This is the saga of a person who complied with the law and was in a position to obtain part-time employment to supplement his social welfare benefits. It is possible that this person would not have decided to opt out of social welfare, like many other people, unless he had been advised to do so. I advised him that it was in his own interest, in the interest of everybody else and of the State to sign off for a number of days per week when he was in employment. He did that but, apparently that is not encouraged despite manifestations to the contrary that have emanated from the Government in recent and not so recent times. In fact the reverse was the case. Not only was he subjected to constant supervision but for some unknown reason he was also subjected to constant surveillance. If every recipient of social welfare was subjected to the same degree of surveillance as this unfortunate individual we would be very close to the type of state referred to in the previous debate. I know the circumstances of this case very well. This case has been raised on a previous Adjournment Debate to which the Minister for Social Welfare replied.
I wish to refer to the attitude of the investigating officers. I appreciate we must eliminate fraud and I do not wish to have any hand, act or part in supporting any person who attempts to defraud the system. There are people who are dependent on social welfare and who are entitled to sign on and sign off and qualify for allowances but that has not been encouraged in this case as can be seen from the manner in which this individual was treated. What militated most against him was that his local credit union account showed resources which indicated an income in excess of £100 per week. It is not unusual for a person on social welfare to obtain £100 per week, neither is it unusual for a person on social welfare and in part-time employment to get £100, £120 or £130, depending on the number of dependants. That was held against him when his case was investigated. He was asked to account for this money but there was no point in him trying to explain. This matter did not take up too much time when the case went to appeal a number of months ago. What is amazing is that it is now almost one year since this man was last paid. Are we serious about encouraging people to leave the social welfare system or are we determined to ensure that not only will they be discouraged but afraid to leave it?
I protest at the way this case was dealt with. This does not reflect well on the Department of Social Welfare for which I have a great deal of respect. Since the appeal there was a long unexplained delay; the file was transferred from section to section before an ambivalent decision which has not yet been given effect was taken. Will the Minister of State, before the system collapses, expedite the process after the appeal hearing to ensure the unfortunate appellants receive an early response. A year is a long time to wait to know whether one will have sufficient resources to run a household.
