asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will make a statement outlining the procedures adopted in respect of the Arranmore islanders who recently had their unemployment assistance withdrawn in relation to the appointment of a postman on the island.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Donegal Unemployment Assistance.
13.
The procedures followed in these cases were the normal statutory ones, that is, a decision was given initially in each case by a deciding officer in the light of the evidence available to him. Where the applicant appealed against the decision, the case was referred to an appeals officer who held an oral hearing at which the appellant had the right to attend and give evidence on his own behalf.
As the Deputy is, no doubt, aware, a number of the cases in which it had been decided that the persons concerned were disqualified for receipt of unemployment assistance for a period of six weeks on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking work were subsequently allowed on appeal. In these cases immediate steps were taken to have payment restored.
In a number of other cases, which had been disallowed by the deciding officer on the additional ground that the person concerned was not available for employment and in which the decision was upheld on appeal, it was necessary to obtain confirmation that the appeals officer was satisfied that the appellants were available from the date of expiration of the six weeks disqualification period, following which payment was restored in these cases also with effect from that date.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that there is no precedent in the first instance for 58 people, the entire population of male unemployment recipients on the island, being called out in connection with one post? Would he not agree that there is no precedent for this as is instanced by an appointment made on the mainland recently where nobody was called, and would he agree that many of those penalised were informed that the post was filled and some of those who turned up and were interviewed were also penalised?
I want to ask a final supplementary question in relation to the appeals officer's decision which is said to be final. The news media announced one day that a Donegal Deputy had intervened to have the entire unemployment assistance restored to these people after the appeals officer had decided. Is this a new precedent?
I can assure the Deputy that there was no departure in any way from the normal procedure that applies in any case. With regard to the last part of the Deputy's supplementary, I am not responsible for any speculations that the news media may indulge in but I can assure the Deputy that there was no departure in this case from the normal procedure that would apply in any case.
I would have liked the Parliamentary Secretary to make reference to my supplementary regarding the unusually large number called out to fill one postal position, whereas frequently none was called and in our experience two or three may be the most that might be called out in such a case.
I thought I dealt with that when I told the Deputy regarding procedure that as far as I am aware there was no departure from that procedure. The Deputy might have a legitimate and more serious complaint had there been a selective group who were offered a position. It is only right that where these men were at least theoretically available for and capable of a particular employment they should all have an opportunity of applying for it.
I do not want to pursue this matter too far but is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that on an island where the grapevine operates rapidly there was no intention by most of the turn-out to apply for the post when they heard that it had been filled? Would he not agree, as is believed firmly on the island, that in the first instance it was a device contrived to deprive them of their unemployment assistance?
I would not agree with that. As the Deputy is aware, the post is not filled as yet. There is a temporary appointment to try to overcome the difficulty of it not being possible to fill the post on a permanent basis. As I understand the position, the post will be re-advertised.
I have one final question. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are still six people who are suffering the penalty and who are no different from any of the others called out in this case and would he undertake to scrub the sheet and start all over again?
No. I am satisfied that every possible consideration was given to each individual case and I am sure the Deputy would agree that where a deciding officer or an appeals officer is satisfied that where any person, irrespective of where he is resident within the country, is wilfully avoiding taking up a suitable employment, some penalty should be imposed. The penalty that is allowed under the existing law is that he would be disqualified for six weeks. If I am satisfied that this case warrants the imposition of that penalty, I am sure the Deputy would not wish me to use political influence to sweep that aside.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the usual procedure is for the postmaster to ask the exchange to send him one or two people who are receiving a high amount of unemployment assistance and to offer the job to them? In some cases nobody is sent for and where there is a good postal job people have their names registered first and apply for the job afterwards.
The question of the advertising of the vacancy and the filling of it is not a matter for my Department but for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I firmly believe that if there is a position available and there are a number of men who, even theoretically, would be suitable for that position, it would be wrong to be selective as to whom would be asked to apply for the position.
Question No. 14, please.
The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that——
We have dwelt long enough on this question. Question No. 14.