asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that applicants for unemployment assistance who have been in receipt of unemployment benefit for a prolonged period have been notified that they must sign for a waiting period of three days before becoming entitled to unemployment assistance; and, if so, and having regard to the fact that such persons have furnished evidence of continuous unemployment which had entitled them to unemployment benefit, he will arrange to dispense with the second waiting period of three days.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Assistance — Waiting Period.
Under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, the waiting period for unemployment assistance was reduced from six days to three days. A person is disqualified for the receipt of unemployment assistance when in receipt of or entitled to unemployment benefit.
The Unemployment Assistance Acts provide that no time during which a person is disqualified for receivingunemployment assistance shall be reckoned in the computation of any period of unemployment, and for that reason any day for which unemployment benefit is paid or payable cannot be treated as a waiting day for unemployment assistance.
Is the Minister aware that an unemployed man with a wife and two dependent children, who has been unemployed since last January, will receive only 19/- this week, because of that interpretation of the Act?
I am aware of it. That is what the Act lays down, but if the Act had not been passed he would receive only 1/6 instead of 19/-.
Is the Minister aware that since 1935 that has not been in operation? When a man has not been in employment for months and the stamp payments are exhausted, he is informed of the position and signs a form and goes on to unemployment assistance the following week, without having to wait a second period of seven days. That was in operation since 1935.
That was in operation, truly. Before the last Act the stamp only entitled him to one day's benefit, but now, under the Act just passed, if a man has stamps he can go on drawing for 26 weeks for 26 stamps. That is what has made the difference. I know there is hardship and I do not want to defend that, but I want to point out to the Deputy that if the Act had not been passed he would have been on unemployment assistance from the end of January instead of now and certainly he would not benefit by that.
The fact remains that this is in operation since 1935. A man who is getting 50/- a week since last January, who has a wife and two children, is this week getting only 19/-, although when he goes on to next week he can get his 38/- That has not been in operation since 1935. Why bring it into operation now?
I know that is quite true, but it is in the Act and I cannot help it. It is one of the clauses, I can tellthe Deputy for his own information, that were in the Norton Act.
Is it not in the Act since 1935?
No.
Of course it is.
Is it not a fact that under the old system facilities were afforded to these people so that they could ensure that there would be no waiting period between the receipt of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance, if they notified the labour exchange a week or so beforehand?
That is true. Before the 1952 Act was passed a person could opt to take unemployment assistance or unemployment insurance and in that way it could be arranged that there would be no waiting period; but when the 1952 Act was brought in which gave the 26 weeks' running period, there was no option.
If this has been the position over a number of years, under what Act is the change being made, or has there been a misinterpretation all through the years? They had the right then, not alone to opt on their stamps but to unemployment assistance at the conclusion of the stamps, automatically, having signed the blue book and the qualification certificate; and now for the first time we have the introduction of a second waiting period. I would ask the Minister where the justification is and under what Act it is done?
The law has been changed. The 1952 Act has changed the law.
Has that been wrong all the years? Have other Ministers been interpreting it wrongly?
Would the Minister say if, under the terms of the Act, he has any power to make a regulation to waive these three days?
No; the Act will have to be changed.
I suggest that something should be done when men, women and children must come before the vainglory of any institution. This system was in operation all the time since 1935.
Was this included in the Norton Act?
No.
It was.