asked the Minister for Social Welfare why payments of unemployment benefit has not been made to a person (name supplied) in Navan, County Meath.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Payments.
22.
The person in question was initially disqualified for unemployment benefit by a deciding officer for a period of six weeks from 4th September, 1971, on the ground that the claimant had voluntarily left his employment on that date without just cause. On the termination of the period of disqualification, the person's claim to unemployment benefit was admitted as from 18th October, 1971.
The claimant appealed against the decision of the deciding officer and attended and gave evidence at the appeal hearing on 22nd November, 1971. The appeals officer upheld the decision of the deciding officer. The appeals officer also decided that the statutory condition for receipt of unemployment benefit, which requires that a claimant be available for employment, was not satisfied as from 18th November, 1971, and payment of unemployment benefit was accordingly stopped as from that date.
Arrangements are, however, being made to ascertain whether any change has occurred in the claimant's case since the appeals officer's decision on the question of availability for work and the position will be reviewed by an appeals officer in the light of any further information obtained.
Is the Minister aware from his file that this man was employed temporarily in a local joinery workshop and that having been offered a permanent job in Dublin he left the joinery works voluntarily and found that the other job was not available? That was the reason why he left the job voluntarily. The only reason he was disqualified from benefit was that he had the termerity to appeal against the decision of the deciding officer. If that is the way our young men are to be treated we might as well stop stamping cards for them.
I have no information in the file about the Dublin job.
Would the Minister have another look at this?
The information I have is that his former employer had employment still available for him and that he left voluntarily. His reply was that the work available was inside work and that it did not suit his health.
Surely the former employer also pointed out that he had taken this man on temporarily only, that the man was about to leave the job and that the employer had no permanent employment for him.
That does not come out.
Will the Minister make further inquires?
At the end of my reply I have stated that the position will be reviewed by an appeals officer in the light of any further information obtained. The Deputy said there was vindictiveness on the part of the appeals officer and that that was the reason for the discontinuance of benefit. It transpired on the evidence in the appeal that this man was not available for work.
Why? Is there a reason given in the file?
There is not.
This man is a well-known athlete. Is that the reason? I can well understand the mentality of those people.
There was nothing vindictive.
There certainly was.
23.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a person in Stamullen, County Meath (name supplied) has been refused unemployment benefit.
The claim to unemployment benefit from 25th October, 1971, by the person in question was disallowed by a deciding officer on the ground that the claimant did not satisfy the statutory condition for receipt of unemployment benefit which requires that not fewer than 26 employment contributions reckonable for the purposes of entitlement to unemployment benefit have been paid or credited in the contribution year or years governing the claim, in this case the 1969-70 and 1970-71 contribution years. The contributions paid in respect of the claimant subsequent to December, 1969, were at rates applicable to a female outworker not employed under a contract of service and were not reckonable for the purposes of the statutory contribution condition I have mentioned. The decision of the deciding officer was upheld by an appeals officer.
Is the Minister aware that when the lady in question was doing work at home on a contract basis she was assured by the firm in question that her card was being stamped in the normal way?
I am not aware of that. My information is that when she went to work as a home worker the contribution was reduced to the usual reduced amount for a home worker, which does not contain an element for unemployment benefit.
Is the Minister not aware that this was not done until a period of between 18 months and two years after she had started doing the work at home, that the firm stamped her card for a period and then when there was a change in management, the system of stamping was changed without telling her?
That could have happened.
Is it not rather unfortunate that the officer who inquired into this——
As a home worker she would not be entitled.
24.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will accept claims for deserted wives' allowances from women whose husbands have obtained a divorce.
I would refer the Deputy to my reply on 23rd November, 1971, to a previous question relating to this matter.
Would the Minister please give us again the text of the previous reply?
I think that reply was to the Deputy. With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I will repeat it:
To qualify for a deserted wife's allowance a woman must naturally be a wife, and arising out of a decision in the case of women who have been divorced in England, the deciding officer took into account legal advice to the effect that under our law the divorce in England of a person domiciled in England is effective to dissolve the marriage and the dissolution is recognised as being effective in this country.
So we do recognise divorce.
I will continue with the earlier reply:
The applications for a deserted wife's allowance for a number of women so divorced have been rejected. A number of them have, however, appealed the decision. Their appeals have not yet been determined by the appeals officer. Pending this decision I would not like to make any final statement in the matter. I should like to mention, however, that the scheme for deserted wives' allowances, which is now a little over a year in operation, is being reviewed with a view to making such improvements in it as experience has shown to be desirable. In this review consideration will be given to the position of women divorced in the circumstances mentioned.
That is why I asked the Minister to repeat the reply. Last November he said he was awaiting the decision of the appeals officer. Surely the decision of the appeals officer should be available now in the middle of February.
The appeals officer in this case must have regard to the legal advice available to him. This has arisen in another way before our deserted wives' legislation was introduced. In the past, in connection with widows' pensions, when her divorced husband died a wife divorced in England applied for a widow's pension here and was refused on the grounds that she was not married before——
Is there not a speedy solution to this?
It has been operative for years.
I am talking about applications which are before us at present. Will the Minister try to expedite it?
I will.
Are we to take it that the position is that the Minister recognises divorce in England and that for this reason a person is deprived of her widow's pension or her deserted wife's allowance in this country?
As the Deputy probably knows, there were a few legal cases from which this decision derives.
It seems very much at variance with the present position with regard to the Constitution of this country.
Question No. 25.
Is that the advice given by the Attorney General?
It is the advice given by the legal adviser to the Department. I am sure he had recourse to the Attorney General's office.
It seems completely at variance with the Constitution of this country.
There were very high legal luminaries connected with it.
Listen to No. 25. It is very important.
25.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if it is intended to pay unemployment assistance to all single men and women in rural areas all year round as was done formerly.
The matter to which the Deputy refers is under consideration.
When will the Minister be able to make a decision on it?
Soon.
Will he make it before the order comes into operation this year?
You got great fun out of it last year.
The Minister did not get much fun out of it.
You got great mileage out of it.
26.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of the depreciation in money values, he will consider raising the present ceiling of 50p per day allowable income in the case of farmers claiming unemployment benefit.
The sum of 50p a day referred to in the question does not apply solely to farmers claiming unemployment benefit but is, in fact, generally applicable under the relevant statutory regulations as a method of determining claims by persons whose involvement in more than one occupation is such as to raise doubts as to their availability for and dependence on ordinary wage-earning employment. Moreover, remuneration or profit in excess of 50p a day from a subsidiary occupation is not necessarily a bar to receipt of unemployment benefit. Under the regulations there is an alternative method of identifying those claimants who can be regarded as genuinely available for wage-earning employment in a primary occupation. This alternative provides that the limit of 50p a day on remuneration or profit from a subsidiary occupation does not apply where the claimant has had at least 78 employment contributions paid in respect of him during a recent three-year period.
The provisions of the regulations, taken as a whole, ensure that the unemployment benefit scheme, in accordance with its basic principles, gives protection to persons who are genuine wage-earners and who on becoming unemployed are available for suitable full-time wage-earning employment that offers and I do not propose to alter the position.
Would the Minister not agree that it is rather ridiculous that a single man will be disqualified if he is assessed at 50p a day and a married man with 15 children—the Minister is aware of such a case which I brought to his notice—is disqualified if he has 50p a day? Will he not agree that something should be done to try to alter that?
There is a slight anomaly there but the number of cases are rather few.
Slight?
A slight anomaly, yes.
Could the Minister say how the 50p a day is arrived at in the case of farmers and would he agree that in cases like this investigation takes an inordinately long time in practice and that some procedure should be adopted to shorten the period? People can be unemployed for up to two months before they get any benefit.
It should not necessarily take a long period. As I pointed out, the question does not apply in the case of farmers alone.
Could the Minister tell me the basis on which the 50p a day is calculated in the case of farmers?
It was decided on as a reasonable figure.
Is it on a valuation basis?
No.