In order that the House may understand the matter which I wish to raise on the adjournment, I shall read Question 19 on yesterday's Order Paper, and the reply. The question was:—
To ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he is aware that Terence Connolly, Drumgoan, Carrickmacross, an insured person with more than three years' unemployment stamps to his credit, was out of work from the 30th June to the 28th September, 1928; that on the 2nd July he applied for and was refused unemployment benefit; that he appealed against this decision and the Court of Referees upheld his claim; that the Insurance Officer appealed against the decision of this Court, and that a second Court of Referees was set up on the 19th September, which Court again decided in favour of the claimant; that the Insurance Officer had the matter referred to an Umpire for final decision, and that the latter disallowed the claim, and whether he will state the grounds on which the latter decision was based.
The reply from the Minister for Industry and Commerce was:—
Terence Connolly, of Drumgoan, Carrickmacross, claimed unemployment benefit on the 2nd July, 1928, and furnished evidence of unemployment up to and including the 27th September, 1928. The claimant had to his credit in the Unemployment Fund one hundred and thirteen unexhausted contributions, in respect of which he would have been entitled to so many days of unemployment benefit if he was able to satisfy the statutory conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit, one of which is that he must prove that he is continuously unemployed. On the facts of this case, the Insurance Officer found that this statutory condition was not fulfilled, and accordingly he disallowed the claim.
The claimant, in exercise of his right, appealed to the Court of Referees, which recommended that benefit be allowed. Further enquiries having been made and the fresh information elicited that the claimant on the former occasion had stated his holding of land to be four acres, whereas it is in fact over nine acres, the case was again submitted to the Court of Referees for reconsideration, but the recommendation of the Court on this occasion was the same as on the first.
As the insurance officer was unable to agree with the Court's recommendation, the case was sent to the Umpire, who in giving his decision that the claim must be disallowed stated that the claimant's holding is too large not to provide suitable employment for him when he is not working for wages.
This decision is final.
I wish to draw particular attention to the part of the reply which states: "Further inquiries having been made and the fresh information elicited that the claimant on the former occasion had stated his holding of land to be four acres whereas it is in fact over nine acres——" Were it not for the opinion formed by the insurance officer that the man had supplied misleading information, the question of giving unemployment benefit apparently would not have arisen. If my information is correct, the claimant did not at any time state that he had only four acres of land. He had stated that he had only four and a half Irish acres of arable land. The fact still remains that, when on the appeal of the insurance officer this case was again investigated, with the additional information that the insurance officer was able to procure with regard to the extent of his holding, the Court of Referees upheld the man's claim to benefit. As stated in the reply, the insurance officer appealed against that decision. He certainly meant to ensure that he was not going to be let down. The Court of Referees is not a court that can be particularly favourable to a claimant. The Chairman is appointed by the Minister, I understand, and the Court is constituted from a panel of suitable persons selected by the Minister. The very fact that two Courts in succession sustained this man's claim to benefit is in itself significant. The Umpire in giving his decision disallowing the claim stated that the holding was too large not to provide suitable employment for him when not working for wages. The Minister will scarcely ask us to believe that a holding of four and a half Irish acres of arable land is sufficient to provide suitable employment for a man who has to maintain himself and his wife and five children and an invalid sister.
It would appear to me that the claimant is either occupied in an insurable occupation or he is not. I do not know if the Minister would class his occupation as part-time, subsidiary or as being casually employed for private purposes. I do not think he will suggest that. But if that is the case, if he comes under either of the latter headings, then he should not have to pay unemployment insurance contributions at all. If he is ordinarily employed in an insurable occupation, and unemployment contributions are extracted from him, I submit that when he becomes unemployed he is entitled to benefit. This man has been working at Barton's mill for the last thirty years. He has had to go before the Court of Referees in Dundalk on two occasions, a distance of between eighteen and twenty miles. He has never before applied for unemployment insurance benefit, and that in itself suggests that the case is a genuine one, seeing that he has a number of years' contributions to his credit. The rateable valuation of the entire holding is £10. That, of course, includes the valuation of the house and premises as well as the land. The rent is £5 5s. 0d., so that the Minister can form his own judgment. Anybody who knows anything about the valuation of land can form a judgment as to the extent and value of his holding.
I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the two tribunals before which this man appeared and presented his own case decided in his favour, and that the only tribunal that did not decide in his favour was the tribunal where he was not personally represented. The reply to my question stated that the decision is final. The decision, I submit, is not necessarily final. It is final if all the information was before the Umpire— all the available information at the time the question was decided. But if additional information is available, just as the insurance officer was able to get a second Court of Referees set up when he thought he had additional information, so the claimant, when he believes he has additional information that was not properly put before the Umpire, is entitled to reconsideration of his claim.
The fact that only 4½ acres of his holding are arable land is a new fact for the Umpire. I would like to point out, also, that this man has gone back to his usual employment, and is again paying unemployment contributions. If and when it comes to be definitely established that this man is not, owing to the extent of his holding, entitled to benefit, surely the Minister for Industry and Commerce will not continue to collect the unemployment contributions from him? Such a procedure would appear to me to be nothing short of legalised robbery, and certainly it is getting money under false pretences if a man cannot get paid when he is out of work.
I would draw the Minister's attention to a further fact in connection with this case. That is, that a person does not fail to satisfy the conditions attaching to the getting of unemployment benefit because he has declined employment if the conditions of employment are less favourable than the ordinary conditions of employment obtaining in his ordinary occupation. I certainly think the possible occupation on his five acres of land, with the responsibilities this man has to carry, would certainly not be employment as favourable as the man's ordinary occupation is. I submit he would be quite entitled to refuse. The suggestion has not been made by the Umpire or the insurance officer that this man was actually working on his land when he was supposed to be unemployed. The suggestion was made that suitable employment was available on his farm. That is the aspect of it I would like the Minister to take into special consideration. I submit, while he might have something to do to keep himself warm—cutting thistles, rushes or ragweeds around the house—he could not get suitable employment on the land in his district, and the real question at issue is: Does his farm provide suitable employment for this man when he is unemployed?
I think it is a very exceptional case, and I think a case has been made out in favour of re-opening this question and at least giving the man an opportunity of putting his case fully before another Umpire. If that cannot be done, I think the Minister should cease to take contributions from him.
