Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 27 Jan 1994

Vol. 437 No. 7

Adjournment Debate. - Social Welfare System.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this issue which relates to one of my constituents who abided by all the rules and regulations governing the social welfare system. I raise this matter to illustrate how sometimes it does not pay to abide by the rules and regulations and to be honest.

One of my constituents who was made redundant some years ago could easily have decided to go on the dole and take life easy, but instead he used the few pounds he received on redundancy to set up a business with a colleague. Unfortunately the recession caused the business to partially fold after a few years. His colleague agreed to hire him so as to prevent the business folding entirely. In order to put matters on a proper footing I advised him at the time — he agreed to this — to register for unemployment assistance and not to sign on and work at the same time, as some people do. He abided by the rules and regulations and did the right thing.

Everything was okay until an investigating officer decided to interview him. I appreciate that the investigating officer was fully in order in carrying out the interview — fraud needs to get detected — but I want to stress that the interview was carried out in a subjective way. I was not at all impressed with the report of the interview. In fairness to the person who carried out the interview, who is not present to defend himself or herself, I will not go into the details of this investigation. I stress that the person being interviewed was honest and straight-forward at all times. He signed off on the days he was working in accordance with the regulations and abided by all the rules. The only thanks he has received for his honesty has been the non-payment of any social welfare benefit since last July. In an effort to be of assistance somebody decided to consider whether he was eligible for unemployment benefit. Of course, under one of the "dirty dozen" measures which still applies in that area a person who does not suffer a substantial loss of income during the previous 13 weeks does not qualify for unemployment benefit. Following the due process, the powers that be decided that he did not suffer a substantial loss of income by working for two or three days and signing on for the other days.

Slowly but surely this man is being ground down and concerned in a very small area. People in such circumstances normally go into the black economy and draw dole full-time. I am not saying that this man will go into the black economy — he is very honest. I am asking the Minister to do something about this case and other possible cases. The people who defraud the system do not declare themselves. People who have a name and number are not the ones who cause the problems. I ask the Minister urgently to investigate this case with a view to ensuring that this man is fairly and honestly treated, in the same way as he treated the system.

I appreciate the points made by Deputy Durkan. The person concerned was fully employed up to January 1988 as a shareholder-director employee with a firm in Leixlip. On termination of his employment he applied for unemployment assistance and qualified for the maximum rate with no means assessed against him from 26 January 1988. Payment of unemployment assistance continued up to 5 July 1993 when, following a review, his claim was disallowed by a deciding officer on the grounds that he had failed to fully disclose his means.

The investigating officer involved, having fully examined the case and having interviewed the applicant on a number of occasions, was not satisfied that all means had been fully disclosed as required under the Social Welfare Acts. It was considered that he had some other source or sources of income.

The applicant was informed that he had the right of appeal against this decision and a form for this purpose was issued to him on 7 July 1993 but it was not returned. He has not yet formally lodged an appeal.

Following representations from the Deputy on the applicant's behalf the case was submitted to another investigating officer for review. This officer also concluded that the applicant's means were not fully disclosed.

Inquiries were also necessary to establish if the person concerned had an entitlement to unemployment benefit on foot of his pay related social insurance contributions from casual employment from 1988. The Department had great difficulty in determining from the applicant's employer details of his casual employment. That is according to the records of the investigating officer. The Deputy submitted a statement to the Department on the applicant's behalf in relation to the employment. A deciding officer determined that the applicant had an entitlement to unemployment benefit from 1 January 1991. As the applicant had been in receipt of unemployment assistance at the long term rate no additional payment was due to him. He was not entitled to unemployment benefit from January 1990 as there were insufficient contributions paid or credited in the 1988-89 contribution year.

He was deemed to have requalified for unemployment benefit with effect from 12 January 1993. It was then necessary to determine the extent of his casual employment. Accordingly, his employer was asked to specify the number of days worked by the applicant in the 13 week period prior to 12 January 1993. This was required in order to establish if the applicant had sustained a substantial loss of employment in accordance with social welfare legislation introduced in January 1993. It has been established that the applicant's normal level of insurable employment was two days per week. As he is currently working two to three days per week, he does not sustain a substantial loss of employment and, therefore, is not entitled to payment of unemployment benefit in respect of days of proven unemployment in any week that he is employed for two or more days.

The applicant was informed of this decision on 7 December and was also informed that if he was not satisfied with this decision he should lodge an appeal within 21 days. No appeal has been received to date.

In April 1991 social insurance cover was extended to all employees earning £25 or more. This extension of social insurance cover benefited a considerable number of workers in that for the first time they could qualify for a range of services including unemployment, disability and maternity benefit at graduated rates of payment. The substantial loss of employment provision was introduced in tandem with this extension of social insurance cover with effect from January 1993.

As indicated in this House this morning, provision of £1 million has been made in the budget to allow changes to be implemented in the rules governing entitlement to benefit, with particular reference to the substantive loss of employment provision. The precise way in which this will be done is under consideration and details will be announced in the context of the forthcoming Social Welfare Bill.

I stress again to the Deputy that his constituent is entitled to lodge an appeal and we would welcome such a move. The Deputy is invited to attend the appeal if he wishes with his constituent and the deciding officer will consider the case again but he must lodge an appeal. I ask Deputy Durkan to inform his constituent of the technical requirements in this instance.

He will be well informed. How long will the appeal take?

Barr
Roinn