asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider decentralising payment of sickness benefit to enable the setting up of a centre in Cork to avoid the hardship of delays in sickness benefit being paid direct from Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Payments.
10.
On a number of occasions I have considered the question of the decentralisation of the administration of sickness benefit, and I am satisfied that the present centralised system, which ensures the most effective administration for all areas of the country, would not be improved by the setting up of centres in particular areas to deal with claims and payments. Disability and occupational injury cheques are delivered by post to the beneficiaries' addresses because these claimants are ill and in the main it would not be possible for them to attend at local offices for payment. Decentralisation of payment in the case of these benefits would not therefore be of any advantage to the claimants.
I do not accept that there are long delays in the payment of sickness benefit by my Department. While I agree that delay in payment of benefit during illness can cause considerable hardship. I must say that the number of delays in relation to the number of payments made each week is extremely small.
11.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will arrange for the payment of non-contributory old age pensions to persons who are resident in England for a period of at least one year so that they will not have to travel back to Ireland every three months.
Under the relative legislation non-contributory old age and widows' pensions may not be paid to persons resident abroad. A change in these arrangements is not at present contemplated.
12.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if unemployment assistance is paid in the case of a person who, because of inability to find work, is receiving board and lodging from his father; and if there are any instances where refusal to grant unemployment assistance was based solely on that ground.
The yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by an applicant, such as board and lodging, is one of the items which must be taken into account in the assessment of means for unemployment assistance purposes.
A person who was otherwise qualified would, in the circumstances mentioned by the Deputy, be entitled to unemployment assistance if his means, including the yearly value of board and lodgings, were not in excess of the maximum rate of unemployment assistance payable in his case. If his means so calculated were in excess of the maximum rate of unemployment assistance applicable in the case, he would not be entitled to such assistance.
Quite a large number of people who terminated their education last year found there was no employment available to them. The Department of Social Welfare, so far as I am aware, assess such a person's board and lodgings at the rate of £10 a week. If that is correct, is the parent who is supporting that child at a rate of £10 per week entitled to make that sort of deduction from his income tax return?
No.
Why not? If the Social Welfare say it is £10 a week, somebody has to pay it.
The Deputy is raising another matter in connection with income tax.
It is a very serious situation, where children who have left school find there are no jobs available to them.
Questions of income tax are the responsibility of another Minister.
They are now being refused social welfare assistance. What are they supposed to do—turn to crime?
That situation has been there for the last 41 years.
Question No. 13.
The situation has been there only since the Minister's shower took over.
As far as unemployment is concerned the Deputy's party have an unenviable record.
Could the Minister explain to the House why there is a difference in relation to individual applications in respect of the amount allowed for board and lodgings? Why can it be, in one case, from £5 to £7 and, in another, as described by Deputy Lemass, £10?
I must say I am not aware that there is a differentiation. There may be, as the Deputy suggests, and I will look into that.
Question No. 13.
Many people have been affected during the last year, many more than ever before. Whether or not the Minister likes it, that is the position. In view of that, would he not consider at least cutting in half this board and lodgings allowance, so that some of these people would at least get pocket money until such time as the so-called upturn in the economy might provide jobs for them, if the Minister is unable to do so? No answer?
13.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare why unemployment benefit was not paid to persons (names supplied) in County Cavan; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The persons concerned were not paid unemployment benefit on their claims of 2nd and 10th December, 1974 as they did not satisfy the statutory condition which requires that not less than 26 employment contributions have been paid or credited in respect of them in the 1973-74 insurance year. They did, however, satisfy this condition as from the commencement of the current benefit year which commenced on 1st December, 1975 on their records during the 1974-75 insurance year. Payment of unemployment benefit at the maximum rate applicable to them has been made to them since that date.
14.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the refusal by his Department of unemployment benefit in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Donegal who is a shirt factory worker and who, due to the recession, is unable to obtain employment.
A claim for unemployment benefit made by the person concerned was disallowed by a deciding officer with effect from 21st August, 1975 on the ground that she did not satisfy the statutory condition for entitlement to benefit which requires a claimant to be available for employment. She has not exercised her right of appeal against the decision.
Would the Minister take this question and letter of appeal which I have written as an indication of this person's wish to appeal? Could I use this case as an indication of a widespread social welfare practice amongst shirt factory workers, married women, who, when working, contribute to the stamp and find means of having any children looked after by a mother or mother-in-law but who, when they cease employment—due to the recession in the shirt industry—are, in the main disqualified by the Minister's Department and debarred from receiving the benefits of the contributions they made while working? This is a widespread matter.
A brief question, please, Deputy.
I am using this question as a means of trying to bring home to the Minister a practice which has repercussions in the shirt industry and those who are disemployed in that industry, especially married women.
I will take a chance on taking the appeal from the Deputy; I presume it is on the statutory form?
No, it is not.
There is a period during which an appeal must be made. I think it is 30 days. I think there are slight complications here— I have looked at the question again— the deciding officer decided against her on the 21st August, 1975. There is a time within which she must lodge an appeal. Whether or not anybody, including myself, has power to waive that, I do not know, but she has exceeded the 30 days limit. Certainly, I will undertake to take the appeal from the Deputy to see whether it can be put before the appeals officer. On the second part of the question, as far as married women and other workers are concerned, the Deputy knows that I have no function. The appeals officer has statutory power to decide whether or not a person is available and whether or not in certain circumstances unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance should be paid.
I do not want to score any points but would the Minister not agree that, if this practice is widespread and if it is almost automatic for a married woman working in a shirt factory who becomes disemployed to be disqualified because she has a child——
We are having repetition now.
Because she is a mother it is alleged she is not available for employment although she has, in fact, proved that she was employed while she was a mother——
A brief question, please.
Allow me to finish.
I have allowed the Deputy to make two long statements.
I am asking questions. I am asking the Minister will be intervene in this particular category. This woman has proven in the past that she is available for work when work is available for her despite the fact she has a child but, when she becomes unemployed, the fact that she has a child is put forward as a ground for her not being available for work.
I am afraid we cannot continue debating this.
If the practice is as the Minister has indicated then the Minister must take steps to remedy the situation and I am asking him now if he will do just that.
I could not give any undertaking that I would interfere with the present statutory powers of the appeals officer. The circumstances to which the Deputy referred are all put before the appeals officer and he makes the decision. I have no power to interfere with his decision in respect of one category of worker or another.
If statutory powers are necessary would the Minister not——
I am calling the next question, Question No. 15.
I do not agree with the Deputy that this is automatic at all.
It is.
I have allowed a great deal of latitude and I am calling the next question, Question No. 15.
I live among these people and I know the practice is widespread.
Question No. 15, please.
15.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will review the application of a person (details supplied) in County Donegal who was refused unemployment benefit.
A claim for unemployment benefit made by the person concerned on 15th October, 1975, was disallowed by a deciding officer on the ground that she did not satisfy the statutory condition for entitlement to benefit which requires a claimant to be available for employment. She has appealed against the deciding officer's decision and an appeal hearing at which it will be open to her to attend and give evidence on her own behalf will take place shortly.
I would ask the Minister to note that this case is on all-fours with the one I raised. I shall say no more about it.
16.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for non-payment of unemployment benefit to a shop assistant (details supplied) in County Donegal.
A claim for unemployment benefit made by the person concerned on 5th November, 1975, was disallowed by a deciding officer on the ground that she did not satisfy the statutory condition for entitlement to benefit which requires a claimant to be available for employment. The decision of the deciding officer was upheld by an appeals officer after an oral hearing at which the claimant attended and gave evidence. An appeals officer's decision is final in the absence of new facts or fresh evidence.
Could I ask the Minister if he is satisfied with the statutory condition under which a married woman who has a child and who, because of the economic circumstances of the factory in which she was employed, loses that employment is ruled as not genuinely seeking work?
That is not the statutory position. The fact she has a child does not automatically debar her.
It does.
It does not.
Is the Minister aware that one of the questions asked in the investigation is who is in a position to look after the child if the mother gets work? Even if the mother says that her mother, her mother-in-law or her husband will do it—in one case the husband is unemployed and well able to look after the child— the statutory regulation referred to by the Minister is applied and, despite the fact that information is given as to who will look after the child, she is ruled as not genuinely seeking work and she is debarred from getting unemployment benefit?
It is not a statutory condition at all. The appeals officer uses his own judgment as to whether or not the person is available and decides accordingly.
The pattern in this industry is that in every case I know of what I have said obtains.
If that is so it is not peculiar, if I may say so, to the shirt making industry. It is applied generally in respect of any sort of employment.