asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he is aware that a female employed contributor whose usual employment is mainly in private domestic service does not satisfy the conditions for unemployment benefit until a period of ten years has elapsed since the date of her entry into insurance; whether he will give the reasons for this; and whether he will be prepared to introduce amending legislation, if necessary, to improve the position of such workers.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Domestic Servants' Unemployment Benefit.
41.
I am aware of the position as outlined in the Deputy's question.
Females employed in private domestic employment were excluded from cover for unemployment benefit under the former unemployment insurance scheme and that position was continued under the comprehensive scheme of social insurance established by the Social Welfare Act, 1952. The reason for excluding these employees in 1952 was that there was practically no unemployment amongst private domestics and, in the circumstances, it was considered to be unnecessary and unfair to seek contributions from these women for unemployment insurance when it was known that few could qualify for unemployment benefit.
In 1965, the question of extending insurance cover for unemployment benefit to female private domestics was reviewed by my predecessor. It emerged that the absence of such cover was a hardship in the case of older private domestic workers of long service who, once they became unemployed, could find it difficult, for age and other reasons, to obtain further suitable employment. Accordingly, provision was made in the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1966, and relevant Regulations extending cover for unemployment benefit to female private domestics at a special reduced rate of contribution and limiting title to payment of benefit to women who had a substantial record of employment as evidenced by the contributions paid over a ten-year period. I should mention that female domestics of 65 years and over are not subject to this test and they, therefore, can qualify for unemployment benefit in the ordinary way.
I consider that the 1966 legislation constitutes a considerable advance on the previous position by giving cover for unemployment benefit to those older domestics who are most likely to need it, in return for a modest increase in the contribution rate. In the circumstances I do not propose to alter the existing position.
Is it not a fact that the reason the regulation was continued was to ensure a supply of domestics and to prevent people from seeking other jobs and staying out of domestic service for a reasonably long time? Is that not the reason this was included? It is the same thinking as the thinking at the time they were refused any insurance at all.
I do not agree.
I know the Minister will say that, but what I have stated is the position.
If they found other employment, it would be insurable at higher rates and would qualify for the benefits the Deputy mentioned. This would not be an incentive to domestic employment. The aim was to protect the older domestic servant when she retired or found it hard to get other employment by reason of her age. Therefore, a long record was essential for qualification.
Is it only old domestics who are unemployed? Are there not quite a number of young people who take up domestic service and who have periods of unemployment but cannot draw unemployment benefit and must accept very unfair wages and conditions of employment in order to get back again into employment? It is an attempt to keep this pool of cheap labour available for domestic service. The Minister, and those behind him, have responsibility for this.
I deny that. The incidence of unemployment among this category of persons is very low. Anybody with experience will agree that the rates have considerably advanced in recent years. It is difficult to get a good domestic worker at any price.
I am sure the Minister knows the rates paid to domestic servants. Would he like to see anybody belonging to him working for those rates?
I know that it is a good rate to get.
That is nonsense.
In view of the Minister's reply that this acute shortage exists—I agree that it does exist—why was it thought expedient to bring them within the scope of the Redundancy Act and to require them to stamp a card weekly to protect them against the danger of redundancy which it is fantastic to imagine would conceivably arise?
That discounts the argument——
I am not arguing with the Minister. I am asking a question. Why did the Minister make them pay the redundancy stamp?
The employer pays the redundancy stamp.
The whole of them?
There must be an awful lot of people around who are paying the stamps. I did not see any of them—and I meet a lot more of them in my daily work than does the Minister. It is a case of cheap labour to do the household chores. That is what you want.