asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a CIE school bus driver (name supplied) in County Monaghan was refused unemployment benefit for periods at Christmas, 1971, and Easter, 1972, during which he was unemployed due to the schools being closed down.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Benefit Claimant.
28.
Claims to unemployment benefit by the person in question for short periods of school holidays at the times mentioned were disallowed by deciding officers on the ground that the claimant was not unemployed for the purposes of entitlement to unemployment benefit. During the periods of claim, the person was self-employed as an electrician.
The claimant appealed against the disallowance of his claim at Easter, 1972, and attended the hearing of his case by an appeals officer on 24th May, 1972. The appeals officer upheld the decision of the deciding officer.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether it was considered that this man was in insurable employment with CIE?
I am afraid——
Was it decided by the Department that this man was in insurable employment? It must have been, because he had stamped an insurance card. When he became unemployed he was not an insured worker according to the Department. Surely this is a fraud on the workers concerned? Does the Parliamentary Secretary not understand?
The Parliamentary Secretary understands quite well but this man's case went before a deciding officer and, when he decided to appeal, it went to an appeals officer whose decision is final. I have no doubt that he had all the facts before him. He decided against him and there is nothing the Minister or anybody else can do about it.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say on what grounds his appeal was turned down? Surely the deciding officer was carrying out the instructions of the Department. On what grounds was this man's claim turned down?
He was not unemployed, I take it.
When he was employed by CIE and stamping a card what was he?
I take it he was an insured worker.
And, therefore, paying for benefits which, when he was unemployed, the Department refused to give him.
He was not unemployed, I understand. He was working as an electrician.
How could he be employed by CIE and stamping an insurance card if he was fully employed previously? Surely there is something wrong with the ruling and something wrong with the whole scheme? Would the Parliamentary Secretary have a look at this whole question and see whether somebody is trying to make a packet?
I will do that.