asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that theDublin Corporation recently passed a resolution favouring an increase in the present inadequate unemployment insurance benefits; and, if so, if he will give early consideration to their recommendation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Insurance Benefits.
I am aware of the resolution referred to. In regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer the Deputy to the reply given by me to a similar question by Deputy Kyne on the 11th June last.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he has received a request to investigate the disqualifications of a large number of recipients of unemployment benefit in the Dunfanaghy Employment Exchange area; and, if so, whether he will make a statement on the matter.
Representations were received by me on behalf of a number of claimants to unemployment benefit in Dunfanaghy area and I have had the matter investigated. I find that a number of female claimants was submitted for a vacancy notified to the local office. Some of those submitted were rejected by the employer and their claims to unemployment benefit were not adversely affected. Five persons for whom the work was regarded as suitable and who did not accept the offer, as well as one claimant who did not report for interview, were refused unemployment benefit by a deciding officer. Of the six persons whose claims were refused, two have lodged appeals which will be duly heard by an appeals officer. The other four have a statutory right of appeal against the disallowance of their claims if they are dissatisfied with the decision given. Appeal forms will be given to them on request at the local office.
Is the Minister aware that some of the persons who were submitted for the vacancy in question were not, to my knowledge, suited for the particular work? In actual fact, in accordance with their own statements on their appeal forms, they were notoffered the work because they were considered by the employer concerned as unsuitable. Furthermore, one person deprived of benefit offered to take the job and did not get it. Another applicant was a State-registered nurse and she was asked to take the job of general maid. She refused and was deprived of benefit. Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that people in such categories should, through some agency or other, be put to the trouble, expense and worry of fighting something that is completely unreasonable? I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to investigate the matter to see who was the cause of bringing this situation about.
Further arising out of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, is it not a fact that applicants for unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit who have been to Great Britain must first apply in this country for benefit on British stamps before being paid or becoming entitled to unemployment assistance or benefit in this country? Further, is it not a fact——
That is a general question.
With the greatest respect, Sir, the question here is in relation to disqualification or delay in paying unemployment benefit.
In respect of a certain employment exchange.
I was not aware of that.
Two of these people are depending on a transfer of British contributions to qualify them for unemployment benefit and their claim is being considered. The remaining person who refused to accept the work exhausted the right to unemployment benefit on 2nd November, 1953, and since she was not submitted for the vacancy until the 3rd November, 1953, it cannot be said that she was disqualified.
With all due respect, the information furnished to the Parliamentary Secretary is totally wrong.It does not bear out what I have personally investigated myself. I would ask for further investigation to find out who exactly is the cause of this state of affairs.
Go back to the old court of referees. You would very soon get fair play then.