asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will arrange to expedite the unemployment assistance case of a person (name supplied) in County Donegal which has been under consideration for some time.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Assistance.
63.
I have arranged as the Deputy asks. The necessary investigations are being carried out immediately and the review of the claim will then be concluded.
I did not hear the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Deputy was not intended to hear the Parliamentary Secretary.
Actually he was. I have arranged as the Deputy asks. The necessary investigations are being carried out immediately and the review of the claim will then be concluded.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is unsatisfactory that a Deputy should have to resort to the rather expensive method of getting information in this way and will he ensure that, when a Deputy makes representations in these cases, his representations are dealt with quickly and that he is informed in a reasonable time? Secondly would the Parliamentary Secretary agree with me when I say that an alarming number of reinvestigations and queries are being raised in respect of existing recipients of unemployment assistance especially in my county?
I would not agree with the second part of the Deputy's supplementary question. I certainly agree that representations made by Deputies, or any member of the public, should be dealt with as speedily as possible. In the second part of the Deputy's supplementary question he referred to undue delays or reinvestigations particularly in his own constituency. The Deputy has submitted quite a number of questions along the general lines of this question and, almost invariably, I have found on investigation that the matter has been protracted and the decision delayed because there was concealment of rateable land or other means by the person making the complaint. In fact, this applies to the present case as it has to so many more which the Deputy has submitted in the past.
This is a sweeping general statement which the Parliamentary Secretary knows is quite untrue. I am not denying that there may be concealment in some cases but not in all cases, and certainly not in all the cases I have brought to his notice.
That is a very serious allegation.
I did not say in all cases, but in a very large number of cases submitted by the Deputy. I replied to the Deputy's supplementary question in which he implied that there was some sort of a conspiracy against him or his constituency by the Department. I thought I was justified in stating what I have stated, which is true, in order to inform the House what the circumstances were and why the Deputy was apparently experiencing this difficulty.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary agree that today's Order Paper indicates that I am not the only Deputy who is having this problem? Similar questions are down with names and addresses supplied by other Deputies. This has become the pattern of parliamentary questions to the Department of Social Welfare put down not by me but by many other Deputies over a period? Would he not agree with that?
I think the Deputy will agree that I have never maintained that the Department are never at fault. Undoubtedly there are occasions when they are. If the Deputy looks at the record for the past 20 months he will see the number of times I have come into the House and accepted responsibility for what I described as unjustified delay. With regard to other questions on the Order Paper, undoubtedly with the large volumes of claims paid and processed there are delays due to human error on the part of members of the staff of the Department. I accept full responsibility when they occur.
I still maintain that what I said with regard to a number of questions along these lines submitted by the Deputy is true. In his supplementary question he insinuated that there was some sort of conspiracy against him or his constituency. The majority of questions the Deputy has submitted along these lines have shown that the cause of the delay lies with the claimant. I will go further. In some cases the Deputy has already been informed by letter of the exact circumstances which caused the delay.
Question No. 64.
Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will recall his reply to three questions I tabled two weeks ago, one relating to a delay of 33 weeks, another relating to a delay of 24 weeks, and a third relating to a delay of 18 weeks. He apologised for the delay and admitted that I was correct. He said he was having a special investigation in the matter.
Acting Chairman
I have called Question No. 64.
Undoubtedly there are delays and, where there are, they are acknowledged and I accept responsibility.
Did the Parliamentary Secretary not say that there would be an inquiry?
I do not think it helps this House when the Deputy submits questions to which he knows the answer, knows who is at fault, and knows it is not the Department's fault. That might look well in the Deputy's local paper, but it does not help the House.
They do not go into my local paper. I will continue to ask questions where there is a delay of 33 weeks.
64.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reasons for the discontinuance of payments of unemployment assistance to a person in County Donegal (name supplied) who is a married man with three children; and when payments will recommence.
Payment of unemployment assistance to this person was suspended following an investigation of his existing means assessment of 15p a week. The reinvestigation indicated that he is in occupation of land in respect of which means had not previously been assessed. Further inquiries are in progress to secure additional information which is necessary to enable the deciding officer to determine the revised rate of means. It is hoped to have the review of the claim concluded at an early date.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify the allegation which he has made that the questions and replies in this case are meant for insertion in our local papers in Donegal. Will the Parliamentary Secretary withdraw that allegation or prove it?
Acting Chairman
That is a separate matter.
It arises directly from what the Parliamentary Secretary said in reply to my supplementary on the last question. The Parliamentary Secretary should withdraw the allegation or prove it by producing the local newspapers.
If the Deputy states that he does not submit these for publication in his local newspapers I accept that.
I now state that I do not submit questions or replies to any local newspapers.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy has received the answer he wanted.
The Deputy has not received the apology he wanted; he merely received a conditional apology.