Question No. 6 is for written reply.

7.

andMr. Keaveney asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether it is the policy of his Department to disallow payment of unemployment benefit to married women with young children on the grounds that they are not available for work because in his Department's view these women must stay home and care for the children.

My Department as such do not have any policy in relation to claims for unemployment benefit from married women with young children. All claims for benefit, including those for unemployment benefit from married women with young children, are decided by statutorily appointed deciding officers. Each claim is decided in the light of the relevant statutory conditions and of the particular facts and circumstances pertaining to it. In considering a claim for unemployment benefit a deciding officer is obliged to determine, on the evidence available to him, whether a claimant is "available for employment" which is one of the statutory conditions applying to that benefit. A person who is dissatisfied with the decision of a deciding officer has the right of appeal to an appeals officer. Both deciding officers and appeals officers are statutorily appointed and are independent in the exercise of their statutory functions.

Is the Minister aware that there is quite a spate of this analysis of claims not only of married women but of others? This question concerns married women. Is he aware that there is this undue incidence of married women being refused or cut off from unemployment benefit? Is he further aware that in the investigations surrounding these cases it has been highlighted by questions by the investigating officer? Is he aware that their insistence that the children could not be properly looked after regardless of what arrangements might have been made seems to have been the kernel of the case against such people who have ultimately been refused by the appeals officer and by the deciding officer?

The Deputy will appreciate that I have no function in this matter. I cannot interfere. There is no direction or policy in this matter. The deciding officers and the appeals officers are appointed and they have complete autonomy as to whether or not a person should be allowed benefit. They have to take into consideration the availability of employment, and there is also the other qualification, that of seeking employment. As has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary before, a Minister has no function in this.

While it is accepted that in the strict confines of this proposal a Minister would not have any function, might I ask the Minister whether he would inquire into this general situation which I know to exist in my own constituency? Undoubtedly, the effect is that married women with children are not getting unemployment benefit, and it seems to be on the basis that their children require their care and that they are not available for work, whereas this is not so in many cases that I am aware of.

This is not so; a substantial number of married women are allowed.

I am talking about the ones who are not.

If they are not allowed, it is on the basis of their not being available.

They are available.

Neither the Deputy nor I could decide that.

Of course, we can. We have women looking for work. I know the local circumstances. I know they need the work.

All these things are taken into consideration by the deciding officer and the appeals officer. He must make an assessment of the facts and make his decision accordingly.

Question No. 8, please. One final question.

Would the Minister look into this to his own satisfaction?

We have already had that question.

Would the Minister have a look into this and find out whether married women in particular seem to be singled out on this basis of non-availability for work, when they are seeking work, and they will not get the benefit of the stamps to which they are entitled?

We cannot debate this today. Order.

That has been inquired into before and my latest information is that about 50 per cent of married women have been allowed by the deciding officer or the appeals officer.

Deputy Molloy, please.

It seems from the Minister's reply that he is not aware that serious discrimination is being carried out by officials of his Department in regard to married women.

Officials should not be blamed. The Minister is responsible.

The Minister said five minutes ago that he was not responsible.

The Minister is responsible for the affairs of his Department.

For the sake of debate, will the Minister agree that he is discriminating against married women who make application for unemployment benefit?

I am not.

Is the Minister aware that there are women who have worked for, say, 11 years and had social welfare contributions credited to them? I know of one such case where a woman had five children and was only unemployed for six weeks at each birth but who has now been made redundant but when she went to draw social welfare benefit she was refused because they said she was a married woman with five children.

I heard somebody over there say it was a disgrace.

It is a disgrace. It is a scandal.

Order.

The Minister is defending it.

It is a scandal which was perpetrated by the Deputy's party for a long number of years.

Question No. 8.

This case did not exist until recent weeks.

Next question.

It is sad that the Minister for Social Welfare is displaying such a lack of interest in this serious discrimination against married women.

Order. I have called the next question. Order.

Was it a scandal when Fianna Fáil were doing it?

The case did not exist then.

Order, order. The Chair will be obeyed by both sides of the House.

Next question. No. 8, please.