asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a person (particulars given) has been refused unemployment benefit, although he is a married man with a family.

The person to whom the question relates made a claim to unemployment benefit on 21st October, 1963, and payment of benefit was made thereon until 4th March, 1964, when it came to light that he is engaged in a dairying business in partnership with his brother. The outcome of the inquiries which followed was that the claim was disallowed from 5th March, 1964, on the ground that the claimant was not unemployed. Statutory regulations provide that where a person has another occupation, as in this case, from which the remuneration or profit is more than 6/8d a day, or its equivalent, he cannot be regarded as unemployed. The claimant's share of the profit from the dairying business substantially exceeded the statutory maximum. He appealed against the decision disallowing his claim and, following an oral hearing, an Appeals Officer, whose decision is final, upheld the disallowance.

As I indicated to the Deputy recently in connection with another case, the raising by any significant sum of the daily amount specified in the regulations would present difficulties but the question as to whether any increase should be made is under examination.

Can the Minister explain how this man who, after all, is landless, who has worked for hire all his life and stamped his cards found that when he was temporarily unemployed, he was refused unemployment benefit, even though, as I say, he is not a landowner? The fact that he might have assisted his brother in his dairy business is incidental to the whole claim. Is the Minister aware this man has a big family and needs the unemployment benefit in order to live? Will the Minister have the matter further investigated?

My information is that he is in partnership with his brother in the dairy business.

Will the Minister say who produced the evidence that this man is in partnership with his brother? I know he is not.

If the Deputy says not, I shall have the matter reinvestigated.

Would you please?

25.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that a person (name supplied), who was employed as a farm labourer by an alien living in County Kildare and left his employment in order to take up more remunerative employment with a building contractor, was not taken on by the building contractor because of interference by his former employer and was subsequently refused unemployment benefit; and if he will now direct that benefit will be paid.

Payment of unemployment benefit was not refused on the claim of the insured person referred to. A decision in his favour was given on 29th May last following completion of necessary enquiries and payment of all the benefit due was made to him on 5th June.