asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the growing disquiet among insured married women at deciding officers' decisions to reject their applications for unemployment benefit on the basis of non-availability for work merely because they have a baby; and if, in view of the fact that there is no redress other than to an appeals officer, he will initiate legislation to amend the Social Welfare Acts to provide for appeal to an independent tribunal.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Benefit Applications.
18.
I am aware of the fact that claims to unemployment benefit made by insured married women following the birth of a child may be rejected by deciding officers on the ground that the mother does not satisfy the statutory condition which requires that a claimant to unemployment benefit must be available for employment. It is not the case however that such claims are rejected merely because the claimant has a baby. Every claim to unemployment benefit is considered and decided in the light of its own facts and circumstances. Subject to title being otherwise in order, a claim of the kind in question is allowed where the deciding officer is satisfied that the mother is free and willing to resume employment by reason of alternative arrangements being available for the care of her child. Moreover, claims initially disallowed by deciding officers in such cases are frequently allowed by appeals officers.
With regard to the second part of the question, may I point out firstly than an oral hearing at which the woman can attend and give evidence in support of her claim is always arranged in appeals made in these cases. Secondly, the appeals system provides for the attendance also of two assessors representing employer and worker interests respectively. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that a more elaborate appeals system such as the Deputy appears to be suggesting would be justified.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that in many such applications from married women with babies they find great difficulty in his Department? Is there any way he can have those cases dealt with more expeditiously?
I do not accept they are not dealt with expeditiously. In fact there is no suggestion in the question they are not dealt with as expeditiously as possible. As I pointed out, in reply to the Deputy's question, each case is decided on the merits of that particular case. Apart from the appeals officer there are also representatives of the employers' interests and the workers' interests who are also members of the assessment board.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the majority of such applications are refused benefit in the first instance?
No.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us the figures?
I cannot give the precise figures.
How then can the Parliamentary Secretary say "no"?
If the Deputy waited to find out what I was saying "no" to he would be in a better position to ask a question.
Do I detect a note of arrogance by the Parliamentary Secretary?
No, but when one assumes you are going to say something which you have not said you are entitled to point out that to him.
Question No. 19.
I suspect an arrogant approach by the Parliamentary Secretary.
In view of the fact that the problem which has been pointed out would find a parallel in every constituency in the country, would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that he should issue instructions to deciding officers that when a woman has a baby it should not automatically disqualify her from unemployment benefit? If this were done it would mean there would be less work for appeals officers to do later on.
There is no question of a person being automatically disqualified. Each case is assessed on its particular circumstances. Two of the conditions which must be fulfilled are availability for employment and willingness to take up employment. Quite a large number of married women who have small children draw unemployment benefit.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it is the experience of many Deputies that people who insist they are available for employment and hope to be employed find themselves debarred from unemployment benefit by decisions of deciding officers who may be misconstruing the rules as the Parliamentary Secretary would like to have them enforced. It is high time to disabuse those people of ideas they may have.
I accept that this question has arisen repeatedly over a considerable period. There is no question of there being any confusion in the minds of either the deciding officers or the appeals officers as to what exactly the law is. If a person is available for and willing to accept employment, irrespective of whether she has small children or not, she can obtain unemployment assistance.
This matter has arisen in so many cases that there must be confusion in many people's minds.
There might be confusion in some lady's mind that because she stamps a card she regards it as entitlement.
That is not the case.
A final supplementary from Deputy Gibbons.
At what stage in the evaluation does the assessment board come in?
On appeal.
Question No. 19.
There was a supplementary question asked earlier which the Parliamentary Secretary did not get a chance to answer which he could answer now. Deputy MacSharry asked whether a majority of these cases were refused benefit in the first instance.
As far as I am aware, a very considerable number—in fact, the majority—of people whose cases have been disallowed by the deciding officer win their appeals when they go to an appeals officer.
If a large number, perhaps a majority, have their appeals allowed, does that not prove the point made by Deputy Power that in the case of deciding officers there seems to be an automatic rejection?
That is not so. An automatic rejection would mean that anyone who applied would automatically be disallowed and that is not so.
The Parliamentary Secretary should look into this matter.