Vol. 239 No. 1
andMr. Cluskey asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he is aware that in recent trade disputes employees, who were out of work through no fault of their own and were not participating in a picket, have been deprived of unemployment benefit or any kind of assistance; and if he will take action to ensure that this type of employee will get unemployment benefit in such cases.
37.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will arrange that a sum of money be made available to assist those men who are out of work because of the present strikes and who have no income whatsoever.
38.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the fact that hundreds of men and women, employed in strike-bound establishments who were laid off work before February 5th when pickets were placed by unions directly involved in the maintenance dispute, have been denied social welfare benefits; and that in a great many cases they have also been deprived of local assistance; and if, having regard to the hardship which has been experienced by them and their dependants, he will ensure that substantial financial relief will be extended to all concerned.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 36, 37 and 38 together.
I am not aware that any employees who were out of work by reason of recent trade disputes and who were entitled under the law to unemployment benefit have, in fact, been denied or deprived of benefit. The question of whether any person is unemployed within the meaning of the relevant Acts and regulations and entitled to unemployment benefit, in a trade dispute situation or otherwise, is a matter for decision by statutory deciding officers, subject to a right of appeal to statutory appeals officers whose decisions are final.
Under an amendment made in 1967 of the trade dispute provisions of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, unemployment benefit can be paid to an employee who is not himself participating in or financing or directly interested in a dispute and who does not belong to a grade or class of workers at his place of employment any member of which is so involved. While a number of claims to benefit arising out of the present trade dispute situation have been disallowed by the statutory officers on the ground that these statutory provisions were not fulfilled, many other claims, which would otherwise have been disallowed, have, in fact, been allowed as a result of the 1967 amendment. The purpose of the modification of the law was to identify employees who could be said to be sufficiently free from involvement in a trade dispute at their place of employment as to justify paying them unemployment benefit and the amended law has had effect accordingly.
Section 19 of the Public Assistance Act, 1939, provides that it shall be the duty of public assistance authorities to give to every person in their areas who is in need such public assistance as shall appear to them to be necessary or proper in each particular case. The fact that a person lost his employment because of a strike does not of itself constitute grounds for refusing an application for assistance.
Would the Minister state if it is a fact that he or some of his colleagues interviewed members of a deputation of people affected by the recent dispute? Is he aware of the fact that this deputation, when they took up their position as a picket outside the gates of this House, were driven through and driven over by a Member of the Oireachtas and assaulted?
That does not arise from the question.
Does it not typify the attitude that existed towards those men who were in difficulties?
I am not so aware.
The matter does not arise on these questions, which refer to the payment of benefits.
Having regard to what the Minister has said in connection with the number of people who were denied benefits and whose appeals were not entertained, is he aware they were also denied home assistance and could he exercise his power to ensure that they get home assistance?
I am aware from what the deputation told me that some difficulties arose as to the question of home assistance payments, whether it was a matter of not sufficiently understanding the position vis-à-vis unemployment benefits or not. I have no authority to direct the home assistance authorities to pay assistance.
Does the Minister not agree that the time taken by his appeals officers to decide certain test cases was unduly prolonged? Is it not a fact that he may not have sufficient appeals officers in his Department to deal with all the cases that came before them which demanded urgent decisions?
There was an abnormal number of cases, naturally, and we had fewer than the normal number of appeals officers to undertake the work. It was inevitable, therefore, that there would be delays.
Will the Minister agree that it is a pregnant source of bitter frustration if men find for one reason or another their families hungry and come to the Minister for Social Welfare to ask him what they should do to get the wherewithal to buy bread and they are told he does not know? Surely, it should be the function of the Minister for Social Welfare to say: "If I have not statutory power to give it to you as unemployment benefit or home assistance, you will not leave my office until I have found from some colleague in the Cabinet a source from which you can get the wherewithal to buy bread"?
That is exactly what we did. When I received the deputation there was some consultation regarding unemployment assistance and we got on the telephone to the home assistance authority concerned and discussed the problem with them. Thereafter, we gave the deputation the knowledge they required.
Will the Minister agree there is a situation which must be looked at here? The interpretation appears to have been misunderstood. There were these cases in Ballymun, Clara and Waterford and where the machinery in the factories was not working the appeals officers in some way interpreted the Act to suggest that in some way they were running the strike. Will the Minister inquire into the interpretation his appeals officers put on the law in these cases? It is a shocking situation when men are harried between assistance officers and his Department.
And driven over by a Senator.
From Donegal.
That does not arise.
The interpretation of what is commonly called the escape clause in the 1967 Act is a matter for the appeals officers. The Deputies who were here when the Act went through will appreciate this was designed to meet the particular case where the person was unemployed and had no association whatever with the strike but was unemployed due to the strike. On this occasion we find comparisons being made and Deputies will appreciate that the appeals officer must take into consideration the possibility of that escape clause being used as a device to pay men who are on strike.
Question No. 39.
Will the Minister say if the appeals officers have given decisions in the Ballymun cases?
Perhaps, the decisions are available now. I am not sure.
They have not been available up to now.
Will the Minister bear in mind his experience during this maintenance dispute and will he set about putting the matter right for the future?
That is a separate question.
It depends on what one's attitude should be to "putting the matter right". Perhaps, the Deputy means to apply the escape clause to all persons on strike, or to eliminate altogether the escape clause and to revert to the position in which a person on strike was debarred automatically.
Does the Minister consider it reasonable that the home assistance authority refused to act until the Department of Social Welfare made up their minds to give a decision as to whether these men were entitled to assistance? That is what happened. There was this long delay and it was nobody's baby for a long time.
