asked the Minister for Social Welfare why unemployment benefit has been refused to a person (name supplied), an unemployed insured worker, who has a wife and ten children to support.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Benefit Claim.
20.
The person referred to made a claim to unemployment benefit on 10th October, 1966, which was disallowed on the ground that he was not unemployed. Apart from his insurable employment, the insured person is a farmer. Statutory regulations provide that where a person has another occupation, as in this case, from which the remuneration or profit is more than 10/- a day or its equivalent he cannot be regarded as unemployed unless at least 78 employment contributions have been paid in respect of him in a given period of three years prior to his claim. In this case the profit from the farm exceeded the statutory maximum and the claimant did not satisfy the contribution requirement mentioned. He appealed against the disallowance of his claim and an appeals officer, following an oral hearing, upheld the disallowance.
I am aware, of course, that the statutory limit is 10/-a day, on which the man, his wife and ten children will be able to live very highly. Is the Minister aware that this man travelled 27 miles per day to work on the bogs when he could get employment? If he were not in need of employment, would the Minister think that he would do that? Is it not a shocking situation where a man with 11 persons to support, in addition to himself, is refused unemployment benefit, although he is entitled to it, because of the fact that he has 10/- a day income?
Mr. O'Malley
It is hard but his income is calculated, I think, at £260 per annum. His allowances in respect of nine children under 16 years of age are £10 11s a month, which is not a lot but is something. Another aspect is that he is not an applicant for unemployment assistance, although he is qualified to apply for unemployment assistance.
Mr. Tully
He is not.
Mr. O'Malley
Yes; he is the holder of a qualification certificate granted in October, 1965, and if he claims unemployment assistance, he will be paid the rate which is due to him.
I would be glad if the Minister could explain how he is assessed at £10 per month children's allowances with a family of 11 children unless you have just increased it for the by-election?
Mr. O'Malley
Nine children and £10 11s per month are the figures I have here.
That is as far out as the £260 he is assessed with.
Mr. O'Malley
I did not assess it; it is assessed by an officer of the Department at £260.
I know the Minister did not assess it. He knows as much about it as the Minister for Social Welfare. This man should get the benefit he is entitled to get and no bad manners from the Minister in this House will deflect me from asking this question. I want to know will the Minister at this stage have the matter further investigated with a view to having some type of income given to this unfortunate man and his family?
Mr. O'Malley
The Deputy has just told me that I did not know anything about it.
Will you investigate it?
Mr. O'Malley
I may well do so if you ask me in a civil manner and not be so rude. You are always doing it.
The Minister is an expert in politeness.
If this is not bad manners from the Minister, what is it?