asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that the position of many social welfare contributors vis-à-vis their benefits has become more difficult since EEC entry; and if he will state the changes that have taken place in this regard and how the present position compares with that prior to EEC entry.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Contributors.
30.
I do not accept that the position overall of insured persons has been worsened since the entry into effect of the EEC regulations dealing with social security for migrant workers on 1st April, 1973. Before that date this country had reciprocal arrangements with the United Kingdom on matters relating to social insurance but with no other State. Since 1st April, 1973, however, the regulations of the EEC dealing with social insurance for migrant workers have been applicable to all the member States and in consequence an insured worker can now have his working career in any of the member States of the EEC taken into account for benefit purposes. This could not have been done before 1st April, 1973 and the present position is, therefore, a very clear and positive advance in this respect. Difficulties can, of course, arise in individual cases. In particular the determination of pension claims can take longer under the more complex EEC rules and if the Deputy has any case of undue delay in mind I will be glad to look into it on receiving particulars from him.
If an insured worker came home from Britain having had up to 20 years contributions paid there, then registered for unemployment benefit here because he could not get employment, and he could not receive unemployment benefit, would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that his situation was made worse since this new regulation was introduced?
As I understand the position, if a person in the position the Deputy describes, with 20 years British coverage, registers and draws unemployment benefit for a period of four weeks in Britain, he can then automatically qualify for benefit here. In the absence of that qualification, it is necessary that one contribution at least be made here before the two, British and Irish, contributions can be taken into consideration.
In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, would he advise the British Ministry of Health and Social Security that Irish workers who have been rendered unemployed in Britain and who do not register for unemployment there but who, instead, come home are disqualified from receiving such benefit? Would it not be advisable for the Parliamentary Secretary to inform the British Ministry of Health and Social Security that workers in England should be informed of that fact because they are not so informed? They can only join the ranks of the 107,000 unemployed here but without benefit. In a situation like that, would it not be advisable that Britain should tell these workers that they must register in Britain?
I would be only too glad to request the British authorities to do so.
This is a very serious matter for the country. Since the EEC are dictating terms to us here, at least we are governed by the regulations, and we are told the Community is regarded as one country now, should not a person automatically qualify in any one of the other member countries without any restriction? If we are governed by their regulations, if we are supposed to be working as one unit, if there are some impediments at present, is it not up to our Minister or Foreign Minister to see that this situation is corrected?
During the campaign which determined our entry into the Common Market many statements were made by political advocates on our entry which proved subsequently not to be true. Many drawbacks that a small number of people only saw at that time have only now been confirmed. Apart from benefits that may be derived from membership, there were undoubted drawbacks involved also and I am afraid these were not acknowledged by very many people who engaged in that campaign.
The fact that those matters have come to light—and it would appear that there are no regulations without defects—is it not the duty of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to endeavour to have the situation corrected now?
As I explained in the original reply, the overall effect of this arrangement, that broadens out among the other eight member States of the EEC, is to the advantage of workers returning here from countries other than Great Britain. Such workers would have been unable to get any credit for benefits they might have accumulated in other countries, members of the Nine. The situation now is that such benefits can be, and are, taken into consideration. Therefore, viewing the matter in its broader terms, it is to such workers' advantage that this arrangement is in operation.
We have dwelt a long time on this question.
Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary——
A brief supplementary, please Deputy.
Are anomalous situations such as I have outlined discussed in Brussels? Are representations made regularly with a view to minimising difficulties being experienced by workers moving from one country to another? Are anomalous situations such as I have outlined brought to their attention because it should be the intention to harmonise regulations so that such difficulties do not arise?
As the Deputy may be aware, I have expressed my dissatisfaction with the amount of material included in the social action programme that deals with people outside the immediate work force and matters that can affect such people. In my opinion, the emphasis of the social action programme is on the work force, is orientated towards the work force and does not take into consideration sufficiently people who fall outside that category.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that the situation which he has elaborated in reply to Deputy O'Connell in regard to unemployment benefit is equally applicable to all insurable benefits?
Yes but, as I said when I emphasised the work force, unemployment benefit does not become a major source of concern to a worker until he becomes unemployed and is outside the work force.
I am thinking of dental benefits, for instance. Would the Parliamentary Secretary also agree that, even allowing for some of these administrative snarl-ups which have occurred, our access to the European Social Fund would more than justify our accession to the EEC apart from any other reason whatsoever?
That is a larger issue, outside the scope of this question.
The Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the larger question.
Yes, that is so. Nevertheless, it is not relevant to this question.
If the Deputy is talking in purely material terms, the answer is obviously yes.
Could we have a reply?
It would not be in order, Deputy Gibbons. It does not arise.
I have replied.
I did not hear the reply.
I said, if the Deputy is relating his question to purely material terms, the answer is yes.