asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the employment of the personal assistant to the Minister of State at his Department and the apparent breach of Department of Social Welfare regulations whereby he was concurrently drawing invalidity pension while working full-time for the Minister over a period of some five months.
Private Notice Question. - Employment of Personal Assistant to Minister of State.
Mr. Michael Kelly commenced work as a personal secretary attaching to my constituency office on 3 January 1995. Prior to that Mr. Kelly was in receipt of an invalidity pension. His entitlement was based on his inability to undertake physical work relating to previous employment. I nominated Mr. Kelly for employment as a personal secretary attaching to my constituency office. The particulars relating to his terms and conditions of employment were a matter for negotiation by him with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
Negotiations between personnel divisions of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the Department of Finance commenced in January, were protracted in nature, and were not finalised until 11 May. During this period, at no stage did either Mr. Kelly or any other official inform me of the fact that Mr. Kelly had continued to draw invalidity pension while employed as a personal secretary within the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. I was only made aware of this fact for the first time by way of telephone conversation with the personnel division of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry on the evening of 12 May.
At no stage did Mr. Kelly simultaneously receive both invalidity pension and remuneration from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry during the period 3 January to 11 May. When the matter was brought to my attention on 12 May, action had already been taken by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to fully refund the invalidity pension to the Department of Social Welfare and a full refund of £2,691 was made by the Department on 7 June 1995.
At the outset, this was a personnel related matter which was administered by the personnel division in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and I was assured that matters were being satisfactorily resolved. I deeply regret the incident and I am satisfied that the matter was promptly dealt with when it became known to me.
The regulations governing the receipt of invalidity pension state that the recipient must notify the Department of Social Welfare if he or she changes address and in other circumstances, but in particular if he or she becomes capable of or takes up employment. Failure to observe these regulations can lead to the disallowance of the pension and to legal proceedings. These regulations were printed on Mr. Kelly's pension book. Are any prosecutions pending under section 224 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 1993, or have they been waived by the Minister for Social Welfare?
This is a matter strictly for the Department of Social Welfare and I am sure it will deal with it. It had notice of it since last May and I am sure it has considered it so I suggest that if the Deputy wants further replies, he take the matter up with the Minister for Social Welfare.
When somebody takes up employment it is usual for them to pay PRSI on their income. Was PRSI paid in relation to Mr. Kelly while he was working with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry? Was he covered for occupational injury benefit from the first day of his employment? If he had an accident during his employment from 3 January to 11 May, was he covered from the first day of his employment, although the contract had not been finalised?
In that instance, the normal departmental procedures would apply. I also point out that Mr. Kelly's contract was signed on 12 May.
It is unsatisfactory to say normal conditions would apply. I asked if they did apply.
All PRSI due was paid following the contract being signed between Mr. Kelly and the Department.
In other words, if Mr. Kelly had an accident or some difficulty any time from 3 January to 12 May he was in serious difficulty?
That is another matter. I am sure Mr. Kelly was covered by the normal procedures during that period. Because of protracted negotiations between the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the Department of Finance, which should have been resolved earlier, Mr. Kelly was put in this position.
In his statement the Minister said he employed Mr. Kelly who presumably is a friend of his given that he would have to deal with much of his confidential constituency work and would be au fait with the various rules and regulations which apply to constituents' problems and would perhaps deal with invalidity pension applications during the course of his work. Is it the Minister's position, despite the fact he was in constant contact with Mr. Kelly on a weekly or probably on a daily basis, that at no stage from 3 January to 10 May did he and Mr. Kelly have any discussion about the fact that he was not in receipt of payment from the Department of Social Welfare? Did the Minister know — I presume he did — he was in receipt of invalidity pension before he started work? If that is the case, is the Minister saying this matter was not discussed between him and Mr. Kelly until he got a telephone call from the Department of Social Welfare about it? Is the Minister suggesting that no discussion took place between himself and Mr. Kelly who was awaiting his contract from 3 January and was in daily or weekly contact with the Minister on various matters, and that although trying to settle everyone else's problems, he was not in a position to settle his?
During the period because of my concern about the protracted negotiations between Mr. Kelly, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the Department of Finance, I arranged two meetings with a Department of Finance official and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry regarding his salary and the fact that it was not being expedited. At no stage during those meetings was there any mention of invalidity pension. When I introduced Mr. Kelly to the Department, I introduced two others who were on social welfare benefit at that time. I presumed that three signed off immediately from any benefit and I left it at that.
What did the Minister presume he was living on?
I knew Mr. Kelly was on invalidity pension before I brought him to Dublin. Following my introduction of Mr. Kelly to personnel in the Department, I presumed he discontinued to draw invalidity pension. The other two people immediately withdrew their claims. I was asked how I thought he would survive in those circumstances. I was confident that because his wife has a shop, Mr. Kelly had some independent means. He did not mention that he was under any financial pressures.
Is it seriously being suggested that this issue concerning Mr. Kelly, a personal friend and confident of the Minister's, was left in abeyance for five months? The Minister was aware he was in receipt of invalidity pension at the time, but he did not find out if, but presumed he was in a position to discontinue that.
I refute that. I was not aware that Mr. Kelly was on invalidity pension after 3 January.
Does the Minister expect us to believe that?
It happens to be true.
I said the Minister presumed he had discontinued the payment.
Yes, just as did the other two people I employed. Later I employed a personal adviser and I had no problem as regards his conditions of payment.
Is the Minister saying this matter was not discussed by him in that five month period and that he did not ask Mr. Kelly if he had received a salary from the Department?
As I explained, I had two meetings with an official from the Department of Finance and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry expressly because of that and my concern for Mr. Kelly. At no stage did Mr. Kelly indicate to me that he had continued to draw invalidity pension. If he had done so, I would not be standing here. At no stage did he indicate to me that he continued to draw invality pension. It is perfectly clear.
The Opposition is milking this.
I feel totally free.
As long as we do not discover the Minister was misleading the House.
I come into the House with my head high. I did not know this man was drawing invalidity pension after 3 January. If I knew that, I would not stand here today.
Will the Minister outline Mr. Kelly's duties as a private secretary?
The reason I took Mr. Kelly on was that he was a good community worker. He is chairman of the local development association in Tarbert and chairman of the north Kerry development associations. He has been associated with a number of major developments in his native village of Tarbert and is involved in the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and social housing. The man comes with a very good record as regards commitment to the community. Mr. Kelly handled telephone calls, day to day issues in my office and took clinics when I was not available. He attended branch meetings and worked on Saturdays when I was busy.
When the Department of Social Welfare was asked to investigate the case in the normal way, the Department stated that Mr. Kelly's actions were a technical breach of the regulations rather than a deliberate one. It also stated that Mr. Kelly did not receive concurrently an invalidity pension and his salary from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. The amount of invalidity pension paid after he had taken up employment was deducted with his consent from the arrears of salary due to him. The Department pointed out that Mr. Kelly did not get any salary payment from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry until after the contract was agreed and signed which did not happen until 12 May 1995 and that he was not paid until after 18 May 1995. He last received invalidity pension on 27 April 1995.
I call Deputy Dempsey, after whom I will call Deputies Finucane and Ahern.
There is not much more in this issue.
The Minister of State is taking this issue more seriously than Deputy Yates.
I have called Deputy Dempsey.
Deputy Yates should not get involved.
(Interruptions.)
I do not want to bring this discussion to a conclusion without calling the three Deputies I mentioned, but I may have to do so.
The Minister gave a comprehensive reply to many questions I did not ask. I am sure the many thousands of people being prosecuted or who have prosecutions pending from the Department of Social Welfare will be delighted to receive a similar letter to say that they were only technically in breach of the regulations. Talk about cosy cartels.
I commend Mr. Kelly for his huge and onerous responsibilities in the area of community work but how can a man so active be on an invalidity pension in the first place? According to the Minister of State he is very active, is able to drive and so on.
Does that mean that social welfare recipients are not allowed to contribute to community work?
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Dempsey is supposed to be asking a question but instead he is making a long speech.
I would appreciate the support of the Minister of State in contributing to the order of the House. I ask Deputy Dempsey to finalise his question.
I am not making a speech. I am not even being allowed to ask a question, Deputy. I must be hitting a raw nerve.
(Interruptions.)
Do not draw Tarbert into this.
Deputy Carey should desist. I must bring this debate to a conclusion and I intend to do so quickly.
According to the regulations, a person is not entitled to receive an invalidity pension unless they are totally incapable of work for life. Did the Minister make representations to secure the invalidity pension for Mr. Kelly?
The first time I heard that Mr. Kelly was on an invalidity pension was when I asked him if he would take the job. I never made any representations for Mr. Kelly in any field previous to that.
His entitlement was based on his inability to undertake physical work relating to his previous employment. A person is allowed to do charity work if they are in receipt of an invalidity pension; Deputy Dempsey can check that out. During the period from 3 January to 12 May, I had no knowledge that Mr. Kelly continued to draw an invalidity pension, which is why I can feel strongly about the issue today.
I will call two more Deputies after Deputy Finucane and they will be Deputy Dermot Ahern and Deputy Joe Walsh who tabled the question and that will conclude the debate.
The proceeding Government had a Minister and two Ministers of State in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. This Government only has one Minister and a Minister of State in that Department. I am aware that the Minister of State works very hard in his Department. In view of that it is understandable that such a person might not necessarily be dealing with those issues. In regard to the individual involved, we saw many crocodile tears being shed yesterday for successful businessmen who are millionaires while scant respect is being shown for this man's wife and family, who have not taken anything from the State.
Is that a question?
With regard to what Deputy Finucane said, I confirm that the State did not lose one penny because of this indiscretion; I am not justifying what this man did.
Was it correct?
It was incorrect.
It was not correct and I would never condone it, nor did I do so. I would never have advised Mr. Kelly to do this if I had been aware of it.
The Minister, from a document he read earlier, compared this issue to a technical breach. Will he circulate a copy of that document to Opposition Deputies? Many of my constituents would like a copy of it to quote from when they meet the medical referee. Will the Minister of State accept that Mr. Kelly, because of his work for him in those months and his community work before that time, would know well the conditions of an invalidity pension?
I cannot speak for Mr. Kelly, but I am convinced, following the revelation of this matter to me and subsequent discussions with Mr. Kelly, that he was not aware he was in breach of the rules. I am not trying to justify what Mr. Kelly did——
It sounds like it.
——but he went down to the local post office in Tarbert openly. The post office is owned by the sister of a Fianna Fáil Senator.
Now we are getting to it.
(Interruptions.)
If Mr. Kelly thought for a moment he could get away with this intentionally, there is no way he could have done so.
There are grounds here for a Minister Lowry type of task force to look at the systems operating in the office of the Minister of State in the past nine months. He might find many nuances that we have been listening to for the past six months.
Paranoia is now widespread.
No Minister went astray in that office during that time.
I am calling Deputy Joe Walsh to ask the concluding question.
I have two questions.
(Interruptions.)
Let us hear the Deputy in possession. I may have to conclude without hearing Deputy Walsh, if Members do not behave.
(Interruptions.)
This is disgraceful conduct, particularly from some of the senior Members.
I understood a charter of rights existed in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry on the expedition of payments and can I take it that this charter——
And they were expedited.
(Interruptions.)
Can I take it that the charter did not extend to the personnel section of the Department, in view of the five months inexplicable delay and the fact that this unfortunate man was left without PRSI payments? Was Mr. Kelly also in receipt of the additional benefits due to invalidity pensioners, namely, electricity allowance and television licence, natural gas allowance and television licence, bottle gas refill allowance and television licence, telephone rental allowance——
The Deputy is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
You went through it long ago.
——fuel allowance and assistance under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme?
(Interruptions.)
Let us hear the Minister without interruption.
With regard to the charter of rights and the Department of Agriculture, this matter was with the Department of Finance for a considerable period of time so two Departments were involved. Mr. Kelly has not received travelling expenses or overtime allowances despite the fact that he has been travelling to Dublin and has been working overtime.
The Minister has been really looking after his friend.
With regard to the entitlements mentioned by the Deputy, I doubt that Mr. Kelly was in receipt of them. Nobody informed me that he was.
Did the Minister ask?
It is strictly a matter for the Department of Social Welfare. That information can be easily provided and I will provide it to the Deputy.
That concludes questions for today.
I am amazed at the compassion Deputy Walsh has shown for the Kelly family.
Come off it.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister led him astray.