asked the Minister for Social Welfare when the payment of unemployment benefit will be resumed to a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
7.
(Mayo West): The person concerned exhausted his title to unemployment benefit when he completed 390 days of benefit on 26 November 1981. In order to requalify he requires to have 13 weeks of insurable employment following the 156th day of unemployment benefit. He has completed 12 weeks of such employment and requires one further week of insurable employment to requalify for benefit.
He claimed unemployment assistance on 26 November 1981 and, following the completion of inquiries, means were assessed at nil in his case. His claim was allowed at the weekly rate of £51.70 and all arrears due to him were paid on 4 March 1982 less the amount of supplementary welfare allowance which was advanced to him pending the outcome of his application for unemployment assistance.
Weekly payments of £51.70 continue to be made to him as they fall due.
Can the Minister say if there are difficulties in regard to getting replies from his office? I ask the question because it appears that Deputies find it necessary to table parliamentary questions in order to get information. Apart from acknowledgement, there is no response from the Department to inquiries and, consequently I am asking the Minister to look into the matter.
(Mayo West): I understand from the information available to me that the problem to which the question relates arose because of the person concerned not sending in the necessary information to allow payment of his claim to be speeded up.
But is the Minister prepared to look into the question of the difficulty in obtaining replies from the Department?
8.
(Limerick East): asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will agree to the payment of the general scheme maternity allowance to adoptive mothers.
(Mayo West): Under the Social Welfare Acts the general scheme of maternity allowance is related to the confinement of the mother arising from the birth of her child. The adoption of children is a separate matter and I do not consider it would be appropriate to deal with the question of adoption under the maternity scheme.
(Limerick East): Is the Minister aware that there are four schemes in operation in respect of childbirth — the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment, the maternity allowance general scheme, the maternity grant and the pay-related scheme — but is he aware that none of these schemes applies to women who adopt children?
(Mayo West): I am not aware of that.
(Limerick East): What is the Department's conception of the purpose of these payments?
(Mayo West): The question relates to the payment of social welfare benefits to adoptive mothers. I have answered that part of the question but, if the Deputy wants information in relation to the other matters he raises now, I shall be glad to get the information for him.
(Limerick East): I am asking a very reasonable supplementary, that is, why the general scheme of maternity allowances is not applicable to adoptive mothers. By way of supplementary I am asking what is the purpose of these payments. I tabled a similar question to the Minister for Labour and he implied that maternity payments were some form of compensation to mothers for the pangs of childbirth.
The Deputy is only entitled to ask a question. What you have asked twice by way of supplementary is in the original but you must not make submissions.
(Limerick East): I am only trying to be helpful to the Minister.
The Minister replied to the question so I cannot allow the Deputy to continue in this vein.
(Limerick East): I am only asking a reasonable supplementary as to why the anomaly exists whereby a woman who acquires a child by way of adoption is not eligible for the benefits of the general maternity scheme, the purpose of which is to alleviate the financial burden on a family when they acquire an extra child.
The Deputy is advocating legislation and that does not arise on the question.
(Mayo West): For the Deputy's information the position is that the FUE and the ICTU agreed to the exclusion of adoptive mothers from the Protection of Employees Act, 1981, namely on the ground that the matter could be dealt with by way of the collective bargaining process. Generally the Adoption Board are opposed to adoption by women who are likely to continue working.
(Limerick East): That is a very unsatisfactory reply.
9.
(Limerick East): asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of the exclusion of CIE salaried staff from the full protection of the Social Welfare Acts, he will state whether any steps have been taken to provide them with unemployment benefit in the event of CIE dispensing with their services.
(Mayo West): The employees concerned are permanent and pensionable employees of CIE and it is because of the permanent nature of their employment that they are insured for social welfare purposes at a modified rate which does not confer entitlement to unemployment benefit. The question asked by the Deputy is a hypothetical one and in the unlikely event of the question posed arising it will be dealt with at that time.
(Limerick East): Is the Minister aware that in a recent Labour Court directive CIE were instructed to treat all their employees equally in regard to the issuing of redundancy notices? Is he aware also that what was unlikely to arise for the salaried staff prior to the issue of this directive is now very likely and that during a recent industrial dispute notices of lay-offs were prepared for the salaried staff. Therefore, they no longer have the protection which the Minister in his reply suggests they have? On foot of the information I am giving him now, would he investigate the situation further?
(Mayo West): This matter was taken up by the Minister for Labour in the last Government and by way of reply on 11 February 1982 he pointed out to CIE that he had informed the association that in the event of the salaried staff being laid off the equivalent of social welfare benefits would be paid.
(Limerick East): Did the Minister say that the former Minister gave that reply on 11 February?
(Mayo West): Yes. The Minister, by way of reply on 11 February 1982, pointed out that CIE in their letter of 4 January 1982 had informed the association that in the event of salaried staff being laid off the equivalent of social welfare benefits would be paid.