Vol. 567 No. 1
82 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the minimum evidence required by a person who is seeking unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit to prove that they are seeking and are available for work. [13606/03]
Social welfare legislation provides that in order to be entitled to unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance a person must prove, inter alia, that he or she is available for and genuinely seeking work. Unemployment benefit and assistance claimants are expected to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to secure suitable full-time employment and to provide examples of such steps. A person who fails to satisfy the deciding officer that he or she is available for full-time employment and genuinely seeking work is not entitled to an unemployment payment. In applying the legislation, deciding officers have regard to local conditions including job vacancies in the locality and the extent to which a claimant has sought to take advantage of available labour market opportunities.
The steps which people might be expected to take to seek employment will vary with the circumstances but could include, for example, making oral or written applications for work to employers or persons who have advertised job offers on behalf of an employer; seeking information on the availability of employment from employers, advertisements, employment agencies and people who have placed advertisements indicating that employment is available; availing of reasonable training opportunities suitable in his or her case; and acting on the advice given by a jobs facilitator, a FÁS adviser or other placement agency such as the local employment service.
It would not be possible or indeed desirable to specify a set of requirements which would guarantee qualification for benefit in all cases. The present system is based on the exercise of judgment by the deciding officer or, as appropriate, the appeals officer, as to whether a claimant meets the conditions of entitlement. The Department has a programme of training for deciding officers on the carrying out of their responsibilities and on the application of the legislation. Each case is decided on its own merits within the framework of the relevant social welfare legislation.
A person who fails to satisfy the deciding officer that he or she is available for full-time employment and genuinely seeking work is not entitled to an unemployment payment. I am satisfied that the requirement to be available for full-time employment and to be genuinely seeking work is operated in a reasonable manner so as to ensure that those who are genuinely seeking employment qualify for payment and those who are not, do not.
Under social welfare legislation decisions in relation to individual cases are made by statutorily appointed deciding officers and appeals officers. Where a person is dissatisfied with a decision made by a deciding officer to refuse him or her an unemployment payment, the decision may be appealed to the social welfare appeals office.
There appears to be some confusion between the Minister and her Department about the regulations because when people bring evidence in the form of letters to social welfare officers indicating that they have been actively seeking work they are told by the Minister's officers that they are not looking for work. If somebody produces three, four or five letters to the social welfare officer, how can that officer say that person is not actively looking for work? The Minister is falsifying the unemployment figures because when people bring evidence to social welfare officers which is not accepted by them, they then have to get money from the health board. All that is happening is that they are being paid by one State agency instead of another.
What does the Minister intend to do about those people who bring evidence to the social welfare officers but who are told by them that the evidence is not acceptable? Somebody will take the Minister and her Department to court on the basis that the genuine evidence they produced was not accepted. Some officers are telling these people that seeking work 20, 25 or 30 miles away is acceptable despite the fact that some of them do not have transport.
I refute the Deputy's comment about falsifying the figures. It is not true and is unwarranted.
It is the truth.
I am sure the Deputy is much more responsible than that. The Deputy has brought to my attention, through parliamentary questions, concerns regarding his own constituency and I assume those concerns are reflected in the priority question before me. Guidelines, which are fair and reasonable, are available to the deciding officers and they take into consideration some local issues, particularly those in employment black spots. As I indicated, we have an employment support service, where job facilitators and FÁS advisers are available, in addition to the local employment service, to facilitate people in seeking full-time employment.
The days of people running to employers to request letters because a social welfare investigative officer was asking a few hard questions are gone. People have to make a substantial effort in applying for jobs advertised, for example, in the newspapers or by the FÁS service. It is also important that they are registered with FÁS to ensure they are kept informed. On making an application for social welfare allowance, applicants are given a booklet in which the Department outlines the regulations concerning availability for work and the way in which one goes about making an application.
As the Deputy knows, a person may be entitled to social welfare allowance while his or her application for social welfare allowance is being considered. However, the same eligibility criteria will apply during the interim period. As such, there is a continuum with regard to eligibility criteria.
While I appreciate there are difficulties in obtaining employment in some parts of the Deputy's constituency, these are taken into consideration. If people have a personal issue, they are free to take their case to an appeals officer. Reason must prevail on both sides. If the Deputy finds rulings in particular cases unwarranted or excessively harsh, he should bring them to my attention and I will deal with them accordingly.
The question is concluded.
I would like to ask a supplementary question.
We have gone over six minutes.
I understood Members had an opportunity to ask one supplementary question.
That is correct and you have already asked a supplementary question. As the Chair has often pointed out, if Deputies were—
I was about to ask the Minister how many people are awaiting decisions on appeal.
I will answer the Deputy's question in due course.
