asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the reason why the claim to unemployment benefit of Thomas Conroy, Wicklow, has not yet been paid.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - WICKLOW UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT CLAIMS.
On claims dated the 30th October, 1924, and 31st March, 1925, Thomas Conroy, of Wicklow, has been paid 130 days' unemployment benefit, thus exhausting all the contributions to his credit in the Unemployment Fund. He will not be entitled to further benefit until further contributions have been paid for him.
Does the Minister say that the claim was made only in October?
I said the claims were dated October, 1924, and March, 1925.
That claim was made in May and on it he had lodged eighteen stamps to his credit. He has never been informed by the Labour Exchange whether he was entitled to benefit.
In May of what year?
May, 1926.
I do not know if the Deputy understood that all the contributions to his credit had been exhausted and that he could not receive any further benefit until further contributions had been paid on his behalf.
He had eighteen contributions paid before May when he made his claim and he never heard a word about the claim, as to whether he was entitled to it or not. Would the Minister have inquiries made?
I am not accepting anything with respect to that. Of course there are a whole lot of other things disentitling a man to unemployment benefit. Even there may have been a small amount of contributions paid, but if the man has gone out of an insurable occupation for a certain number of years there would be required an ordinary entrance fee to bring him back.
This man has not been out of an insurable occupation. He has been employed for the last four or five years. Will the Minister make inquiries as to the reason why no explanation has been given to him why the payment of the benefit could not be made?
I will make inquiries, once I get it established that there are contributions to his credit, that he made application for benefit and that no information was supplied to him; once that is established I will ask the reason why.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state why unemployment benefit has not been paid to Mr. William Loughlin, Arklow (Book No., Arklow 2125).
I regret that it. has not been possible in the time at my disposal to ascertain all the facts of this claim. I will communicate them to the Deputy as soon as possible.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the grounds on which Mr. Thomas Redmond (Book No. 2050, Arklow), has been refused unemployment benefit.
As the Deputy has already been informed in correspondence with the Department, on different claims made between the 29th March, 1921, and the 23rd June, 1926, Thomas Redmond, of Arklow, received 522 days' unemployment benefit. A further claim made on the 23rd June, 1926, was disallowed for the reason that the claimant had exhausted his credit with the Unemployment Fund. He had, in fact, received benefit in excess of the amount to which he was entitled in respect of the valid contributions paid on his behalf. 99 contributions paid into the Unemployment Fund in respect of Mr. Redmond's employment could not be brought to his credit because they had been paid in respect of employment on a ship registered outside An Saorstát and, consequently, were not legally payable.
Is the Minister aware that this boat was owned by Irishmen, that it was trading into Irish ports, and that, although there were 99 Free State stamps paid by this man he is not able to get unemployment benefit?
The question of the ownership of the boat does not arise at all. The main point is as to where the ship is registered, and as it is registered outside the Saorstát it does not matter about the stamps. The contributions were not legally paid. They were invalid and cannot be brought to his account.
Will the Minister say whether in that case the insured person is entitled to a refund of his contributions in respect to the ninetynine stamps?
If he has made a claim. The money should never have been paid.
The Minister has not answered my question. Will the Minister say whether he is entitled to a refund for these stamps?
I have given the only answer I can give.
The Minister has not answered the question I put to him.
It is a question of law.
There will be a whole lot of difficulties arising about the question of stamps not legally payable and the recovery of them.
These are Irish employers trading into a County Wicklow port.
It does not matter. That may be an argument for a change in the law. What the law says is that the ship must be registered in the Saorstát. Under the circumstances you cannot have the contributions lodged to the man's credit.
Then we may take it that the man is not entitled to be insured at all?
Not on such a ship.
The employer deducts a certain amount of money for stamps and you are taking that money from him under false pretences.
No, the money lies there for him. The money that has been deducted lies there for him.
Has the man any alternative to allowing the money to be deducted from him?
He has.
Under English or Irish law?
Under both laws; the money is not legally deducted from him.