asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he is in a position to disclose the results of the inquiry undertaken into the circumstances surrounding the making of the order of 1st April depriving all unmarried men without dependants of unemployment assistance.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Employment Period Order.
21.
As I indicated during the debate in this House on 22nd April on motions to annul the Unemployment Assistance (Employment Period) (No. 2) Order, 1971, the order which I made on 1st April, 1971—that is, the Unemployment Assistance (Employment Period) Order, 1971—did not, owing to a misunderstanding, express the intentions of the Government in the matter and as soon as this became clear the order of 1st April was revoked and replaced by the (No. 2) Order made by me on 8th April.
I would like to ask the Minister what form this inquiry took, what independent body were called on to undertake it, where the report is and what the report says?
The only inquiry I am aware of is the ordinary inquiry made by the Taoiseach on his return and the fact that, as I have been trying to point out in my answer, the order was made and revoked and replaced by another order. The facts are easily ascertainable.
I understood the Taoiseach to say that he was having an inquiry carried out as to what went wrong.
We do not have to report the result of any inquiry which we carried out for ourselves.
Who carried out the inquiry? I originally asked the Taoiseach this question.
It was transferred to the appropriate Minister.
Who carried out the inquiry?
We are not obliged to report the result of any inquiry we carry out for our own guidance.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that the purpose of the assurance given that there was an inquiry was to reassure people that they would be told the truth? Would the Taoiseach tell us now why he is trying to suppress the truth?
I am not trying to suppress anything. We carried out the inquiry for our own guidance on future occasions.
And not for the public? Could I ask the Taoiseach and the Minister if the position which arose can be summarised as follows: A proposal was put forward for the withdrawal of the dole from all unmarried men in rural and urban areas and this proposal went before the Government in that form as a document and was approved by the Government, and was translated into the Book of Estimates and subsequently was in the form of an order which the Minister read and signed, although his attention was drawn by officials to the contents of the order—is not that what happened?
No. That is not true.
Let us hear the truth. Perhaps the Minister will tell me what part of the statement I made is incorrect. I say that no part of my statement is incorrect.
The Deputy's trouble is that he cannot accept the truth when he hears it.
I take it that no part of my statement is incorrect.
No part of the statement is correct.
22.
Mr. J. Lenehan
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in connection with the decision to amend the recent Employment Period Order in so far as it applies to the inhabitants of certain islands, including Valentia Island, he will also amend it similarly in respect of the Mullet Peninsula, County Mayo, which is an island.
The islands specified in the Unemployment Assistance (Employment Period) (Amendment) Order, 1971, are drawn from the table of inhabited islands off the coast (Table 18) which is included in Volume I of the 1966 Census of Population. The Mullet Peninsula, County Mayo, does not appear in this table and consequently was not specified in the order as an island. No change in the amending order is contemplated.
May I ask the Minister in relation to Valentia and Achill the number of persons who have been in receipt of unemployment assistance?
This question relates to the Mullet Peninsula.
I speak on behalf of Deputy J. Lenehan.
Questions in relation to other islands do not arise here.
With respect to the Chair Question 22 says "including Valentia Island" and "certain islands". May I therefore ask the Minister how many persons in Valentia and in Achill are currently in receipt of unemployment assistance?
I would need notice of that question.
That is a separate question.
How many would be included on the other islands?
I could not say that without looking it up.
Deputy J. Lenehan will tell the Minister the answer to that question in due course.
If the Deputy puts down a question, I will give him the information.