asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a claim for unemployment benefit made by a person (name supplied) last May was not paid until 24th September.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Benefit.
46.
The claimant in this case is a married woman and in order to qualify for benefit she required to have 26 contributions paid on her behalf in respect of employment subsequent to her marriage. When she made a claim for unemployment benefit in May, 1968, the records of the Department showed that she had only 25 contributions. She had, however, furnished an insurance card in August, 1967, with two further contributions in connection with a claim to maternity benefit. Inquiries were necessary as to whether these contributions could be accepted as having been validly paid. On completion of the necessary investigations they were in fact so accepted and her maternity benefit was paid. Due to a regrettable oversight the two contributions in question were not placed to her credit and were consequently not on record when she later made her unemployment benefit claim. The record was not finally corrected until 16th September, 1968, and as she had continued to furnish evidence of unemployment in the meantime her claim was authorised on that date and payment of all benefit due to her was made on 20th September, 1968.
Surely the Minister would agree, if a question arises as to whether this lady complied with the statutory regulations or not, it should not have taken the Department over four months to interpret the statutory conditions and decide whether she complied with them or not? Surely he will agree that, since the lady was found to have complied with the conditions, it is at variance with what the Minister often stated here that where the applicant complies with all conditions there is never a longer delay than three to four days.
It was because two contributions were unfortunately not recorded due to an error.
Will the Minister agree this was an unduly long delay?
It was, I agree.