The position regarding the entitlement of the person concerned to an unemployment payment was fully set out in responses to the Deputy's previous questions. The person concerned has, for some years, been engaged in employment on a part-time basis, five days per week. This has been confirmed once again with his employer. He is also engaged in self-employment, as a tiler. He has an income from this employment and his self employment, however, it has not been possible to quantify his income from this activity, as he failed to provide the necessary information for my Department to do so. The person concerned has suggested that his income from self-employment is £50 per week.
The issue as regards the entitlement of the person concerned to an unemployment payment is quite clear. He is not and was not unemployed, for the duration of his unemployment assistance claim. The person concerned did not inform my Department of his part-time employment. When his employment came to light, a deciding officer disallowed his unemployment assistance claim from 16 January 2001 to 23 September 2003 on the grounds that he was not unemployed for this period. A letter informing him of the decision and the overpayment which he had incurred, was issued to him on 4 December, 2003.
As regards an oral appeal hearing, the position as stated in my last reply to the Deputy is that "where the appeals officer is of the opinion that the case is of such a nature that it can properly be determined without an oral hearing, the appeal may be determined summarily". This was the position in relation to the appeal submitted by the person concerned.
On 27 January 2004 the appeals officer made a summary decision to disallow the appeal of the person concerned. The formal determination is as follows:
"I decide that the appellant is disallowed from receipt of unemployment assistance from 16 January 2001 to 23 September 2003, on the grounds that he is not unemployed".
The appeals officer also provided a note on the reason for his decision which is set as follows:
"The appellant has acknowledged that he was employed as a part-time home help from Monday to Friday each week during the period 16 January 2002 to 23 September 2003. In the circumstances the appeal must fall."
The person concerned was notified of this decision. The only question before the appeals officer in this case was whether the person was "not unemployed" during the period in question. As it would appear that the central fact, that the person concerned was employed part-time, on five days per week, it is understandable that an oral hearing could not serve any useful purpose. Questions relating to the arrangements for recovery of the overpayment are outside the remit of the appeals officer.
Under social welfare legislation, decisions as regards claims must be made by deciding officers and appeals officers. These officers are statutorily appointed and I have no role in regard to making such decisions.