asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if it is a fact that railway employees with long service, recently dismissed owing to reduction of staff, have been refused unemployment benefit.

Railway employees who have completed three years service in railway employment are, in general, excepted from the obligation to pay contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Scheme in accordance with arrangements made at the instance of the railway trade unions. It would follow that such employees, not having had contributions paid for them, would not be eligible for unemployment benefit.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether it is a fact that the railway men agreed to that, thinking that they were getting permanent employment?

That is an agreement carried out by arrangement with the railway trade unions and it is in operation for a number of years.

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that that arrangement was come to when employment on the railway was permanent and it was because it was thought to be permanent that the arrangement was come to. Has the Minister taken any steps to review that arrangement or to find out whether the men are now prepared to review the arrangement in view of the new conditions which apply on the railway?

The arrangement stands until representations are made to the Minister to have the arrangement reviewed.

Is it not a fact that the Minister must be satisfied that the employment is permanent before agreeing to the arrangement?

And was so satisfied.

Is the Minister still satisfied?

Yes, according to the meaning of the word "permanent" as used in the scheme.

The men have lost employment.

The men who have lost employment have contributions and whatever scheme can be established will only apply in the future.

Is the Minister aware that some of the men paid unemployment contributions for the first three years?

That was always the case.

Are they not entitled to benefit?

Yes, if they comply with the statutory arrangement.

I am speaking of men who have paid.

Examination has been made, and of all the claims made only two were disallowed, and one of these is under appeal at the moment.

The point is: are men who paid three years' unemployment, and continued in the service for seven years, entitled to anything?

Nothing under their own arrangement.

Surely the men agreed to this under the false impression that they were getting permanent employment.

The word "permanent" must be taken in relation to the circumstances. There was never a guarantee of absolute permanency. People of three years' standing were not likely to be dismissed. If there are new circumstances that disturbed the old arrangement——

In that case surely the railway would give them compensation.

That is a matter for the railway company.

Do I understand from the Minister that these people who paid per week something for the first three years of their ten years' service, although dismissed, are not entitled to any unemployment benefit?

I will have to divide the question into two parts. People who are in the process of serving a three-years' period are, as far as I know, entitled to certain unemployment benefit if dismissed, but people who are past that period come within the terms of the extension granted at the request of the trade unions, and cannot recover unemployment benefit.