(for Mr. T.J. Murphy) asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will make special arrangements to dispose of all pending appeals under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933, before Christmas.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Appeals Under Unemployment Assistance Act.
It is not possible for the Unemployment Appeals Committee to dispose of the large number of appeals which have been received before Christmas. I have, however, made special arrangements by which, pending the consideration and decision of appeals by the Unemployment Appeals Committee, the cases in which appeals have been lodged will be reconsidered by unemployment assistance officers in the light of the existing decisions given by the Unemployment Appeals Committee, and where the facts so warrant revised decisions favourable to the applicants will be given.
Will the Minister say whether, when a decision is delayed in a case of this kind, back payment will be made?
There is no legal authority for back payment in such cases. The appeals referred to in the question are appeals against refusals of a qualification certificate or appeals in respect of assessment of means. Payment can only be made to a person who has received the qualification certificate.
Is it possible for the Minister to make some arrangement by which a person, who has been signing for unemployment assistance for some months past, but has not yet received any benefit, may be given some consideration in connection with relief schemes for work on which they are not eligible unless they are actually in receipt of unemployment assistance?
Until the Unemployment Assistance Appeals Committee have decided otherwise, a person who has been refused unemployment assistance is to be deemed not to be entitled to it.
Is the Minister aware that farmers with fairly high valuations are being employed on some of these schemes while men who have applied for unemployment assistance, and whose cases have not been dealt with, are refused employment?
The only thing of which I am aware is that the instruction is that preference in employment is to be given to persons in receipt of unemployment assistance.
Would the Minister consider varying that instruction to such an extent as to allow officers of local authorities to give consideration to cases in which it is shown to them that the applicant has been signing for assistance for three or four months but has not received it? The Minister's Department knows there are cases of that kind.
It is possible that there are such cases but such an instruction would obviously be interpreted to mean an instruction to give a preference in respect of employment to persons who were in possession of such means as not to entitle them to unemployment assistance.
But where it appears to the local officers, and to the local manager, that it is a case in which benefit will ultimately be paid, would the Minister give some discretion to the officers of local authorities to offer employment in that case?
In each one of these cases, the local officer has already decided that benefit is not payable and the appeal is against his decision.
I suggest to the Minister that that is not really the position. In the cases I know, the local employment officer has sent the file of correspondence to the head office for decision and he has no responsibility for the withholding of benefit.
Is the Minister further aware that there are a number of cases in my own constituency in which men with qualification certificates have been signing on and have not received their unemployment assistance and that, in these cases, we have had to give home assistance to the men although they are not eligible for employment on relief works?
In each case, the appeal is not to the Unemployment Assistance Committee but to the local court of referees and if the local court of referees decides in their favour, benefit is payable as from the day on which it should have been payable originally. I cannot imagine that there is any considerable delay in dealing with cases by the local court of referees.
The Minister must know that in cases sent to the Committee here, on the question of means, people have signed as many as 22 times.
That is a different case from that referred to by Deputy Everett.