I am sorry the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is not in the House to deal with this issue. He is not known for his alacrity in responding to matters on the Adjournment and I am sure he is not going to change at this stage. However, I would have thought he would take a greater interest in these matters as we approach an election.
Adjournment Debate. - Social Welfare Code.
The Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, answers for everyone in the House.
Deputy Hanafin is an all-round Minister and I wish to make this case to her as a compassionate and caring Minister of State.
This issue involves the case of a separated woman. When her separation was complete and the family home sold and the spoils divided equally, this woman had no visible means of support, was in poor health and, last April, had to apply for the one parent family allowance. I am familiar with the procedures involved, as is the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, as I have been a Minister of State on more than one occasion. However, I am concerned that, in an economy which is, and has been, allegedly rampant for some time, this unfortunate woman who has two children applied last April for a payment to which she is undoubtedly entitled yet her case has not been resolved.
The Minister stated the reason was that the deciding officer had asked for information regarding the proceeds from the sale of this woman's house. The sale of her house should have nothing to do with this matter. She has to live somewhere and hopes to buy a home to replace that which was lost through the separation at some stage. With no disrespect to deciding officers, a compassionate view should be taken of a case such as this. If this woman had retained the family home after the separation she would have been entitled to her payment without any calculation of means derived from the sale of the property. It is ironic, unjust and unfair that this kind of situation should exist.
I raised this issue with the Minister last May and June and this matter is still going on. Last June I was informed that the woman was in receipt of supplementary welfare from the health board, but this information was incorrect at that time. I am sure the Minister's office did not wish to mislead me or the House, but the information was wrong and that should not have been the case. The Department and the supplementary health services are linked by computer so there should be no such problems.
The Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, would be willing to take up this case as it is a just cause. Having been in her position on a number of occasions, and having had to do the same thing, I ask her to take up this issue.
A deciding officer's view is not sacrosanct. The Minister has the power to challenge the deciding officer's assertion regarding the proceeds of the sale of this woman's house. If any comparison is needed, I remind the Minister and any other Minister who wishes to listen, that a deciding officer once made a decision regarding entitlement to a social welfare benefit which ultimately cost the State more than £300 million. I urge the Minister of State to bring this just cause to the attention of the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs without delay.
I will respond to this motion on behalf of the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs who is unavoidably absent on Government business.
The Deputy will be aware that the determination of entitlement under the statutory one parent family payment scheme or, for that matter, entitlement under any other statutory social welfare scheme, is not a function for the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. Under the relevant legislation, these are matters for deciding officers and, in the event of an appeal, for appeals officers appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Social Welfare Acts.
There is a statutory obligation on all claimants for one parent family payment to satisfy and continue to satisfy the conditions for entitlement to the payment. The conditions are that a claimant must have the main care and charge of at least one child, must not be cohabiting, must not have gross earnings in excess of £230.76 per week, must satisfy a means test and must make efforts to seek maintenance from the other parent of the child. The well established maintenance obligation and means testing structures, in particular, reflect the general policy of the scheme that, in so far as possible, one parent families should be maintained by their former spouses or partners rather than have to rely on social welfare support. In determining entitlement the deciding officer, or appeals officer as the case may be, must be satisfied that all the conditions are satisfied, including the requirement to make efforts to seek maintenance.
In the case referred to by Deputy Durkan, the person concerned applied for the one parent family payment in April 2001. Following the initial investigation of her situation by a local officer of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, the person concerned was asked in July 2001 to provide the following information: a copy of the lease agreement for her current dwelling; confirmation from her accountant of the date she ceased self-employment; confirmation of how she disposed of a balance of money received from sale of property and documentary evidence of her efforts to obtain maintenance from her spouse. These issues were considered by the deciding officer to be directly relevant to the person's eligibility for payment.
On 20 July 2001, Deputy Durkan phoned the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and stated that the person concerned was hospitalised following a heart attack. In light of this, a formal decision was not made on the claim at that stage. Under the circumstances, the deciding officer felt it best to give the person concerned an extended chance to obtain the documentation. However, to date, three months later, none of the documentation requested has been received nor has the claimant made any contact with the Department.
The woman is in hospital.
As soon as the person supplies the necessary documentation, a decision will be made on her claim and she will be notified by the Department of the outcome.
The Department is displaying a harsh, draconian, poor law attitude.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 23 October 2001.