Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Mar 1990

Vol. 397 No. 7

Social Welfare Bill, 1990: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Byrne

I was outlining my reservations on the one hand and my support on the other for the concept of the carer's allowance and the fact that it was restricted in the main to old age pensioners.

I was arguing that there is a huge range of people who will not qualify because the people for whom they are caring are not in the prescribed age bracket. There is also a problem with the definition of full-time care and attention. I argued, and I will not repeat it now, that there are deficiencies in regard to the means testing, which would exclude many people, and also in regard to the qualifications for full-time care and attention.

I want to move on to the third part of my reservation; I referred to this in my Second Stage contribution. Deputy Ferris mentioned the potential savings to the health boards as a result of the carer's allowance and I want to address that question and also the question of the Minister's thinking on the carers' allowance. Although we welcome the introduction of this allowance, there may be an attempt by the health boards in particular to cut back on the services that exist already, for example, the number of public health nurses and so on. We are dealing with people who are in need of full-time care and attention and there might be an attempt by the Department of Health to reduce the number of health board beds to which many of these recipients of care might be entitled. If it were not for the carers these people might be in nursing homes, either private or those run by health boards.

There are many people providing care on a voluntary basis, at tremendous personal cost. The burden seems to fall heavily on the shoulders of single daughters, whose marriage prospects are diminished as a result. They have to make sacrifices because of the pressures on them to stay at home and look after the ailing parent. As these people are now being given an allowance, the health boards might take the view that it is their obligation to look after the ageing member of the family, that they should get on with the job. The carer's allowance should not be seen as a substitute for a proper health service and should not result in a reduction in the number of public health nurses. The allowance of £45 is comparable to the bed subvention for people in nursing homes. That matter is being dealt with in the Health (Nursing Homes) Bill, which is going through the House at present.

I would like the Minister to give me a reassurance that he has not colluded with the Department of Health to cut back the funding to the health boards in the area of care of the elderly as a result of introducing this £45 allowance. There is no one more exploited in the country than the people who in many cases voluntarily sacrifice themselves to care for the elderly. There are other people who would never be prepared to make these sacrifices or do this work on a voluntary basis, notwithstanding the fact that the £45 allowance is available. I am concerned that those people who, for many reasons, whether through lack of time or lack of a sense of commitment, do not care for their aged relatives, may be pressured into taking on board a task which they would not normally have taken on. Pressure should not be put on them by the Department of Social Welfare or the Department of Health to take up this allowance but health board services have been so badly depleted that people will be faced with very little alternative. I would like assurance from the Minister that there is no collusion between the Department of Social Welfare and the health boards or the Department of Health to put undue pressure on these people.

Mr. McCormack

As many speakers have said, this section dealing with carer's allowance has received great publicity. The scheme appears to be very attractive and it would be wonderful if all carers — there are over 60,000 in this country — could qualify for it. The Minister praised the wonderful work of those carers, we would all recognise that but I hope false expectations have not been raised by various PR statements and reports in the press on the matter. Now is our chance to tease out a few of the problems that have arisen. I referred to this matter in my speech on Second Stage and I am still not satisfied that it has been fully clarified. Perhaps the Minister could clarify first the definition of full-time carers, which has been raised on a few occasions. The allowance has been increased from £28 to £45 and will probably replace the prescribed relative allowance which was availed of by about 2,000 people. It is expected that the carer's allowance will be paid to 8,000 people but that is only about one-eighth of the carers in the country. I hope the situation will not arise whereby genuine carers will not qualify either on the grounds of the full-time clause or on the means test.

Social welfare officials are conscientious people and they might use the full-time clause as a means of disqualifying people. As I said on Second Stage, a small farmer with five or six cows, 30 or 40 ewes and ten or 12 cattle could not be disqualified on the means test but technically he could be disqualified by a conscientious social welfare officer on the grounds that he is not a full-time carer because it might be interpreted that he has to look after his livestock as well as his aged relative. I hope that situation will not arise. We as public representatives know through our work in our constituencies how these cases can be interpreted by conscientious social welfare officers but I hope the Minister will clarify that matter. In other words, will people who may have to devote a small amount of their time to other duties be disqualified on the grounds that they are not full-time carers?

The second aspect on which I would like clarification is the means test. Section 17 (2) (b) states:

Where such weekly means exceed £2, at the scheduled rate reduced by £2 for each amount (if any) of £2 by which those weekly means exceed £2, any fraction of £2 in those weekly means being treated for this purpose as £2:

I think that is farcical. How do you arrive at a situation where you begin to take all means in excess of £2 into account in a means test? If income of £2 is taken as the base figure, is income in excess of this taken into account? If that is the case, then the very good step which the Minister has taken in increasing the carer's allowance from £28 to £45 will be lost, as the increase will be clawed back after the means test. The Minister acknowledged in his contribution the wonderful work that carers do in caring for people, and there are over 60,000 carers looking after people at home who would otherwise have to go into institutional care, whether to hospital or somewhere else. It could cost the State anything in the region of £350 to £500 per week to keep such a person in institutional care.

I had said on Second Stage that if carers were given an allowance up to £100 per week, this would not be too much, because of the good work they do; because of the saving to the Exchequer in caring for people at home and the fact that some carers have to leave gainful employment to act as full-time carers in the home. What I mean by a full-time carer is a person who is available at home at most times to care for the person. Some people might leave gainful employment if the carer's allowance were set at a more realistic level and this would leave a vacancy for somebody else.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but on Committee Stage it is not the practice to repeat a Second Stage debate.

Mr. McCormack

I accept your ruling, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. When the Minister is replying to Committee Stage debate, I will be very satisfied with the scheme if he can clarify what he means by full-time care and if he will also clarify how the means test will apply.

I am not satisified with the direction we are going with the means test. In the case where a husband has an income of £100, a wife is adjudged to have an income of half that, £50, so the wife would not be entitled to a carer's allowance. It is no good saying in the media that wives will now be entitled to the carer's allowance when in fact they will not qualify under the means test. Let us not be deceiving people that the scheme is something which it is not.

Mr. Ferris

Before the sitting was suspended I had asked the Minister a whole series of questions and perhaps the Minister's replies would be helpful to those who have since contributed. Perhaps the Minister would consider that he has been given power under a section in the Bill to interpret means testing liberally. The Minister might also consider using a similar facility as he used when dealing with the bean an tí in the Gaeltacht areas, which was a magnificent idea. It allowed the Minister to exclude a particular category and in the case of carers, the Minister might apply similar criteria; he has this mechanism available to him.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the questions of the means test for carers and the way to qualify as a carer.

Mr. Allen

I ask the Minister to set out in more detail where he plans to go from here. The announcement of a carer's allowance scheme raised a great many expectations among the public that people would qualify for the allowance. I despair because social welfare are dealing in a piecemeal, disjointed way with what is basically a health issue; and the Department of Health are involved in paying supplementary welfare allowance, which is really a matter for the Department of Social Welfare.

May I ask if the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Health, have an overall view of the direction of this very important section of health care? As I have said, it is a very restricted scheme. I hope the Minister can tell us at some stage if he has any plans to develop the other very important arm of home care, that is, home help, and whether he is having discussions with his colleague in relation to this issue. At present we are spending £700 million per annum on hospital services and if a small investment was made by either the Department of Health or the Department of Social Welfare in community care, we would get a massive return and a reduction of the amount of money we are spending on hospital care.

At present nearly 50 per cent of the health budget is going to hospital care and there are huge savings to be made in that area. This provision in the Bill is a feeble effort to deal with that problem. Does the Minister plan to introduce a more comprehensive scheme, because at present in my health board area we employ several hundred home helps at 75p per hour, which is slave labour and we expect them to give a service. If we are really serious about developing the whole area of home care, for which the Minister is responsible, with his colleague, the Minister for Health, we have to deal with the areas of overlap and the areas where no service is being provided at all. I must ask the Minister if there are plans to revamp the present scheme and if there are plans to incorporate it with the home help scheme. The home help scheme exploits the good nature of people. I will finish now, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Allen appreciates that on Committee Stage we are discussing what is in the section and it is not like a Second Stage debate, where we can discuss what should be in the section.

Mr. Allen

I tried to contribute on Second Stage but the debate was guillotined and I could not get in.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not justify the abuse of Committee Stage.

Mr. Allen

I was referring to the carer's scheme, which I think is very inadequate and confined. People have expectations that they will benefit from this new allowance, but in fact they will not. I am asking the Minister to get together with his colleague, the Minister for Health, and clear this whole muddy area once and for all. Many good natured and civic-minded people are being exploited and underpaid. A rate of 75p per hour in these days is a scandal. This murky area should be cleared up once and for all. If we can get our act together there will be a major return to the State in that there will be a great reduction in the £700 million that is being spent on hospitals. If we can keep people out of institutions the community, and the State, will benefit.

Mr. Carey

There is a lot of concern about the carer's allowance. That is more apparent in the west because there are more old folk there and many of them stay at home. I am critical of the section because of the way it is laid out. I have no doubt that the Department will issue pamphlets on the lines of the section and that they will list those who are entitled. I am sure they will contain a definition of a "relevant pensioner" and include the list of 12 people who qualify. I commend the Minister for introducing this scheme and he is entitled to any kudos that are going for introducing it. However, expectations have been raised because the Department have stated that many people will be entitled to the new allowance.

Last week I was informed that an allowance paid to a daughter looking after an old age pensioner was disallowed because her sister was living in the house. The first condition the Department attached to the free electricity scheme was that an applicant must be living alone. That is not right. The conditions of the scheme should be clearly set out in any literature produced by the Department following the passage of the Bill. The limitations of the scheme should be highlighted.

I should like to commend the Soroptimists, who are campaigning to get a holiday break for those in receipt of the carer's allowance. The Minister has an opportunity to make a provision for that in the Bill. The Soroptimists are a caring organisation and the Minister, who has the reputation of being a caring person, should help them in their objective. I am sure he will agree that carers need a holiday. Other spurious amendments have been accepted by the Minister and there is no reason he should not accept one that will provide for a ten day or 14 day break for those who must care for elderly and handicapped people in their own homes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Carey, as usual, has been expounding a very good cause but whether it was appropriate to raise it on this section níl fhios agam.

Dr. Woods

I do not have any objection to carers getting a holiday break. I accept that the Deputy is concerned about the difficulties carers have to deal with. I should like to tell the Deputy that the leaflets which will be issued following the passing of the Bill will be very clear. We take a lot of trouble to make our leaflets clear. Credit for that is due to the Department, and a little to myself for the idea. The Department produce the leaflets in a very professional way. The Deputy can be assured that while the legislation may be complicated the leaflets will be very clear.

I recognise the fact that once one uses the word "carer" in regard to an allowance people assume that everybody will be entitled to it. We are introducing the scheme in a controlled way and at a later stage we will see what can be done with it. I have been trying to keep expectations down but I accept that once the scheme was announced many people felt they were entitled to the allowance. Deputy Carey referred to the exclusion of a daughter because another person living in the house had an income. One of the benefits of the new scheme is that the other person will not affect a carer's entitlement.

Mr. Carey

I received a rejection yesterday.

Dr. Woods

If the Deputy will assist me to get the legislation through the House we will be able to deal with that case. It is unfortunate that it will not solve the problem the Deputy had yesterday.

Mr. Carey

I would like to receive a positive letter next week.

Dr. Woods

Deputy Allen suggested that this was a matter for the Department of Health. He suggested that the Department of Social Welfare were jumping into their area. The Deputy should bear in mind that most of the people who will be cared for are in receipt of invalidity pensions, old age pensions and so on.

The only area where it could be said that we are encroaching on the territory of the Department of Health would be in regard to the DPMAs and that is why I introduced an amendment, which was accepted by the House, to the effect that people in need of full-time attention and in receipt of the DPMA will be considered. We are considering moving the DPMA scheme to the Department of Social Welfare. The question of home help is a matter for the Minister for Health and I do not intend to get involved in a debate on that scheme today.

Deputies McCormack and Ferris asked about the means test. There is no difficulty about the definition of full-time care and attention. Basically, it means that the carer should not have any full-time outside occupation. I do not anticipate any difficulty in regard to that.

Mr. McCormack

I was referring to small farmers who were deemed not to be full time——

Dr. Woods

The Deputy mentioned the case of a small farmer who would be looking after a number of cattle. Deputy Flaherty mentioned the person who would be looking after chickens.

I will take note of the Deputies' views and consider the matter. If a wife is giving the care, I do not think there would be any difficulty under the new arrangements but there would be a difficulty under the old scheme. If the farmer is providing the care, regard will have to be had for the income from the farm.

Mr. McCormack

In many cases it is the wife who is the farmer.

Miss Flaherty

That is why I asked about the person who rears chickens. That might be considered to be part of the farm effort.

Dr. Woods

The sale of chickens will not affect an application unless one gets involved in a major chicken hatchery. I should now like to deal with means tests.

Deputy McCormack missed the point that the £6 disregard is still there, the £2 is the way in which it reduces, so they are two separate matters. In other words, you can go to £2 before it starts to reduce, otherwise it would start reducing at £1. It does not reduce until one gets to £2. All the allowances for the old age and non-contributory pensions are there, including the £6 disregard. I know it is difficult to understand all the details of the means test but if there are children there is an allowance for them. Deputy Ferris said he thought a figure of 8,000 recipients of this allowance might be optimistic. That figure will include people who get partial payments, that is, those who transfer from one payment to another; in other words, a person might give up a payment as a dependant and get a payment in his own right at a higher rate. I accept the figure which has been computed by my own officials. The best thing is to set up the scheme to allow for flexibility and proceed from there. I want to assure Deputy Byrne that all invalidity pensioners are included, it is not only old age pensioners.

Mr. Byrne

I see that.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy mentioned the figure of 66,000 people. The study of the aged showed that figure to be 50,000 of whom 25,000 were full-time carers giving full-time care and attention. When talking about doing something for full-time carers one is talking about 25,000 people, according to known figures, but that figure could be very much higher when we start working in that area. Deputy Byrne was also concerned that health boards may reduce the number of public health nurses and that there might be collusion. I am being attacked on the one hand for jumping in and taking something from the Department of Health and on the other hand for collusion.

Mr. Allen

I am suggesting the Minister get his act together.

Dr. Woods

I think I have my act together, in fact, we have a good scheme, an excellent scheme.

Mr. Allen

If we can work it.

Dr. Woods

It is a very major step forward.

Mr. Allen

Do not get carried away.

Dr. Woods

Let me put it on the record because I can come back next year, in ten years or in 20 years and the House will recognise that this was a very major development.

Mr. Allen

It is a start. Do not get carried away.

Dr. Woods

It did not happen before. Lots of people had great ideas but they did not put them into practice because they were not able to get over all the difficulties.

Mr. McCormack

It will depend on the goodwill of the social welfare officers.

Dr. Woods

In relation to the new allowance, the definitions are very clear. The new carer's allowance broadens very substantially the scope of the scheme. For the first time married women and persons who are not related to the pensioner will be able to qualify for the allowance. Furthermore, their entitlement will not be affected, as at present, if other persons are also residing with the pensioner; that gets back to the point I was making earlier. In addition, the rate of the allowance is being increased from £28 to £45.

The final point I want to make, which is relevant to most of the discussion, is that section 198L provides for the necessary regulatory powers to facilitate the introduction of the new allowance. These are the powers which Deputies would not let me have without coming back and going through the whole administrative process.

Mr. Ferris

I did.

Dr. Woods

Deputy Ferris and the Labour Party were prepared to trust me, and for that I thank them. It is also very practical because section 198L provides for the necessary regulatory powers to facilitate the introduction of the new allowance. In addition, I am conscious of the need to make special provision for certain exceptional categories of carers. Section 198L contains regulatory powers to entitle the new allowance persons who would otherwise qualify but for the fact that the conditions as to means are not satisfied. I have provided in this section for the very thing we are talking about here. I will have the facility to make judgments on these issues. That is the way I would normally work as the Minister. I listen to what is said by Deputies and when regulations are being made we try to bear those issues in mind and meet them as far as we can.

The categories of carers to whom these regulations will apply are under consideration at present but I would envisage, for example, that entitlement would be extended to persons of moderate means who are caring for old age pensioners. I will have to do that in a controlled way. For every step I take there is a cost element, but I have the power here——

Mr. Ferris

To exclude.

Dr. Woods

——to expand the means test and arrangements to meet the circumstances as we see them. That is why that power is so important to me and why I felt it was important that I have the power to act on it and lay regulations on the table which, if any Members of the House do not agree with, they can vote on them within 21 sitting days of the House. That is a very important provision. It gives the Minister the opportunity to keep these questions under review. All in all the section, as amended, is a good one.

Miss Flaherty

There are reforms in this section but one of the biggest problems was the way in which it was introduced and the presentation, which led to a totally unjustified expectation. The Minister in representing it as an increase from £28 to £45 continues to mislead people and to fuel that expectation because people will be disappointed when they make application. Out of the 8,000, how many does the Minister estimate will receive the full benefit without the loss of some other benefit? Is it not a fact that the largest category of people will be dependant wives whose benefits will actually increase by £10 or £15? If the Minister says that is what he is doing, it would be welcome but to present it as an increase is ridiculous. A proportion of those who currently qualify for the prescribed relative's allowance will benefit by the increase from £28 to £45, but the benefit will be limited by the means test. I ask the Minister again — he did not make any comment on my proposal in relation to the carer's benefit — if the issue in principle will be consistent with the general social welfare system and in line with disability benefit and unemployment benefit. Will he acknowledge that where people give up employment they would be entitled to this benefit? Does he have a view on that? Is it for purely cost reasons that he rejects it? Would he not accept the fundamental argument? Would he be open to considering an expansion in that direction in the future? Can he give me an estimate of how much will be given to the 8,000 he anticipates will receive the allowance? Obviously he has set aside some money for it this year, but I do not anticipate that he will use all of it this year. What scale of benefit does he anticipate that those 8,000 will receive?

Mr. Ferris

I gave the Minister an example of some of the categories of married women who would qualify. I identified the married spouse in a social welfare family who could qualify for the carer's allowance, but her husband would lose her dependant's allowance, and the number of children would have to be taken into account. Will she be allowed to claim for all the children in the means test exemption, or will it be as for other social welfare benefits that she can claim only for half the children as dependants? Is that how it will work?

Dr. Woods

Sadly, in conformity with the equal treatment legislation, which Deputies are very conscious of, that will be the position.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Flaherty, I certainly made it very clear in presenting the scheme initially that it would be very tightly controlled, particularly in the early stages, until it was set up, that we could see how it was operating and how the costings were working out. I have got agreement to go as far as I am going in this Bill, which we estimate will bring in about 8,000 people. This is an estimated figure and I cannot tell the Deputy exactly how many people will be involved. It is mainly the people who have no or low means or those on social welfare who will get the increase of £17 or half the rate. The basic criterion is that people cannot be in employment. We will have to wait and see what happens. It could transpire, even using this criterion, that there would be more than 8,000 people.

This will be very comprehensive legislation which will give us the power to deal with some of the variables mentioned by the Deputies. Obviously, there will be some financial consequences and I will have to bear these in mind when I am dealing with them. I will not be constrained in tackling them; I will be able to tackle them under the powers being given to me by the House. The Oireachtas will be giving me the power to go ahead along those lines and to measure the scheme as we go along. Certain basics are set out very clearly in the Bill and I will have the power to go further.

Miss Flaherty

Carer's benefit——

Dr. Woods

That is a totally different question and relates to establishing a scheme based on the payment of insurance. This would have to be considered in the context of a budget.

Mr. Ferris

Under paragraph 198L of section 17 the Minister is given the power to set the operational date. The Minister referred to 1 October or earlier if possible. At what stage will the Minister's Department be in a position to invite applications for this scheme so that they will be processed in time for applicants to benefit from the operational date? Will they be invited to make their applications a month in advance so that some of the problems we have identified can be teased out?

Dr. Woods

The approach I took in regard to the pre-retirement allowance was to invite people to apply as early as possible. Once the scheme is fully set up we can let people know about it and invite them to apply at that stage, setting out the possible date of introduction. I will certainly bear in mind what the Deputy has said in order to ensure that people are notified well in advance of the operational date.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 59 not moved.

Section 18 agreed to.

SECTION 19.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 61 is an alternative to amendment No. 60. Is it agreed to take amendments Nos. 60 and 61 together for the purposes of discussion? Agreed.

Miss Flaherty

I move amendment No. 60.

In page 16, lines 21 to 28, to delete paragragh (b) and substitute the following:

"(b) the insertion after subsection (4) of the following subsection:

‘(4A) Notwithstanding anything in regulations made under subsection (4) of this section, any person seeking to appeal a decision——

(a) shall be entitled to an oral hearing of that appeal, and

(b) shall be entitled to be represented and accompanied at that appeal by a relative, legal representative or welfare rights activist or any other individual nominated by the appellant.',".

Both Deputy Byrne and I are seeking the same thing in our amendments, that is, the right of a person to request an oral hearing. I am proposing an additional provision in my amendment.

Part V of the Bill deals with the setting up of a new appeals office. This is a response to the demand which has been made for some time by welfare rights organisations and groups for an independent and separately managed office with a separate executive. Some of us may have preferred the Minister to go a different road in the establishment of this office. The Minister has chosen to reorganise the appeals section of his Department and establish them in a separate office with different structures. The Minister will disconnect himself to a degree from this office by devolving a lot of power to the appeals officer but he has retained the power to make a decision in regard to an oral hearing. Obviously we are concerned about this. It is hard to set up a structure with adequate consumer representation or outside influence so that people believe it is genuinely the people's appeal system and not the Department's appeal system run by officials trained by the Department.

My amendment proposes that the entitlement to an oral hearing should exist for anyone and should not depend on the Minister being satisfied about certain conditions. Obviously there would be earlier stages in an appeal, and I hope most people would be satisfied with the response they get, but they should be entitled to an oral hearing of an appeal if they believe this is appropriate. This entitlement exists to some degree in the current legislation in that an appellant is entitled to be accompanied at an appeal by a family member or with the agreement of the appeals officer, some other person. I should like this provision to be extended so that it would be made known to all appellants that they are entitled to be represented and accompanied at an appeal by a relative, legal representative, welfare rights activist or any other individual nominated by the appellant.

I have attended appeals, as I am sure other Deputies have, and I regret to have to say that this can have a significant influence on the outcome of the appeal. The welfare rights groups who have been active in this area, in particular the Coolock Law Centre, have said that their presence at appeals has undoubtedly had a beneficial effect on the outcome for the appellants. People have very real problems with the appeals system because they do not understand it or know what kind of information is required. Obviously this could be dealt with by way of regulation and greater explanation of what is required.

It should be written into the Bill that people have an absolute right to an oral hearing of an appeal and to be represented legally. I should like the provisions of the free legal aid scheme — if we ever get it back on the road — to be extended to social welfare appeals by individuals and groups. Obviously the outcome of these appeals can make a huge difference to the standard of living of these people.

I hope the Minister accepts my amendment. I will be supporting Deputy Byrne's amendment. I presume the Deputy is implying that the response to all requests should be in the affirmative. His amendment could be clearer but I presume the intent of it is that an appeal should be granted if a request is made. I ask the Minister to consider these amendments favourably so that we can look at the substance of section 19, as amended.

Mr. Byrne

I am not happy with the wording of section 19 (b) which states:

Notwithstanding subsection (4), where the Minister or a person designated by him considers that the circumstances of a particular case warrant an oral hearing of the appeal, the Minister or any person so designated by him may direct the Chief Appeals Officer ...

We are not happy with that wording because this must be seen to be separate from and independent of the Minister if there is to be any degree of faith in the appeals system. At present there is a lot of scepticism about the appeals system; people feel they will not win because the Minister is up there watching.

Dr. Woods

That is the kind of thing the Deputy encourages people to believe. It is not really true.

Mr. Byrne

All I can do is relate to this House my understanding of people's views, and I represent a working class area with a lot of deprived people who are in receipt of social welfare.

Why is there a need for a reference to the Minister? Why does the Minister need the power to direct a person designated by him to direct the chief appeals officer? The chief appeals officer should be at the top of the tree. Like the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, we do not like the notion that the Minister can give permission to certain people to direct the appeals officer. They argue that there seems to be unnecessary political clientelism and see the Minister's role as being unnecessary. They argue that if the chief appeals officer's decision is reliable on the matter of people's income then it must be reliable on whether an oral hearing is to be allowed. Any person who wishes should be entitled to request an oral hearing. We feel it is unnecessary that the Minister or appointees of the Minister should be able to decide to direct the chief appeals officer.

Mr. Ferris

I have had the same representations made to me by the Dublin Welfare Group and the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed. I discussed with them this morning their concern about this and tried to reassure them on the basis of common justice, which seems to be a very popular phrase around here lately. I do not think anybody can be refused the right to have their case heard on appeal at an oral hearing if they so wish. Common justice demands that. Disability benefit is dealt with by doctors and if a person persists he will be granted an oral hearing, which will take place in front of an inspector who is not a medical person. This was discussed already. I presume this will continue. If not, then Deputy O'Flaherty's concern is justified; the words she wants to include are to ensure that people have that right. The Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed were worried about what looks like the Minister's right to call for an appeal, but the Minister is answerable to the House and I have the right to question him. If this right attaches to somebody outside of this House the Minister could say, if I questioned him in the House, that we gave this right to an outside agency over which he has no control. The Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed are concerned that prople might not be aware of their rights. It is our responsibility to tell people their rights and we will fight for their rights here on the basis of common justice, and the Minister is answerable to us. If that is not contained in the Bill then Deputy Flaherty is right to be concerned, and the words used by Deputy Byrne would not be strong enough because he is just looking for the right to make an application. Perhaps the Minister would respond and clarify the situation.

Miss Flaherty

I have noted that the deletion of paragraph (b) was part of my amendment. I thought it was separately listed. I will not go over the arguments made by Deputy Byrne. Given what Deputy Ferris has raised and what the Minister has said about protecting our interests——

Dr. Woods

The residual interest.

Miss Flaherty

It adds to the case for having this amendment. The idea is to get it away from us so that people will not have to come to us to ensure they get oral hearings.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Woods

Deputy Byrne should wait until he is around a while and then he will understand it all. A Deputy from over there was with me on a case in which he was very glad to have me. I am here as a public representative elected by the people and the Deputy is in the same situation.

Miss Flaherty

The Minister is appointing an appeals officer and delegating to the appeals office powers which were previously held by him. In subparagraph (b), which we seek to have deleted, he is rescinding the right to make decisions relating to an oral hearing. This Minister is, of course, a decent and honourable man who operates on behalf of us all so generously; he is a wonderful man at keeping lines of communication open and undoubtedly handles his Department exceptionally well. We might, however, have a change of face and a change of approach and we are leaving in a power which is unnecessary if we leave the entitlement directly to the individuals and not through their politicians and the good grace of a good Minister or a bad Minister or a good Deputy or a bad Deputy or through going to the local advice centre run by a Deputy. Why do we not just write it into the legislation, as I suggest here? That would remove the necessity for having to go to a Deputy and everybody would have an absolute right.

Dr. Woods

I will tell you in a minute.

Miss Flaherty

At the end of the day people go through a series of appeals; it is rarely limited, as the Deputy suggests. It is extremely helpful for people to have the system clear and simple. One of the difficulties is that people do not know exactly where they are and they find it a lot more difficult than we do to know what their rights are. The changes we are making are minimal in terms of the establishment of an independent appeals system. The preferred system would have been something like an ombudsman's office but I know that would involve enormous initial expense. It is important to have some elements which strengthen the rights of the individual.

Mr. Taylor

The question of the appeals procedure is of extreme importance. I am not satisfied that this section as it stands, even with the benefit of the amendment, is adequate to protect the needs of people who are knocked off benefit in the social welfare system. Unfortunately, large numbers of people have been knocked off benefit almost arbitrarily in recent times after very cursory medical examinations by the referees. There are many cases of people who have complicated illnesses and injuries and have been in-patients in hospitals, are on heavy drugs, are attending outpatients departments and require X-rays and detailed investigation of their conditions. Some GP acting as a medical referee knocks them off benefit after a ten-minute examination and they are thrown back on the appeals procedure. Everything is against them.

Under the new procedure there will be an independent official. This is certainly an improvement but it does not go far enough to meet the needs of justice. Very many of the people making appeals have to attend by themselves. They are often inarticulate and unable to get across the circumstances of their case. This obviously militates against them. To deal with this matter properly, the Minister and the Department should not only allow a relative or a legal representative to attend but should ensure that assistance is available for them. It is a waste of time to provide in the Bill for legal representation. It looks very nice that a person is allowed to bring along a legal representative. What person who has been in receipt of social welfare and has been knocked off will be able to afford legal representation at a social welfare appeal? These people are on their uppers and their money has been cut off. Will they be in a position to pay a solicitor to help them? It is nonsense. Perhaps it is thought that the Government's legal aid scheme could cover the situation — some hope, some fat chance.

Miss Flaherty

In due course.

Mr. Taylor

The dice are loaded against these people. I know from personal experience that many of them have very good cases but they cannot get this across. If they had a representative the position would very often be different. The Department should retain a staff of two or three experienced people to act on behalf of appellants and help them in presenting their case.

People are being knocked off benefit at a disgraceful rate on the flimsiest of examinations. The position has got out of hand. I do not know how medical referees — who I think are just GPs — can ignore and cast aside written memos from specialists, without the benefit of having X-rays and blood tests carried out. I have yet to hear of a medical referee who referred a person for a test before reaching a decision. It is never done. The whole system is very unsatisfactory and very unfair.

I welcome the new procedure, as far as it goes. Deputy Flaherty's amendment is excellent and will help somewhat but it still goes nowhere near meeting the justice that the situation requires.

Dr. Woods

Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 seek to provide appellants with a statutory entitlement to an oral hearing of their appeal. Amendment No. 60 also seeks to provide appellants with a statutory entitlement to be represented and accompanied at their appeal by a relative, legal representative, welfare rights activist or any other individual nominated by the appellant.

In so far as these amendments are concerned, I would point out in the first instance that the social welfare appeals system is a quasi-judicial tribunal. On the one hand, it operates as a judicial tribunal but in a less formal manner than the courts and on the other it has an administrative capacity and function. If the system is to function properly it is essential that it have a degree of flexibility so that appeals officers will have a certain discretion as to how they determine appeals. The annual volume of appeals is around 20,000.

Mr. Taylor

That proves my point.

Dr. Woods

That has been the position over at least six or seven years. The system operates independently and people use it freely and openly. Hundreds of thousands of cases are dealt with every year.

Miss Flaherty

What about the figures for medical examinations?

Dr. Woods

That is a different question. Let us stick to this section. We dealt with questions on medical examinations earlier.

Mr. Taylor

The appeals are based on the medical examinations. They are interlinked.

Dr. Woods

I am referring now to the number of appeals. We dealt with the other matters at Question Time and the Deputies were here. The appeals system covers all areas, ranging from appeals in relation to insurability, unemployment benefit, disability benefit, maternity benefit, invalidity benefit, death grants, child benefit, widow's and orphan's pensions, old age pensions, blind pensions, retirement pensions, unemployment assistance, deserted wife's allowance, single woman's allowance, rent allowance, etc. As I have mentioned, the number of appeals arising from all these areas is about 20,000 per year. Let us keep matters in perspective. There will always be problems.

There is no existing legislative provisions entitling appellants to an oral hearing. Regulations made under the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, provide that if the appeals officer is of the view that the case may be determined without an oral hearing he may determine the appeal summarily. I would like to emphasise, however, that no case deserving an oral hearing will fail to get one. Deputy Flaherty was concerned that those regulations might be set aside but they still apply to the system. Making an oral hearing mandatory under the legislation would mean that many cases which by any standards would not necessitate an oral hearing would have to get one.

We know from experience that claimants appeal even in cases where they do not have sufficient contributions to satisfy the required contribution conditions. This is one of the cases where they do not give an oral hearing and an explanation is required then. Deputy Ferris raised the question about information. There would be much improved information with this system and part of the administrative arrangements is to provide the information in advance, to let people know their rights and, in terms of the welfare rights people, to ensure that adequate staff have been recruited purely to deal with that to ensure that people are fully informed and properly advised of their position. We know from experience that claimants appeal even in cases where they do not have sufficient contributions to satisfy the required contribution conditions and I consider it would be inappropriate to grant an oral hearing in such cases.

There are close on 20,000 cases reaching the social welfare appeals office for appeal every year and we must make the best use of our resources in determining these cases. At present about half are given an oral hearing. Oral hearings in all cases would require the allocation of much extra staff for what in effect would be unnecessary because an oral hearing is given in any case which is considered appropriate. In other words, where it is not appropriate and would not be of benefit, an explanation is required rather than an oral hearing. For the convenience of clients we have to send appeals officers to all parts of the country to hear appeals. In the case of some UA-UB appeals it is frequently necessary to have assessors present and again it would be wasteful of their time — they are non-civil-servants — to have to attend appeals where the outcome was clearly evident from the beginning.

Another aspect which I would like to highlight is the danger of being unfair to the client if an oral hearing were to be conducted in all cases as it might be evident that his appeal had little prospect of success and expectations might be raised unnecessarily by calling him to an appeal.

As Deputies will be aware, there is provision in this Bill in section 19 (b) enabling the Minister, or a person designated by him, to direct that an appeal be determined by way of an oral hearing in any case. I am satisfied that this provision will provide an adequate safeguard to appellants who feel aggrieved about the refusal of an oral hearing in the circumstances of their case.

I do not agree with Deputy Byrne. I think TDs are very important people. I do not agree with people outside who say TDs should not be representing people. They are there to represent them, they represent them very well and I regard them as very important. I regard the work they do in that respect as important. I know others do not and people are writing books about the subject. Nevertheless, I regard them as important, particularly in relation to residual situations when all other things fail. Where something that was not anticipated comes about you will almost always find there is a TD somewhere who knows the position and brings it to attention so that something can be done about it.

Mr. Taylor

Does the Minister consider that is a good system to rely on?

Dr. Woods

On a residual basis, I do certainly. Bear in mind that in the first instance we are providing for appeals to be available to everybody in normal circumstances.

Mr. Ferris

Under regulation.

Dr. Woods

The residual situation here would be highly exceptional. I do not think anybody has come to me looking for an appeal even in existing circumstances because an appeal is given where anyone requests it unless there is a clearcut reason for not doing so. It is purely a residual safeguard. One could say maybe there is no need to have the safeguard there.

Mr. McCormack

The Minister will be busy.

Dr. Woods

Deputy Ferris can see what I am talking about and why I believe it is important to have it there. That is my view. If others differ than let them come in and vote and we will vote differently.

Amendment No. 60 also seeks to provide appellants with a statutory entitlement to be represented and accompanied at an appeal by a relative, legal representative, welfare rights activist or any other individual nominated by the appellant. This amendment raises the question of the procedures to be followed at appeal hearings. This is already provided for in the relevant regulations.

The regulations provide that the appellant may appear at the hearing in person, that he may be represented by a member of his family or, with the consent of the appeals officer, by any other person. In the case of appeals relating to entitlement to unemployment payments, assessors must, by law, be present and the hearing cannot proceed in their absence without the consent of the appellant.

In practice, an appeals officer will not refuse any reasonable request from an appellant to bring along a representative to a hearing. Indeed, I would like to point out that as far as can be readily recalled, no request by an appellant to be represented by any person at an oral hearing has ever been refused. The appeals officer does, however, have discretion in the matter and this is as it should be so as to preserve the standing of the appeals system.

As I have said, the social welfare appeal system is a quasi-judicial tribunal. It is necessary, therefore, that there should be certain formalities to enable the appellant get the best value out of the hearing. Within this framework it is necessary that someone be responsible for the orderly conduct of the hearing and this responsibility clearly rests with the appeals officer. The appeals officer is the person responsible for making a decision arising from the proceedings — a decision which incidentally may subsequently be referred to the High Court. It is only fair and reasonable that the appeals officer should have some control over who should attend the appeal hearing — outside of the appellant and a member of his family.

I consider that the statutory entitlements being sought in the proposed amendments are unnecessary having regard to the way appeals are conducted at present and they could have the unintended effect of affecting the efficiency of the existing appeals structure. For these reasons, I must oppose the proposed amendments.

I do not think any other questions were asked that I have not answered. Deputy Flaherty mentioned the Coolock Law Centre. That study was in relation to their own appeal. If they had looked at other appeals they would have found it was not very different.

Miss Flaherty

I am disappointed with the Minister's response to this proposal. On the one hand he said all these things are done anyway and are never refused in the case of anybody wishing to attend and on the other hand that oral hearings other than where there is a qualification problem are also never refused. That has been my experience.

One problem with the social welfare system for average people who are directly affected — in many cases people who are the least articulate, least educated — is that they find it the most difficult system to get through and often simply the presence of somebody else can be of great assistance to them. To them their rights are hidden away somewhere in regulations. If they are lucky enough to go to a welfare rights group or to come across a TD, then they know about their rights. I have often asked such people if there was anybody who could go with them to make their case when it was clear to me that the person was one who was often intimidated by medical referees to such an extent that he may not even take out the medical certificate or ensure that the guy reads it. If he has a psychiatric problem he will not refer to it because he is embarrassed by it. He does not realise it is essential for him to refer to the psychiatric problem if that is the issue on which he intends to base his appeal.

We are talking about people who need a great deal of support. If that support depends on the person having the knowledge and is also dependent on various people's agreement, there is no chance of that improving their situation. We could pass this appeals provision today and nothing would have improved for the individual social welfare recipient who should be at the centre of all this and for whom as a result of this there should be great improvements in the appeals procedure. I am very much aware that the direction of the communication with the various welfare rights groups was opposite to the one that Deputy Ferris mentioned, but I got in touch with them to seek their views because they represent a large group of people. That view is also shared by FLAC, who voluntarily represent people in relation to social welfare issues. I agree that my hope in relation to legal aid being extended in the future is a long shot but at present my concern is in regard to people who are willing to provide free legal aid. I considered debating the matter further but I decided we had enough on hand.

If an amendment of this nature is not included in the Bill there will be very little benefit in the new arrangements for social welfare beneficiaries engaging in an appeal. The Minister has undermined his own argument by saying that these things are done anyway, apart from a very limited number of cases. I see no reason for taking away the power and then giving it back to himself. It indicates that the Minister has a lack of confidence in his appeals officer if he feels that he must have this fail safe provision——

Mr. McCormack

Or great confidence in himself.

Miss Flaherty

Yes. Indeed, I gather that there may be changes as early as October or November in the line up of the Front Bench opposite, according to rumours, and we do not know who will be facing us. Not everybody on the Front Bench inspires as much confidence as the Minister. Therefore, I am very concerned to take this away from the area of the efficient TD and to give it as a right to people. I will give the Minister a guarantee that if I am still in this position in 12 months time and if he can prove there have been substantial difficulties as a result of vexatious claims and that a great deal of time has been taken up in processing these cases, I will accept an amendment this time next year. I am sure my colleagues will agree that we should set up an appeals procedure which will be consumer friendly and will be an improvement by making the system more humane and effective.

Mr. Byrne

I broadly support Deputy Flaherty's comments. The very concept of an appeals system must carry with it a very strong conviction in relation to its impartiality and fairness. In any form of appeals system, in the courts or in the Department of Social Welfare, there must be a clear understanding by everybody involved that when an appeal is heard there will be an impartial decision because there will be no vested interests or interference of any sort. They must feel that everything will be above board in relation to the hearing of an appeal. We are specifically relating this debate to the whole question of oral hearings and who will be entitled to decide to grant them. Everybody should be entitled, as a matter of right, to request an oral hearing in a case for which the appellant has felt he has not been treated fairly.

I do not think it helps that the Minister seems to be retaining to himself the power to decide which particular appeals warrant an oral hearing. Why should the Minister take all this responsibility? I am worried that the Minister — like his colleague, Minister Flynn — has outlined the arguments in favour of clientelist politics to such a degree that, if it were to continue, the whole parliamentary system would be awash with people bypassing Parliament and requesting to see the Minister. I am afraid that the Minister is asking us to make our representations to him in order to get him to agree that the cases we are presenting are suitable for an oral hearing. That is not the way we want the system to work, too many of us are involuntarily engaged in the pursuit of clientelist politics because this is the way it is presented to us.

The public perception of the chief appeals officer should be that he is on a par with the Ombudsman in the sense of impartiality and fairness. The politicians should have confidence in the chief appeals officer and the Minister should have confidence in decisions taken by him. The Minister said some people would be looking for an oral hearing when they did not have a good case. However, the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed clearly covered that point when they said they believed that an oral hearing should be mandatory on request. We do not go that far, our amendment is slightly different. Unless the matter is in regard to a technicality, the number of stamps paid and the number of weeks unemployed, etc., the appellant should be informed of the decision to disallow an oral hearing and be given two weeks to raise any reason for the matter depending on more than a technicality.

Dr. Woods

Is the Deputy now amending his amendment?

Mr. Byrne

I am asking the Minister to take on board the full meaning of our amendment, which says that a person who submits an appeal under subsection (1) shall be entitled to request an oral hearing. The request for an oral hearing can, in all cases, be acceded to except where there is a technicality which means that the person will be written to. Of course, the applicant still has a right to reply, to say that there is more to the appeal than the technicality listed by the appeals officer and that he wants to have an oral hearing. That is perfectly legitimate and above board.

The Minister said that TDs should retain the right to lobby and to make representations to him. Irrespective of whether we remove the power of the Minister and his appointees to decide which cases should have oral hearings, we will always be here to lobby the Minister and to make amendments to next year's Social Welfare Bill if we have collectively discovered that the system is not working. We have a yearly review of every decision taken on the Social Welfare Bill and I do not see any reason for such review not monitoring how the appeals system is working. I am very unhappy that we should be seen to be canvassing Ministers all the time. Surely the Minister recognises that he has a very responsible job to carry out on behalf of the State——

Dr. Woods

I manage the job very well. I will tell the Deputy about Romania where the whole system collapsed——

Mr. Byrne

We do not want to have our secretaries working 12 hours a day writing letters to the Minister, on behalf of constituents, requesting an oral hearing, because that is wrong.

Mr. Ferris

The concept of a new chief appeals officer was guaranteed in the Programme for National Recovery. We also accept the point made by Deputy Taylor which outlined the tremendous problem people throughout the country have in trying to have their case heard properly. The Minister confirmed my original point about the Consolidation Act, 1981. There is a provision in that Act which allows people to request an oral hearing and I know of no case where a hearing has been refused.

Dr. Woods

Neither do I.

Mr. Ferris

Neither do I know of a case in which the local social welfare officer did not allow somebody to accompany the person making the appeal. At times they even suggested that the person could bring his own doctor if he wished.

Miss Flaherty

I doubt that.

Mr. Ferris

Perhaps it happens more regularly in rural areas. I know of people who have been rejected by two medical referees and who, before going before a final panel of referees for adjudication have received communication that they could bring a doctor with them, but, unfortunately, some doctors are very busy. I know of a case where, when the doctor was not available, my constituent, because he felt he was unable to put his case properly, asked if I was available. Naturally, I approached the social welfare inspectors and asked them, out of common courtesy, if they had any objection to my attending on behalf of my constituent. That was a medical case and I could have been turned down on the basis that medical evidence was confidential to the Department and the applicant, but the officer agreed. I attended and put the case to the panel on behalf of my constituent and, I am glad to say, we were successful. The Consolidation Act, 1981, allows people the right to appeal and we do not know of any case where that has been refused. However, that does not take from the case made by Deputy Taylor about all the problems that lead to further appeals.

I look on this new section as an additional safeguard. In the case of a chief appeals officer refusing an appeal, there should be recourse to somebody and the Minister, as head of his Department, could direct him, although I am not suggesting that he do so in all cases. I believe people would want the Minister to intervene in the case of refusal of an appeal, unless there is a technical reason for its refusal. Even then it should be open to people to approach an advice centre, a politician or somebody for assistance. What is wrong with that? We are always knocking ourselves in regard to the service we give and we allow others to knock us as well. I see nothing wrong with giving advice to people who elect me to represent them. The Minister represents the Government and if the appeals officer is not answerable to the Minister, I cannot expect him to be responsible for a parliamentary question I might ask regarding a case about which I am aggrieved. If the Minister were not responsible, he would immediately say that the final decision rests with the chief appeals officer.

This provision is a safety valve but it may not be used very often. If after a 12 month period it becomes obvious that this amendment is absolutely necessary and if the chief appeals officer has not been giving people a fair crack of the whip, I would have a different attitude to it but as of now I am satisfied that this provision should be available under the Consolidation Act, 1981, and on the basis of common justice. If an appeal is refused the person has a right to go to court, and nobody can take that right from him. He also has the right to go to the Ombudsman. People now exercise that regularly and rightly so, because of the Department's failure to meet their legitimate requests. I have had to avail of the office of the Ombudsman, because some Ministers in other Governments admitted that they were hamstrung by regulations and legislation and could go no further in the area of medical opinion, in particular. I had to invoke the Ombudsman, successfully in many cases, and the Ombudsman's office will confirm that.

It is a pity that, at times, we have to go to these lengths. I am glad the Minister is making the machinery available in this case and I hope he will use it if necessary. If it was not there I would not have recourse to anybody, except by representation to the chief appeals officer who might say, as the Revenue Commissioners' often do, that the matter is confidential. As I have said, public representatives should not knock themselves in regard to their powers of representation.

Mr. Taylor

It is right and proper to pay tribute to the appeals officers of the Department of Social Welfare. In my experience I found them to be extraordinarily courteous and dedicated to their task. By and large they are people who do their very best with the material before them. They have done a fine job over the years. I do not know whether they are the same people who will be hearing the appeals when this new procedure comes in, but I hope they will because over the years they have done us proud, they have done a very fine job, and we should acknowledge that here.

In this section we are trying to do something new, to bring an element of fairness into the system. Not only should it be fair but it should be seen to be fair. If the system is fair I do not think anybody appealing a case could be denied representation. In many cases people lose on appeal because they were not represented and their case was not put properly. Does the Minister disagree with that? The Court of Human Rights decided on such matters and the country was compelled to bring in a legal aid scheme. The Minister could be compelled, under EC law or Council of Europe human rights legislation, to make provision for people in these appeals cases to have legal representation. Does the Minister agree with that?

Is the Minister prepared to tell the House that he will so organise the system that if a person facing an appeal brings a solicitor with him, the Department will cover, even to some extent, the solicitor's fee? It is very important that the person's GP be in attendance at an oral hearing. Otherwise the appeals officer gets a very one-sided picture of the position. He has the report of one or, more likely, two medical referees who are departmental officials but he does not have an opportunity to hear the appellant's doctor. What usually happens is that they bring along some scrappy note from the GP — I have seen many of these notes, first of all they are usually pretty indecipherable — written in prescription type writing.

Dr. Woods

Are there no scrappy notes from solicitors?

Mr. Taylor

Perhaps. With the level of fees paid by the Department of Social Welfare, you would not expect much better. I do not know about the GPs in small county towns, referred to by Deputy Ferris, but I can tell the Minister, and Deputies Flaherty and Byrne will agree with me that it takes some job to get any type of a note in any depth on the person's condition from the very busy Dublin GPs. The notes are written off in a very big hurry, and perhaps the GPs do not realise how much depends on them. A great deal depends on these notes. It means a very great deal to the appellant and his family whether his appeal is successful. There is a lot at stake for those families and it requires that the GPs take a little more care when writing instead of giving two or three lines of a scrappy note in prescription writing. However, many doctors do their best. In many cases the appellant needs more than a note from the GP. Many people coming before the appeals board are under hospital care and receiving treatment at out-patient departments and they then require a note from the consultant. With the health cutbacks, there are long queues and it is difficult to see the consultant at the outpatients department. The consultant would look at you if you said you wanted a note for the appeal hearing because they are even busier than the GPs. The unfortunate people trying to organise their case for the social welfare appeal hearing face these difficulties. The Minister has said, and he is right, that it is a quasi-judicial procedure, which is to say it is like a court case; it has quite a lot of resemblance to a court case. That requires tremendous expertise on the part of the person themselves and of the witnesses they need to back up their case. Who are the witnesses? The witnesses are the doctors because the overwhelming bulk of cases depend on the medical evidence, the unfortunate appeals officer has to make do with the more experienced medical referee of the Department who is dealing with these cases and a very short and inadequate note presented by the GP, or a busy consultant, who has had a few hundred people queueing up to see him in one of the very busy out patient departments. That is why the dice are loaded against the person and we are trying to remedy that situation. We are looking to the Minister for fairness and the Minister can give the balance to a quasi-judicial system between the Department on the one hand who are trying to cut the people off from benefit and the appellant and his family who are trying to get what they are entitled to. The Minister can achieve the balance if he tells the House he will make provision for a contribution towards the fee of the legal representative of the person coming before the appeal.

If the Minister does not make such a provision, I say plainly to him that the system is unfair. It is putting the weight of the strong, the Department with their resources, against the weak, the people who have been cut off from the very low social welfare payments and are appealing the decision. It is oppression of the weak by the strong. This small measure of ensuring legal representation is available would do a tremendous amount of good. I should declare my interest when I say this; I am a solicitor, but I can assure you Sir, and the Minister that that is not the objective of what I am doing. I say this because I have experience of a number of people who go before the appeals hearings.

We have had some measure of debate on the right to an oral hearing. I do not think anybody is saying there should be an automatic oral hearing in every single case. Many people would not want to have an oral hearing.

Miss Flaherty

An entitlement.

Mr. Taylor

However, any person who wants to have his case determined by an oral hearing should as of law be so entitled. The Minister has said that they have that anyway. Why then does he not agree to the proposal? I agree that Deputy Byrne's amendment is not very satisfactory in this regard; it does not say anything much. The amendment proposes that:

A person who submits an appeal under subsection (1) shall be entitled to request an oral hearing.

Of course, anybody can request an oral hearing, they are requested all the time but they are turned down. The point is, as Deputy Flaherty's amendment says they "shall be entitled to an oral hearing of that appeal." Why not? Why should they not have it if they want it? It does not necessarily mean that there will be an oral hearing in every single case.

Dr. Woods

They are not given an oral hearing in cases where it is not relevant.

Mr. Taylor

I am glad the Minister raised that point. The Minister has said that an oral hearing would be refused where the Department's records show that not enough contributions have been paid. You would not need an oral hearing because the Department can say that the matter does not arise due to insufficient contributions. However, the Minister should know the state that the records of contributions are in, which is a disgrace and it required the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is an independent official of the country established under the Constitution, to point out that the Revenue Commissioners, who hold these records of PRSI contributions on their computer file records, have failed and continue to fail to give up-to-date details of people's contributions to the Department of Social Welfare. If a person feels he is entitled to social welfare payments and is refused he applies for an oral hearing of his case; the Department officials look up their records and if they find that he has not got enough contributions they refuse his request. The person knows that in actual fact he has enough contributions but they do not show on the records of the Department of Social Welfare because, as the Comptroller and Auditor General has pointed out, the Revenue Commissioners who have the records from the PRSI payments have not passed them on to the Department of Social Welfare. I cannot remember the number of cases that the Comptroller and Auditor General has noted.

Miss Flaherty

1.3 million.

Mr. Taylor

The records of 1.3 million people were inaccurate.

Dr. Woods

That is for all time, up to the present.

Mr. Taylor

The calculations of entitlements are based on social welfare records.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy should have been here at Question Time.

Mr. Taylor

I was not here for my question because I wanted it directed to the Minister for Finance, whom I directed it to, and I want to know why the Minister for Social Welfare took the question when it was directed to the Minister for Finance and referred to the shortcomings of the Revenue Commissioners for which he is responsible.

Dr. Woods

I am very obliging.

Mr. Taylor

Is this part of the conspiracy? Is it not outrageous that the Minister should say he will deny a person the right to an oral hearing on the grounds that he does not have enough contributions when the Comptroller and Auditor General has shown that the contribution records of thousands of people are wrong, that contributions that have been made have not been credited to their records in the Department?

Why on earth should a person not be entitled to have an oral hearing where he can go before the appeals officer and say that "of course, the Department say one thing but I will take an oath on the number of contributions I have made, and I can call the evidence of my employer who has paid the contributions." What has happened is that there has been a breakdown between the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare. People are being denied their entitlements under the social welfare insurance scheme because of the disgraceful cutback of staff in the Department of Finance and in the Revenue Commissioners and thus there is an inability to feed in this vital information to the Department of Social Welfare. The Minister for Social Welfare has the gall to come into this House and say that the category of case in which he will not give an oral hearing is the case where the person has been disallowed his rights and entitlements because of the Government's own failure to have adequate staff to update the contributions records which would entitle those people to the social welfare rights they have under the legislation. The Minister said that it would be inappropriate to grant an oral hearing to people in that category.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy will be interested to learn that under existing regulations an appeals officer has power to pay for a solicitor or another expert. Deputy Ferris is aware of that. That will be done if the services of such a person are considered necessary or beneficial. We must have flexibility. The Deputy wants to go back to the blooming old Romanian style and a bureaucracy that would tie everybody up in knots, would have everybody paying for everything and a solicitor engaged for every appeal. We must face the fact that we have an excellent appeals system and that there are problems with every system.

Miss Flaherty

There is an excellent amendment before the House and it comes somewhere between Romania and Margaret Thatcher.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy may be interested to know some of the statistics about the cases that are appealed. Deputy Taylor decided to come into the Chamber, to keep the debate going up to 7 p.m.

Mr. Taylor

I came to the Chamber because I am entitled to be present and because I have a special interest in this matter.

Dr. Woods

There are many other issues to be decided before the debate concludes.

Mr. Taylor

I am sorry if the Minister is embarrassed by my presence but he will have to do something about the problem I have raised.

Dr. Woods

I should like to tell the Deputy that of the 20,000 appeals heard annually only 3,200 refer to invalidity and disability allowances. The remainder refer to qualification certificates where the assessors are involved or relate to unemployment assistance. That is what happens in practice. I accept that Members in making representations may say that an employer did not make a return or that an employer absconded, but such cases are usually sorted out without having to go through the appeals procedure. In any event, a sworn affidavit is accepted in such cases. As far as we are concerned the system bends over backwards to support workers.

A person who feels aggrieved, even though they do not have the requisite number of contributions is entitled to lodge an appeal. I do not intend to argue the point any further. I am opposed to the amendments. What they are proposing will be less efficient and more expensive. It is desirable to leave in the residual power to request an oral hearing; I am not referring to a decision.

Deputy Byrne suggested that Ministers interfered with decisions. That is more of the jargon that we have been hearing from him. It should be remembered that we are setting up an independent office to deal with appeals. If a person is refused an appeal we can direct that an oral hearing be held and a decision will be made at that hearing. We want to ensure that a person will get an oral hearing in exceptional cases. I have given my view as the Minister and said why I have included that provision. I am happy to disagree with the Deputies in regard to the amendments.

Miss Flaherty

It would not be necessary to have any residual power if we give an absolute right. Given that in most cases, other than those involving technical qualification, the Minister ordered an appeal, I do not know what difficulty he has in accepting our amendment. I would be happy to rephrase the amendment to include the words "an oral hearing on request". There is no intention to indicate that there should be an appeal in each case. I am grateful to Deputy Taylor for proving how valuable legal representation can be for a recipient. On occasions I have attended appeals with constituents and I am aware that there is always a question mark over whether I should be allowed attend. My amendment is reasonable. It is not Romanian in its excesses or Thatcherite in its limitations. I appeal to the Minister to accept it.

There is no doubt that we are all impressed with the way the Minister's office answer our queries in an effort to avoid an issue being raised in the House. I am sure that the vast bulk of queries on entitlements and so on are dealt with in a satisfactory manner. Given that the Minister frequently makes an offer of an appeal, I do not see why he should have any difficulty in including in the section a right to an appeal. The appeal procedure has done nothing to make the system more supportive of the people for whom we are trying to reform it.

Mr. Byrne

The debate has highlighted the incredible inadequacies that exist in the services for appellants. On one occasion I deputised for a Deputy colleague at such an appeal and I came to the conclusion that the appeal was an intimidating ordeal for the appellant. He had a stutter and he had to deal with the appeals officer and an official from the Department. Without the moral support of a politician sitting beside him, that man would have walked out of the appeal after two seconds. The system is so bad that politicians in their spare time, if they have any, have to take constituents by the hand and sit in with them at their appeals which can last up to one hour. Why is the system so lacking that many voluntary agencies are stepping in to fill the gaps? The system must give an appellant a right to representation, from whatever source. The appellant must be represented by an independent person who will take time to prepare the appeal and present it to the appeals officer.

Dr. Woods

He has that right. The Deputy wants that right enshrined in legislation and that is the only difference between us.

Mr. Byrne

We want the right to an oral hearing enshrined in the Bill.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 48.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P.J.
• Nolan, M.J.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Stafford, John.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán. Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan.

Question declared carried.

Amendment No. 61 not moved.

Section 19 agreed to.

SECTION 20.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64 are consequential on amendment No. 65. I propose, therefore, that we take amendments Nos. 62, 63, 64 and 65 together for the purposes of discussion. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Woods

I move amendment No 62:

In page 17, paragraph (b), line 7, to delete "section:" and substitute "sections:"

This is a technical amendment which proposes the deletion of the word "section" and the substitution of the word "sections".

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Woods

I move amendment No 63:

In page 17, paragraph (b), line 9, after "functions" to insert "in relation to appeals under this Part".

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Woods

I move amendment No 64:

In page 17, paragraph (b), line 10, to delete "‘function'" and substitute "‘functions'".

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Woods

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 17, paragraph (b), between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

299B.—(1) As soon as may be after the end of each year, but not later than 6 months thereafter, the Chief Appeals Officer shall make a report to the Minister of his activities and the activities of the appeals officers under this Part during that year and the Minister shall cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

(2) A report under subsection (1) shall be in such form and shall include information in regard to such matters (if any) other than those referred to in that subsection as the Minister may direct.

(3) The Chief Appeals Officer shall, whenever so requested by the Minister, furnish to him information in relation to such matters as he may specify concerning his activities or the activities of appeals officers under this Part.'.".

Amendment No. 65 proposes the insertion of a new section 229B in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, which will require the publication of an annual report by the chief appeals officer. Section 299B (1) requires the chief appeals officer to publish an annual report of the activities of the new social welfare appeals office within six months from the end of each year. Copies of this report will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and will be available to Deputies in the normal way.

Section 299B (2) will enable the Minister for Social Welfare to specify the form of the report and to require such other information as he considers necessary to be included in the annual report. Section 299B (3) will enable the Minister for Social Welfare at any stage to direct the chief appeals officer to furnish him with any information in relation to the activities of the appeals office as he may request.

Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64 contain minor adjustments and these have been agreed at this stage. Information on the operation of the appeals system is currently provided in the reports of the Department of Social Welfare, which are now published every two years. An essential function of the new social welfare appeals office will be the publication of a report on its own activities. The Commission on Social Welfare recommended the publication of such annual report. The commission recommended that the report should give details not only of the number of appeals received and decided by category but also of the outcome of decisions. In addition to those details the annual report should contain some commentary on trends in appeals, the reason for the incidence of certain types of appeals, an analyses of the need for the legislative change to remove anomalies and inequities and, where necessary, the implications of its decisions for policy making generally in the Department. I fully endorse the commission's recommendations in this matter and I consider that the information provided would be very useful in monitoring and assessing the effectiveness not only of the new appeals office but also of my Department's decisions process. Publication of an annual report will make an important contribution to the task of developing public confidence in the new social welfare appeals office as well as emphasising its independent status.

Miss Flaherty

This amendment is welcome and I would like to support it. It adds substantially to the section. It will ensure that the appeals office present a report so that regular information is available to this House. The duties anticipated by the Minister should help the appeals system to improve and the Minister's Department to see trends that may be causing problems.

I hope we will have an opportunity to debate this and that the necessary information will be to hand. Something was said in the debate on the last section which indicated that, as a result of section 19 and Part V in general, the Minister will no longer be dealing with questions relating to the functions, activities and process of appeals in this House? Will information from the appeals office via the Minister be available to Deputies by way of questions?

Mr. Ferris

I welcome this amendment. It has illustrated the necessity for all these officers to be responsible to this House through some process. This will give us an opportunity to see if the appeals officer has encountered any problems that we are unaware of, such as whether his office is properly staffed. There is the added advantage for the House and the Minister of being able to monitor the Department's relationship with the chief appeals officer. It is an exrtension of what we spoke about on the other amendment, the reservations about politicians and public representatives being involved. It is important for us to be involved. Perhaps the Minister could allay the fears of Deputy Flaherty and those of us who are worried and assure the House that the chief appeals officer is still answerable to the House at all times. I had doubts about the fact that the Minister was taking powers to direct the appeals officer to do certain things and he would only do that on the basis that the appeals officer might have refused. Having taken that power, I take it that the appeals officer is answerable to the Minister and to the House, so this process of reporting back to us is a welcome one. I hope I am right in that assumption.

Mr. Byrne

In the light of the Minister's amendment I do not know why he could not have accepted the amendment we have just voted on. I confess I have not had time to go through all the Minister's amendments, but now we see that the annual report will be produced and this will indicate how the appeals system was working. Our amendment would also have allowed the appeals system to be monitored in the House. I do not therefore understand why the Minister would not accept our amendment.

Dr. Woods

Perhaps if the Deputy reads what I said at his leisure later he will see that I said why. There is no point, however, in going back into that at this stage. As the Deputies have said, the system will be seen to be fair. The report will come back to me as Minister and will be laid before the House. Deputies will still be entitled to put down parliamentary questions about the system. The appeals officers are independent in carrying out the functions delegated to them under the legislation and the regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Byrne

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 17, before section 21, to insert the following new section:

"21.—An appeal submitted under the terms of this Part shall be heard and determined by the Appeals Officer within six weeks of the date of the receipt of the said appeal.".

It is important that when people lodge an appeal they should not be left wondering what has happened to it, whether it is being continued with, whether it has been heard, whether it has been won or lost and when they will be told the results of it. That is why we have written in "within six weeks". We had in mind a shorter period — say, three weeks — but the Minister made the point that that might not be enough time to get the documentation together. Perhaps the Minister might take this amendment on board.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy is forever trying to tie me up in regulations and fixtures of one sort or another. I am not about to be fixed. It is my objective to ensure that all appeals are heard without undue delay. The extra staff going into this area are for that purpose. We are trying to get the system working as efficiently as possible.

Subject to the nature and location of the appeal it would be possible in a number of cases to have the appeal heard within six weeks. In other cases, however, it would simply not be possible and to insist upon such a timescale would be to the detriment of the appellant in certain cases. For example, when a decision is appealed it is frequently necessary to have the case re-examined. This is done by a social welfare officer in cases involving an assessment of means or desertion. In cases of an appeal against disallowance of disability benefit a second examination by a medical referee will be necessary. If we had to dispense with such reinvestigations or examinations in the interests of expediency, then the appellant's case might suffer. If the appellant is in an isolated locality it might take some weeks to get this stage of the examination completed.

An important point which must not be overlooked is that the Department as one of the parties to the appeal also have to prepare to submit a case. There are other factors which can cause delay in organising appeals, for example, in booking a venue, notifying all interested parties and giving sufficient advance notice so that their attendance can be guaranteed and they will have adequate time to prepare their case. If, for instance, an assessor did not turn up at a hearing because of a lack of sufficient advance notification, then the appeal could not proceed without the appellant's consent.

We must also have regard to the question of resources. In fairness to the appellants, the nature of an appeals officer's work is not such that the application of additional resources would provide an immediate improvement since some period of training is necessary. Temporary appeals officers have recently been assigned to the social welfare appeals office to deal with arrears and these should be cleared within the next two months.

Having regard to what I have said, I do not consider that we should legislate for a timescale for a hearing of appeals. For this reason I am opposed to the amendment. Broadly speaking, I agree with the desirability of achieving that kind of timescale in as many cases as possible. Our operation is designed to achieve it but to write it into legislation would be unwise.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister made a number of points, some of which are valid, but the latter part of his reply highlights the need to spell out a period. He said he had taken on some temporary appeals officers to clear a backlog. Essentially he is saying that the physical resources were not available to meet the demand by appellants. Earlier today we were given figures indicating a massive number of appeals. It would help if we did not leave it as open-ended as the Minister suggests. It may not be apparent to people who are appealing that because of cutbacks, under-financing and under-staffing in the appeals section there is a long waiting list.

Dr. Woods

There are no cutbacks there.

Mr. Byrne

If there were no cutbacks and no staffing problems, I do not understand why the Minister would have to clear up a serious backlog.

Dr. Woods

From time to time complicated and more distant appeals are made. Various things can happen.

Mr. Byrne

The fact that temporary staff were brought in would indicate a hiccup in the system and the building up of a backlog. The open-ended nature of this provision is not satisfactory from the appellant's point of view.

Miss Flaherty

The Deputy is raising an important issue. All of us who are dealing with constituents who have problems will know that in certain cases oral hearings can take up to two months. Does the Minister have any figures for the average length of time for the hearing of an appeal? It is obviously in everybody's interest that appeals should be heard as quickly as possible. A person might lose disability benefit and be thrown back on unemployment assistance and a family could suffer a significant loss of income. Perhaps the Minister would ensure in the context of the report of the appeals office that they would keep records of this point so that we could assess progress. That might respond in some way to Deputy Byrne's proposed amendment.

Mr. Ferris

The amendment reflects genuine concern about delays. the Minister has admitted that delays have occurred, for whatever reasons. Although he has convinced Deputy Taylor that more people have not been knocked off, there is a feeling that more people are being taken out of the system and that a major appeals process is going on. All of us would like to have appeals heard as quickly as possible. The Minister has said that this is his intention. Hopefully this will be achieved by the new chief appeals officer operating from a computerised office.

I would make a suggestion in an attempt to overcome problems in this area. Perhaps some kind of an arrangement could be devised whereby a person would continue to receive his entitlements pending the hearing of an appeal. Then there would be an incentive for the officials of the Department to have the appeal heard quickly. Such a system would eliminate the complicated arrangements which must be put in place when a person is knocked off benefit. Such people are advised to apply for supplementary welfare and we know that sick people sometimes sign on as being available for employment when we know they are not. It is not unreasonable to suggest that it might be easier to allow people to retain their income if they lodge an appeal, although I admit that it may not be technically possible. The bureaucratic costs involved in contacting health boards, supplementary welfare officers and so on, would be eliminated, together with the need to deal with the backlog of retrospective payments in the event of the appeal being successful. I suggest this as a compromise which Deputy Byrne might accept.

Dr. Woods

There is no legal entitlement once a decision is made; therefore we cannot pay by virtue of the entitlement. I understand the point the Deputy is making but that is the way the legislation operates.

In relation to the time, most appeals are decided in three to four weeks. Where the oral hearings come in the longer time applies. The ones the Deputy is talking about would be within the time scale of six weeks, but with oral hearings you can have all sorts of questions and reports from consultants and from various people. In February there were just over 300 cases awaiting oral hearing in disability benefit, the area the Deputy mentioned. The figure that time was 336 and they will be the ones Deputy Flaherty mentions which are taking two and three months or whatever. The numbers are not that enormous and remember they are spread all over the country. When you remember that you are paying out to changing people maybe 60,000 or 65,000 disability benefits in the week you realise you have a fairly efficient system. While we tend to hear a great deal about the residuals, that is the essence of our democracy and that is what keeps us on our toes. That is what I like about it. The numbers are not great, nevertheless we are trying to get that right up to date at present and there will be additional staff in the appeals office. As things will be organised in that office a great deal more time will be taken on getting information to people. They will concentrate on making sure people are well and fully informed along the lines mentioned. We should let the system go ahead and see how much it can be improved. I believe it will be improved greatly.

I do not agree with the amendment. I do not think it is a suitable thing to do, or even desirable from the point of view of the clients we are dealing with in social welfare. It would cause more problems than it would be worth for people who will need more time to prepare their cases or may have other problems like the difficulty of getting an assessor or whatever. The main thing is to make the system administratively effective. I am opposed to that amendment.

Mr. Byrne

I will not push this one. If the Minister requests from the chief appeals officer the details of the delays, say in an annual report, we could monitor them.

Dr. Woods

That is the point of that amendment. You would have a detailed, clear laying out of all of that.

Miss Flaherty

Will the Minister undertake to ensure that those data are in it?

Dr. Woods

Yes, that is what I want.

Mr. Ferris

The Minister outlined the procedure that is the norm now for disability benefit appeals and we accept that. What is the level of delay at the moment on appeals on means testing or, as outlined in my priority question today which was not reached, the number of people who are knocked off in the category of genuinely seeking employment? I referred on Second Stage to social welfare officers. There are difficulties with some social welfare officers. Apparently they insist on seeing the applicant no matter how far out from the office he or she lives. They continue to drive out until they see the applicant physically. They almost insist that the applicant must be at home before they see him to make a judgment.

For the applicant to go into the social welfare office is not enough. He is told to go home and wait until the social welfare officer calls to see him. In addition to the cost factor, I am worried about the delays involved in this and the kind of information requested. When it is provided further information is requested and there is tedious means testing. I submitted an up to date sworn affidavit and certification from another Department about the ownership of two misfortunate cows two years back.

Mr. Byrne

We had those cows here before.

Mr. Ferris

They were Galway cows today. There is quite a delay about the means test and appeals investigating means and the requirement of the social welfare officer to see the applicant in his home to prove he is available for work in case somebody should turn up with a job, God bless the mark, because that does not happen too often. I know of cases where someone had genuinely gone to visit a sick relative and had no idea the social welfare officer was to call on that day. Because he was not there another delay occurred. Is that kind of procedure to be tidied up? It is tedious, time consuming and extremely expensive on the Department.

Dr. Woods

As I have said, I am very anxious to tidy that up as far as we can, but I find if a person is not there on one occasion he is normally requested to be there on the next occasion. If he is not there then serious questions are put. The Deputy mentioned a PQ. When he goes out of here at 7 o'clock he will have the reply all to himself. Statistics are not maintained in a manner which would provide the information sought. Deputies may be interested to know that, excluding appeals relating to means assessments, the total number of appeals decided in relation to unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance claims for the 12 months ending 31 December 1989 was 1,912 and 1,595 respectively.

The Deputy asked about the number of cases for means assessment that were outstanding. At the end of February it was 139 including the means, old age pensions and so on. These would be regarded as gone outside the six weeks. Overall the numbers are not that huge but they are very important. This tends to show the sensitivity of our democracy. Even though the numbers are small they tend to be picked up very rapidly by Deputies.

Mr. Ferris

That is a good thing.

Dr. Woods

That is a good thing to keep people on their toes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it Deputy Byrne is not pressing his amendment.

Mr. Byrne

No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."

Miss Flaherty

Will the Minister clarify why he is taking it out?

Dr. Woods

Does the Deputy want me to explain?

Miss Flaherty

Yes.

Dr. Woods

It really is because we are putting something more comprehensive in the regulations. I will come back and tell the Deputy. Subsection (3) of section 297 of the 1981 Act provides that the chief appeals officer shall be responsible for the distribution of appeals among appeals officers. Section 21 of the Bill provides for the repeal of this subsection as all the functions of the chief appeals officer will be set out in regulations under section 20. They are being consolidated in regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 22.

Mr. Byrne

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 17, line 15, after "order" to insert:

"but such days shall not be later than three months from the date of the enactment of this Act".

This amendment deals with the commencement period and we are anxious that it should not take longer than three months after the enactment of the Bill.

Miss Flaherty

Obviously if that could be done it would be desirable.

Dr. Woods

I have the pre-retirement regulations and I will give them to Deputy Byrne afterwards as I know he is very anxious to see them and wants to study them. They are very technical and merely implement the matters to which we referred here. This amendment is designed to impose a legislative requirement that the provisions relating to the new social welfare appeals office should be brought into force within three months of the date of enactment of the Bill. That is a totally unnecessary restriction because I have already made a commitment to have the new appeals office operating as quickly as possible. If it was possible to make the order within one month I would do so. However, a number of necessary arrangements must be made to facilitate the establishment of the new office. Many of these are outside my control. For example, the offices in D'Olier House must be refurbished to a level which will provide the maximum degree of convenience and comfort for appellants in hearing rooms which will be sound-proofed for the confidential discussions of the appellants affairs at the hearing.

This work is being carried out by the Office of Public Works which, although outside my direct control, are particularly helpful to me. I met them earlier and all the work and preparation by the architects was done quickly. Necessary administrative arrangements have also to be made, including the transfer of administrative staff so that the work at present carried out by my Department can be transferred to the appeals office. This is necessary for the total independence of the new office.

It is my intention that all these arrangements will be completed by late summer and I will make every effort to ensure that that deadline will be met. Indeed, if I can, I will have the arrangements in place before then. If for some reason, however, the work cannot be completed within three months it would be undesirable for the appellant and the appeals office to have to commence operations without all the necessary preparation being completed. For these reasons I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Byrne

When all this work is completed maybe the party spokesmen on social welfare might be given a guided tour so that we can see whether it lives up to the Minister's description.

Dr. Woods

I will be very happy to do that.

Miss Flaherty

We can also visit Werburgh Street.

Mr. Byrne

We could show the Minister the deplorable conditions in some of our employment exchanges which need refurbishment.

Miss Flaherty

I will show him the vacant site at Finglas.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 22 agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Section 23 is opposed by Deputy Ferris.

Miss Flaherty

On a point of order, we have 15 minutes left and there are a number of issues to be discussed. May we bring forward a section?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Standing Orders provide for bringing forward a section for consideration.

Miss Flaherty

If my colleagues agree, I should like to discuss section 36 which deals with a change in relation to widows. The section needs to be clarified because there is a great deal of concern. If the Minister does not clarify this matter in the House the only way it will be clarified is when people feel the changes in their pockets. They do not know what the Minister's long term plan is. They know they will be paying a good deal more but they do not know what they will get in the short term or what is planned for them over the next two years. I do not know how my two colleagues feel about the matter.

Mr. Ferris

I do not have any objection. I wish to be recorded as showing opposition to these sections and we could dispose of them in that way. However, the Minister should be allowed to reply.

Dr. Woods

We should take the sections very quickly.

SECTION 23.

Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill".

Dr. Woods

This deals with the consolidation of one fund into the social insurance fund. All the benefits, rights and entitlements will stay the same. The Deputy need not have any fears on that score.

Mr. Ferris

Will the Minister's Department be responsible for all redundancy entitlements, etc?

Dr. Woods

The redundancy legislation is a matter for the Minister for Labour but the money will come from the social insurance fund, which is the only change.

Mr. Ferris

I want to record my opposition to this procedure without delaying the House.

Mr. Byrne

There is a once-off gain of £52 million as a result of this amalgamation. For two days we have been arguing about the paucity of the increases to various recipients. Why did the Minister send this money back to the Central Exchequer instead of redistributing it among those who are most in need? I made this point on Second Stage but obviously the Minister did not heed it. The Minister has saved in excess of £100 million over the last few years and in this case he is saving another £52 million. Does the Minister not feel morally bound to redistribute the money among the various sectors dependent on social welfare?

Dr. Woods

The money went into the social insurance fund. It will help to meet improvements in social insurance fund payments. The State undertakes the liability for the future. Where it was not part of the social insurance fund but purely an employers' fund, there was a need for some security for the future to cover the vagaries which might occur. At present those liabilities are taken on by the social insurance fund and, in that sense, by the State directly but the contribution rates and the benefits stay the same. In that sense it is just a rationalisation as far as this scheme is concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 24 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Ferris

On the basis that my opposition to these sections is on the record I am happy to proceed.

SECTION 32.

Amendment No. 68 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 32 stand part of the Bill".

Section 32 agreed to.

Section 33 agreed to.

SECTION 34.

Amendments Nos. 69 to 71, inclusive, not moved.

Section 34 agreed to.

SECTION 35.

Amendments Nos. 72 to 74, inclusive, not moved.

Section 35 agreed to.

SECTION 36.

Question proposed: "That section 36 stand part of the Bill".

Miss Flaherty

I am glad we reached this section but I am sure the Minister is sorry we have had to gloss over some of his improvements in regard to mná tí and so on. However, we have to deal with a more complicated issue before we finish. This section introduces a PRSI payment for widows. From next week they will be paying 3 per cent PRSI, and this is a very big change. There is a long and complicated history to this which I have not been able to grasp fully. I have had calls from widows with a decent salary, who are looking after adult families. These people will now have to pay an additional £30 or £40 a month out of an income on which there are heavy demands. In return, they will get a half rate of benefit. Up to January 1989 they received this benefit without making any contribution by virtue of the fact that the employer makes the full contribution for any employed widow.

These people are very concerned about the fact that the contribution will be paid over three years. They question the current position where there is an employer's contribution, but they have no benefit entitlement. What is the Minister's long-term plan for these people? Does he anticipate giving them full benefits in three years' time, or is it intended to retain them on the additional half benefit which is being introduced in this Bill? It would be helpful if he could clarify publicly his intention in relation to this group. Widows generally are concerned with the sudden change which, they say, goes back to a period pre-1974, a position they believed they had worked their way out of through negotiation with the Department. Their association feel that this is undoing a lot of work that had been done. As I have said, I am not sufficiently briefed to be able to deal with the matter fully but I would like the Minister to clarify it.

Dr. Woods

First I would like to clarify the position. I received representations from widows and widows' associations in relation to their inclusion in the system so that they could get the half rate benefit.

Miss Flaherty

The Minister cut them off last year.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy is talking about the 1987 changes which were proposed by Fine Gael and Labour and implemented by us.

Miss Flaherty

The Minister cut them off.

Dr. Woods

Since that time they have been without the 15 months' payment for disability benefit. I have received representations that they want to receive that benefit at half rate. I have no time to go into the whole matter but the Deputy raised the question of a sudden change. It is not a sudden change because it is being phased in over three years: 3 per cent this year; 4 per cent next year and 5.5 per cent in 1992.

Miss Flaherty

There will be an additional 3 per cent tax on every £1.

Dr. Woods

In the case of the self-employed, the figures are 3 per cent, 4 per cent and 5 per cent. In regard to the abolition of the exemption for social insurance contributions applying to recipients of widows' pension and other analogous payments from 6 April 1990, such persons, in addition to their pensions, will be entitled to receive half rate disability benefit for a period of up to 15 months when they are out of work through illness. That is regarded as particularly important and is something they wanted.

The problem arose because the benefits, instead of being short-term, became long-term and for some of them became almost like a second pension, in other words, the disability benefit was paid for many years. The half rate will apply to unemployment benefit as well as disability benefit. In addition, these people will get the full rate of pay-related benefit and will also be entitled to dental, optical and other benefits because they are contributing. I know this matter has been argued among themselves, but the widows wanted to be included in the system. The fact that those earning less than £60 a week are exempt and will still get the benefits is an additional advantage. Many widows at work have said that they want to contribute the same as everyone else and want to benefit from the schemes.

Miss Flaherty

Is it the Minister's long-term plan that when they are on full contributions they will have full benefits.

Dr. Woods

They will get one-and-a-half benefits. They are getting the full benefit on widows' pensions and will get half a benefit on top of that.

Miss Flaherty

That is a new attitude to widow's pension and is seen as something that is not an established right because people must contribute to their widow's pension.

Dr. Woods

There is only one fund and it is not infinite. It will provide one pension plus a half rate of disability benefit or unemployment benefit, as the case may be, as well as the dental, optical and other benefits which would not have been available otherwise. The widows' association have said they are anxious to be involved.

Miss Flaherty

The widows' association feel the Department are not doing all the work they fought for.

Dr. Woods

Those are the representations we received. This means that one-and-a-half time's the rate will apply. It can be quite important to a widow or a deserted wife that she can get disability benefit if she is out sick. If she is on a lower income then it is all the more important but the cost would be very small in that case.

Mr. Ferris

Is it possible that the people who are excluded as a result of the change in the legislation in 1987 could be brought back into the system? Some of them are still ill and are unable to go back to work. There are very few of these isolated cases, but there are still anomalies. I know two contributions are going into the one fund in the Department while payments to the value of one-and-a-half times benefit is going out.

Dr. Woods

It would depend on their credits and whether they were getting credits or benefits.

Mr. Ferris

Or backdated medical certificates that prove they were unable to work.

Dr. Woods

We will have a look at that situation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question is: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Social Welfare and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; in respect of the sections undisposed of, other than section 51, that the section, or as appropriate the section, as amended, is hereby agreed to; that Schedules A, B, C, and D and the Title are hereby agreed to and that the Bill, as amended, is hereby reported to the House."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 47.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M. J.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Bell, Michael.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Bruton, John.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and O'Shea.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the Fourth Stage?

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

Tomorrow.

Report Stage ordered for Friday, 30 March 1990.