Vol. 348 No. 4
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if instructions have been issued to social welfare officers in County Louth to discontinue the payment of unemployment assistance to the many who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed at this time; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
7.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the number of young people being disqualified from social welfare benefits in the Dundalk area on the grounds that they are not available for work; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together. Instructions have not been issued to discontinue payments of unemployment assistance in any area. All applicants for unemployment assistance who fulfil the statutory conditions for receipt of assistance are paid and payment is not discontinued unless the statutory conditions cease to be fulfulled.
One of the conditions for receipt of unemployment assistance is that the applicant be available for and genuinely seeking work and applicants are interviewed periodically for the purpose of ascertaining whether this condition continues to be fulfilled. I understand that a small number of applicants in the area referred to in the questions have had their claims disallowed on the grounds that they do not fulfil this condition. Many cases of this kind arise from time to time and the experience in this particular area is not significantly different from the experience in other areas of the country.
Any applicant whose claim has been disallowed has the right of appeal against the decision of the deciding officer in his case.
Is the Minister aware that were it not for the operation of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme many families in the area mentioned, and particularly in Dundalk, would be destitute and would not be able to provide for themselves and their families? In his reply the Minister stated that people could appeal against their disqualification. Will the Minister say what are people to do in the interim while they are awaiting a decision on an appeal?
These two questions are very important. They give us an opportunity to nail the lie that all a person has to do is go to a labour exchange, sign on and just draw what some people describe as so called "easy money". That is not so, it never was and never will be. Social welfare officers continue to ensure that all the statutory conditions are complied with fully. In doing that it is natural that people who have been out of work for a considerable time will feel aggrieved and sore and I can understand their feelings. However, let us at least keep the social welfare code above the kind of criticism which is all too widespread at the moment; I am sure Deputies have heard this criticism as I have heard it. It proves the point that people do not get unemployment benefit simply at the drop of a hat. Everyone claiming unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance has to comply with the statutory conditions, and inquiries are made from time to time from the people concerned in all areas. Some people do not have the answers. During January a total of 86 recipients of unemployment assistance were interviewed at Dundalk Employment Exchange regarding the efforts they had made to obtain employment. Those interviewed were generally aged under 45 years and they had been on unemployment assistance for a number of years. As a result of the interviews 17 of the people interviewed were disallowed for six weeks on the grounds that they were not genuinely seeking work. The circumstances of the cases varied but in all cases there was no evidence that the persons involved who had been receiving assistance for a number of years were making efforts to obtain employment or were interested in doing so. Fourteen of the cases have been appealed. I know it can be argued in these times that they cannot get work but it should be pointed out there were only 17 cases involved out of a total of 86 who were interviewed at Dundalk. To keep the problem in proportion, at the Dundalk exchange the number receiving unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance was 3,035 on 3 February 1984. Eighty-six people were interviewed and Deputies can work out the percentage here. Those who have appealed have recourse to the supplementary welfare allowance and if they win their appeal they will get arrears of assistance. I am merely putting the matter in perspective and stating the position.
I am calling Deputy McGahon.
I was allowed only one supplementary question. This is a very important matter.
Deputy McGahon also has a question on the matter.
He will have an opportunity to ask questions. I will not dominate——
We will take time on it. The Deputy should not get so excited.
Is the Minister aware of the full extent of unemployment in Dundalk and the fact that it has the largest number of unemployed in the country? There are no jobs available——
Will the Deputy please put his question?
I am coming to it. There are no jobs available in Dundalk. It is cold comfort to the 17 people concerned to be told that only a small proportion of people have been disqualified.
The Deputy must ask a question.
I am coming to it.
The Deputy is taking a long time about it.
I have tried to get work for many of these people but I have not been successful. Will the Minister not accept that more investigation is necessary before young people are disallowed payment for six weeks?
The circumstances of the 17 cases involved were all examined. According to the information I have, no evidence was produced to show they were making efforts to obtain employment or were interested in doing so. In my opinion it should be very easy in Dundalk and anywhere else for recipients to produce the necessary evidence. There is far too much criticism, generally from better off people, that others have the option to work. Questions come in to the Department asking what is being done about it. These questions highlight the fact that claims for benefit and assistance are 99 per cent genuine. Fourteen of the 17 referred to here have appealed and they will get full oral hearings. I hope they will have the evidence which obviously they did not produce earlier when asked to do so.
In this case 17 were disqualified. Does the Minister know that about half of them had families to support and that if it were not for supplementary welfare allowances they would have been destitute? Is he satisfied with the co-ordination, or lack of it, that exists between local employment exchanges and health board offices so as to ensure that such families will not be left without the wherewithal to provide for themselves pending appeals?
If the Deputy has any evidence that there is a breakdown in liaison between the exchanges and the health boards in relation to supplementary welfare allowances he should bring it to the health board and draw their attention to it. Supplementary welfare allowances are payable to people who are not receiving benefits or assistance.
Can the Minister indicate what type of fresh evidence those people could produce? Does he not accept that there should be an onus on the employment exchanges to provide for or offer work to young people?
Under the social welfare code, the statutory conditions lay down that an obligation is on the claimant. These claimants should have been registered with the NMS. The persons interviewed in Dundalk did not refuse to register with the NMS but they were not able to give satisfactory evidence of any sustained effort to find employment. Answers were given, such as that they had called at a building site last week or to a factory last year. In some cases, letters of efforts to find work were dated on the day of the interview. The deciding officer was satisfied that no efforts to get employment had been made in these cases. They have submitted appeals and I hope they will be able to produce evidence. I am not trying to minimise the effects of such decisions on individual families but this involves 17 cases out of 3,000. As I have said, the onus is on the claimant to fulfil the statutory condition that he or she made every effort to find work.
I want to ask one constructive supplementary.
I would be guilty of a dereliction of duty if I allowed another supplementary. Would the Minister answer Question No. 8?
