Thank you, Sir, for affording me the opportunity to raise this matter in the House. I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the House but I felt it was necessary to bring to the Minister's attention a couple of matters relating thereto.
Question No. 204 was to ask the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a social welfare officer called to a person (details supplied) in County Meath during the course of his work on a social employment scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Question No. 210 was to ask the Minister for Social Welfare the current position in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare who is on a FAS course and recently had a visit from a social welfare investigator whose attitude seemed to indicate a threat to him; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The Minister's reply was:
The person concerned was in receipt of unemployment assistance continuously from 1987 until 15 November 1990 when he commenced a social employment scheme.
He was observed in a working situation by a social welfare officer on 2 November 1990 and, in the light of this, an investigation into his entitlement to unemployment assistance was undertaken. As part of this investigation it was necessary to interview the person concerned. A call was made to his home on 14 March 1991 and the social welfare officer was directed to the place where she was engaged on a social employment scheme project.
As a result of the investigation the person concerned has been disallowed unemployment assistance for the dates on which concurrent working and claiming has been established and an overpayment has been established.
I want to raise two points in relation to this question. I mean no criticism of the Minister and I realise fully that social welfare investigating officers have a very difficult job to do. We all recognise they have to do it and we support them fully.
However, there are ways and means of doing a job and on this occasion I felt the officer concerned was overly zealous in the performance and pursuit of his duty, particularly so when it came to light on foot of information being made available to the constitutent that for part of the period during which he was disallowed unemployment assistance it was discovered that he was on a Jobsearch course as directed by the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Labour. That being the case, I would have to conclude that either an error was made or, due to pressure of work perhaps, the individual concerned was not fully able to establish whether the person was working or not and may have made a mistake. However, the attitude to the constituent during the period when the investigation was taking place was not, to my mind, in the best interests of getting co-operation from the public or in the best interests of the Department concerned.
I have the height of respect for the Minister in the way he runs his Department and I know full well he himself would be displeased to think anything untoward happened. I do not wish to make any further allegations other than to say I felt the manner in which the constituent was approached was not in keeping with the guidelines and rules which are understood, more especially when it has transpired that for part of that period notice has already been served on the constituent to the effect that he now owes the Department a sum of money in respect of the period during which he was allegedly working. Obviously, if the individual concerned was on a Jobsearch course — I have submitted information to that effect to the Department — there is obviously an error, an overlapping. I have to conclude that if the investigating officer was wrong in respect of part of the period in which he alleged the individual was working he could very well be wrong about the entire affair. When it was suggested very strongly to the individual concerned that he was working the person concerned strenuously objected, and still objects, to the allegation. I have no reason to disbelieve him. It may well have appeared as if he were working at the time, but he was not. He has taken very seriously the allegation that has been made against him. I feel the Minister should take the matter up and have it resolved as amicably and as quickly as possible.