asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to an article in a publication (details supplied) to the effect that Members of the Oireachtas are abusing the system of parliamentary questions by virtue of the number of those being asked on social welfare problems; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Parliamentary Questions on Social Welfare.
5.
I have seen the article referred to which undoubtedly raises some disturbing issues in relation to the large volume of questions asked on social welfare matters in particular those relating to the entitlements of individual claimants.
Deputies are, of course, entitled to raise such matters if they so wish but the question also arises as to whether this House is the most appropriate forum for many of them. In many cases the questions are in effect first-time representations in respect of individuals who have not used the remedies available to them to pursue their claims through the normal channels.
Delays in the processing of claims are currently being experienced in certain areas of the Department due to the increasing claim-load and to certain staff shortages. At the same time there has been a considerable increase in the level of representations and in the number of parliamentary questions. The 4,109 questions asked in 1983 exceeded by almost a thousand the total for 1981 and 1982 put together. Unfortunately the servicing of this large body of representations and questions is having an adverse effect on the Department's ability to process claims for payment and is contributing to the delays.
I would ask Deputies to bear these considerations in mind when putting down questions relating to the entitlements of individual claimants and to consider in each case whether all the normal channels for pursuing the matters at issue have been used to the full.
The Minister has said that there were over 1,000 more questions put on the Order Paper for 1983 than in the previous year. This is an indication of the fact that his Department are not in a position to administer the schemes, particularly the unemployment assistance scheme, because of the embargo placed on the public service by his Government, and that is the reason the questions are down. Does the Minister not consider it totally misleading of the National Social Services Board to write such an article — which is read by people involved in trying to help those most in need in our community — and would he suggest to them that these questions should not be put down? Would the Minister accept that the vast majority of questions on the Order Paper are necessary to elicit a response on behalf of the under-privileged in our society? Is the Minister aware that I had a question down the other day when I was told that somebody who had applied for unemployment assistance in September 1983 was still having his case processed because of extensive investigations and that this is the type of case in respect of which Deputies put down questions? Would the Minister accept that it was totally wrong of this magazine, published by the National Social Services Board, now a statutory agency, to mislead the public in this way?
Deputy, that question will now have to be read in the Department.
Would the Minister answer one part of it, that it was totally misleading of the magazine to publish such an article?
The Deputy asked me to make a statement on the matter and I have made that statement which contained my views on the matter. On the one hand the article should not be dismissed out of hand in the manner in which the Deputy suggested. Undoubtedly there are some cases, not all — and I fully agree with the Deputy in his defence of the parliamentary question particularly in relation to social welfare matters because they relate to the most vulnerable sections of our community — when Members, if needs be, should use the ultimate weapon, if you like, which is the parliamentary question. At the same time the analysis of the situation contained in the report is worth while studying and examining. There are certain cases in respect of which Deputies put down questions they must know in their own minds are unnecessary. There is one example quoted there where an applicant for a free telephone obviously did not comply with the requirements, yet a parliamentary question was put down. It does an injustice to the vast majority of social welfare questions when there are the few questions Deputies put down simply in order to be able to tell their constituents they took every possible step to get them their entitlement even though the Deputy should have known in the first instance that the person would not comply with the regulations to qualify for that benefit. There was a time in this House when questions to the Minister for Social Welfare were very rare. They are becoming so plentiful now that they are contributing in a major way to the difficulty of dealing with cases. I might suggest that all Deputies take all other steps first — most Deputies do — before putting down a question.
While accepting almost in full what the Minister says — and I agree with his remarks about a lot of parliamentary questions put down; indeed I have raised this matter several times — would he not agree that this article and the way it was presented seemed to imply that TDs had no right to take part in a democracy by way of putting down questions which it was contended, regardless of whether they are researched or not, is a waste of time? Indeed the whole foundation of the report was based not on when questions are put down but on when they are answered. When questions are put down what happens in the Department is that they are then corrected, answers sent out and there is local contact within the various sections of the Department whereas, if the question was answered immediately, the success rate for TDs would be much higher. The report gives a very slanted version to discredit TDs. Like a number of my colleagues I rarely put down a parliamentary question but this article attacks the fundamental right of a TD to put down a question to help somebody in need. Certainly I read an article which was most unfair. I was elected here to speak but certainly the people who wrote that article did not do much about it.
Is the Minister aware that, because of the cutbacks in the public service, many officials are not in a position to deal with claims for unemployment benefit, when they must go out and means test families before the dole is granted to individuals?
That is another question.
It deals with the problem created by the report. Because of the huge volume of unemployment at present there are thousands of extra claims being submitted. As elected representatives we are being asked to ascertain whether certain applicants' claims have even been recorded as having been received. Yet, when we make inquiries, we find that the officials cannot even get out to meet the people.
That is for the Social Welfare Bill, Deputy.
I want to know is the Minister aware of that fact?
I answered that question yesterday.
So the Minister is aware of the fact.
I might refer the Deputy to the Official Report of yesterday's proceedings.
Question No. 6.
Just a final supplementary on that. This is of fundamental importance. Possibly it is the most important question on the Order Paper——
Of course it is of fundamental importance but it could be extended for the rest of the day.
——because the particular magazine is being circulated to community information offices around the country who are expected to give correct information to claimants who find themselves in difficulty with regard to their applications to the Department of Social Welfare. Will the Minister write to the National Social Service Board and ask them to publish a correction? Is he aware that in many instances the only response people get is through their elected representatives? It is fundamental to the working of this House and to Deputies——
The Deputy is making a speech.
A Deputy should be in a position to put down questions and if people have a serious problem they should come to him.
As I stated in my reply, I made it quite clear Deputies are entitled to raise such matters in this House if they wish to do so. I am sure they will continue to exercise that right.