I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of the House. I appreciate the presence of the Minister of State but he is aware of my views. I mean no disrespect to him.
This matter relates to a person who made an application for unemployment assistance. He went through the usual procedures of making applications for employment to various institutions. Having studiously done that, he was unsuccessful. He received replies which he returned to the Department. He was told he was not making sufficient effort because he had not approached some agencies which had vacancies. That is unacceptable. He approached agencies that had or did not have vacancies, as the case may be. He made the approach and that is all that is required under the legislation. One is not required to be in sackcloth and ashes for six months in order to be sufficiently penurious to qualify for a payment for which people ordinarily qualify.
I know what will be in the Minister's reply. I will relieve him of the responsibility by reciting some of it. The person concerned appealed against the deciding officer's decision to the independent social welfare appeals office. I hope nobody will get me talking about the independence of the social welfare appeals office. Everybody knows it is not independent; it is drawn from the original office. I am not making a complaint against the appeals office but that is the position. It does a good job in so far as it can but the word "independent" is misleading. The appeals officer upheld the decision of the deciding officer and the person concerned was notified of the result on 10 January.
Supplementary welfare allowance was paid to the person from 17 September 2002, while the case was ongoing, to 29 January. There was nothing after that. I do not accept the manner and methodology that was used in determining the outcome. The person went through the procedures, followed the rules and regulations and did what had to be done. He is being refused his payment on frivolous grounds. What annoys me most is the fact that, as far as the Department is concerned, he can disappear. He has had no income since 29 January. He rang me today. He is in a desperate situation and has no money.
It is not good if people are forced into that position; it is dangerous. This is being done by some Departments on a regular basis. I ask the Minister to relay to the relevant section in the Department the annoyance and frustration of people who are caught in that situation. He should also ask that section to have a more sympathetic look at the case and not offer the rubbish of suggesting that he make a new application. If he is on his knees in sackcloth and ashes for another three or four months and if he is lucky enough to live through that, he might be favourably considered. That is the other part of the reply the Minister will give.
I have no wish to be disrespectful but for God's sake some humanity must be exercised in a situa tion such as this. The Department should try to give a human touch to the bureaucratic responses to which we have become accustomed in recent times from a number of Departments.
