asked the Minister for Social Welfare why unemployment benefit has not been paid since 9th September, 1974, to a person (name supplied) in County Laois.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Benefit.
65.
It was decided by a deciding officer that the person referred to in the question was not entitled to unemployment benefit on a claim made on 9th September, 1974, as he did not satisfy the contribution conditions for the receipt of benefit.
He made a further claim to benefit on the 4th of this month and as there is possibly title to unemployment benefit on this claim the British authorities have been requested to supply particulars of his insurance record in Great Britain.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why the information that he had been refused by the officer was not communicated to me arising from my correspondence of late October with the Department of Social Welfare?
I am not aware. As far as I can understand the claim made by the gentleman on 9th September was refused because he did not have sufficient contributions. The next claim was made on 4th of the present month and it is possible that he may qualify due to his British insurance record. Inquiries are being made. I am not aware of any correspondence the Deputy may have had with the Department in regard to this matter but if the Deputy wishes I will inquire further into it and communicate with him.
Some weeks ago the Parliamentary Secretary apologised for inattention to my correspondence by his Department. On 29th October I wrote to the Department and, by return, I received an acknowledgment. In my communication I gave the British and Irish insurance numbers. It is unfortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary finds himself in the position of having to state that he is unaware of the fact that I was in correspondence with the Department because I understood such correspondence was automatically built into his file.
I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that the Department receive a large volume of correspondence. I do not see every item of correspondence to the Department and I have no knowledge of what the Deputy has stated regarding his representations. However, I will inquire further into the matter and communicate with the Deputy.
I appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary is endeavouring to do and I have had this favourable reaction every time I put down questions. Is he aware that where there is a question of tracing a contributions record in England the officials of the Department are not active enough in asking the British for the details. It happens that if no reply is received within two months unless a row is kicked up it is not followed up. The Parliamentary Secretary should instruct the officials in the unemployment and disability benefit section of his Department to follow such queries more assiduously.
Where it is necessary to contact the British authorities I should like to state that those authorities do not always act with the speed we would wish. I do not think the delay can be attributed to members of the staff of my Department. The fault lies with the British authorities. I am aware of that problem and I have pursued it and will continue to do so.
66.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the total number of applications by married women for unemployment benefit; and the number of successful applications by such persons over the past 12 months.
I regret that the information requested by the Deputy is not kept in my Department in a form which is readily accessible.
Extraction of the information would entail an expenditure of official time and money which I do not consider would be warranted.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how many women who were married in the last 12 months and who had been in receipt of benefit continued in receipt of benefit after marriage?
I have not that information. I do not know how many women were married in the last 12 months and there are no separate records available of that number.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that in view of the change which was made in relation to married women continuing in receipt of unemployment benefit that it would be helpful to Deputies to know how many were still in receipt of it? Would the Parliamentary Secretary say if such women are finding it difficult to continue in receipt of benefit after marriage or under what circumstances the benefit can be refused after marriage?
As the Deputy is aware I do not make that decision. Under the law the decision on the eligibility of any person to a benefit is a matter for the deciding officer and, on appeal, for the appeals officer.
The Minister is specifically excluded from exercising any influence over these officers. Once a person meets the requirements laid down by the Oireachtas she is eligible for the benefit.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is not possible for Members to assess how beneficial or otherwise the change was unless we know how many benefited by the change?
I am not able to obtain precise figures but there is no doubt that it has been extremely beneficial to a number of people.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary sure that any married women benefited from the change in the qualification which heretofore required her to have 26 contributions paid after marriage? Has any benefit been granted under the new regulation?
I am quite satisfied that there are quite a considerable number of people.
In all sincerity, I want to know because I came across many cases turned down. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would write and let me know.
I do not want to undertake something just to get out of further supplementary questions. There would not be much point in my writing because, the precise information is not available.
Question No. 67. I have given more than ample time for that question.