Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Dec 2000

Vol. 528 No. 1

Adjournment Debate. - Social Welfare Benefits.

I am sorry the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is not in the House as he is engaged elsewhere. The Minister is not normally conspicuous by his attendance on the Adjournment debate, but that is no reflection on the Minister of State who is taking his place and who is a regular in the House for this debate. Many Ministers do not seem to think it worth their while to reply to Adjournment debate matters pertinent to their Departments.

I raise this case as I see it as a dangerous precedent. The case involves a young woman who has a baby and who was investigated by the Department, as it is entitled to do, in respect of her one-parent family allowance. Like other Members, I would not condone any attempt to obtain a payment under false pretences. When investigated, this woman admitted that a boyfriend occasionally stayed with her but that was as far as it went. However, subsequently all the services were alerted, including the rent support system she receives from the health board. That was terminated. She received a natural justice type letter indicating she was about to be more fully investigated. An allegation was made that there was proof of her cohabiting on the basis of information submitted to the local authority by way of a housing application. No such evidence could be construed as being in any way conclusive. Any couple with two addresses are entitled to make such a joint submission to the local authority in good order and completely above board, which was the case in this instance. She and her partner made an application to the local authority because she thought she was likely to be favourably considered under that heading.

One of the issues that emerged in the course of this investigation, submitted to me as proof of her alleged guilt, was that the alleged boyfriend was living at the house, as could be concluded from a court case, but the reverse is the case. Because of the court proceedings there was no possible way she could have been cohabiting.

I accept fully the Department's right to investigate each case and the Minister is entitled to approve that. While people may tend to cut corners in the current circumstances of the Celtic tiger, this happened under the Minister's Administration and during his watch. It represents a serious erosion of the civil rights and liberties of a citizen of this State. Any attempt to use evidence in the way it was attempted to use it in this case is unacceptable. Notwithstanding that the Minister may say he does not have responsibility for such matters, this happened under his Administration and during his watch. He has ultimate responsibility. If he wishes to proceed in that fashion, there will be other cases. I have seen evidence of them, whereby it will be deemed to be expedient to proceed in a fashion that does not have due regard to civil rights of the person concerned. In a country such as this that witnessed so much deprivation and poverty down the years, we should know better. The fact we have had a few years of economic boom does not give us the right to set aside basic liberties that have long since been established.

Because of the Department's intrusion in this fashion and it appearing to present conclusive evidence that does not exist, this person who is the mother of a child has substantial arrears of rent, which normally she would receive by way of rent assistance from the health board. It is coming up to Christmas, which is supposed to be the time of giving, cheer, charity, compassion and thinking about one's neighbours, but this neighbour will not be thought about in that way. If the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs wants to become the Scrooge of Christmas time, so be it. It is within the Minister's power to examine this case to determine whether due process has been honoured.

As the Deputy is no doubt aware, the determination of entitlement under the statutory one parent family payment scheme or entitlement under any other statutory social welfare scheme is not a function of the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. The position has not changed since Deputy Durkan was a Minister of State in that Department. Under the relevant legislation, these are matters for deciding officers and, in the event of an appeal, for appeals officers appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Social Welfare Acts.

There is an obligation on all claimants of one parent family payment to satisfy, and continue to satisfy, the conditions for entitlement to the payment. In the case of unmarried one family parent claimants, the conditions are that a claimant must have the main care and charge of at least one child, must not be cohabiting, must not have gross earnings in excess of £230.76 per week, must satisfy a means test and must make efforts to seek maintenance from the other parent of the child.

The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs has a duty to ensure that social welfare payments are made to those claimants who are entitled to them. Likewise, there is an onus on recipients to inform the Department of any changes in their circumstances that would affect their entitlement to a social welfare payment. There is a policy in my Department of carrying out routine reviews of claims in payment to ensure that entitlement to a payment continues to exist. I am sure the Deputy will agree that this is a reasonable approach for the Department to take.

The position in the case in question is that the person concerned made an application for one parent family payment on 3 July 1997. She was interviewed by a local officer of the Department. Following a deciding officer's decision, she was awarded maximum rate one parent family payment with effect from the date of her child's birth. The person concerned is still in receipt of one parent family payment at the rate of £92.70 per week, consisting of a maximum personal rate of £77.50 and an allowance of £15.20 in respect of one qualified child dependant. Her payment has not been stopped or suspended.

During a routine review of her one family parent payment in October last, the person concerned informed a local officer of the Department that she had applied for housing to Kildare County Council jointly with the putative father of her child. This officer also collected other information which supported the suggestion that she and another person were living together as man and wife. As the Deputy is aware, cohabitation as man and wife would automatically disqualify her for one parent family payment under the conditions applicable to the scheme.

The person concerned also received rent supplement up to the end of September last. The supplement was suspended from that time by the health board as it had evidence of cohabitation and concluded that she might no longer qualify for the supplement on means grounds.

The continuing entitlement of the person concerned to one parent family payment is being examined in light of the evidence indicating cohabitation. The matter will be determined by a statutorily appointed deciding officer in light of all the facts and of any evidence she submits in support of her case.

The question of clarifying the information available to the Department on the cohabitation issue is now a matter for the person concerned. In accordance with natural justice procedures, the Department wrote to her on 27 November last setting out the evidence available and affording her the opportunity to comment on the matter. She has not replied to date. On receipt of a response from the person concerned or on the expiry of the 21 days allowed for reply, a decision will be made on her continued entitlement to one parent family payment and she will be notified of the outcome. Her one family parent payment will continue while this review process is being completed.

Top
Share