community to the unemployed is that if they cannot get work they are not entitled to the means of living. They must get money somewhere and, of course, it has to come out of taxation and the idea of the taxpayer is only to give them as little as will enable them to exist. I want to support what was said by Deputy Broderick. I am afraid the Minister has no idea what these regulations mean to the class of workers that Deputy Broderick mentioned.

As to the Unemployment Assistance Act, that Act has created a class of people and set them apart from everybody else in the community as if they were responsible for being unemployed. Because they are unemployed, these people are not getting the same benefits from the State as the persons who are fortunate enough to be employed for a certain portion of the year. It is a scandal that undeveloped resources of capital and labour should co-exist with unsatisfied wants, and I say that that state of affairs must be ended and that we shall no longer accept the devil's doctrine that men, women, and children should starve in the midst of plenty. I have to express disappointment at the attitude of the Minister in slandering these unfortunate people.

The Minister yesterday evening concluded the debate. It is perhaps unfortunate in the eyes of some Deputies that a Minister occasionally should have the last word. What is before the Committee now is the administration of two Acts, on which the Deputy said nothing.

I am on the question of administration. The Minister does not seem to have any realisation of what these regulations mean. I will give him a concrete case which will perhaps give some insight into the matter. I know a man with a wife and two sons, one of them 19 years of age and the other 12. That man was unemployed for at least three years and, because of certain circumstances, went to live with his father-in-law who had a pension of about £2 a week from the Cork Corporation. When that man went to live with his father-in-law his unemployment assistance was reduced from 13/6 to 3/6 per week. His 19 year old son was getting 4/- a week. I took his case up with the responsible Department and they wrote that, after further investigation, they would allow this man and his wife and 12 year old son a further 1/- per week and the son of 19 a further 6d. Therefore the son of 19, who has no responsibilities, is getting 1/- more than the father who has to keep himself and his wife and a son of 12, just because that man happens to live with his father-in-law.

I could quote case after case for the Minister. I have a statement here from an unfortunate man who is a purely casual worker. If the Minister wishes I shall give him a copy of it to show how these regulations operate against these unfortunate people. This man went to work as a watchman for one night and got 9/- for that. By so doing he lost 3/6 of his unemployment assistance, because as a watchman his work ran into two days. In other words, he went to work at five o'clock in the evening and remained until eight o'clock the next morning. That also happened on other occasions. On the 6th July, 1939, he also went to work as a watchman and lost four days of his unemployment assistance because he had to make a new claim. That was the matter I referred to last night in connection with unemployment insurance. I am now dealing with unemployment assistance. The six-day period was interrupted because he got this one day's work. The sum of 1/5 was deducted from 9/-, leaving him only 7d. better off for working 15 hours on that day.

There was an Act passed in this House since last September to rectify that position. Why did not the Deputy make sure of his ground before raising that sort of case about it?

I can quote cases which have happened since then.

I hope they are better than that.

I am pointing out what these regulations mean to the unemployed. The Minister would do well to consider the serious effect of the regulations on these people. It is not fair to say that these people are becoming mendicants with anybody's encouragement. Like Deputy Broderick, I know a number of men who are employed as dockers, and everybody knows the intermittent nature of their work. Since the economic war, 93 of these dockers have fines which were imposed on them still unpaid because they are not able to pay. Not alone that, but they have to repay to the labour exchange the money they had overdrawn. I want the Minister to consider these regulations which are unfair and unjust and require to be changed.

I want to put to the Minister a case that is not very general, but is of extreme hardship. It was brought to my notice recently that a workman who had been for a number of years insured was disemployed by the closing down of the firm, and he was refused unemployment benefit although his cards were fully stamped. As far as I can ascertain the reason benefit was refused was because he purchased a farm out of his savings. I do not know whether it is a small farm or a large farm. The Department probably argued that being in possession of a farm, this man ought to have worked there when unemployed. I think the refusal of benefit was a grave hardship seeing that he had contributed since the inception of the Insurance Act. If that man simply put his savings into the bank, or invested them in some other way, he would not be deprived of unemployment benefit. Because he was an industrious man and was able to save he is deprived not only of benefit but of the amount of money he contributed for stamps for a number of years.

I desire to draw the Minister's attention to the distress that exists amongst those employed by boat owners in the fishing industry. By some extraordinary technical regulation men employed by boat owners are more or less excluded from unemployment assistance. The decision has inflicted the greatest hardship on a hardy and courageous race that the country could ill-afford to do without. I respectfully ask the Minister to try to devise some means to overcome any technicality that may interfere with the payment of unemployment assistance to these men. The share that they receive from fishing may vary when they are employees. The present position has thrown a burden on the board of public assistance that is deeply resented and against which they have continually protested. I ask the Minister to deal with the matter at an early date, because the numbers suffering by the present arrangement are fairly large. Their claims should not be disregarded.

I desire to know whether the cost of administration here was considered by the Economic Committee. There are 1,100 officials employed here, and they cost almost £280,000 a year to distribute something like £2,800,000 annually. It would look as if the numbers were very large while the amount distributed by each official—I suppose they are not all connected with this section—is not very considerable. The Minister might also say if any decision has been taken with regard to the amount to be paid by local authorities in connection with the Unemployment Assistance (Amendment) Act, 1938. In the Budget of last year the Minister for Finance expected £60,000 or £70,000 from that source. I wish to know whether any accommodation has been arrived at with the local authorities for payment over two or three years.

I do not think any approach has yet been made in that matter.

I wish to stress the point made by Deputy Brasier regarding the application of unemployment assistance to fishermen. Everybody knows that fishing, especially at certain periods of the year, is a casual occupation. Certain fishermen are employed—perhaps "employed" is not the proper word—on certain rivers during periods of the year and in some seasons very little salmon is caught. They may have one bad year and then two or three good ones. The peculiar thing about the whole question is that a man who may be the proprietor of a boat can draw unemployment assistance, while the men who work for him are not entitled to draw unemployment assistance because, forsooth, they are employed. These men may be out two or three nights and not catch one salmon. That has happened repeatedly on various rivers. I know that it is hard to deal with cases of this kind, but the Minister might have inquiry made to see if something could be done to case the situation. It is an anomalous position when the owner of a boat can get unemployment assistance while the men who are supposed to be employed by him cannot draw anything. As the attention of the Minister's predecessor was drawn to this question on various occasions without any result, I ask him to have the position examined, because these men are suffering great hardship.

I would like to make it quite clear that if regulations made by me cause unjustifiable hardship I will be only too willing, if I can, to amend these regulations, so as to ensure that no hardship, which can be avoided with justice to the rest of the community, will be occasioned. But I cannot undertake to remove the safeguards which the Legislature has provided for the proper administration of these Acts, without a great deal of very careful consideration. Safeguards have been inserted in order to control the Minister and the Department in the administration of considerable sums of public money. Deputy Cosgrave mentioned the fact that it costs something like £280,000 to distribute £2,000,012 as well as to collect £717,000. Why does it cost so much? Because the principle of this Act offers so many opportunities for abuse, and for abuse which would bring grave social evils in its train if not checked, we have to provide the whole of this costly and, if you like, cumbersome machinery, in order to ensure that public money will not find its way into the hands of those who are not, by reason of their need and necessity entitled to it.

There are many hardships which we would like to cure, but we have to remember that if we propose to cure these hardships we may create greater evils, by allowing a too free flow of public money into private purses. The money which is to provide for unemployment assistance is taken, in the main, out of the pockets of people who have to earn that money, who have first claim upon that money, and if we, in order to mitigate the circumstances of people who are unable to find employment, have to take some of the earnings of other people to mitigate that hardship, we have to do that with a due sense of our responsibility, not merely to the people who are to be recipients of this money, but to those from whom we took it, and who contributed it. Accordingly, though, if I can amend any regulation made by me, in order to alleviate hardship, I am quite prepared to do it, that is only provided that I do not open the door to greater public abuses.

The position of men who have been contributors to the Unemployment Fund, men who have been insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, has been mentioned here and it has been suggested that, because the fund shows a temporary surplus, we should proceed to make its distribution easier. I should like to remind Deputy Broderick, who raised this matter, and other Deputies who associated themselves with his arguments that it is only within a comparatively recent period that the Unemployment Fund has shown a surplus. In 1926 and 1927 there was a deficit in that fund of £1,312,000.

When was that caused?

During the period which followed the last war.

The British Government caused it and lumped it over on us.

It may have been due to the manner in which the U.K. Unemployment Fund was divided, but the real causative factor, as the Deputy well knows, was the general slump in employment which followed the last European war. Deputy Broderick spoke of a surplus of £300,000, but I ask him to remember that within a comparatively short period there was on this fund a deficit of £1,312,000. That deficit was gradually wiped out and a surplus was built up mainly in the period between 1932 and 1940. Again, in September last, the rate of accumulation of that fund slowed down and I might say that the trend of the Fund now has been reversed. We are now realising some part of that surplus in order to meet the claims of those who, under the statute, are entitled to draw from the fund. We have got to remember that, before a person can claim benefit from the fund, he has got to show that he has been out of employment for, at least, one week. I am not certain that it would be possible to administer the Act if that week were to be wiped out. That is the statutory qualification and whether a person be in or out of employment for a long or short period, I do not know how, in justice to the other contributors to the fund, we can shorten that week. If we do shorten the week, one thing is certain—we are going to increase the demand on the fund for benefit and, if the fund is to be kept solvent, that will mean that we must ask contributors to increase their contributions. Deputy Broderick says that the employers he knows in Cork and elsewhere are prepared to co-operate in order to cure the grievance he mentioned. Are they prepared to co-operate to the extent of bearing the full cost of the removal of that grievance? When proposals to increase the rate of contribution to the Fund were before this House, my recollection is that we had many Deputies, representing not only the workers but the employers, getting up and protesting against the proposal to increase the rate of contribution.

Let me take the case mentioned by Deputy Morrissey and a similar case mentioned last night by Deputy Hurley. The Deputies in question instanced the case of men who had been in employment for prolonged periods. Subsequently, when those men lost their positions with their one-time employers and when they came to make claims for benefit, their claims were rejected. I have been looking into the matter in relation to the statement made by Deputy Hurley last night. I have not any precise case in mind but I wonder if he had, when speaking last night, an instance like this in mind: an only son came from the country to the city and subsequently lost his employment in the city. He then returned to his parents, who were the owners of a large farm, a public-house and a drapery establishment. Although his people were in these circumstances, he made a claim for unemployment benefit on the ground that he could not get work. The matter went, ultimately, to the umpire and the umpire decided that, in the light of these circumstances, he could not accept the applicant's submission that he was unable to find work. There were, at least, three separate undertakings within the control of his family in which he might have found useful employment. We had another case of a man aged about 22 years who was very much in the same position. He had been employed for three years as a clerk with his uncle. Towards the end of 1939, he relinquished his employment, or he may have lost his employment, and he returned to his father's house. His father has a farm of 160 acres, with a poor law valuation of £110. He tills 35 acres of that farm and finds employment for four men. The applicant in this case comes along and demands unemployment benefit. Again, the umpire decided that he was not entitled to it and I do not think he was entitled to it.

The recorded decisions made under the Acts show that, from the inception of this scheme of unemployment insurance it was never intended that any person who could find employment or who could usefully and profitably occupy himself—it did not matter how long he had been contributing to the fund—should be entitled to claim benefit when he lost a job. This unemployment scheme is a mutual-insurance scheme and the regulations laid down are intended to protect the rights of those who contribute to the fund and who, because they cannot find work are in real want. The simple fact that a man has contributed to the fund over a number of years does not give him any statutory right to benefit unless he is actually in want of employment, unless he cannot find employment, and the presumption in the cases I have mentioned, and in the case mentioned by Deputy Morrissey of the person who owned a farm, is that he could usefully employ himself or have found employment. The first two applicants could have been usefully employed in their parents' business, and the man who owned the farm could usefully employ himself on that farm. The Insurance Act was instituted for the benefit of those who have no other resources, when they are out of employment, except the benefits provided for them by the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That is the position which we must all take up if we are not going to allow the principle of insurance under the Act to degenerate into a sort of pensionable provision.

Did the Minister ever hear of a Deputy drawing unemployment insurance benefit?

He may have, but I would certainly deprecate that very strongly. I do not know at the moment what I would do if that fact were brought to my notice, but I think it would be regrettable. However, let me not sit in judgment when I do not know the full facts. With regard to Deputy Hickey's remarks, the Deputy will pardon me if I sometimes am less dignified than I ought to be in dealing with these matters, but it is really very disquieting to find that responsible Deputies like Deputy Hickey—I know that he is kind, generous and big-hearted—should get up here and deal with a case such as the one he mentioned, the case of the night watchman. That was an instance in which my predecessor had come to the conclusion that there was undue hardship. It fell to my lot to bring in the legislation which was largely drafted by him. As soon as an opportune moment arrived, the legislation was brought in to amend the Act and cure this case of the person who finds employment but whose period of employment is spread over two days. That Act was made law in March last.

I would like Deputy Hickey to look on the other side of the picture. It is my job to present the other side of the picture. Deputies should look at the other side of the story when we are told how little we are doing for the unemployed and what the average taxpayer thinks of the person in receipt of unemployment assistance. Whether for good or ill, we are providing £1,450,000 in this Vote for the payment of unemployment assistance, and on the Vote for Unemployment Schemes we are providing £1,400,000. That gives us a total of £2,850,000. Bearing in mind what our resources are, that is a very considerable provision, and in order to make that provision we have to ask people in this country who are in employment and whose means are limited—and, for God's sake, let us stop talking as if we had in this country a certain small, select coterie whose means, if confiscated for the benefit of the whole community, would enable us to live in luxury—to make a sacrifice. In order to find that £2,850,000 we have to ask people whose means are very limited, and who have to work hard in order to secure those limited means, to stint themselves. While I recognise there are Deputies who feel strongly about people who are out of a job and who may be hungry, I have to look at the other side of the picture and to think of the money that is being taken out of people's pockets in order to provide £2,850,000. It would be better for the lot of us if we sometimes looked at that side of the picture. It might, perhaps, stimulate us.

Where does the Minister get £1,400,000 when all he is asking for in the Vote is £1,295,000?

Perhaps the Deputy would look at the Appropriations-in-Aid?

Someone else is giving it.

I never asked the House to assume, and I hope the Deputy did not so far misunderstand anything I have said——

I am afraid that in my innocence I did.

I hope no one so far misunderstands me as to take it that the Government here, out of their own bounty and out of their own pockets, were providing anything like £2,850,000. I have emphasised that in order to provide that money we have had to ask the common people of this country to stint themselves. When the Deputy talks about arithmetical exactitude he might look at the Appropriations-in-Aid and he will see, as Deputy Broderick has told us, that no less than £300,000 was taken out of the employment fund. That was collected by us. We compelled those in employment to pay some part of that sum; we compelled those who are employing persons to contribute towards that £300,000. We are not giving the £300,000, but we are doing what I think is perhaps a more onerous job, one that ought to be discharged with great responsibility. We are compelling other people to pay £300,000 and, that being the position, I am not going, in relation to these Unemployment Insurance Acts, to make any changes in the law or to remove any one of the safeguards which, from the very inception of the Insurance Acts, have been introduced by the Legislature into the statutes in order to ensure that the money will find itself only in the possession of those people who are justly entitled to it.

The requests put to me this afternoon have been, in the main, requests for the amendment of the law. Deputies have talked about regulations, but, in fact, the waiting week and the qualifying week are statutory provisions. The relaxation of these provisions in one way or the other would require an amendment of the law. I certainly do not propose, without a great deal of consideration, to introduce any amendment which would result in the relaxation of the present regulations.

I wish to ask the Minister whether the £13,000 that is being pinched from charities this year will go into the unemployment fund or into the Treasury?

That is not relevant. Deputies may, at the discretion of the Chair, ask relevant questions when a Minister has concluded on the Estimate. An abuse of that procedure would lead to a curtailment of such questions.

Mr. Broderick

I should like to point out that I never asked for any diversion of the Unemployment Insurance Fund until there was a surplus. I pointed out that you have compelled these people to pay and you have compelled the employers to pay. If they have been compelled to contribute, surely it is a logical deduction that they are the first people entitled to benefit?

Does the Deputy rise to ask a question?

Mr. Broderick

I merely rose to give an explanation of my attitude. With most of the Minister's deductions, I am in thorough agreement.

The Deputy may not now reply to the Minister. The Minister stated that the requests made by the Deputy would require amending legislation. They are, therefore, out of order.

Mr. Morrissey

Will the Minister state why it is necessary to extort this £2,800,000 from the taxpayers and ratepayers? I am entitled to ask that question. Whether or not the Minister answers it is a matter for himself.

I should like to ask the Minister whether any steps have been taken by him or his Department during the last 12 months with regard to the question of reciprocity?

There were certain things that I omitted in the course of my reply and I propose to write to the Deputies who raised them. In relation to the question that the Deputy has mentioned, the question of whether we tried to enter into negotiations with the British authorities with a view to establishing reciprocal treatment in regard to unemployment payments, there were tentative approaches made in that matter, but I am sorry to say we have not got very far.

When were they made approximately?

If the Deputy would forgive me, I would rather speak to him than put that on the records. We hope that a more favourable opportunity may arise for reopening that matter, but up to last August, and even more recently, we have not been able to establish the contacts that we wanted.

Would the Minister say if it is intended to pursue the matter?

Will the Minister communicate with us officially?

Yes, with the Deputy.

There is one matter that I want to raise in regard to the assessment of means in the case of unemployment insurance benefit. Persons who desire to appeal against an assessment are refused information by the Minister's Department as to the manner in which the assessment has been arrived at. I, as a Deputy, have tried to get the information and have been told by the Minister's Department that it is confidential. I want to hear from the Minister why it is regarded as confidential, because, in the case of the Department of Local Government and Public Health, Deputies and other people interested in appeals against the assessment of means have no difficulty whatever in getting a detailed statement of the assessments made.

I should like to have an opportunity of considering the point that has been raised by Deputy Pattison because the position that has prevailed in regard to this question of the assessment of means is this: that, generally, information of that sort is regarded by the Department as confidential in the case of a particular person concerned. A number of people do not like their means to be talked about. Some people, when they appeal might prefer, as the Deputy says, to have a statement of their assessment. In regard to that whole matter, I shall consider the question that has been put to me by the Deputy.

If one goes to the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions branch you may be told that the person you are interested in cannot get a pension because he has a certain income under schedule A, B, C or D, and that, consequently, he cannot get anything under the Unemployment Assistance Act either. The Department say that person is deemed to have means of 8/- a week. He does not know how he is assumed to have that means because he has no income at all. The position is that the Department will not tell how they arrive at the 8/-. Surely if the Department allege that a person has an income of 8/- or 10/- a week they ought, not only for that person's benefit but for the benefit of posterity, tell him how he has got 10/- a week when he does not see that he has a farthing of it. If an applicant says that he wants to give reasons to show that he has not 10/- a week, the Department alleging that he has, they ought to give him a statement of the grounds on which they base that. When he asks for information of this sort he ought to be entitled to get it in order that he may dispute the claim to a pension.

I will look into that aspect of the matter.

I put a question to the Minister as to whether the cost of the administration of this Vote forms part of the work of the Economy Committee.

There is nothing to save then?

So far as I know, it has not been found possible to do very much on it. The Deputy, I think, was not in the House when I touched on this. I did point out that there was a disbursement of over £2,000,000 as well as the collection of an additional £700,000 by way of Appropriations-in-Aid. That required a great deal of checking.

Four letters got in £400,000. One ought to get in the other £300,000. We are being checked and inspected out of existence.

Does the Deputy wish to remove all the checks on the disbursement of over £2,000,000?

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn