asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a person (name supplied) in County Roscommon has been refused unemployment assistance.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Assistance.
15.
The person named in the question is not entitled to unemployment assistance as, according to the decision of a deciding officer, his means exceed the statutory limit for holding an unemployment assistance qualification certificate. If he wishes to appeal against this decision I will extend the time prescribed for this purpose.
Could the Minister tell me how the deciding officer, in assessing this man's means, arrived at a figure of £723.80? My information is that the valuation of the father's farm is something in the region of £6.
As the Deputy probably knows, the household in which this man lives had two incomes, one from a job with the Forestry Division and one from the farm. The result is that the assessment made against him deprives him of his right to a qualification certificate. However, he has the right to appeal and that is where the matter can be decided, not here in the House. What I am saying is that, if he wants to appeal, the Minister will extend the time prescribed for that purpose.
I have been on about this for some time. Is it fair to assess the income from the Forestry Division in connection with a person who is not concerned with that position and who has not any interest in forestry? Is it fair to assess that against that person?
The family income must be assessed when the question of the income of an applicant is being considered. Perhaps there has been an injustice and if so the only way to decide it is by way of appeal. This man has not appealed.
16.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of occasions since 1st April, 1973, on which letters from Deputy Cunningham were received in his Department on behalf of constituents who complained of delays in the payment of unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit and disability benefit; and the number of cases to date in respect of which a final reply has not been issued.
The information requested by the Deputy is not available in my Department. If he has any particular case or cases in mind I will be glad to have these attended to if he gives me the particulars.
The very purpose of putting down this question was to give particulars to the Minister. Now the Minister has stated he does not know the number of times or the cases in respect of which I appealed. Would he be worried if I told him that the number of times I did that was 218, and that I got final replies in only 73 cases? Is this not a situation the Minister would be worried about? Is it not a situation in which the reply he has given me sounds ridiculous as well as being ridiculous? He asked me to give particulars and I sat down and wrote out those particulars.
Despite the fact that he was a Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Cunningham does not seem to appreciate how this section of the Government works.
It does not work.
I admit that in the first few months after the changeover there had been a lot of difficulty in getting it to work, but it is now working. When somebody makes representations his letter is put on a file and it would not be possible, without going through all the files, to find out how many times Deputy Cunningham wrote a letter. As far as the second part of the Deputy's question goes, there are not any cases awaiting a final decision.
I would be prepared to take the Minister's word that there are no cases in which a decision has not been given——
Will the Deputy ask a supplementary question? I cannot allow Deputies to make statements.
I admit that the Minister for Local Government is probably at a disadvantage in having to reply to these questions, and in view of the unsatisfactory nature of his reply I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment when the Minister for Social Welfare will be present.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
There was an innuendo in the Minister's reply. What does he mean by saying that there was difficulty in the Department in the first few months after the changeover?
What I said in reply to Deputy Cunningham is that we have hundreds of letters to get through and it is quite understandable it might be difficult to get through them in the first couple of months. I might say that I found that things were difficult in a number of places.
If the Minister thinks there were some adjustments to be made in the Department of Social Welfare I should like to hear of them. The Department was working then but not now.
Who is making the allegations now?
I am.
The Deputy is entitled to try that but the fact is that the delays which occurred earlier no longer occur.
This is most insulting from the Minister.
17.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of women who were granted a qualification certificate for unemployment assistance as a result of the abolition of the regulation whereby such applicants were required to have 52 ordinary rate stamps in the previous four contribution years.
As the concession referred to has only been in operation since 1st October, 1973, it is too early to judge its effect in relation to the insured women concerned. It was, however, estimated that about 3,000 women could eventually benefit from the concession at an estimated annual cost of the order of £750,000.
I should say that the statutory requirement in question was relaxed, not abolished, with effect from 1st October, 1973. Since that date the requirement is satisfied by paid employment contributions of any rate; previously, only contributions paid at the ordinary rate sufficed.
18.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will indicate in respect of the six-month period ended 30th September, 1973, (a) the number of new applicants granted unemployment assistance (b) the number of persons to whom unemployment assistance ceased to be paid (c) the number of recipients of unemployment assistance who have had their weekly payments reduced and (d) the number of cases under investigation both as new applicants for unemployment assistance and as existing recipients.
The statistical records maintained by my Department do not include the information requested by the Deputy. Collection of the details sought would be a very considerable task involving an expenditure of staff time which I would not consider to be justified.