Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Nov 1987

Vol. 374 No. 9

Adjournment Debate. - Social Welfare Eligibility.

Mr. M. Higgins

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for facilitating me in raising this matter this evening. In order to allow the Minister the maximum amount of time to reply I may not use 20 minutes. However, I want to explain the urgency which led me to raise this matter.

For some time now, but particularly recently, there has been brought to my attention the great hardship being experienced by many people due to the interpretation being placed on that part of the legislation in relation to social welfare which includes the words "not available for work". The phrase "not available for work" has created problems mainly because it has been interpreted narrowly. What I have to say is not a criticism of individual workers in the Department of Social Welfare, be they central or local, but rather to draw attention to the incredible hardship that has arisen in relation to the over-narrow interpretation of this phrase. For example, people have been disqualified from unemployment assistance because, it has been suggested, they have adjudged to be "not available for work". Included among those is one case I raised last week and about which I am delighted to be able to say a little more now. This involved an individual who had enrolled and was part of a class which lasted for two hours. The class was organised by a competent education authority which had been funded under the literacy and community education scheme for which this House has voted £400,000 in the coming year. The individual concerned found that the class clashed with the time at which he should register at his local employment exchange. He was immediately questioned. It was pointed out to him that, in attending this class, he was "not available for work". The case was then referred to Dublin. It was then pointed out to him, and at this stage to the altruistic individual who had organised the class, that he could make an appeal and the person organising the class could accompany him, the appellant, in Dublin. This was not acceptable to either of them and, in so far as my information is correct, the case has not yet been resolved.

Another case, now resolved, was resolved after some time. That case involved an individual, again unemployed, who was providing some hours of car maintenance courses for his fellow unemployed. It was argued that, in providing these — even though he made no charge for his services — he had rendered himself "not available for work".

I am aware equally of some cases where women whose husbands have emigrated temporarily and who may be unemployed in Britain and are therefore getting benefit solely for themselves and not for their wives and children in Ireland, are being regarded as "not available for work". Because these women have not, it is assumed, made arrangements for looking after the family they are left without benefit. Such cases are not met by any of the more destitute provisions in relation to social welfare, by telling somebody that they should qualify for supplementary welfare allowance.

Equally I am aware of another case in which an individual who was repeating the leaving certificate, who had mentioned that she was taking grinds for the purpose of repeating the leaving certificate at the end of the forthcoming academic year, was informed that her taking grinds made her "not available for work".

I am aware of yet another case which has been resolved happily in which students who had failed their examinations and were anxious to work, there being no requirement on them to attend lectures they had already taken, simply wanted to resit their examinations at the end of the forthcoming year, were regarded, in an exercise of discretion, as being "not available for work".

When one puts all of this together what one gets is a picture of the world of the unemployed totally at odds with a number of statements made of a public policy kind by the present Minister and some of his predecessors. The assumption seems to be that any activity disqualifies unemployed people, be it voluntary, be it however unpaid.

This has reached a peak of irritation in a number of other cases, perhaps the one which has been referred to in the public media most recently, the case of Lettermore/Lettermullen peninsula. In this case I want to be extremely fair. Individuals in the Lettermore/Lettermullen area have said that they have been questioned as to whether they were aware that in completing a voluntary water scheme — the scheme having more or less run into difficulties, the requirement now being that it be completed by voluntary labour — they are disqualifying themselves by engaging in this voluntary work even though there is no remuneration involved. One man in this area tells of having been questioned as to how he manages to put petrol in his car when he drives people to sporting fixtures. It has been suggested that if he takes money for petrol for his car he is "not available for work" and there is the question of how he got the money. It has been suggested by yet another individual who was seen repairing his house that he must be working in order to have the money to carry out the repairs. One case quoted in The Connacht Tribune— which I will not judge — suggests that people have been asked how they managed to buy turf.

In these latter cases issues arise. I read in the Connacht Tribune published in Market Street, Galway — last Saturday's rural edition — the suggestion that the Department in Galway said that they had but one worker available for inspections of this kind and that they were certainly not involved. Equally it has been suggested that what has been referred to colourfully as the fraud squad, which exists, within the Department of Social Welfare were not active in the islands either. Then somebody put in, for good measure, that if people were being questioned in relation to these activities, they should ask the people involved to identify themselves and show them their departmental identification. In Lettermore and Lettermullen in the last few weeks individuals have been travelling in blue and red cars — if the locals are to be believed — pretending to be from the Department of Social Welfare who are not from the Department of Social Welfare. If they are imposters I would like the Minister to tell me what action he proposes to take to have them apprehended. If we would amplify on the two statements that have been made, one locally and the other nationally, it would assist me in coming to an assessment of the veracity of the suggestions that have been made. I have no difficulty in accepting the accounts that had been given from muintir Leitir Mór agus Leitir Mealláin. Níl sé de nos acu bréaganna a insint. Tá sé ag tarlú ró-mhinic chun glacadh leis go mbeadh daoine ag leathadh na scéalta seo agus nach mbeadh aon fhírinne iontu.

All of this leads me to reflect on this collision of words "not available for work". In the report in the Connacht Tribune of last Saturday to which I have referred, the words are attributed to a spokesperson on behalf of the Department of Social Welfare to the effect that if individuals are involved in voluntary work, even if it is unpaid, they have to be regarded as not available for work, that if you took any other interpretation you would open the floodgates. I have sat here in this House and listened to people hectoring me about the unemployed and suggesting that they have to be given the incentive to work. The Minister is aware that thousands of people have gone through his six minute Jobsearch interviews around the country and have been referred to courses where they have been told how to use the telephone, how to write letters and, I suppose, many things more useful than that. Let me not be too disparaging.

Dr. Woods

Do not be too trite, either.

Mr. M. Higgins

The basic suggestion is that people should exercise themselves in pursuit of work. Was the man who had the courage to acknowledge that he had basic reading and writing skills — it took an act of courage on his part to admit that — not trying to develop himself as an individual who would more easily be able to deal with a society that was living with approximately 19 per cent of its people unemployed and spending hundreds of millions of pounds every year servicing that unemployment figure? Is it not sexist and discriminatory to ask a woman who is to look after the children? I can give many instances of people saying pathetically "My mother-in-law will look after the child" or "My mother will look after the child". By the way, notice the assumption that the child is one of those miraculous children born of one sex only. It is not the father's child. Simply, it is the mother who has responsibility. I would like an assurance that the Minister will issue a memorandum to all members of the different exchanges throughout the country clarifying what "availability for work" means, and that he will establish clearly that it does not mean that people are to stay in some zombie-like, fatalistic assistance within their houses, afraid to stir. If they put a slate on their house they can be asked where they got the money for the slate. They are afraid to assist their fellow unemployed people or to become involved in communal activity. It is an appalling interpretation to suggest that "non-availability for work" means that one must not be involved in any activity, unrewarded or voluntary or community oriented. Only in a barbaric society could such an interpretation apply.

Immediately you raise an issue like this in this House where in recent times there is a reflection of a Ramboesque approach towards the unemployed and social welfare recipients, people suggest that there is a great deal of fraud going on. I do not condone social welfare fraud. Where it is detected it should be prosecuted. However, I object to the existence in legislation and in practice of forms of words that are visiting hardship on individuals and are being applied in a singularly discriminatory way against women and against people who are anxious to overcome the terrible demoralisation of unemployment. My fortune or misfortune, depending on how you look at it, has been to have spent some time lecturing on social policy and sociology and at times looking at the social experience of becoming unemployed suddenly. One of the most demoralising effects of unemployment after the first year is that the person, be it male or female, begins to withdraw back from himself or herself into the house and to lose links with the community, with colleagues, with the trade union he might have been a member of, with friends and so forth. We should do everything possible to try to mitigate the social effects and conequences of unemployment. The kind of interpretation that I have alluded to is doing nothing to erode that kind of experience. I would like to think that we are encouraging people and telling them that if they want to help their neighbours that is fine.

In reply to this question let me not hear a litany of all the wonderful schemes from enterprise allowances to starting businesses, to going off searching, training skills and so on. I am not interested in this paeon that might come out about what is impossible for people if only they could develop initiative. I am looking for something very simple. Will the Minister tell this House that the phrase "not available for work" will not be interpreted in the manner that I have described so that it will not injure the people who are involved? I have described the kind of people and the kind of place. It is not met by saying that each individual case will be dealt with. It is met only by the Minister setting out an interpretation of these words in the legislation and sending it to officials of his Department centrally and then disseminating it throughout the country so that people can be dealt with in a humane and sensitive way. It might be said, "If such a dreadful thing as Deputy Higgins suggests or might have fabricated was to happen, are the procedures not there for the aggrieved citizen to go to an appeal system?" The appeal system is there in the case of the man offering the car maintenance course. He got his benefit back after 12 months. The case of the man on the literacy course is, to my knowledge, not yet resolved.

However, there is more than the cases I report. There is the sense of fear that this sets up among people who are afraid of being questioned. It might be said in many cases that this is necessary. I doubt if it is necessary. What is necessary is for the unemployment problem to be put at the top of the political and economic agenda and for people to begin to divert some of the hundreds of millions of pounds to that. This year we will spend on unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit and lost PRSI about £750 million. Add to that lost direct taxation and then lost indirect taxation between the benefits and what a person would have if he was on the lower wage. In a society, and particularly in a country, full of people but at the same time not full of jobs and with few job opportunities, it seems incredibly narrow, backward and inhuman and a gross insult to our own humanity here in this House to take from an Act the words "not available for work" and interpret them as saying that the individual should not be involved in activity, voluntary or community, or should have to account for every penny for everything he does in his house. It reminds me of the notion that the unemployed should never take a holiday, that if they move away for a fortnight or three weeks if assisted, they will lose the benefit for that period. That notion was around for a long time. It is time for us to realise that we are responsible — not I but 90 per cent of the people who fill the benches of these Houses — for the kind of society and economy that we have and the numbers of unemployed that we have, and that the onus is on us, at least while we want to live with an island full of unemployment, to treat the unemployed better than that.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

As Minister for Social Welfare I see it as most important that people who are unemployed through no fault of their own are encouraged to engage in constructive activities and to develop skills which will not alone help them to lead a fuller life but also will assist them in gaining employment. In particular, there is abundant evidence so show that people who leave the school system early are at a marked disadvantage in acquiring and keeping employment and I know that many people who had to leave school at an early age, very often through no fault of their own, find it a terrible handicap to overcome as they go through life.

I have tremendous admiration, therefore, for those who take steps to overcome this handicap in later years by going to classes to learn literacy and numeracy skills. I am sure everyone will agree also that those who give of their time, often on a voluntary basis, in teaching these skills, deserve our respect and gratitude for the wonderful work they do.

Before I deal with the specific matter raised by the Deputy I would like first of all to outline the position in relation to participation by unemployed persons in education courses generally.

Entitlement to unemployment payments is subject to the conditions that an unemployed person must be capable of work, available for and genuinely seeking work. These are the statutory conditions which bind all of us, including social welfare workers. The relevant legislation governing entitlement to unemployment payments is contained in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, as amended by subsequent legislation.

Notwithstanding what the Deputy has said, I think he recognises that £2 million a day is paid out in unemployment benefits. The staff who deal with it manage to pay out enormous sums. I resent any allegation that the staff are not considerate and helpful, though in any situation you will find people who may not be.

Mr. M. Higgins

I made no such allegation. I stated the opposite. The Minister should not make wild allegations. He should answer questions rather than cast aspersions which are not true.

Dr. Woods

Where a person who is attending classes, whether full time or part time, claims unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance, his case is considered on its merits in accordance with the legislation. Each claim is decided by a statutorily appointed deciding officer. There is no way to do it other than to delegate responsibility to people on the ground. Of course we can say from time to time what we would like them to do and we can provide advice, but they must get out and do the job.

In deciding whether a claimant satisfies the statutory conditions, the deciding officer would consider whether a genuine desire and intention to obtain work is present and whether there are commitments which might limit the person's freedom to seek or accept work or training.

There is no provision in the legislation which specifically precludes persons who pursue an educational course from claiming and receiving unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance. However, all claimants must satisfy the statutory condition of being available for and genuinely seeking work and any claimant who, by reason of his or her participation in an educational course, fails to satisfy this condition in respect of any day, would not be eligible for unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance.

If I might now turn to the specific matter raised by the Deputy, I am glad to state that the position is that unemployed persons attending basic reading and writing courses would generally be entitled to continue to receive their unemployment payments while attending such courses. This in fact has always been the case, the reason being that any unemployed person attending classes of this kind would in the normal way have no difficulty in showing that he or she would continue to be available for work.

Arising from an article in the Irish Independent last Thursday in which the Deputy was reported as referring to two cases, one in County Louth and another in County Wicklow, where welfare payments were disallowed, an official of my Department made inquiries into the matter and discovered that nobody had been deprived of unemployment payments in connection with literacy classes. In fact, it transpired that one of the cases the Deputy had in mind was an unemployed person in Dundalk who was going to a wood-working class on one afternoon a week. In this particular case inquiries had to be made to establish full details of the course before a decision could be given but at no stage was the claim disallowed.

Mr. M. Higgins

That was inaccurate information. He was attending a course in literacy arranged by the County Louth VEC.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please, Deputy. The Minister must be heard without interruption.

Dr. Woods

When the necessary information was made available it was decided there was no problem about allowing payments to continue and the claimant was informed accordingly.

The other case referred to in the newspaper article was said to involve a Wicklow claimant being disallowed unemployment payments as a result of giving classes to illiterate adults. The Deputy undertook to supply fuller details to an official of my Department but has not as yet done so.

Mr. M. Higgins

That is again untrue.

Dr. Woods

As I mentioned earlier, I am doing everything possible to enable unemployed claimants to engage in constructive activities. It is my policy to adopt a flexible approach in relation to the schemes for the unemployed. In this connection, I would like to mention the following measures which have been taken.

Educational agencies have in recent years become increasingly interested in providing courses for the unemployed. My Department are prepared at all times to enter into discussion with those who provide educational courses to find ways and means of structuring the courses in such a way that any difficulties which might arise as regards the "availability condition" are overcome and thereby enable unemployed persons who wish to participate in such courses to continue to receive their unemployment payments.

The part time allowance scheme enables persons who work for under 24 hours in any week to receive a basic income maintenance payment from my Department regardless of their earnings from their employment in that week. This scheme has been in operation for over a year now and I have made provision in the 1988 Estimates for its extension to other areas throughout the country. It will now be a nationwide scheme.

Under the voluntary work scheme, persons who engage in voluntary work may continue to draw their unemployment payments. An unemployed person who wishes to avail of the option of voluntary work has simply to notify his local office in advance.

As I mentioned earlier, I am very conscious of the importance that education plays in helping the unemployed to improve their situation. In this connection, I consider that the role which can be played by the educational opportunities scheme will be of increasing significance. In my speech on the motion noting the 1988 Estimates on 21 October I referred at some length to this scheme, but in view of its importance in the context of this debate I consider it desirable to restate some of the elements of that speech.

This scheme was one of three pilot programmes introduced in a number of locations throughout the country. Participation in the scheme was open to all unemployed persons aged over 25 who had been in receipt of unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit for at least 12 months. While on the scheme participants continued to receive an amount equal to their rate of assistance or benefit. However, where this amount was less than the AnCO training rate applicable at that time, the AnCO training rate was payable. In addition, participants continued to receive any miscellaneous allowance they had been in receipt of while claiming unemployment benefit or assistance such as fuel allowance and butter vouchers.

The purpose of the scheme is to give unemployed people over the age of 25 the opportunity to go back to school to complete a certificate-type course. It gives a second chance to those people who up to now felt that they had little possibility of competing successfully with younger, better educated workers. By guaranteeing a basic income, the Department of Social Welfare provide the opportunity of taking up a leaving certificate course to those who want to go back to study.

The feedback from participants indicated that they were highly motivated and enthusiastic and most were prepared to work the 30 hours a week scheduled for them. The subjects covered included English, mathematics, home economics and also woodwork, art, Irish, computer studies and personal development. Aside from the improvement in the morale and motivation of the students, participation in the scheme also gave benefits to the families of the participants. A significant number of those who participated in the scheme secured full time employment while some others are exploring the possibility of starting their own business. I am convinced that this type of scheme is most worthwhile and the necessary resources to plan the continuation of the scheme have been set aside for next year.

Regarding some other matters the Deputy raised, I will certainly, as he requests, issue a clarification relating to availability for work, part-time and educational opportunities. Such clarifications are issued from time to time. I have not time to deal with all the other questions raised. Regarding voluntary water schemes, these would have to be cleared in advance. That is the arrangement. If people want to work on such a scheme they should come forward and say that is what they want to do. I would envisage a further extension of this kind of work but it must be approved first, otherwise there would be no control from the Department's point of view.

If the Deputy gives details of individual cases we will look into them and have them dealt with urgently. It is my policy also to have flexible arrangements for the unemployed.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 4 November 1987.