asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider the case of a person (details supplied) in County Donegal, who was refused unemployment benefit, with a view to the acceptance of his Irish insurance contributions.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Benefit Cases.
43.
It was decided by a deciding officer that the person referred to in his question did not satisfy the conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit because the insurance contributions on which he based his claim were not paid in respect of employment in this country which was genuinely insurable under the Social Welfare Acts. As the Deputy is aware, this decision was upheld by an appeals officer following an oral hearing at which the claimant attended and gave evidence.
Deciding officers and appeals officers are, of course, completely independent in the exercise of their statutory functions and are not subject to direction by me in relation to decisions given by them.
44.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare why unemployment benefit was disallowed in the case of a person in County Mayo (details supplied).
Recent claims to unemployment benefit made by the person in question were disallowed by decisions of a deciding officer. In addition to his intermittent insurable employment, the insured person is a farmer. Statutory regulations provide that where a person has another occupation, as in this case, from which the remuneration or profit is more than 50p per day, he cannot be paid unemployment benefit unless at least 78 employment contributions have been paid in respect of him in a given period of three years prior to his claim. In this case the profit from the farm was well above the statutory maximum and the claimant did not satisfy the contribution requirement mentioned on any of the claims in question. Unemployment assistance was, of course, paid for the period of the claims.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary state if any directive has been issued by his Department to have this particular section of the Act strictly enforced?
No, I can assure the Deputy that no such direction was given. Of course, it would be expected that officers of the Department or anyone else responsible for applying the law would apply it impartially.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in this particular instance there is a complete break with tradition in as much as persons get employment with county councils and so on during the summer and then draw unemployment benefit? In recent months there seems to have been a complete departure from the tradition with regard to the payment of unemployment benefit.
I can assure the Deputy that the only reason why this man was not granted unemployment benefit was because he did not meet with the statutory requirements. The decision was not taken by the Minister but by an independent officer, who by law is independent of direction by the Minister.