Vol. 528 No. 2
28 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will give an assurance that his Department will at all times give due observance in both the letter and the spirit of due process and regulations appertaining to applicants' civil rights and liberties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29802/00]
The Deputy is, I am sure, aware that decisions on entitlement to statutory social welfare schemes under social welfare legislation is a matter for statutorily appointed deciding officers who are appointed by the Minister of the day but who are independent in the exercise of their function. I have no role in relation to such decisions.
When determining cases deciding officers are bound by the legislation governing the scheme in question. Their task is to establish the facts of the case based on the evidence available and to then apply the legislation to those facts. Under social welfare legislation, a deciding officer may revise a previous decision if new facts or evidence are brought to his or her attention, if there is a relevant change in the circumstances or if a mistake is made in relation to the law or the facts. The need for a revised decision may arise because of new information furnished by the individual claimant or following review of entitlement where the Department establishes that there has been a material change of circumstance. A person who is dissatisfied with the decision of a deciding officer may appeal to the social welfare appeals office which provides an independent accessible and fair appeals service in a prompt and courteous manner. In processing social welfare claims, all staff are obliged to follow fair procedures.
In this connection, detailed guidelines have been furnished to the staff on good decision making, including guidance on proper procedure, on weighing the evidence, and on the need to take account of the principles of natural and constitutional justice which have been laid down by the courts. The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure consistency of decisions by all staff who are involved in the processing of claims, including deciding officers and social welfare investigators.
I am satisfied that the procedures followed by my staff give rise to good quality decisions being made and that there are adequate measures in place to ensure redress in any case where a person is not happy with the decision in his or her case.
I am pleased to hear the Minister reiterate he is happy with the situation. Has he indicated to social welfare staff a change in emphasis in investigation of various claims? Has he initiated any such moves? To those of us who are in the business of representing our constituents there appears to be a distinct change in emphasis and attitude. Will the Minister give an assurance that my fears are unfounded?
I have given no instruction to staff, nor would I try to give any instruction to any of my staff in relation to what they should do, particularly deciding officers and appeals officers. I cannot do so by law. I have never done so nor would I expect the Deputy, when he was Minister in that Department, to have done so.
I worry a little. The Minister seems to detach himself from responsibility for what goes on in the Department. That applies to all Ministers. While I accept the tiger economy has been beneficial to making life easier for many people, it appears, from my experience of dealing with constituents, there is a distinct change and a tendency not to have the same regard for the rights and liberties of the citizen as previously, not only during the term of office of those on this side but by way of comparison with previous Administrations from that side of the House. That distinct impression has been created. I note the Minister's rebuttal of that. I hope he accepts full responsibility for what goes on in the Department and that the Department does not tell him what to do.
Of course I accept responsibility. The Deputy knows full well that the Minister does not have any role in decision making in relation to individual cases.
The Minister sets the standards.
I am not abdicating responsibility, neither am I misleading people as politicians sometimes tend to do about their influence in relation to social welfare decisions or other decisions such as housing or planning applications. I believe in telling the truth. I do not intervene in cases. I will inquire about the facts and ask if cases need to be reviewed, as I have done in respect of cases which the Deputy and other Deputies have brought to my attention.
The Minister will tell them he will solve it.
On no account would I ask officials to do something they are not obliged to do under legislation. There is no doubt circumstances have changed, particularly in relation to unemployment, because there are now jobs aplenty. That is one of the issues that assists people to get back to work.
Deputy Durkan has raised a serious issue. I understand what the Minister says about not interfering in individual cases. Is he satisfied that the guidelines for his staff are adequate to protect them as well as claimants? The Deputy will recall the recent report on lone parents. Some situations were described in that report which I considered were difficult for the officers.
We must proceed to the next question. The time has expired.
