Vol. 178 No. 3
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state (a) the number of men, single and married, in receipt of unemployment assistance whose assistance was cut off since 1st September, 1959, allegedly for not seeking employment, and (b) the number so affected in Dublin; and if he is aware that those men were expecting assistance on the day on which their assistance was cut off, and that they had received no prior notification that the assistance would not be payable.
12.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state the number of persons who have been stopped payment of unemployment assistance within the past month at Dublin employment exchanges on the grounds that they were not genuinely seeking work; and what available work there is for persons now drawing unemployment assistance.
With your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take these two questions together.
Payment of unemployment assistance has been disallowed in the cases of 261 single men and 113 married men since 1st September, 1959, on the grounds that they were not genuinely seeking work. Of these, 212 single men and 79 married men were in Dublin. The number of persons disallowed in Dublin in the past month was 220.
As Deputies are aware, it is a condition for the receipt of unemployment assistance that the applicant be capable of work and available for and genuinely seeking work but unable to obtain it. Payment was disallowed in no case until the fullest enquiry had been made and no satisfactory evidence was produced by the individual concerned that he had made any serious attempt to obtain employment. I might mention that none of the men whose applications were disallowed had obtained any wage-earning employment in the preceding 12 months and many of them had not worked for much longer periods.
Persons whose applications for unemployment assistance are disallowed on the grounds that they are not genuinely seeking work are aware well in advance of disallowance, that their applications are suspect and are under examination. When a claim is disallowed the decision operates as from the day following the day on which payment was last made and the applicant is notified with the least possible delay.
I would remind the Deputies that any person aggrieved by the decision in his case has the right of appeal to an Appeals Officer.
I am not at all satisfied with this answer. I specifically pointed out that the men were denied their few shillings for the week.
The Deputy has a question to put, I take it.
I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary is he aware that those men turned up on a Thursday, which is pay day, and then, and only then, were they notified that they were disallowed, and that on the day on which they should have received their 30/-, or whatever it is, they got nothing? As he said, they were, in other words, aware in advance but they were not aware that on that day, Thursday, pay day, they were to get no money. They were left stranded. In other words, it was up to them to go out and steal, if they wanted a few bob, because they had no few shillings to give to their wives who were waiting at home for them. I am not satisfied with the reply and I shall raise the question on the adjournment, with your permission.
The Deputy will be communicated with.
May I ask whether there is a right of appeal while the appeal to which the Minister referred is pending? What provision is made for an unemployed married man, for instance, to keep his wife and children? Further, may I ask is it suggested that, in fact, there was work available for these 200 or 300 men if they had gone looking for it? If there is work available, would the Parliamentary Secretary in future notify people as to where work is to be found?
Except in the case of State employment, the labour exchange is very little used by the majority of employers. They employ direct. They do not go to the labour exchange.
I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary a number of supplementaries. He appears to have overlooked one. What do the family— the wife and children—of a man do pending the hearing of the appeal?
They steal.
May I take it the Parliamentary Secretary agrees there is no alternative for these people?
That is a separate question.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary hold there is alternative employment for these people?
Question No. 13.
Arising out of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply——
I have called Question No. 13.
Is there alternative work for these men and, if so, will the Parliamentary Secretary notify the local employment exchange so that the officials there can tell them where this work is to be found?
We are dealing with thousands of men in the Dublin labour exchange——
We are dealing with 200 or 300 men who have to feed, clothe and house their wives and children, and there is no alternative work for them.
