JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 19 Oct 2004

Social Welfare Benefits: Presentation.

Chairman

I am very pleased to welcome the representatives of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, Mr. Leonard Burke and Ms Maureen Waldron, principal officers, and Mr. Colm McDermott, Ms Maeve Farrell and Mr. Michael Daly, assistant principal officers. We appreciate their presence today to make a presentation because I know they were given relatively short notice. We will take cognisance of this if any of the few minor issues the committee wishes to raise requires further elaboration. We have received copies of the paper on unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance that the delegates have prepared for us. The secretariat has further copies for those of us who have not yet had time to read our mail.

The issue of claimants being refused unemployment assistance or benefit is one all Members of the Oireachtas will have encountered at one time or another. For some Members, it is an ongoing issue of major significance. Accordingly, clarity on the current position would be most appreciated.

Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise, or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members who wish to make a declaration on any matter being discussed may do so now or at the beginning of their contributions. Members are also reminded that if there is a possibility of there being a conflict of interest, they should make a declaration of interest either now or at the start of their contributions.

I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but that this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Delegates will understand why it is necessary for me to make such a statement, although the matter is not likely to arise. While it is generally accepted that witnesses would have qualified privilege, this committee is not in a position to guarantee any level or privilege to witnesses appearing before it. I invite Mr. Burke to make his presentation and thank him once again for attending on such short notice.

Mr. Leonard Burke

To add to the Chairman's introduction, Ms Maureen Waldron and Michael Daly come from the regional director's office of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, which has responsibility for the local and branch offices of the Department and the day-to-day administration of operational matters in this regard. Ms Maeve Farrell and Mr. Colm McDermott are in the unemployment schemes area.

The brief we have been given is to elaborate on the refusal by officials of the Department to grant unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit on the grounds that a claimant might not be genuinely seeking work. To assist in this, we believe it might be helpful to the committee to outline briefly how the payments are structured, the nature of the schemes, the qualifying conditions and how the deciding officers operate within the Department. We will endeavour to answer any questions members may have.

There are two fundamental schemes, namely, the unemployment benefit scheme, based on a social insurance record, and the unemployment assistance scheme, which is subject to a means test. Both are governed by legislation. The main provisions relating to unemployment benefit are contained in Chapter 9 of Part 2 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993, as amended, and Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Social Welfare (Consolidated Payments Provisions) Regulations 1994, as amended. The main provisions relating to unemployment assistance are contained in Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993, as amended, and Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Social Welfare (Consolidated Payments Provisions) Regulations 1994, as amended.

SI 137, a copy of which we have issued to the committee, was put in place in 1998. Those regulations prescribe detailed provisions on the requirement to be available for employment and to be genuinely seeking employment to entitle one to unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. The instrument was introduced at the time to ensure consistency in the decision making process in this regard.

The qualifying conditions that are common to both schemes are that a person must be unemployed for three days in any period of six consecutive days, available for full-time work, genuinely seeking work and capable of employment. To that end, the person must be able to demonstrate genuine efforts to seek suitable employment. He or she will be disallowed if evidence is unsatisfactory. The term "suitable employment" has regard to the person's age, usual occupation, family circumstances, availability in location of employment, qualifications, skills and work experience and efforts made in previous weeks to secure employment.

A person may be disqualified from receiving a payment for up to nine weeks where he or she has voluntarily left employment without a good reason, lost employment through misconduct, refused an offer of work or suitable training, failed or neglected to avail of a reasonable opportunity of obtaining suitable employment, such as failing to go for a job interview, and, in respect of unemployment benefit only, where his or her redundancy payment exceeds €19,046.07 if he or she is under 55 years of age.

Other disqualifications last as long as a person finds himself or herself in particular circumstances. A person is disqualified if he or she is resident in an institution that is funded by public money, such as a hospital. If one is absent from the State, a two week holiday period is allowed each year in respect of unemployment payments. One is disqualified if one is in prison or employed on a community employment scheme by FÁS. The schemes are administered by staff in the Department's network of 58 local social welfare offices and a total of 69 branch offices.

Deciding officers are appointed by the Minster to make decisions on unemployment payments. There are some 2,000 in the Department, approximately 500 of whom are operating in the unemployment area. They are the only persons who make lawful decisions on claims for unemployment. They are departmental staff but are independent in law and may not be influenced by superiors or the Minister. Appeals on decisions may be made to the independent Social Welfare Appeals Office. Decisions of the appeals officer are final and legally binding and may only be challenged in the High Court on a point of law. Supplementary welfare allowance may be paid pending an appeal.

To ensure consistency and uniformity in decision making, all procedures and practices are incorporated into departmental guidelines, which are available to staff and the public on the Department's website. Training officers in local offices are charged with training the staff therein and updating them on any changes regarding unemployment payments. There are training courses and seminars for deciding officers, a regional decisions advisory facility in each of our ten regions and a central decision advisory office to ensure consistency and uniformity in decision making.

When making a claim, the customer must supply any information required by a deciding officer. Departmental records will also be examined to establish income levels, PRSI history and tax records. Investigating officers may make home visits and conduct interviews concerning means. Where employers are concerned, investigations may be carried out by the social welfare inspectorate, which has powers of entry and examination of an employer's business in that regard.

On control of the schemes, persons are required to attend the local office or signing centre as often as requested, usually once every four weeks. They must sign a statutory declaration confirming that they satisfy the conditions for receipt of unemployment payments. They are required to produce evidence of seeking employment when requested. We also make computer checks to ensure they are not in employment while in receipt of unemployment payments.

Our employment support service assists unemployment payment recipients in finding employment. It administers the back to work allowance, which allows persons to retain a payment on a phased basis over a number of years while getting back into the workforce, and also the back to education programme, which facilitates people to return to education. There are a number of strands to the latter programme, including the back to education allowance for the second and third level options, the education, training and development option, the part-time education option and the back to education initiative, which entitles people to retain their benefits while pursuing part-time courses.

With regard to credited contributions, where a person does not qualify for an unemployment payment, he or she may qualify for the award of credited contributions. However, to qualify for these contributions, a person must be available for full-time employment and genuinely seeking work. We have set out a table giving details of disallowances in regard to people not genuinely seeking work and not being available for work in the period 1999-2004. These are set out as a percentage of the live register. In the following table we have set out details of the fluctuations by scheme and gender in regard to the unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance in the period from October 1999 to September 2004. Finally, we have set out details in regard to unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance.

Chairman

Thank you, Mr. Burke.

Deputy Stanton

As a new member of the committee, I am still reading myself into the brief. I thank Mr. Burke for his presentation and welcome the delegation to the committee. In general, the staff of the Department are to be complimented on the professional way they do their business and the courtesy with which they treat people. At times, because people are under pressure when they meet officials from the Department to discuss these payments, they may have a confrontation or complaint as they see it regarding how they have been treated or spoken to. I note there are training sessions for staff. If a client has a complaint, is there a mechanism whereby they can make a complaint if they feel they have been spoken to in a discourteous manner, which happens sometimes, but very infrequently? I have a case on my books currently and I am not sure what to do about it, bearing in mind that there are always two sides to a story.

How can someone genuinely demonstrate that they are actively seeking work if employers will not give them a letter to that effect? Perhaps this is the genesis of today's meeting. One might be actively seeking employment but cannot prove it, or they may find it difficult to do so. If employers will not give them a letter to that effect, they are left in a vacuum. I am sure Mr. Burke has come across this. Perhaps he can offer some advice on how clients might proceed in such circumstances. Perhaps he will tell us how to deal with this type of issue because it almost like trying to prove a negative.

The figures for unemployment benefit appear to be increasing. Is it to do with the time of the year?

Mr. Burke

I thank Deputy Stanton for his comments on the staff of the Department, which I will relay to them. Staff are criticised from time to time, but they endeavour to deal with everyone in a courteous manner. There is a code of practice on how people are dealt with and there is a customer charter in place. In addition, there is a complaints procedure in place for a number of years. If one has a difficulty in regard to the service they have received from a staff member, they can make a complaint, which is investigated in the Department through the corporate development area.

Deputy Stanton

How is a client made aware that there is a complaints procedure? If someone has an altercation with a staff member, is it normal procedure for that person to be told there is a complaints procedure and to be given a form to fill out?

Mr. Burke

This is what the staff training suggests. There are forms available and there are posters indicating there is a complaints procedure in place. These should be on display in our offices.

On the question of an employer not providing a letter to someone who is genuinely seeking employment, the provision of a letter is something we may or may not seek. If someone tells us they cannot get a letter from an employer, we will accept it if this is the case. We cannot compel the employer to provide a letter for the person seeking employment. In many instances where we look for such letters, they are provided. However, if someone tells us they cannot acquire letters, we would have to accept it. Perhaps some of my colleagues would like to comment further on that issue.

Mr. Colm McDermott

Very often it is down to local knowledge. The deciding officer and the staff in the local office would normally be aware of certain employers who consistently refuse to provide letters. If a person cannot produce letters on a consistent basis, and others can, it is up to the deciding officer to make a decision in the case. It would depend on the local situation and the deciding officer's knowledge.

Ms Maeve Farrell

The deciding officer would advise the person to keep a note of all the employers to whom they have applied for jobs, and also to keep cuttings from newspapers if they have applied in response to advertisements in newspapers. Building up a portfolio of what they have been doing would help.

Ms Maureen Waldron

To pick up on the point about employers who would refuse to give a letter to a job seeker, there are investigators in local areas, and if this is a consistent problem in a local area, the investigating officer is empowered to go into the premises and have a discussion with the employer to see if employment is available. It is a holistic undertaking within each local area. The deciding officers in the local office will also communicate with the investigators in the same area. It becomes a holistic view and this information is fed back to deciding officers.

Deputy S. Ryan

I welcome the delegation. By and large, given my one to one interaction with the staff of the Department and the appeals section, I have always received a good response, which is welcome. My query relates to women who have been working and who have given birth to a baby. Following maternity leave, they would be on unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit but, in the initial years, when these people must get back to work in order to pay the mortgage and so on, their preferred option would be part-time work. The problem arises when they come to make their case. That is the first process. The person is asked what it is they are looking for. When he or she says he or she is looking for part-time work, alarm bells ring for the Department and it states the person does not qualify if they are not seeking full-time work. Therefore, the person is disqualified.

The full facts should be made known to the individual at the counter, at the first meeting. They should be told, "Part time work disqualifies you." When the facts are made available, it is often the case that people will take full-time work through necessity, such as having to pay the mortgage. They make a supreme effort to come to an arrangement with their family in order for them to be able to get full-time work. I am not saying this happens in all cases, but in many cases that information is not made available. Some of my constituents have said it was not brought to their attention, and the first they heard of it was when they were disqualified.

We should consider the issue of providing people with information. We should be honest, and above board and say, "This is the reality." They can then make a decision, rather than going through the process of being disqualified, appealing the process, going to the community welfare officer and having to make a case. I ask that this suggestion be taken on board.

I wish to address another issue, which has come up in the past, and which Deputy Ring may have in mind. His colleagues will direct questions in that regard. It is an issue which is relevant in my constituency of Dublin-North. Suppose a person living in Balbriggan is unemployed and a position is made available, for example, in Blanchardstown. This person wants to work, because the vast majority of people I come across want to be employed at a reasonable rate of pay. Suppose that a job is on offer in Dublin 15 and that unemployed person from Balbriggan would have to travel into the city centre and out to Dublin 15 and back again. If that person declines the job, does the Department deem this as not accepting a reasonable offer?

I would like clarification regarding the provision of evidence of seeking employment. This relates to the previous question. How often is an unemployed individual required to provide notification for the Department that they are seeking inclusion on a scheme, or education with FÁS, or that they are simply seeking employment?

When a person is disqualified, they can go through a process and win an appeal. There is sometimes an impression that within a fortnight there will be another letter stating they are not genuinely seeking work. Does the Department have a policy position on the issue of revisiting or identifying those it perceives as abusing the system, those who got through on an appeal but who the Department will continue to annoy? I am not making any charges.

What is the general policy on legislation regarding a person who is genuinely seeking work and who has particular qualifications, but who, for one reason or another, cannot get employment? What happens if somebody tells them about a job in a local shop? Can the Department qualify that element of it?

Will the Chairman allow me to discuss the issue of disqualification on medical grounds and on the grounds of disability?

Chairman

In fairness to the representatives of the Department, that was with regard to unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance.

Deputy S. Ryan

We can speak about it off the record.

Chairman

The Department representatives have come here at short notice. I will not allow the Deputy to deviate from the agenda. Perhaps the representatives will now deal with some of his points.

Mr. Burke

Deputy Stanton asked about rising unemployment benefit figures. People moving in and out of employment is an indication of a buoyant economy. The number of people receiving unemployment assistance and long-term payments has fallen in 2004.

I will deal with a number of Deputy Ryan's points, and invite my colleagues to contribute also. With regard to a person coming before the Department and advising they are only seeking part-time work, my understanding is that the staff would make the facts available. It is a prerequisite for receipt of unemployment payments that one must be available for full-time work. That would have been explained to the person when they were signing. If the Deputy has specific examples of where that has not occurred, we would be prepared to look into those.

We were asked whether it is reasonable to ask a person to travel from one point to another, such as Balbriggan to Blanchardstown. My colleague, Mr. Colm McDermott, touched on this issue with regard to local circumstances. If it is the local circumstance that people in one area travel to another, it is reasonable to assume people seeking employment will do so also. Everything is tempered by the word "reasonable". It depends on the individual circumstances. Department staff give great weight to that when arriving at a decision as to whether a person is genuinely seeking work.

Regarding the issue of how often somebody should seek employment, it is an ongoing requirement that one genuinely seeks work. The monthly declaration is based on this requirement. On the issue of the supports available, there is the national employment action plan whereby anybody on the live register for a period of six months is referred to FÁS under the employment action plan for suitable training, education or employment, if jobs are available.

With regard to people winning an appeal, I am not aware of any policy in the Department to revisit and review those cases. When an unemployed person signs on, having been in a particular profession, we allow them a reasonable period of time to seek work within their profession. However, if there is no employment in that sphere or sector, after a period of time there is an expectation that they will seek work elsewhere.

Deputy S. Ryan

What is considered a reasonable period of time?

Mr. Burke

A reasonable period is ordinarily approximately three months.

Deputy Connolly

I wish Mr. Burke well in his new brief and thank him for attending at short notice with his timely presentation. I have recently had numerous representations from people who have been told they have to demonstrate they are genuinely seeking work. I have been asked by some people to provide them with a letter to indicate they are looking for work or to ask an employer to provide one. The people in question know there is no work but they still ask us to contact employers on their behalf in order to secure a letter which confirms the fact. Some employers are almost having to provide a service for people on unemployment assistance or benefit. Is the Department operating a "blitz" in respect of this requirement because people on unemployment benefit and assistance are being affected?

Like many people in rural constituencies such as Cavan-Monaghan, those who live outside towns do not have a choice of employers. In most cases there is one employer and the job numbers are static and any job will require travelling some distance. In that context, Deputy Ryan referred to travelling to work from Balbriggan to Tallaght, but at least he has the blessing of public transport to do so, although it may be difficult. However, there is no public transport in rural Ireland on which to get to work. The former British Cabinet Minister, Norman Tebbitt, once told people to get on their bikes but that is not an option. Owning or running a car is the only option but is costly when tax and insurance are factored in. The lack of public transport in rural areas must be taken into consideration.

The Department refers to people being "available for and genuinely seeking work", which infers that if people are not in work, they are not genuine. This is almost offensive to such people on unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit. As was stated, people want to work — they want the dignity of work in order that they can say they are earning a day's pay for it. It might not be the biggest or best job in the world but there is a certain satisfaction in being employed. Who decides what is a genuine work opportunity or whether someone is genuinely seeking work? Are there genuine work opportunities? In many cases there are not many. The Department should take such factors into account when it refers to reasonableness.

At one point, people in receipt of benefits for six months could qualify for the back to education allowance but the qualifying term has now been extended for 15 months. If one strips away the talk on the issue, the reason for this extension was that people were abusing the scheme. It is regrettable that the Department did not address this abuse rather than applying the one-size-fits-all approach and withdraw the scheme despite its many benefits. This may not be the opportunity to address this issue but I ask that the Department reconsiders the scheme and identifies genuine people.

Mr. Burke referred to people being available and genuinely seeking work. If such people are genuinely seeking the back to education allowance, the Department should examine the programme and consider reimplementing it to give something back. What powers of entry does the Department have and are all employers aware of them? Do officials have access to backup? Do they send for the Garda or do they muscle their way in?

Mr. Burke

There are operational matters in the questions the Deputy has raised, which I will ask my colleagues to address. An example of a person being disingenuous in respect of genuinely seeking work is if someone repeatedly visits an employer who has no work available and presents proof of that information in a local office despite the knowledge in the community that no work is available. We do not accept such activity to be genuinely seeking work. The onus is on the person to demonstrate that he or she is seeking employment, which he or she can do verbally or in writing when we seek such information.

In regard to what the Deputy referred to as "blitzes", there is a controlled dimension to the work we do and a control strategy is in place. From time to time, control activity takes place in certain areas. It is ongoing but there may be an increased control focus at any given stage. We have been before the committee previously in regard to people in rural areas. In that context, we have due regard to the circumstances in which people find themselves and we are reasonable in terms of how we deal with them.

Under the back to education allowance, one must now be in receipt of an unemployment payment for 15 months before accessing the scheme. It is an administrative scheme which is subject to review. Some 83% of people exit the live register within one year and it was suggested that people were using the live register to access the scheme. The question arises as to whether the scheme was ever designed to facilitate such people. An expenditure review of the back to education allowance is being undertaken within the Department.

The powers of entry for the inspectorate are set out in section 212 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993. It grants powers of entry and examination of records. When officials enter premises, they do so as licensees. They are entitled to be there in law and are entitled to bring any persons with them whom they deem fit for the purposes of carrying out an inspection.

Deputy Connolly

The requirement of a letter is a humiliating experience because the same individual must go to the same employer whenever pressure is applied.

Chairman

Particularly in rural areas.

Deputy Connolly

Absolutely. One has no choice in the matter. I hope the back to education allowance scheme will return to the purpose for which it was intended, namely, targeting the people who need it. We should be able to weed out abusers of the system.

Chairman

We will be calling on the Minister and will deal with those issues at that stage.

Deputy Carty

I too welcome Mr. Burke and his officials. This question was raised from the point of view of a rural as opposed to urban constituencies because there is a transport infrastructure in the city which there is not in rural areas. It is harassment for people to be asked to produce such letters every so often. Even when they are produced they are, on occasion, not accepted by departmental officials which is a problem in rural constituencies. I ask that the Department examine the issue and deal with it in a fair manner rather than asking people to travel ten or 15 miles. There are places in County Mayo which are remote from any town and there is no public transport. People on unemployment assistance or benefit have no transport of their own. Are letters always accepted, because I do not think that is the case?

Senator Cummins

When factories are opening in urban areas they post out job application forms to potential employees. However, there seems to be no onus on such companies to reply to unsuccessful applicants. Is there any way the Department could to ask companies to send replies to unsuccessful applicants? This would help those on unemployment benefit and assistance. This happens regularly. It is only a matter of common courtesy and should be examined. We should ask employers to do so; not that we currently have this problem in Waterford where some 120 job losses have been notified in the past fortnight. It occurs when a factory opens.

Looking at the matter from the other perspective, what is the success rate in detecting people signing on for social welfare and working? Some employers may say they cannot compete because others are employing people who are signing on for unemployment benefit. What is the success rate in detecting such abuses? Inspectors are operating. I would be interested to discover what the situation is in that regard.

One matter that has been raised concerns the difficulties facing people in rural areas who are unable to travel 30 or more miles to a job due to a lack of public transport services. It is not acceptable for them to lose their benefits in such circumstances.

As the Chairman said, we can take up the matter of the back to education allowance with the Minister when he attends the committee.

Mr. Burke

Ms Waldron will respond on the matter of the success rate in detecting those who are working and signing on.

We can raise the matter of application forms and employers completing something to give back to applicants with other Departments. I am not sure it is one for the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

Chairman

Mr. Burke might have useful contact with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. If the letter came back, it would surely obviate the need to go around, almost like a carpetbagger, looking for a letter from an employer to tell the Department what it already knows. Surely if the inspectors to whom Mr. Burke referred are as knowledgeable as he has indicated they are, they will know what the situation is in a given area. There are areas in my constituency where one must travel ten miles to the nearest big town to have any prospect of getting a job. Surely the inspectors are aware of this. There is no big secret about it. If they are as good as Mr. Burke says they are — I have no doubt that he is right — surely they are as alert to the relevant factors prevalent in the local economy as they are to detecting people who may well be abusing the system.

Reasonableness is as broad as it is long and it is as subjective as the length of this room. What is reasonable to one person is not to another. Therefore, the only objective measurement that we have is when a matter goes to appeal. Would Mr. Burke agree with this?

Mr. Burke

I can give the Chairman some data on appeals, although I do not have anything specific concerning those genuinely seeking work. As regards unemployment assistance payments, the total number of appeals last year was 2,097, of which 336 were allowed, 48 were partly allowed and 1,556 were disallowed. There was a revised decision in 95 cases, while 62 were withdrawn. As regards the assessment of means in respect of unemployment assistance payments, 137 were allowed, 91 were partly allowed and 753 were disallowed. There was a revised decision in 184 cases, while 139 were withdrawn. This gives a total of 1,304.

As regards unemployment benefit payments, out of a total of 1,670 appeals, 355 were allowed, 65 were partly allowed and 1,026 were disallowed. There was a revised decision in 164 cases, while 60 were withdrawn. Therefore, a large number of cases are upheld on appeal.

Chairman

It sounds like three quarters of the total.

Mr. Burke

As I said, I do not have a breakdown for those genuinely seeking work because there could be other components, including means. There is an appeals mechanism for those who are dissatisfied with the decision of the deciding officer who will take all information into consideration. If new information comes to light, he or she can revise the decision without an appeal.

As regards the way in which employers deal with matters, I know from experience as an investigator that large companies will advise there is a time element involved when taking on a number of staff. Multinationals companies, in particular, could receive thousands of applications. As they will say they are not in the business of sending replies, it might require compulsion to deal with the matter.

As regards travel, the Chairman mentioned that reasonableness was as broad as it was long. That is fair comment. However, in all cases our staff endeavour to present the situation to the person concerned, allowing him or her an opportunity to prove that he or she is making efforts to obtain work. The appeals process is open to all.

Ms Waldron

It is difficult to measure our success rate in detecting people who are working and signing on. First, one would have to measure to what extent it was happening. We are, however, constantly working on reducing the number signing on and working. We have a special unit in every region. There are 600 officers dealing specifically with this matter. We have also been working with other agencies, especially the Revenue Commissioners, to get details as quickly as possible on those commencing employment. This information is being sent to us regularly by Revenue and being picked up at every local office. Therefore, the number of instances where people are working and signing on has been greatly reduced by this measure alone.

We have projects running in certain areas in conjunction with other agencies, including the Revenue Commissioners, where there is joint inspection. Officers visit companies to ensure people working there are not on the unemployment register. We are aware of the problem but it is doubtful whether we could measure its extent. We are certainly working towards reducing it in every way possible.

Senator Leyden

This is an impressive turnout of senior officials. The Department has dramatically improved its use of new technology during the years. I compliment all the Ministers involved and wish the new Minister every success. I know he will make a great success of the Department. Despite all the new technology, it is still necessary to sign on at a Garda station to prove one is employed. This is degrading, demoralising and a waste of time for the Garda Síochána. Surely a better method could be devised, whether by statutory requirement or otherwise.

Does the Department encourage public representatives to accompany appeal applicants? I have accompanied quite a number and they have nearly all been successful. I would, therefore, recommend that public representatives attend such appeals with their constituents if they can.

Chairman

Some free advice from the Senator.

Ms Waldron

The practice of signing on at Garda stations will cease from November. We are working on new signing arrangements. In the next four weeks we will notify the persons concerned that this practice will cease and that new arrangements will be put in place in the new year. Some of the people concerned will be requested to sign on at their local office, while local arrangements will be made for others to sign at various times during the year.

Senator Leyden

That is great news.

Deputy Carty

It is good news for those living a long way from the signing office that they will not be required to go in every week or every month.

Chairman

What about those with no access to public transport who have to travel ten miles? While I am glad to see the end of one system, I hope the Department will not bounce others into another ten miles away. Will the fact that people did not attend for the signing on procedure be another excuse for stating they will not qualify?

Senator Leyden

The Chairman is turning a positive into a negative.

Chairman

I am long enough in the tooth to know what could happen.

Mr. Michael Daly

We will extend the boundaries. At present, people living up to six miles from a local office attend in person. This will be extended to ten miles. However, we will examine cases on an individual basis. If there are elements of hardship involved for anybody, we will take these into account. Anybody living further away than ten miles will self-certify for two months out of three and attend at the local office once every 12 weeks. Special arrangements will apply to anyone living on remote islands or in remote areas. These people are not normally required to attend at local offices.

Senator Leyden

I ask the Chairman to make representations that six miles should remain the maximum and that there should be no changes in that regard. Whatever is proposed must be an improvement, not a disimprovement.

Chairman

I do not want to anticipate anything. However, if we are all alive in February or March of next year, I can see our guests being invited to reappear before the committee.

Deputy Stanton

How long does it take, on average, for an appeal to be heard? Does the Department have any role in terms of helping people to obtain employment? If so, what is that role and how does it work? Does the Department work in conjunction with other agencies in this regard? What about people in part-time work? I refer in particular to those who might be employed for two days each week or those whose working hours are reduced from five to three days per week and who discover that their benefits have been reduced after a period and their income falls as a result. The latter appears to happen from time to time.

Deputy S. Ryan

What is the position regarding a person who is unemployable? I am aware of people, thankfully the number of them is small, who have been requested to appear and make a case that they are making genuine efforts to seek employment when, in fact, they are unemployable. What is the Department's position on that?

Mr. Burke

I do not have in my possession figures relating to the average time it takes for an appeal to be processed but I will make them available to the committee. Ms Farrell will comment on the position vis-à-vis part-time work.

As regards the Department's role in securing employment, we have a social and family support service which includes an employment support service dimension operated by facilitators — formerly known as jobs facilitators — who assist people in either accessing the back to work allowance, the back to work enterprise allowance, the back to education allowance if they were in need of training, and sourcing work. We also have a memorandum of understanding with FÁS, with which there is also activity at local level. The employment action plan is available where we refer people to FÁS for education, training and employment.

This leads on to Deputy Seán Ryan's question about those who are unemployable. We are not in a position to comment on whether people are unemployable. However, where people experience difficulties in terms of seeking employment and where they have undergone the process of the employment action plan and are found not to be progression-ready at that point, since 2003 there has been a high supports process in place which brings together a number of players from the State agencies — ostensibly ourselves and FÁS — to consider the position of these individuals and the supports that could be made available to them to make them job ready.

Deputy S. Ryan

Does it work?

Mr. Burke

It was piloted in 2003 and extended to all regions this year. I understand it is being evaluated by FÁS at present. Employment policy and services are ostensibly a matter for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, through FÁS. The Department participates in that in so far as those who are found not to be progression-ready under the employment action plan are jointly interviewed by FÁS and the Department to see what range of services might enhance their employment prospects. If something is not available, for example, through the FÁS programme of services, we then try to source it. There is an individual budget of up to €2,400 per person available in that regard. The process was piloted in 2003 and has been rolled out this year. However, a person must undergo the process of the employment plan and be categorised as non-progression ready before they can avail of the high supports process.

Ms Farrell

One of the conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit is that a person must suffer a substantial loss of employment. Persons working full-time who are placed on a three-day week will have suffered such a loss of employment and will qualify for unemployment benefit, provided they can show they are available for full-time employment. If a person does not suffer a substantial loss of employment, he or she would not be entitled to unemployment benefit but could be entitled to unemployment assistance. That condition does not apply in the case of unemployment assistance. The latter is a means tested payment.

Deputy Stanton

What is the Department's philosophy or policy regarding penalties and sanctions for people who are found to be in breach of the code? How many, if any, prosecutions have been initiated by the Department in recent years in this area?

Ms Waldron

I presume the Deputy is referring to fraud when he mentions penalties and sanctions. In recent years there has been a major increase in the number of prosecutions initiated by the Department. Up to the end of June of this year, approximately 350 cases have been taken. In the region of 600 were taken last year. In recent years the policy in respect of fraud has been that every case should be viewed in terms of prosecution. Not every case reaches the stage of prosecution because special circumstances may obtain.

Deputy Stanton

Would it be possible to provide a breakdown regarding the outcome of these cases?

Ms Waldron

I do not have such a breakdown in my possession but we can forward it to the Deputy.

Senator Cummins

Where a company announces that it is to place its workforce on short time for seven weeks in a period of 12 months, do employees lose three waiting days when it is known in advance that they will be on short time? I refer here to Waterford Crystal workers in my constituency who are aware that they will be off for seven weeks in the year. Will these people lose three waiting days on each occasion they are obliged to sign on or is there is a provision for instances of that nature?

Ms Farrell

The three waiting days do not apply where a claim is linked. If they make another claim within 26 weeks, there will be no waiting days. This applies in the case of unemployment benefit.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Burke, Ms Waldron, Mr. McDermott, Ms Farrell and Mr. Daly for coming before the committee on short notice. We appreciate their efforts. There was quite a degree of interest and interchange in respect of this issue and I thank them for their forthright answers and assistance. I would not be surprised if we are obliged to invite them to return to discuss other issues with members, particularly that which relates to the six-mile boundary. We will provide them with adequate notice on the next occasion. We deeply appreciate their coming before the committee. The interest displayed by members and the various points raised indicate this is an area of significant interest to them and their constituents. I thank them for dealing with so many matters today.