asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has any proposals to amend the legislation which prevents the payment of unemployment benefit to workers who do not pass pickets.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Benefit.
62.
Generally speaking, refusal to pass a picket is regarded as a form of participation in a trade dispute and as such constitutes a disqualification for unemployment benefit. The question of whether disqualification is incurred by a worker who does not pass a picket in the course of a dispute at his place of employment is a matter for decision by a statutory deciding officer having regard to the circumstances of each case. Such a decision is, of course, subject to a right of appeal to a statutory appeals officer whose decision is final. The trade dispute disqualification clauses of the Social Welfare Acts were designed to ensure that the social insurance fund should have a clearly neutral role in any situation where a stoppage of work arising from a trade dispute has occurred and amendment of these clauses is not contemplated.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether he has received any representations from the trade union movement regarding changing this legislation?
There were discussions in 1967 between the Department and the ICTU and some agreed amendments were made at that time.
63.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of complaints received by him over the decision of appeals officers to reject for unemployment benefit married women on the birth of a baby.
64.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the growing concern of the public at the decision of appeals officers to disallow for unemployment benefit a married woman on the birth of a baby; and if he intends to introduce amending legislation to provide for appeals against such decisions.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 63 and 64 together.
There are no statistics available in my Department relating to complaints made about decisions of appeals officers regarding question of title of married women with children to unemployment benefit. Dissatisfaction with those decisions of appeals officers in which unemployment benefit is refused to married women with children is due, I believe, to a lack of appreciation of the statutory conditions which govern title to unemployment benefit and which require every claimant to unemployment benefit, including a married woman with a child, to satisfy the conditions governing entitlement, including the requirement that a claimant be available for employment.
I think that it might be helpful if I explained briefly what is involved in the availability condition. Under statutory provisions in Social Welfare legislation, persons are deemed to be available for employment in certain circumstances. These provisions affect only persons undergoing approved courses of rehabilitation training and define days of unemployment in the special case of night workers. In respect of the generality of claimants to whom those provisions are not applicable, I am indebted for the following information to deciding officers and appeals officers who, as the House is aware, are completely independent in the exercise of their statutory functions and are not subject to direction or control by me or anyone else.
The criteria used in determining whether a person is or is not available for employment are broadly whether a genuine desire and intention to obtain work is present, whether domestic or other commitments exist which might limit the person's freedom to accept, or might prevent acceptance of, full-time employment which would normally be suitable for him, and whether restrictions are being imposed by the person on the kind, place or hours of employment acceptable to him, any of which would unreasonably diminish his prospects of obtaining work. The availability for employment of any claimant to unemployment benefit—whether or not the claimant be a married woman with a child—is a question to be determined by deciding officers and appeals officers, in the exercise of their statutory functions, through the interpretation and application of any or all of these broad criteria in the light of, and in relation to, the whole facts and evidence available in each particular case.
It is not intended to make any change in the system of the hearing by appeals officers of appeals from persons who are dissatisfied with decisions of deciding officers on their claims under the Social Welfare Acts. I might draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that a person who has a claim to benefit disallowed by an appeals officer, the claim already having been refused by a deciding officer, has failed to satisfy either of two separate and independent determining authorities that he has a right to the benefit he is claiming.
When were the original regulations formulated?
Since the Act came into being. It is the availability of the work that is being determined.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that since these regulations were formulated there has been a transformation in our society in that nowadays, married women go into employment as a matter of course and that the fact that they have children does not hamper them in making themselves available for work? At a time when we talk of the status of women, we find that there is discrimination against married women in regard to employment. Is it not discriminatory that a woman who offers herself for work is disqualified because she has a child? The decision of an appeals officer is immaterial in such a case. Is it not desirable, therefore that in our modern society we should amend the existing legislation in this regard so as to ensure that if a woman presents a certificate to the effect that she cannot get a job, she will be entitled to unemployment benefit?
The Deputy is putting forward an argument at this stage.
I did not table those questions for fun. The issue is a very important one. When an offer of employment is refused, an appeals officer is justified in refusing an application for unemployment benefit but is it not discriminatory that an application is refused solely on the basis of a woman having a child?
The Deputy's supplementary involved many issues but there are two comments that I would make in regard to it. There is no question of disqualification of a woman from receiving unemployment benefit solely because she has a child. The decisions are reached by deciding officers and appeals officers who are absolutely independent of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary.
Question No. 65.
Can nothing be done to amend the legislation so as to ensure that an offer of employment is made—
The Deputy appreciates that he is embarking on an argument.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not consider it more desirable that the legislation be changed?
The Deputy has asked that question already.
The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that there are many thousands of people who are affected by this legislation, that these people consider themselves to be discriminated against——
The Deputy is developing an argument.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary have this matter investigated? He has a request from me and from a committee in the shirt-producing areas of Donegal where this legislation is discriminating against factory workers who are married and have children. As Deputy O'Connell stated, there is a problem in this regard.
There is no question of a woman being disqualified on the basis of her having a child. The question that arises is that of her availability for employment.
This is ludicrous.
It is a very important issue.
We must move on to Question No. 65. There must be no further debate on this question.
65.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state in respect of the past six months the number of cases of married women who were refused unemployment benefit because of unavailability for work; and the corresponding figure for the previous year.
The information requested by the Deputy is not available in my Department.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary explain why that information is not available in his Department? It is very simple. What I want to know is the number of cases of married women who were refused unemployment benefit because of unavailability for work?
There is no record kept in my Department of the number in the category the Deputy mentioned.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean to imply that that information could not be compiled?
It is not a question of implying anything. It is a question of informing the Deputy that the information is not available in my Department.
Could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to get the information for me?
If it is not available, I cannot get it.
It certainly is an outdated, outmoded Department.
The Deputy could have a point there but the information is not available.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary accept information which is available?
We will certainly receive any communication the Deputy wishes to make to us.