Vol. 558 No. 5
69 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of unemployment assistance applications pending as at 31 October 2002, that were pending more than one week ago, more than four weeks ago and more than eight weeks ago; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24713/02]
In the week ending 25 October 2002 there was a total of 8,339 unemployment assistance claims awaiting a decision. The numbers were broken down as follows: pending for less than one week, 1,947; pending between one and four weeks, 3,752; pending between four and eight weeks, 1,702; and pending more than eight weeks, 938.
All customers applying for an unemployment payment, including unemployment assistance, are required to establish their identity and proof of residence. Delays may occur while customers obtain the necessary documentation to satisfy these requirements. When a customer makes a claim for unemployment assistance he or she must also satisfy a number of conditions. He or she must be available for work and genuinely seeking work. Providing the required evidence in order to establish compliance with these conditions may lead to a delay in making a decision.
In determining eligibility for unemployment assistance customers must also satisfy a means test. This may involve a home visit from an inspector of my Department. Depending on the complexity of the case, it may take some time to complete the means assessment, particularly if the customer is required to produce financial statements from banks and similar institutions or documentation in respect of other members of the household. From time to time some customers are not available for interview when the inspector calls. This, inevitably, leads to further delay while a new appointment is made to see the customer.
I assure the Deputy I am conscious of the need to provide as efficient a service as possible to people claiming unemployment assistance and other services from my Department. It takes on average four weeks to process an unemployment assistance claim and my Department is taking steps to minimise the level of avoidable delay in these cases. Performance targets have been set for all the Department's main schemes and these are monitored and reported on regularly. I am confident an improved level of claim turnaround can be achieved and my Department is working to achieve this.
I welcome the last part of the reply. I suggest, however, a less benign interpretation of the figures. With due respect for the Minister, for whom I have the greatest—
A question, Deputy.
I came here to ask questions and I am putting them through a suggestion. Once I make a suggestion, it is up to the Minister to reply. I suggest a less benign interpretation of the figures, namely, that in order to massage the unemployment figures, the time taken to deal with unemployment assistance claims is being extended. The figures speak for themselves. Almost 80% have been pending for two weeks or more. I suggest it does not take more than two to three weeks to deal with a simple unemployment assistance claim. Is this because the Government wants to make the unemployment figures appear better than they are? Is the Minister aware that most of the claims in question must be dealt with by the community welfare officer in the interim?
I repudiate the Deputy's claim. It is totally inappropriate to suggest we are massaging the unemployment figures as a consequence of delays in decision making with regard to eligibility. This is untrue. My job and duty is to ensure people who are in need of a payment get it. This is the reason we have social welfare allowances to facilitate people in the interim. The average turnaround is four weeks. I have monitored and will continue to monitor the turnaround in respect of all the schemes in the Department. As the Deputy will be aware, the live register figures are available at the end of every month and are reflected in the claims made and those paid. In the interim, while people are awaiting processing of their claims, they are eligible for the social welfare allowance. No-one will find himself or herself in financial difficulty as a consequence of the processing of his or her claim.
Are the claims being processed included in the live register figures? Does the Minister believe it is right that people attending the labour exchange in possession of three letters are being asked to get a further three letters? Is it reasonable that persons living 40 miles away from the nearest town are being told they must go to that town to get a letter? It is not reasonable. How will the Minister address the problem of wasting people's time by sending them around the country in search of letters to keep them off the live register? Is it fair to upset people who are making every effort to get employment and producing the evidence they are asked to supply only to be told they must get further evidence? I envisage a court case being taken against the Department along the lines of cases brought under equality legislation. Is it fair to treat people like this just because they are unemployed?
I do not agree with the Deputy. Everybody claiming unemployment assistance would express a preference for being in employment.
Will the Minister repeat that?
Most people in this country would like to work.
Yes.
Therefore, when someone applies for unemployment assistance, there are certain regulations.
The problem lies in their interpretation.
People must make a reasonable effort to find employment. I have stated previously that there is flexibility in the scheme which allows the deciding officer to use different criteria depending on the constituency. If one lives in Belmullet, for example, it is perhaps more difficult to get a job than if one lives in Castlebar. This is the reason there is flexibility in the decision-making process.
We move on to question No. 70.
The Deputy must also appreciate that a reasonable effort must be made in order to—
The chair has called question No. 70.
Many people live in areas where there are no jobs.
