Vol. 413 No. 3
14 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the onus of proof for means is placed on the applicants, who in many cases have no income, and in cases where the social welfare officer decides that any income is above the social welfare limits, it is difficult for genuine applicants on appeal to succeed in their statutory entitlements; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
In order to qualify for social assistance payments claimed each applicant must satisfy the deciding officers that he or she complies with the statutory conditions laid down for the various social welfare assistance schemes.
The long established practice is that the onus of establishing entitlement is on the claimant. This principle has been confirmed in the courts. The deciding officers, who are independent in the exercise of their statutory functions, must be in possession of all the material facts before giving a decision. Investigative staff have instructions to help claimants in every way possible. Indeed, this is also a long established practice. Officers write to various institutions and individuals seeking information on behalf of claimants, for example to banks, solicitors, etc. However, if the person concerned does not supply the required information the onus clearly remains on him or her to provide it.
Appeals of the nature referred to by the Deputy are dealt with by the independent social welfare appeals office. I understand that there is substantial tendency to offer oral appeals in such cases. In any event, any appellant who indicates a wish to have an oral hearing in order to present his or her case fully is facilitated in that regard. Detailed statistics on the numbers of appeals by circumstances of disallowance are not available. Last year 16,500 appeals were dealt with and 50 per cent of these were given an oral hearing.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The reality on the ground, however, is not like that. I realise that the onus of proof rests with the applicant but where the applicant provides the proof and gives permission for officials to examine bank accounts, post office accounts and every other possible source of income, is the Minister aware that some social welfare officers are adamant that the claimant's income is above the social welfare limit which makes it well nigh impossible for the claimant to prove his case on appeal? I have been forced on occasion to submit such problems to the Ombudsman when it has been impossible to convince some social welfare officers that the person has no income. I am not worried about cases where one can prove the income but where one does not have proof of income the social welfare officer will not accept that. I wish to make the Minister aware of what is happening on the ground.
As I have said in my reply, social welfare officers are instructed to help claimants in every way possible.
They do not.
I am sending out the message this afternoon that it is the business of the staff to help people when dealing with their claims. In the light of what the Deputy has said, if there is a necessity to remind officers of their responsibilities in this regard I will avail of the opportunity to do so very soon.
I thank the Minister for that assurance.
With the onus of proof resting on the claimant, some feel they are guilty until proven innocent. The problem usually arises when someone cannot account for how he has spent redundancy money. The person is expected to have proof of how the money was spent. Even if he drank or gambled all this money, he still has not got it now, but he is deemed to be guilty because he cannot prove his innocence. A person is entitled to do what he likes with his money. Will the Minister do something about this or, alternatively, ensure that the people receiving redundancy are instructed to retain receipts in order to account for every penny of it?
This is an individual matter which calls for special attention. I am quite prepared to examine any case that either Deputy Ferris or Deputy Stagg forwards to me. Let us be quite clear, however, the officers dealing with social welfare claims have a duty and a responsibility to deal courteously with people in a reasonable and fair way. During my term of office I will ensure that is done.
May I take it from what the Minister has said that the Department will not now require people to keep receipts on how they have spent their redundancy money?
I am making no commitments of that nature. However, I will ensure that people will be treated fairly and courteously. If people who have complaints about the way they have been dealt with communicate with me I will have the matter investigated.
