asked the Minister for Social Welfare by whom the decision was taken that a person in Dublin (name supplied) was unavailable for work.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Benefit Claim.
38.
The decision in question was taken by a deciding officer of my Department in exercise of statutory functions under the Social Welfare Acts. It arose on an unemployment benefit claim made on 9th March, 1973 and duly allowed from that date. The claim was, however, disallowed from 19th March, 1973, on which date the person concerned claimed and received payment of maternity allowance by virtue of an expected confinement which, in fact, occurred on 16th April, 1973.
Is the Minister happy with a situation whereby a non-medical person can indicate to any citizen of this country that she is not fit for work?
The Deputy has given me a poser. It was an appeals officer of the Department who turned down the application but another section of the Department had to decide a claim made for a maternity allowance. Maternity allowances are payable for 6 weeks before and after the birth. There was overlapping and this was decided, I presume, by one of the medical men in the Department.
My information is that it was nine or ten weeks after the birth when notification was received by this lady that because she was no longer available for work payment would be deducted.
The unavailability for work is not a medical ground. Would the Minister not agree that sometimes the decisions are not very fair. A married woman can arrange to have a child minded for her while she is at work and it is, therefore, not fair to say that a woman who has had a child is not available for work.
It would mean a change in the law, a pretty drastic change, if such powers were to be given to the Minister to enable him to decide on various claims. It would be more than a full-time job for any man. At the moment there are many appeals officers throughout the country. As I said last week, I as a public representative have attended hundreds of appeals hearings and I saw what I thought to be wrong decisions.
I heard the Minister make the statement.
I could have an opinion that a district justice gave a wrong decision but there is nothing much I could do about it. As far as Deputy Tunney's case is concerned, I am prepared to have the matter discussed with him.
Is there any way by which the Minister can ensure that decisions based on the fact that a child has been born would not be regarded as saying that the woman is not available for work? This is a fairly general question.
We cannot have a debate.
The matter is very important.
All questions are important.
Some are more important than others.
A person has a baby and she is declared unavailable for work. Would it not be better if the person were offered employment and then if she could not take it she could be declared unavailable?
I am calling Question No. 39.
I am not the final arbiter in these matters. An appeals officer decides and no Minister can change it.
He can change policy.
It is a policy matter.
When the Chair calls a question he expects to be obeyed by all sides of the House. I have called Question No. 39.
It is a burning question.
It may be debated on the Estimate.