asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether special instructions have been issued by his Department to local officials with regard to a stricter application of a means test for applicants for unemployment benefit; and whether further investigations are now carried out by local officers of his Department with a view to ascertaining whether such applicants can be refused benefit under Section 15 (1) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, and the statutory instruments connected therewith.

The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Am I to assume in relation to the first question that special instructions have not been issued by the Department to local officials?

That is what the answer means, yes.

Will the Minister state that there were no applicants debarred from benefit in any of the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963?

That is the next question.

Does the Minister state——

I have not answered it yet.

I thought the Minister answered both questions together.

Both parts of the first question.

14.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of applicants for unemployment benefit in Cork South-West who were refused benefit owing to the means test operated under Section 15 (1) of the Social Welfare Acts, 1952, and associated statutory instruments, in each of the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962, and to date in 1963; and whether, in cases where the means involved are such as to make it likely that such persons will be refused benefit for more than a brief temporary period, he will take steps to refund any insurance contributions relating to the benefit which have been paid by such persons.

The records maintained in my Department are not kept in such a way as would enable the information requested in the first part of the question to be supplied. As regards the second part of the question, I have no power to refund, in the circumstances referred to therein, any part of a social insurance contribution which has been properly paid in respect of insurable employment.

Will the Minister not agree that these special measures regarding the application of a means test to applicants for unemployment benefit were not enforced until the change of rates in the early part of this year, from 1st January, and will he not agree that as a result of invoking a means test, a number of persons who have contributed, both themselves and their employers, 10/6d. for stamps to his Department are not now entitled to benefit for these contributions? Answer that first.

There is no question of a means test. It is a question of whether or not the person is unemployed.

Does the Minister not agree that the question relates to whether or not it could be deemed that a person is earning £2 per week or more than £2 per week and if, in the opinion of the Department a person is in receipt of more than £2 weekly, then, according to this section and associated statutory instruments, he is debarred from benefit?

It is not exactly £2 weekly but if he is engaged in certain other employment, then he cannot be considered unemployed for the purpose of drawing unemployment benefit.

Will the Minister not agree that in West Cork we did not hear about this Section 15 (1) until the early part of this year? To quote a specific case, a small farmer with a total valuation, land and buildings, of £7 who during the course of the previous year received £150 from the creamery in respect of milk supplied, was debarred from benefit even though he has a wife and six children and who could easily manage his small farm and take employment if it were available for him. Does the Minister think it is fair to deprive this person of his rightful benefit when he was qualified and when no further employment was available to him from the local council? Does he think it fair to deprive this man of benefit by invoking Section 15 (1)? This is a small farmer with a valuation of a few pounds who has five poor quality cows. I should like an answer to that question. That is actually my reason for putting down this question.

The Deputy did not refer to any particular case. I cannot be expected to discuss particular cases on the question.

I asked the Minister to give the number of cases under Section 15 (1) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, and associated statutory instruments in each of the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and to date. I presume the answer in respect of the years 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961 would be that there were no cases. The information would be quite easily ascertainable in the Minister's Department. It is when the benefit was increased this year that this section was invoked and I believe wrongly invoked. The Minister will also agree that there is not uniformity of application. I do not know who is responsible in the Department—possibly it is not the Minister, personally—for invoking such regulations to deprive such a person as I have mentioned of his rightful entitlement to benefit.

This provision has been there since 1952 and has been administered since 1952.

It was never invoked.

I am quite sure it is administered uniformly throughout the country.

Will the Minister assure me that he will examine cases where the section has been invoked in West Cork and have them reviewed forthwith and if he finds, as I believe he cannot but be forced to find, that there was no justification for such regulation being applied to some of these cases, if not all of them, payment of benefit withheld will be made retrospectively?

The only change made last year was that the amount a person could earn and still qualify for unemployment benefit was raised.

Would the Minister say by what amount it was raised and what it is now?

It is now 6/8 per day.

What was it before?

Five shillings.

Five shillings under Deputy Norton.

This is becoming an argument.

I am asking the question: are the regulations such that a married man with a wife and a big number of children who is in receipt of more than £2 weekly, say £2 1s. weekly, from his work can be debarred from receiving unemployment benefit?

No; £2 is the wrong figure.

All right. So the Department have made a big blunder in this case.

If that is the case, I hope they will get it back.