asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state the benefits payable to workers over 70 years other than the contributory old age pension.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
28.
Apart from the old age contributory pension, the following are the benefits available to persons over 70 years of age, subject to satisfaction of the appropriate conditions:
Old age (non-contributory) pension; widow's (contributory) pension; old age (care) allowance; invalidity pension; retirement pension; occupational injuries benefits; treatment benefit; free travel; free electricity and free radio and television licences.
29.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the fraction used in determining payment of unemployment benefit in respect of periods of less than one week; and the categories of workers who are regarded as being conditioned to a five-day working week.
The amount of benefit payable for any day of unemployment is laid down in the Social Welfare Act, 1952, as being one-sixth, rounded up to the next penny, of the appropriate weekly rate.
The question of whether a worker is conditioned to a five-day working week may be a relevant factor in the context of a claim to unemployment benefit; if so, it is one of the matters to be taken into account by the deciding officer in the determination of the claim. No need arises in my Department outside the context of a particular claim or uniform group of claims to establish the length of a working week and accordingly no classification of workers on such a basis is in use.
Since it is now clear that the daily rate of benefit is based on one-sixth of the weekly rate how can the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister and his Department, justify the non-payment of benefit for the sixth day, which is normally regarded as a Saturday? Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that many thousands of workers are involved in this decision? It is tantamount to a worsening of the social welfare code, indeed a reduction in social welfare unemployment benefit. By reason of the decision taken by the deciding officers many thousands of workers, especially those involved in the power strike, have lost a day's benefit. Many of them have lost three days benefit, that is those who qualified for the first time under the regulations. In the circumstances, due to the powers vested in the deciding officers, would the Parliamentary Secretary not think it necessary to bring in legislation to remedy this important matter? This is a worsening of unemployment benefit by a day's pay.
All I can do is bring some of the Deputy's remarks to the notice of the Minister for his attention. As the Deputy is aware, it is a matter in the first instance for the deciding officer and, in the event of an appeal, for the appeal's officer over whom we have no jurisdiction.
Is April 15th last the first time that Saturday was not included as one of the signing on days for three days benefit?
I do not think so.
Is Saturday not normally counted as one of the three days for signing on for benefit?
I do not seem to have that information here.
It always has been.
I will write to the Deputy about it.
This is the second time this has come up. The Minister was not here and the Parliamentary Secretary said he would bring it to the Minister's notice. If this came up next week would the Minister be here to answer the question?
In view of the fact that the Conditions of Employment Act laid down a six-day week and that social welfare benefit is geared to a weekly payment and has been one-sixth, as the Parliamentary Secretary stated, would he like to tell us under what regulation the deciding officer is entitled to change this regulation in the way in which he has changed it? What justification is there for it?
It seems to be a separate question.
It is not.
It is a separate question.
It is an easy way out for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that it is a separate question.
I am calling Question No. 30.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware, apart altogether from the principle of the five-day week which is in vogue in some industries, that industry by its very nature is obliged to work a six-day week? Workers are obliged to be on call to work on Saturdays when required. In all the circumstances does he not agree that this is a very harsh, unjust, anomalous decision?
Question No. 30.
Some workers are obliged to work on Saturday.
We cannot have a speech on this question. This is the second speech by the Deputy.
The deciding officer makes the decision in the first case and the appeals officer in the second case and I have no jurisdiction over them.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that we should now ask all those workers in the dispute who were denied unemployment benefit to submit appeals and that the views of the House and the Minister might be brought to the attention of the deciding officer or the appeals officer?
That is a matter for the Deputy.
Can we safely tell all our constituents that they should now send in appeals forms? At least 5,000 workers have been denied benefit because of the decision of the deciding officers. Should they now send in appeals forms in relation to that particular period?
We cannot have a further discussion on this particular question. I am calling Question No. 30.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to my question?
I am calling Question No. 30. The Deputy has had two long supplementary statements.
I want to give notice that I intend to raise this question on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy. We cannot discuss the matter any further now.
30.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will abolish the three-day waiting period in respect of social welfare benefits; and, if so, when.
Legislation to abolish the waiting period for social welfare benefits is not at present contemplated.
Why is it not contemplated? Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the hardship that this causes in many cases at present? It has been mentioned on numerous occasions. Why is legislation not contemplated at present?
I have given the reply I have and I have nothing to add to it.
Why is it not contemplated? Surely it should be in view of the hardship caused?
The remaining Questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.