asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the numerous allegations in many employment exchange areas concerning the disallowance of unemployment benefit claims by married women; if he will make a statement on the matter and indicate the total number of married women whose claims have been disallowed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers - Unemployment Benefit Claims.
45.
Although I am not in a position to specify the numbers or the distribution of disallowances of claims to unemployment benefit by married women, I am aware of the fact that such rejection of claims, either initially or after some period of payment, is a not infrequent occurrence. Disallowance can arise for a variety of reasons flowing from the contribution and other stautory conditions for title to unemployment benefit. A major cause of disallowance of claims by married women, however, is failure to satisfy the fundamental requirement that the claimant must be available for work. In the matter of the application of this availability test to married women who are claimants for unemployment benefit, I refer the Deputy to my reply of 30th November, 1971 to his question in this context regarding the criteria used by the deciding authorities in determining availability for work.
Experience in my Department suggests that there is widespread misconception among married women claimants—although it is by no means unique to them—that they are entitled to draw unemployment benefit once they have paid sufficient employment contributions. The fact is, of course, that as well as satisfying the contribution conditions a claimant to unemployment benefit must fulfil the equally important statutory requirements that he or she is involuntarily unemployed, and is capable of and available for employment. Entitlement to payment cannot be founded on selective satisfaction of the various conditions.
Can the Minister state why a woman who leaves work to have a baby is debarred from claiming unemployment benefit?
It may or may not debar her.
Is it not an arbitrary decision of the deciding officer?
She has the right of appeal.
Many women have appealed against decisions. Is the Minister not aware that a woman who leaves work to have a baby is precluded from drawing unemployment benefit?
Not necessarily.
It is invariably so. The practice adopted in such cases is discriminatory.
The action of the Minister's Department is causing hardship to married women throughout the country. I raised this matter last week. I can prove that many married women are available for employment because they can obtain help in their own homes for the care of young children and babies.
Can the Minister do something to help in this matter?
The position is that usually the person concerned has been working in a particular job which, in most cases, is reserved for her to take up when she wishes. The woman draws maternity benefit six weeks before and six weeks after the birth of the baby. Immediately she ceases drawing that benefit she applies for unemployment benefit. To prove she is available for employment, the people for whom she works must say they have no work for her; frequently they say that they have work and that they can employ her immediately. Very often they say that they have not a job available immediately but that they will have one after a few weeks when she has finished drawing her unemployment benefit.
Would the Minister not think it advisable that the offer of employment should be made by the employment exchange? After all, this is what the employment exchange is for. Would the Minister answer that?
We could very easily do that, but I do not think it would be fair.
Why not? The refusal of an offer of employment——
I am calling Question No. 46.
I would draw the attention of the Minister to the situation, for example, of a small farmer in the west who has six or seven children and whose wife may be in hospital——
This question relates to unemployment benefit claims by married women.
In the case I have mentioned where the woman goes to hospital to have her baby her husband has to remain at home to mind the children. He cannot be employed because he must take care of his children but he is deprived also of social welfare benefits. Would the Minister consider giving some help in a case such as this?
That is a separate question.
46.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that a person (name supplied) in County Mayo has not received benefit while unemployed; and if he will take the necessary steps to rectify the matter.
I am aware that the person in question did lose unemployment benefit by reason of his employer's failure or neglect to pay employment contributions. The benefit claim was in July/August, 1970 and was dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Social Welfare Acts and regulations in operation at that time. Since then the contribution regulations have been amended so as to relieve hardship to claimants in such cases. The position since 8th March, 1971, is that credited contributions may be allowed where the failure or neglect to pay contributions was not attributable to any fault of the employed person. A further amendment was made on 27th October, 1971, whereby such credited contributions could also be treated as paid contributions for the purpose of satisfying any statutory condition which required that the contributions should be paid contributions as distinct from credited contributions. All hardship which might arise in such instances has now been removed.
The amending regulations to which I have referred do not have retrospective effect and accordingly the claim of 6th July, 1970, is not admissible by virtue of their provisions.
Is the Minister aware that I wrote to the Department in connection with this matter and that I raised the matter in this House as a final resort? Will the Minister not agree that there is serious hardship on the person, whose name has been supplied, because of the failure of his employer? Can the Minister not take the necessary steps to have him compensated?
I have not completed my answer to the question. The remaining part of my reply may answer the Deputy. I am empowered, if requested by the claimant, to institute legal proceedings for recovery from an employer of benefit lost by a claimant due to the failure of the employer to pay employment contributions. In this case, however, the employer's whereabouts have been unknown for some time and no effective action against him has therefore been possible in relation to the recovery from him of either the substantial arrears of contributions in respect of his several former employees or of consequential loss of benefits. I may add that information has just come to hand as to the defaulting employer's possible whereabouts without, however, any indication so far that the prospects of successful action against him are any more encouraging than they have been. My Department will continue to pursue whatever action is open to them in the matter.
We have been trying to trace the whereabouts of the person in question so that the necessary action may be taken. It was not possible to locate the person until recently. Now that his whereabouts have been discovered, it is questionable whether he will be available, or whether action will succeed.
May I apologise to the Minister? I was not aware that he had not completed his answer. Is the Minister aware that a colleague of the man whose name was supplied has been paid benefit? Can the Minister explain that?
That is a separate question. Question No. 46 deals with a specific case.