Deputy J. Higgins has some ten minutes to present his case and the Minister has some five minutes to reply.
Adjournment Debate. - County Mayo Unemployment Assistance Application.
Normally, I do not believe in raising personal issues of this kind by way of general debate, because, if at all possible, matters of individual or personal interest should be avoided or, at best, be raised by way of parliamentary question, preferably by written question. I raise this matter in the House this evening to express the frustration to which I have been driven by the tremendous wall of bureaucracy, departmental stonewalling and intransigence that I have come up against and because I genuinely believe that a rank injustice is being perpetrated against an unemployment assistance applicant in County Mayo.
As a result of what is, in my opinion a blatantly wrong decision, a family is left literally penniless this very night. I am not given to hyperbole or exaggeration but I know the family in question and I can categorically state that that is in fact the situation. The family in question comprise a husband, wife and four dependent children. The husband worked until a number of years ago when he was made redundant. He is genuinely unemployed and is available for and is seeking work. They have absolutely no means whatever. They live in a very small dwelling provided by Mayo County Council, for which they pay rent, on a very small farm, with the applicant's mother who receives a non-contributory old age pension. He derives nothing whatever from the farm; indeed the farm is so small that it simply would not keep a family. His mother has been means tested in respect of her pension entitlement and she now virtually gets the full pension, which speaks for itself.
In the course of the investigation of his social welfare entitlement, in view of the fact that he has been getting more than £100 over the past four years, he brought to the attention of the social welfare officer that he recently purchased a car. He lives in a very isolated rural area, which is far away from any communication. It will be readily acknowledged that one cannot buy a more modest brand of car than the Lada. He was asked to produce evidence as to where he got the money to purchase the car and he produced evidence to show that he was paying it off in small monthly instalments on a loan from the Bow-maker company. I think the amount in question is so negligible that it is well within the capacity of somebody getting unemployment assistance to meet such repayments over a four year period. After providing the documentation, the applicant was notified that he had failed to produce evidence that his income was not over the statutory limit of £7,020 and therefore his dole was withdrawn. It would have been a very bleak Christmas for that family had the Western Health Board not come to their rescue. We know that health boards do not come to the rescue of people by way of supplementary welfare unless and until they are absolutely satisfied there is no visible means and that there is a reasonable chance the claimant will be successful on appeal and get his or her unemployment assistance back and the amount in question will be recouped by the health board. On 29 May 1990 I asked the Minister for Social Welfare a question, Parliamentary Question No. 106 and I quote:
Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will give a breakdown of a figure of more than £7,020 means which was arrived at in respect of an application for unemployment assistance.
The challenge thrown down to the applicant was to prove that he did not have such means. The Minister by way of written reply said and I quote:
Following investigation, the unemployment assistance claim of the person concerned was disallowed on the grounds that he failed to show that his yearly means did not exceed the statutory limit for receipt of a qualification certificate from 6 December 1989. The limit is £7,020 in the circumstances of his case.
He appealed against this decision and following an oral hearing of his case on 4 April 1990, an appeals officer also disallowed his claim on the same grounds.
If he is now willing to disclose all the sources of his means he should contact his local office and request a further interview with the social welfare officer.
He did, and had a further interview. He tried to prove at length that he does not have any other means, that he does not have the mythical millions. He does not have a bank account or a post office account. He tried to prove he is genuinely available for work and has no means either visible or invisible, yet the Department have turned down his appeal. It is putting an impossible burden on somebody. Through you, a Cheann Comhairle, I put it to the Minister that it is like saying to a person that you have an income of £7,020, which is out there somewhere and you have to prove that you have not got it. I respectfully submit to the Minister that if I said to him that he has an income of £100,000, unless he could prove that he had not got it, I would be placing an impossible onus on him. The Minister could come along and show his ministerial cheque, and then show his cheque for being a Deputy, but there would be a grey area of £30,000 or £40,000 in between the upper threshold and the £100,000 challenge which had been thrown down to him. Poor people on unemployment assistance are expected to prove this. It is an impossible task for them and they simply cannot meet it.
I know these people. I know they are genuine, decent, honest and honourable people and they simply have no means whatever. They live on a small family farm but they derive no benefit from it. I understand that the social welfare officer does not say this. This is not an isolated case. I could quote, and I hope the Minister's officials will take note, chapter and verse of numerous cases. In fact, I could bring to the Minister's attention case No. CC3988-89 where somebody came to me in November 1989, a man who had a wife and six children, who had been in receipt of £64 per week unemployment assistance and who on the run up to Christmas was totally cut off on the basis of an inadequate investigation. They had the most miserable Christmas of their existence but as a result of the appeals process not alone did they get their £64 assistance returned but were awarded £72 per week three weeks ago.
With respect, Deputy I granted you permission to raise a particular case and I ask the Deputy not to bring in extraneous matters.
I have given no names, I merely mentioned a reference number.
The Deputy is referring to the Department's work and slighting the decisions of officials.
Wrong decisions are being made by social welfare officers.
The Deputy should stick with the one he has raised tonight.
Let us stick with the case before us, please.
A wrong decision has been made.
Wait until you hear the reply, Deputy.
In common with other cases, if a wrong decision is made, the Department should acknowledge it. The social welfare officer who is responsible for carrying out an incorrect or inaccurate assessment should be brought before some senior officer and asked how he or she arrived at the figure. In some cases I can guarantee that some social welfare officers do no justice to the officials in his Department, and in some cases this seems to indicate a lack of diligence in carrying out the correct procedures for investigating such cases. In some cases the decisions would appear to be based on personal prejudice rather than the guidelines set down by the Minister. I can assure the Minister in this particular case, irrespective of what he will say tonight — I am anticipating his reply — because the decision is based on a so-called report by a social welfare officer in Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, that it is factually incorrect.
The Deputy pointed out that he understood the monthly repayments were small and of a negligible amount. That is the one thing on which the Deputy did not seem to have the facts, and that is very relevant to this case.
Means for unemployment assistance purposes are determined in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Social Welfare Acts and regulations. Applicants are required to show to the satisfaction of deciding and appeals officers, as appropriate, that their means calculated in accordance with the relevant provisions are less than the statutory limits for the receipt of a qualification certificate which is a formal statement of their means.
Deciding officers and appeals officers are statutorily appointed officers who are obliged to act independently, including independently of the Minister, when giving decisions on entitlements under the Social Welfare Acts. I am aware that they make every reasonable effort to be fair in giving their decisions. Claimants are given every opportunity to state or to present their case and all evidence in support of a claim is taken into account in arriving at a decision. While I never had any doubt about the integrity of deciding officers and appeals officers in discharging their statutory functions, I am conscious of the fact that although it is most important that justice be done, and that this has always been the case in relation to the decision system operating in my Department, it is also important that justice be seen to be done. In this way public confidence in a decision system is maintained and strengthened. It was for this reason that I established a totally separate appeals office. This initiative was welcomed by the many interests concerned with welfare because it enhanced and made more apparent the independent character of the appeals system.
I would like to outline the background to this particular case. The person concerned is a married man in his mid-thirties with four children. He first claimed unemployment assistance in September 1972. Following a review of his means in August 1989, his claim was disallowed from 6 December 1989 on the grounds that he had failed to show that his yearly means did not exceed the statutory limit for receipt of a qualification certificate. The statutory limit in his case is £7,020 a year. He appealed against the disallowance and was afforded the opportunity to present his case in person at an oral hearing which was held by an independent officer on 4 April 1990. The appeals officer did not find his story credible and disallowed his appeal. That is the system we operate under our legislation.
Both the deciding officer and the appeals officer considered that he had alternative sources of income which he had failed to disclose. They came to this conclusion having regard to his financial commitments and the fact that he had recently bought a new car for £10,000. He told the investigating officer that the repayments on the loan he obtained to purchase the car amounted to £258 per month; this is in addition to his other outgoings such as repayments on his house loan — the Deputy mentioned rent — and domestic living expenses. In view of this it is not difficult to see how an appeals officer would conclude that he must have other undisclosed sources of income. The Deputy mentioned a car which he assumed would not be very expensive — the Lada. The car in question is a new Fiat Uno 60 Diesel.
He traded in his old car.
But the loan is £10,000. The appeals officer and the deciding officer asked where this money came from and how it was being paid for. They cannot see how it can be paid without some additional source of income. Perhaps somebody else is making the repayments or is paying half the loan, but under the legislation you are obliged to disclose your full means.
The claimant lives beside his mother who has a farm which, it is understood, he will in due course inherit. He claims that he derives no benefit from his mother's farm and I have been informed that no benefit from this source has, in fact, been assessed against him. If the person concerned is now willing to disclose all sources of his means or has new evidence, he should contact his local office and a further interview with a social welfare officer will be arranged.
I would like to point out that in this case, as in all others, I am in the hands of the deciding officer and the appeals officer who make their decision under statute. We may send questions to them, present new evidence or suggest that full information has not been given, but we must support their decisions. I have not had an oral hearing of the case, nor has the Deputy. He does not have all the information that an appeals officer would have in his or her possession, and it is extraordinary to be rerunning such a case here with less than the full information and without the person here to talk about the matter. I put the Deputy's question to the appeals officer and the matter was reconsidered, but it basically boils down to the fact that neither the deciding officer, who was carrying out his statutory function, nor the appeals officer was prepared to believe the story. As I have said, if there is other evidence or if somebody else is paying towards some of the loan, that information should be disclosed.