Vol. 403 No. 8
Deputy Carey has given me notice of his intention to raise the matter of the Department of Social Welfare inspectors who are diligently applying the regulations when reviewing long-term unemployment recipients particularly with regard to the "not genuinely seeking employment" clause.
The Deputy has some five minutes to present his case and the Minister five minutes to reply.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Creed, who has had similar experiences to mine.
Many unemployed people are being disallowed their claims by officials of the Department who use the provisions of section 138 (1) (b) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, the section which contains the phase "not genuinely seeking work and unable to find suitable employment".
In the administration of these regulations the applications of many people in my constituency have been disallowed. I want to know from the Minister what are the criteria used in defining or determining which persons are genuinely seeking work. That appears to be the major issue. What are the relevant criteria? For example, does the Minister insist that all applicants must cycle to three factory gates and return with three letters, or exactly what does he require of such applicants? It is doubtful how the departmental appeals officers arrive at such decisions. In all cases in my experience in my constituency applicants had furnished three letters. Yet some were successful in their claims and others disallowed.
I have suspicions about the written instructions to these unfortunate departmental officials. It appears to me that they are instructed to lean on the side of rejection and, in so doing, will spare their masters a great deal of money. Surely the Minister should take into account the matter of discretion on the part of his officers in such cases, instructing them to decide in favour of applicants, particularly bearing in mind that they comprise the most vulnerable section of society. In addition, the Minister will be well aware that everybody offered a job will accept it.
To date any answers given in this respect have been unsatisfactory. The Minister owes it to such applicants — particularly when one remembers that the Christmas bonus is due to the long term unemployed — to acknowledge that this is a particularly bad time to have their applications disallowed.
I thank Deputy Carey for agreeing to share his time with me. I share his concern in regard to interpretation of the clause, which has resulted in numerous unemployment assistance and unemployed benefit applicants being turned down on the grounds that they are not genuinely seeking employment. Within my brief experience of public life I have found that the greatest single issue brought to my attention, across a range of Government Departments, is that of social welfare applicants for unemployment assistance or benefit being refused their claims for spurious reasons. Many, in support of their applications, have been able to furnish a number of letters from industrial concerns showing that they have been refused employment. I have never experienced anything like the anxiety they feel in advance of the hearing of their appeals and their subsequent distress when genuine applicants are refused.
I share Deputy Carey's assumption that the instructions being issued would appear to be that they should err on the side of officialdom rather than on that of the applicant.
There is one extremely disturbing trend I should like to bring to the Minister's attention, that is discrimination against women in relation to their applications for unemployment assistance and benefit, particularly in the case of married women's applications. It appears there is a high level of distrust on the part of officialdom of their intentions in regard to such applications. I might cite the example of a constituent of mine, a former bank employee who worked in Dublin, moved to the bank in Cork, got married and took voluntary redundancy for economic reasons, with the full intention of returning to the workplace. Her repeated efforts have been refused. Her application for unemployment benefit has gone for oral hearing. She has initiated a fresh application for unemployment benefit and is going tomorrow to attend her second oral hearing. I would suggest to the Minister that no non-genuine applicant would go so far in pursuit of a false claim. I appeal to the Minister to investigate that aspect of the dissatisfaction with the relevant clause.
Both Deputies Carey and Creed have mentioned officials of my Department receiving instructions. I should say first that instructions are set out in legislation. These are statutory officers working under legislation passed by this House. One of the statutory conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance is that claimants must be available for and genuinely seeking but unable to find employment suitable to them having regard to their age, sex, physique, education, normal occupation, place of residence and family circumstances. The legislation also provides that the onus is on individual claimants to prove they are genuinely seeking work. Accordingly, it is a question for the deciding officers and appeals oficers to decide whether any claimant has shown that he or she fulfils the condition having regard to the available evidence. There are no instructions given; they are given by the House and statutory officers work in accordance with the instructions contained in the legislation. Let us be clear about that.
All claimants are asked, when making a claim for unemployment benefit or assistance, to complete a questionnaire regarding their efforts to obtain employment. Subsequently, at any stage of their claim, claimants may also be asked about this matter. In most cases, the replies given by claimants to this questionnaire will, when taken in conjunction with other evidence available regarding the claimant's employment history, be sufficient to satisfy the deciding officer that the person concerned is genuinely seeking work. However, if there is any element of doubt about the position, the deciding officer may seek further relevant information on such matters as the extent to which the claimant has made efforts to obtain employment since becoming unemployed; the type of work the claimant is seeking and the reasons for any restrictions the claimant may be placing on the type of work he or she is available to do; whether there are domestic or other commitments or circumstances which limit the claimant's ability to accept full-time employment which would normally be regarded as suitable and whether the claimant has a history of leaving employments frequently, without good cause.
It is on the basis of the replies given to questions such as these that the deciding officer determines whether the person is or is not available for and genuinely seeking work. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. It is a matter for the deciding officer to decide the exact evidence required in any case having regard to the individual circumstances of the claimant.
Deputy Carey raised one individual case. The person concerned has been in receipt of unemployment payments continuously since 1983. He was interviewed regarding his efforts to obtain work and arising out of his reply his claim was submitted to a deciding officer for review. His claim was disallowed from 24 October 1990 on the grounds that he had not made any specific efforts to get work. The deciding officer's decision was based on the information submitted by the interviewing officer. The interviewing officer's report had previously been read to the claimant.
He appealed the deciding officer's decision and was afforded an oral hearing of his appeal on 5 December 1990. The appeals officer also took the view that he was not genuinely seeking work and confirmed the disallowance.
I am satisfied that the officers in my Department who are concerned with the administration of the unemployment payments schemes act with integrity and objectivity in their work and apply the relevant provisions of the Social Welfare Acts in a fair and impartial way. Officials are insulated from outside pressures in giving decisions under the Acts and operate independently of the Minister of the day.
People's rights, in so far as entitlement to social welfare is concerned, are enshrined in the Social Welfare Acts. Under these Acts, it is open to any person who is aggrieved by the decision of a deciding officer to appeal to an appeals officer. Like deciding officers, appeals officers have statutory independence. This has always been the case. However, even though justice is being done, it is important in my opinon that it be clearly seen to be done. For this reason I have recently established the appeals system as a separate independent office — a development which was widely welcomed by Deputies.
I would like to point out to the Deputy that in this case — as in all others — I am in the hands of the deciding officers and the appeals officers who make decisions under statute. We may send questions to them or present new evidence to them but we must recognise the independence of their decisions. It boils down to the fact that neither the deciding officer nor the appeals officer who heard the claimant in person and who were carrying out their statutory functions were prepared to accept that he was genuinely seeking work. If he has further evidence in support of his case which he feels would be helpful, I would be happy to arrange for an early review of his claim.
In relation to the case Deputy Creed mentioned of someone taking voluntary redundancy from the bank and then having difficulties subsequently in getting unemployment payment, if the Deputy wishes to give me the details of that case I will inquire into it.
