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.