asked the Minister for Social Welfare why disability benefit in respect of the week ended 4th February, 1975, has not been paid to a person (name supplied) in Dublin.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Disability Benefit Claim.
42.
A cheque in payment of disability benefit for the period in question was issued to the claimant's address on 4th February, 1975. On 5th March, 1975, the claimant's wife reported that the cheque was not received by her. The question of replacing the cheque is being dealt with and a communication in the matter has been issued to the claimant.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, one month after the cheque should have been received, the wife of the claimant called for the fourth time to the Department, where she was sent from one person to another and eventually, after three hours, was informed by a supervisor that it would take another six to eight weeks before a cheque could be issued? Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied with that procedure?
That is not the information I have. My information is that the cheque was issued on February 4th but that the first indication the Department had of its non-receipt was on the 5th March when the claimant's wife reported the matter.
Before replacing a lost cheque we issue to the claimant for signature a form asking him to agree that, in the event of the cheque arriving, it would be returned to the Department. In this case the form of undertaking to this effect has not been returned by the claimant and this is holding up replacement of the cheque.
My information is that the call of the 5th March was the fourth one to the Department by the claimant's wife. In such circumstances, would the Parliamentary Secretary be satisfied with the procedure adopted?
Certainly I would be dissatisfied with any such procedure, because the public in their dealings with the Department are entitled to have their business conducted both courteously and speedily. However, as I have said, my information is that the first indication the Department had of the cheque being lost was on 5th March.
I appreciate that that is the information available to the Parliamentary Secretary.
Had the normal form of undertaking in such circumstances been returned to us, the cheque would have been replaced by now.
Maybe that did not arrive either.
I assure the Deputy I am anxious that there be the minimum delay possible in replacing this cheque.
The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that the information I have is different from that available to him. I shall pursue that with him later but, in view of what he has said regarding the undertaking, would he comment on the fact that the supervisor concerned informed the claimant's wife that it would take a further six to eight weeks first, to establish positively that the cheque had not been cashed and, secondly, before a new cheque could be issued?
There must have been some misunderstanding in this regard. Possibly it would take six to eight weeks to establish whether the cheque had been cashed, but on the undertaking to which I have referred being returned to us we would issue another cheque.
That is what I would have thought, but apparently this point was not mentioned.
We would not wait six to eight weeks before issuing a new cheque.