Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jun 1945

Vol. 97 No. 16

Committee on Finance. - Vote 59—Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance.

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £622,954 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1946, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Unemployment Insurance and Employment Exchanges (including Contributions to the Unemployment Fund), Unemployment Assistance; the Special Register of Agricultural and Turf Workers, and Insurance against Intermittent Unemployment, for certain services in connection with Food Allowances and for Expenses in connection with the provision of Labour for Harvest Work (9 Edw. 7, c. 7; 10 and 11 Geo. 5, c. 30; 11 Geo. 5, c. 1; 11 and 12 Geo. 5, c. 15; 12 Geo. 5, c. 7; No. 17 of 1923; Nos. 26 and 59 of 1924; No. 21 of 1926; No. 33 of 1930; Nos. 44 and 46 of 1933; No. 38 of 1935; No. 2 of 1938; No. 28 of 1939; No. 4 of 1940; No. 3 of 1941; No. 7 of 1942; and No. 20 of 1943).

The general aspect of unemployment insurance has been discussed on the main Vote for the Minister, but there are one or two administrative matters that I should like to raise on this Vote. Deputies from time to time write to the Department in connection with delay in the payment of unemployment assistance benefit or in connection with investigations which the Department find it necessary to undertake in individual cases. My experience has been that it is quite a while after a decision has been arrived at in a particular case before it is communicated to the Deputy who raised the matter. If a Deputy makes representations to the Department in a particular case and asks that the matter be investigated and if, after such investigation the Department decides that the person is entitled to benefit, is there any reason why it should take a fortnight or three weeks to inform the Deputy of the decision? A fortnight or three weeks having elapsed since the man was actually paid benefit which was temporarily withheld from him, it does not seem to be sixteen-cylinder efficiency to write to the Deputy and say that the man was paid three weeks ago. The Deputy writes in the first instance to the Department and gets the case investigated. On investigation it is perhaps decided that benefit should not have been withheld and payment is resumed. Then, a fortnight or three weeks afterwards, the Deputy who raised the matter is told that benefit was paid to the man on such and such a date. You might as well not write to the Deputy at all as write to him three or four weeks after the case has been decided. Is there any insuperable difficulty in telling the Deputy when a decision is arrived at that payment would be resumed forthwith instead of holding up the letter for three or four weeks after the man has been paid?

The Deputy may be referring to cases that are dealt with by a branch office. The only delay that occurs arises from the necessity of communicating with the branch office and getting materials for a reply to the Deputy.

I am referring to cases that emanated from the branch in Lord Edward Street.

But the information must come from the branch office to enable a reply to be sent to the Deputy.

If a Deputy gets a letter on the 26th of the month saying that the man had been paid benefit on the 15th of the month does it not seem a waste of time to send him a letter at all?

The Deputy would be awfully annoyed if he got no letter at all.

Would the Minister arrange to have Deputies informed of such decisions at the earliest possible moment?

That is a general instruction in the Department, but there may be unavoidable delay arising out of the necessity to communicate with a branch office down the country to get the information which the Deputy desires.

I am referring to cases where one gets a letter in which one is told that the man was paid benefit a fortnight ago. It is only a fortnight after he has received payment that the Deputy is told of the fact. It does not seem worth while writing to the Deputy then. All I am asking is that the officer handling the file in the case should communicate the decision to the Deputy when the decision is arrived at. There seems to be no reason why a reply should be held up for a fortnight or three weeks after a decision has been arrived at and the man has been paid.

The British Permit Office does not open letters for three weeks after receiving them.

I want to draw the Minister's attention to the cases of men who are deprived of benefit on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking work, so that he may make some inquiries as to the reasons for such decisions. In Dublin City there are unfortunately some thousands of men who get only a casual type of work. Men who are looking for a day's work on relief schemes may do odd jobs in the way of pulling a handcart and when these men look for unemployment insurance they get a reply saying that they are cut off from benefit under section so and so. When one reads this section, one finds that the man is cut off because he is not supposed to be genuinely seeking work. I want to know what can a man do, other than go to his local representative, visit half a dozen employers or go to the labour exchange and appeal for work? If the work is not there it is not his fault. I know of cases where men come to my door and to the doors of other members of the corporation or to the doors of Deputies for the city, imploring a letter of reference to enable them to get work or asking when the corporation will start some scheme. Although one does everything possible to get a man of that type work and although one may be prepared to give evidence to that effect, the man is turned down on the ground that he is not genuinely seeking work.

I ask the Minister is it not possible to be a little more lenient with the casual type of worker. There is no work for him until the State or the municipality provides work and these unfortunate people should not be dealt with so harshly. Would the Minister be good enough to make inquiries to ascertain the number of people who have been disqualified from benefit within any given period on these grounds? The sad part of it is that when they are told by a Government Department that they are not genuinely seeking work, the relieving officer of the Dublin Union will use that letter as a means of preventing a man from getting ordinary relief for his wife and family. There is nothing facing him then but the workhouse simply because a Government Department says that he is not genuinely seeking work. Yet the work is not there and I and my colleagues can only tell him that relief schemes will not start for the next two or three months. When he goes to the relieving officer he is told: "You are not genuinely seeking work and you are going to get no relief." I would ask the Minister to inquire into these cases with a view to getting some relaxation of the regulations in favour of these unfortunate people.

The conditions governing the receipt of unemployment assistance are prescribed by law and there is no discretion reserved to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The decision as to whether a person is eligible or ineligible for any grant is made, in the first instance, by the unemployment assistance officer. If an applicant is aggrieved by that decision he has an appeal to the Court of Referees. The decision of the Court of Referees is final except on a matter of law. If there is a matter of law involved, the applicant has an appeal to the umpire. The decision of the umpire is final and binding on all parties. The Minister is allowed no element of discretion at all in dealing with such matters.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share