Having listened to the Minister some time ago, when in response to a suggestion of ours he pointed out the enormous cost, it appears he has become afflicted by a very heavy dose of fiscal rectitude. The Minister for Finance appears to have passed it on to him, he appears to have been a receptive subject, his antibodies are not resisting the disease.
The point the Minister made about representations of elected Members here and elsewhere unfortunately reflects the breakdown in the system, how it has failed to answer effectively and with any degree of speed whether a person is eligible for whatever social welfare payment they are claiming. As I said on Second Stage, to a large extent the system has broken down. As a consequence many applicants must wait interminable periods of time to have established whether or not they are eligible for the benefits for which they apply. While many are indeed eligible, they must still await many weeks for, say, disability benefit, unemployment benefit or old age pension payments; and many are not aware that in the interim they could claim supplementary welfare allowance, that is if they are eligible and have no other income. Therefore many, while awaiting the processing of their claims, bite into whatever meagre saving they have.
It should be advantageous for such people to be more clearly informed that while awaiting the processing of their claims, they could claim supplementary welfare. This matter has necessitated people approaching politicians of all shades. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that the backbenchers on his side of the House write to him as much as do Members on this side of the House, that it is not one-way traffic. All one need do is note the number of questions for written reply to the Department of Social Welfare on any one day.
I have endeavoured very often to have problems resolved through the straightforward political channels, making telephone calls to the relevant Departments. I have never bothered the Minister very much by letter, because when I wrote to him he never replied — obviously he did not think too highly of my representations. Since then I have elicited information by way of telephone call or direct contact with the Department involved, particularly in regard to disability benefits. Despite such representations applicants' claims were not being processed and they were experiencing interminable delays.
How often were payments not made because the Department thought that Johnny So-and-So or Mary So-and-So had an inadequate number of contributions? But when Deputies have had enough of that and submit questions for written reply, suddenly payments are made much more rapidly, suddenly the Department are able to establish that Johnny So-and-So or Mary So-and-So satisfied their requirements. I make that point because I should like to eliminate the task of submitting unnecessary questions for written reply and I know many of my colleagues feel similarly. That is an area the Minister and his Department might examine.
The Minister stated earlier that there were 3,500 people working in the Department of Social Welfare. That was mentioned in regard to some comments of Members regarding the investigating of entitlements which were means tested, the implication being that there was some degree of harassment taking place in some cases. In general the Minister did not agree with that view and said that many such investigating officers lived locally, the implication being that they would not harass their neighbours. I am not suggesting that this happens on a large scale or that many personnel of the Minister's Department are involved in an unusual style of investigation or that many of them are excessively aggressive. But there is a very small minority of investigating officers who are excessively aggressive, who do ask extremely personal questions of applicants.
I know the Minister has said that Irish people have a remarkable propensity for not disclosing information relating to their means. Perhaps that is so; I will not dispute that fact with him. Traditionally we have rebelled against intrusion into our privacy in whatever area that may take place, whether it be in an endeavour to ascertain how much money we have or whatever else. I accept that the Department must have reasonable details of one's means. But some questions being asked of simple, ordinary and in many cases old people with regard to their lifestyle and habits — how many bottles of whiskey they drink a week, how any pints of beer they drink a week, whether they go to the races, how often they buy new suits — are being posed by a small percentage of investigating officers. That style of interrogation should be terminated.
There was reference to the prescribed relative allowance by a number of Deputies. I agree with those who said that such allowance should be withdrawn very slowly. There are figures available to us, from the reply to a question I asked last week, showing that the number of prescribed relative allowances being paid now are just 2,500 as against 2,850 in 1981. A number of these have been withdrawn.
As many Deputies said, this is an important payment. It is saving the State money because many of these unfortunate people would otherwise have to be hospitalised at the expense of the State. The Minister and the Department should proceed very carefully in withdrawing that allowance from anyone. I agree with Deputy O'Sullivan in regard to whom that payment is made. He rightly said it is made payable to the pensioner rather than to the person providing the care, and very often the person providing care does not get any payment. Perhaps there is a good reason for this and, if so, I should be pleased to hear it.
With regard to means testing for old age pensions, the Minister endeavoured to reassure us, as he did in his Second Stage speech, that people claiming the non-contributory old age pension could have considerable means before they are deemed ineligible. I accept his figures. But, unfortunately, many old people, especially those on the western seaboard, are still hiding their money in roofs, under the thatch, under beds and carpets, in boots and wellingtons, because they are not aware of their entitlements. It would be of great benefit, and would perhaps save serious injury or even loss of life, if the Department would issue a circular telling people what the Minister has told us. He should reassure them in that regard and I am sure they would then invest their money in safer places like the banks, although I wonder whether I should say that at present. What is a safe investment for money nowadays?
I am also worried about disability benefits. I know that the Minister's Department have acquired more medical referees. There are now 18 referees as against 15 in March 1981, although three extra will not set the country on fire. It is important that the Department should have sufficient referees. I concede that examinations by medical referees are important, because in many cases a family doctor may find himself in a difficult position in regard to a patient or family he has known for many years. It is often hard to get them off national health certificates and in such cases it is important that there should be an assessment by an independent medical referee.
In answer to a query, I was informed that 26 per cent of those examined in 1984 were deemed to be capable of work as against 21 per cent in 1981 or, in numerical terms, 8,446 people were deemed capable of work in 1981 as against 13,372 people in 1984. That is a considerable rise and I am worried about some decisions taken by medical referees in recent times. I am not suggesting that there is a deliberate attempt by his Department to ensure that people are taken off disability benefits. It is a difficult area because there is often a conflict of medical opinion and evidence. However, I know of cases in which appaling decisions have been made by medical referees. People have had major operations, substantiated by consultant medical opinion and confirmed by the patients' own doctors, and yet medical referees have seen fit to deem these people capable of work.
When that happens they are in a very difficult position. I know of a case concerning a man working in a factory who had an operation on his spinal cord. His personal doctor was also attached to the factory and he wrote national health certificates for him on a weekly basis certifying that he was eligible for disability benefit. At the same time he provided certificates to the factory stating that his patient was unfit for work. One of the Department's medical referees decided that this gentleman was fit for work and he was then in the unfortunate position of having his disability pension cut off. His own doctor decided, because he had been informed by the Department that he was capable of work, that he would not write any more certificates to the Department, although he still provided them for the factory, stating that he was unfit for work. This unfortunate man was not eligible for disability benefit because the medical referee had cut him off, his own doctor would not allow him to work in the factory because he was unfit for work because of illness and, therefore, he was also ineligible for unemployment benefit or assistance. He was in a social welfare cul-de-sac. These anomalies should be corrected. If there is substantive, consultant medical opinion on a case it should be generally accepted.
I tried to elicit information from the Department about how long appeals take. The Minister was not able to furnish me with that information but we know that a considerable length of time elapses before an appeal is determined. It has been suggested that much of the delay has been due to the absence, for reasons of illness, of some appeals officers. If that is the case I suggest that additional staff be employed so as to expedite these cases because it is not fair that people have to wait indefinitely before being informed whether their appeals are being upheld.
