Vol. 260 No. 7
asked the Minister for Social Welfare why Saturday 15th April, 1972, was not reckoned for the thousands of workers who wanted to sign as unemployed that day due to the effects of the electricity dispute; if he will reverse the decision in this matter in view of (a) the loss of benefit involved and (b) the fact that the benefit week is normally regarded as consisting of six days; and how many workers are estimated to be affected by the decision.
9.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if those workers who have been laid off because of the ESB dispute are in receipt of unemployment benefit.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together.
May I ask a supplementary?
We have moved away from Question No. 7.
I got only one supplementary. May I ask a second one?
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary——
If the problem was over in Northern Ireland, you would be out. It would take £8 million to take power from Carnsore Point to County Louth. That is the answer.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. The Parliamentary Secretary made a statement that no decision would be taken until the natural gas situation is confirmed. Could the Parliamentary Secretary inform me as to when this will be done?
When the Minister for Industry and Commerce does something about it. He is holding it up.
Fine Gael should not be getting so irascible. We should have some hard information on that inside the next six months.
Not until the Minister takes some steps in the matter.
Question No. 9.
Arising out of the reply——
I have called Question No. 9.
——you stated——
Would the Deputy please resume his seat?
What are Fine Gael trying to prove?
Will the Minister please——
Will the Deputy please resume his seat?
On a point of order, you are calling No. 9. I have not heard the answer to No. 8 yet.
Nos. 8 and 9 are being taken together.
Might I ask the Minister about the west coast?
The question relates to the east coast. If the Deputy wants information in regard to the west coast, let him put down a question.
What about Fianna Fáil in Wexford? Deputy Browne wants to get his point in.
On a point of order, one of the questions being asked was put down by me and I could not possibly hear the reply. Could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to start again? I could not hear with your backbenchers making unusual noises.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together.
The decision as to whether in any case a day is a day of unemployment for the purposes of the Social Welfare Acts is a matter for determination in the light of the circumstances of the particular case by a statutorily appointed deciding officer and, in the event of an appeal, by an appeals officer, similarly appointed, whose decision is final.
Lay-offs of workers on a day-to-day basis occurred in the week ended Saturday 15th April, 1972, as a result of the shortage which began on Wednesday of that week in the supply of electric power by the ESB. The generality of workers concerned were conditioned to a five-day week, Monday to Friday. It was held by deciding officers that the Saturday mentioned was not a day of unemployment in the circumstances described—subject to exception in certain situations, for example, short-time or casual employment, depending on the facts and circumstances in the particular case. Whether unemployment benefit is or has been payable to workers so laid off depends on satisfaction of the usual contribution and other statutory conditions for entitlement, including the incidence, if any, of "waiting days" on the individual duration of the lay-off. In this connection, it appears that the emergency management of the available power supply enabled the majority of the workers in question to return to their jobs on Monday 17th April, before the waiting periods affecting their claims had terminated.
As I have indicated, a claimant who is dissatisfied with a decision of a deciding officer in his case has the right of appeal to an appeals officer. I am not empowered to intervene at either level of determination of the claim.
Statistics are not kept as to the number or classification of decisions on claims to unemployment benefit. Because in the situation under question, the timing and duration of the lay-offs varied substantially, it is not feasible to estimate the numbers of workers affected in any meaningful way by the deciding officers' decisions in relation to Saturday, 15th April, 1972.
It is rather difficult to digest the reply.
To hear it, never mind digest it.
The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that there is here a serious departure from the procedure heretofore operated in that Saturday, apparently, is not now being regarded as a working day and therefore does not qualify for the payment of social welfare benefit. Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that this is a rather strange decision in view of the fact that social welfare benefit is paid on a daily basis and is reckonable on one-sixth of the weekly rate? In these circumstances, how can he justify payment on a five-day basis only? Is he not further aware that this decision has caused widespread disappointment, indignation and hardship, that there are thousands of operatives involved and that it is not true to say that industry is operating on a five-day basis? Invariably it is on a six-day basis and workers must be available for work despite the fact that a five-day week may have been adopted in certain segments of industry. In all the circumstances, would the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that the decision arrived at in this instance, which means the loss of, not one day's unemployment benefit, but three days, in that those people who signed on on that occasion were people who were obliged to qualify on the three day waiting period and lost the three days——
The Deputy is making a speech.
——by the decision of the deciding officer to disqualify them for Saturday?
If I may explain, it is a matter for the deciding officer and, in the event of an appeal, for the appeals officer. There is nothing I have to add.
It is not true to say that the Department issued an instruction to all the employment agencies not to consider the Saturday as one of the days of benefit? Is not that correct?
I have not that information.
You should have.
It is quite true. This is the petty kind of thinking that prompted the Minister for Social Welfare last year to remove the dole. It is exactly the same kind of thinking. It is a disgraceful decision. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to go back to his Minister and tell him to reverse it immediately.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, if it is paid on a daily basis, is it paid at the rate of one-sixth? Will he confirm that?
He does not have to. The whole country knows that.
Wait. We want the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm it.
I said I had not the information. I had not been asked that question. The only thing I can do is inform the Deputy by letter.
You do not have to ask anyone whether he is paid on one-sixth basis.
Arising out of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply——
I am calling Question No. 10.
This is an important matter.
The Deputy has already made a speech and may not make a further speech.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it is not a fact that the paying orders for the majority of these people were in fact in order and about to be paid out last week when some smart Alec in his Department queried the payment for Saturday and the matter was then referred to the Attorney General and the Attorney General, being far removed from dole queues and unemployment benefit, from his ivory tower decided that Saturday should not be recognised for payment purposes. Is this not the position?
I have not that information before me.
Any information. This is the Parliamentary Secretary's Department.
Question No. 10.
There are two questions and I have asked only one supplementary.
I am calling Question No. 10. I would point out that we have dealt with nine questions in 30 minutes. I do not see how Deputies can complain.
There are two questions being answered here. With the permission of the Chair I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
I have already intimated that I wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
