asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been directed to the leading article in a daily newspaper of the 12th February, 1953, and in particular to the paragraph stating that, despite emigration, the number of registered unemployed has increased from 60,000 to 85,000 and that the tragedy behind this appalling figure is that these are people with family responsibilities who cannot get away; and, if so, if he will state to what extent that statement is misleading by giving the percentage of single persons signing.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Newspaper Article.
I have seen the leading article to which the Deputy refers.
The figures for unemployment used seem to be derived with liberal rounding off from statistics of the numbers on the registers at employment exchanges and branch employment offices at the beginning of November, 1952, and February, 1953. Comparison of these figures for one period of the year with those for another is misleading. It is impossible to eliminate from them the varying influence of seasonal factors. Besides, in the present case there occurred during the period considerable changes in legislation affecting the level of registrations which may make such comparison particularly misleading.
The statement in the article that all those registering are persons with family responsibilities is incorrect.Two analyses were made during January, 1953, into the number of persons listed for payments of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance whose claims were authorised in respect of dependents. The final summary of these analyses is not yet complete but preliminary figures are available. The analyses cover approximately 64,000 claims; of that number 34,200—roughly 53 per cent.—were persons without dependents.
In view of this misleading article in the Evening Herald, can the Parliamentary Secretary say what changes in legislation brought about the additional unemployment registration?
Is it not a fact that applicants who were entitled to claim certain people as dependents under previous Social Welfare Acts are no longer entitled to claim such people as dependents under the recent Act? For instance if there are brothers or sisters who are crippled, they were entitled to be claimed as dependents under previous Acts, but under the recent Act they are no longer regarded as dependents.
Why are they no longer dependents?
Because of the recent Act introduced by the Minister.
Because they cannot be depending on the State and on brothers and sisters.
These applicants were entitled to claim for certain relatives as dependents, be they brothers or sisters, under previous Acts.
Is the Deputy asking a question.
I am putting a question. Is it not a fact that the percentage which the Parliamentary Secretary has quoted does not include these people who have been wiped out under the Social Welfare Act?
Very few are being wiped out under that Act.
In considering the reasons for the higher live register since the 5th January, 1953, it is important to take into consideration the influence that changes of legislation had on the scale of registration. But for these changes many persons now registering at employment exchanges would not be signing there as they would not have been entitled to any payment of unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance.
2. The means test under the Unemployment Assistance Acts was considerably modified by the Social Welfare Act, 1952. Formerly a person could not obtain a qualification certificate if his means exceeded £39 per annum in a rural area or £52 per annum in an urban area. Under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, a person in a rural area with means up to £72 16s. may now obtain a qualification certificate and a person in an urban area whose means do not exceed £98 16s. per annum may obtain one. This modification has admitted a large class of persons previously disqualified on the grounds of means such as small landholders and persons in receipt of small pensions and the like.
3. In addition to relaxing the means test the Social Welfare Act, 1952, increased the rates of unemployment assistance. Many persons can now qualify for a higher rate of payment than formerly and there is therefore a greater incentive for them to apply.
4. Persons of the following classes, therefore, who would not previously be appearing on the live register as applicants for unemployment assistance are now appearing thereon: (a) persons whose means lay between the old limits and the new limits; (b) persons who previously held qualification certificates showing means equal to or greater than the scheduled rates of assistance appropriate to their class before the rates were increased; (c) persons who held qualification certificates showing rates of means which entitled them to a rate of assistance under the old rates of employment assistance which in their opinion made it not worth their while to apply.
Is this an answer to a supplementary question?
I am answering a supplementary question. It came up last week and I want to clear the air, and I am entitled to do it.
On a supplementary question?
Yes.
5. Under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, men employed in agriculture have for the first time become eligible for unemployment benefit from the 5th January, 1953. To satisfy the contribution conditions for such benefit contributions paid by them under the National Health Insurance Acts are counted and it only takes 26 such contributions to qualify them. Furthermore, they are eligible for the same rates of benefit as industrial workers and these rates were considerably increased by the Act.
6. By a transitional arrangement unemployment benefit paid on contributions prior to the 5th January, 1953, are ignored in assessing benefit payable as from that date. Not only this, but the contributions that are counted to satisfy the contribution condition for unemployment benefit are (as a transitional arrangement) the national health insurance contributions paid for the applicant. Both of these transitional arrangements mete out very generous treatment to persons who were formerly insured under the Unemployment Insurance or National Health Insurance Acts and have drawn on to the register a number of such persons who would not otherwise have an incentive to register. If, for example, a man worked for a total of 30 weeks up to September last, then claimed unemployment benefit and received 30 days' benefit, his contributions became exhausted and he could not qualify for further benefit under the old legislation. By virtue of the transitional arrangements that man is eligible for 156 days' benefit as from the 5th January, 1953. Furthermore, a man who had not paid more than a few unemployment insurance contributions under the repealed Acts could now qualify for 156 days' unemployment benefit if the number of nationalhealth insurance contributions since his last entry into insurance amounted to 26 (provided his national health insurance had not lapsed).
7. It is a new condition for the receipt of unemployment assistance that an applicant must draw any unemployment benefit to which he is entitled before becoming entitled to unemployment assistance. A large number of persons, therefore, who have become entitled to qualification certificates under the Unemployment Assistance Acts by reason of the relaxation of the means test have also become entitled to unemployment benefit, because of the fact that national health insurance contributions may be counted for unemployment benefit purposes. In other words a number of persons who previously were not entitled to either unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance are now entitled to one or to the other. It may be added that the changes in the contribution conditions are also very favourable to applicants and that numbers of persons, as already stated, who previously exhausted their rights to unemployment benefit have now on account of changed contribution conditions become entitled to unemployment benefit for 156 days.
The legislative changes referred to have not only made considerably improved provision for the unemployed but have admitted to benefit numbers who were not previously eligible. Because of these legislative changes, therefore, the present live register is not strictly comparable with the live register a year ago.
May I ask——
Is this another supplementary?
Arising out of the long and comprehensive answer of the Parliamentary Secretary, might I ask him if he is prepared to try to get the actual figures referred to under the various heads of new beneficiaries under the Social Welfare legislation and the consequent registration which is increasing? Further, will he oblige me and the House by sending a complimentary copy of that statement to theeditor of the Evening Heraldso that he may find occasion to publish it and so undo the harm he was trying to do by the unreasonable leading article last week?
Does not the Parliamentary Secretary's answer in fact amount to this, that a variation of legislation allows a man who would still be unemployed to claim unemployment benefit? Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that this long answer of his is now going to convince unemployed persons that they are in fact no longer unemployed?
It will convince them that they were unemployed without recognition when you were there.
Is it not a fact that under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, dependents within the meaning of the Act are confined entirely to the immediate family of the applicant whereas under the previous Acts dependents meant dependents, be they members of the family, brothers or sisters, or no relation at all, so long as they were actively dependent on the applicant?
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the entire incentive for a young man to sign at the labour exchange for unemployment assistance is the big sum of 12/-per week in the country and 18/- per week in the city? I suggest we should forget all these details and consider seriously the question of unemployment.
The people you are supporting had not much concern for them.
Without in the least wishing or desiring to circumscribe the Parliamentary Secretary's right and duty to give information to the House, is it not an abuse of our procedure that a parliamentary question, having elicited a reply, and a supplementary question being thereupon asked the Parliamentary Secretary produces and reads a brief two and a half pages long in reply to what purports to bemerely a supplementary question? Surely that is bringing our procedure into contempt. Surely it is wholly unnecessary if the Parliamentary Secretary will forbear entering into childish conspiracies with Deputies to put down the right question.
After that terse intervention can we now get on with the business?
We are deceiving ourselves.
Deputy Dillon was once stopped in the middle of an answer.
The Chair cannot limit the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply.
On a point of order. Without desiring to dwell on the merits of this matter, is it not disorderly to pervert our procedure, a procedure which is already quite adequate to give the information Deputy Briscoe wanted and the Parliamentary Secretary wished to give? Nobody deprecates the giving of information or the eliciting of information but is it not wrong to seek to do that by way of a supplementary question?
Is that a supplementary question?
The Chair has already pointed out that it has no function in the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot be limited in his reply.