Before we commence Committee Stage of this Bill I should like to indicate to the House that amendments Nos. 1 to 10 in the name of Senator Séan Fallon are out of order on the grounds that they involve a potential charge on public revenue.
Social Welfare Bill, 1985: Committee Stage.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am not in a position to take you to task; I accept and I was aware that in the case of some of them you would rule against them. On the section we are opposing, section 6, we could argue that rather than involving a charge on the State, it involved a charge on the workers who are going to be asked to pay extra money. I am surprised that particular one was ruled out of order.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Section 6 is not an amendment. The section opposed is not an amendment. You have given notice to oppose.
My apologies.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Could I just briefly say — although you have given your ruling which I accept — I put down these amendments simply to highlight the very fact that the increases of 6 per cent and 6½ per cent and other increases are of a very miserly nature. They will operate from the second week of July. You could argue that what is really being received by the social welfare recipients is a mere 3½ per cent to 4 per cent. In 1985 by any standards this must be described as quite a miserly increase. For that reason we submitted these amendments in the knowledge that you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh would rule as you have ruled.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
On section 5, I had a note that these savings would be at the expense of people who have become unemployed and who are sick and disabled. It is only right and proper that we should again highlight this very important fact. For that reason, I come to my feet to make that point.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
We oppose this section. I do not wish to hold it up unduly. The point we have to make is that this increase in PRSI will affect as many as 150,000 workers. We have a duty to endeavour to maintain the living standards of these people. We are not doing that. This section is doing nothing but reducing the living standards of many people to whom I have referred.
Question put and declared carried.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
My apologies, I missed a section there. The section dealing with the family income benefit. I should like to refer again to that section and make the point that it has failed and failed miserably. It reminds me and other people of the famous £9.60 a week that was promised some years ago. We know that when the family income benefit was introduced we were told it would be the saviour of the whole nation. We would have 35,000 families applying for it. Up to now, fewer than 5,000 families have benefited. I do not know what one can do; I know it has been suggested you advertise. There is a lack of communication somewhere because obviously one would imagine that more than 5,000 families should be in receipt of this benefit — not that it is going to save them for the rest of their lives but it certainly would be of some help. As we know, when the food subsidies were halved some time ago we had Deputies from both parties saying: "We must bring forward the family income benefit". That in itself is not going to do anything. At the moment the halving of the food subsidies is costing each family £5 or £6 per week extra. For that reason——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have allowed you to make a point. You did take the House back again. You have gone back three sections. If I am going too fast for you, I am sorry.
My apologies. I was not prepared for it at the time. I just want to make the point that the family income benefit has not been a success. It is regrettable that it is not a success. Every effort should be made to ensure its success.
On that section, I would like to support Senator Fallon very strongly. This family income supplement was a rushed job. When the Government halved the food subsidies during a recess of Parliament, members of the Labour Party made public statements that they were responsible for pressuring the Government to bring forward the family income supplement. This was in order, they claimed, to offset the loss to people in the lower income group caused by the removal of the food subsidies. To say the least, the family income supplement is a flop. Perhaps the Minister will re-examine the scheme as it stands to find out the reason more people in hardship cannot avail of this income supplement. Many people were surprised to find that, unless they were actually working, the family income supplement was of no benefit to them. There are people who are not working through no fault of their own who are finding it very hard to survive.
At the time this measure was introduced the Tánaiste stated that poorer people could not afford butter. Butter is one of our natural foods and to find that we have arrived at a stage where we have priced our people out of the purchasing market is a scandalous state of affairs. I would ask the Minister to have another look at the family income supplement to see if something can be done for these people.
I would like to state that the family income supplement scheme was the subject of an intense advertising campaign during November 1984. Some £64,000 was spent on media advertising campaigns. Advertisements appeared in five Sunday newspapers, three evening newspapers, provincial newspapers and local Dublin newspapers. The scheme was also advertised on radio and TV. A second campaign of advertising commenced the weekend before last with advertisements in the four Sunday newspapers, in last Wednesday's daily newspapers, in the three evening papers and in the provincial papers. It is intended to distribute posters to post offices, health centres, employment exchanges and the Department's public offices. In other countries with similar schemes the take-up has only been about 50 per cent of what had been estimated. For some reason this has been a feature of the scheme as experienced in other countries. Everything possible will continue to be done by the Department to get the necessary information about the scheme to the people who qualify for it.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
What this side of the House asked on this was that the widows of public service dentists should receive benefits similar to all other public service widows. At the moment dentists are excluded. I am aware from the Minister's statement that new arrangements will be provided in this area. For this reason we are content to wait until such time as we read about them.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
Section 11 (e) refers to employment under the scheme administered by the Department of Labour and known as "teamwork". I should like to raise the point that these types of projects all over the country are experiencing great difficulties regarding public liability insurance. They must have public liability insurance and some form of employer's liability insurance. This is similar to the problem referred to this morning regarding ICI. Problems exist in teamwork and other similar projects because of the failure to get public liability insurance and employer's liability insurance. This is something which must be examined in the future.
I agree with Senator Fallon in this regard. The youth employment scheme as it has been presented to the many groups, public, private and social, that have benefited from it throughout the country, are finding it practically impossible to take up the grants that are given for local facilities in so far as the contribution for the public life insurance liability has to come from their own funds and it cannot be drawn from the funds being granted to them for whatever environmental works they are engaged in. Locally it is felt that many brokers are having a certain "cream-off" from it.
This is an area which requires thorough examination in consultation with the Department of Labour. The charges for insurance are excessive. Many companies do not wish to take on this liability, despite the fact that many of the people who are involved in this work are in no way liabilities greater than the ordinary members of the workforce; they are able-bodied young people. They are young unemployed people getting experience, probably their first experience. Perhaps there is a risk factor in this but it puts undue hardship on organisations and on groups that are trying to get youth schemes off the ground. It is doing untold damage by holding up the work because insurance cover is not available.
As Senator Burke has indicated, this is a matter for the Department of Labour. It is not relevant to this section.
It is no harm to highlight the fact that there are problems.
I wanted to explain my lack of comment on this.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill".
This section updates the fines in respect of summary conviction and conviction on indictment to the levels which are not acceptable, and in respect of summary conviction to the levels which have been accepted in recent times in legislation to keep those fines within what is constitutionally permissible and in respect of conviction on indictment to bring the fines to a level which has been included in legislation recently in respect of offences of this nature. I would like to ask the Minister if he is satisfied that increasing fines in respect of social welfare offences is, the best way of dealing with offences of this nature. My understanding is that under the Principal Act somebody who commits an offence of the nature which section 12 is envisaged to cover will also lose entitlement for a six month period. The Minister might confirm if I am correct in my understanding in that respect. Rather than increasing fines for an offence of this nature there should be a further provision that, say, for a second six month period the payment would be at a reduced rate.
An increase in fines can be an academic exercise because a court, in considering a charge against any person and imposing a penalty will naturally bear in mind the person's ability to pay. In this type of case, ability to pay would be minimal. That is why I say that increasing the fine is purely an academic exercise.
Some other deterrent should be introduced to prevent further abuse of the social welfare system. That is why I would like to know if the Minister thinks that the six months disallowance is sufficient or whether the deterrent should go beyond the six month period, for instance, a reduced rate of payment for a further six months.
There are two questions which can appropriately be asked under this section. I do not know if the Minister has the information available but if he has not I would like if he could get if for me. First, I would like to know how many people have been prosecuted in respect of social welfare offences since the enactment of the principal legislation. Secondly, I would like to know if the Minister has any information on the average fines which have been imposed. My own experience in this area would seem to suggest that fines have been pretty low, but of course bearing in mind the fact that there is a consequential penalty that will affect the defendant. That is the comment I would like to make in relation to that section. I would like to have the Minister's reply.
I would like to ask another question as I see the Minister's officials are here ready, willing and able to help on obtuse points. I notice that the Schedule refers to an existing fine of £5 in respect of summary conviction under section 185 (3) of the Principal Act. Perhaps somebody might be able to tell me what offence is covered by that.
In all the Social Welfare Acts and in the 1981 Consolidation Act there was provision for penalties. There was always the fine element in the penalty. This section does two things. It updates the amount of fines having regard to the value of money. Also, because of the increased level of abuse of the social welfare system it is necessary to have some serious expression much as is contained in this section of the Bill. We would hope that fines of this nature and the penalty of six months without benefit would be sufficient to convey to people who are tempted to break the law in this regard that it is serious, that they should think twice about it and that they should not do it. The withholding of a claim to benefit for a period of six months is serious. There is also an automatic disqualification for six weeks. The penalties should be a sufficient deterrent. I have not got the exact number of prosecutions and convictions. All I can say from my own information and from the media is that they are ongoing. Maybe they do not get the publicity that they should get. Publicity might act as a deterrent.
The information that has now been given to me about the amount of overpayments raised from unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit for the period of 1980 to 1984 is as follows: for unemployment benefit, in 1980, it was £90,000; 1981, £152,000; 1982, £204,000; 1983, £378,000; and 1984, £284,000. The figures in respect of unemployment assistance are: in 1980, £148,000; 1981, £184,000; 1982, £266,000; 1983, £351,000; 1984, £245,000. The average overpayment was approximately £155.
These figures do not give an accurate indication of the actual amount of fraud detected or indeed the potential fraud prevented through special interviewing of claimants by the SIU and local office staff. The SIU, which is a special investigation unit, estimates that in 1984 as a result of interviewing by their officers a considerable number of people signed off. The unemployment funds were saved the equivalent of £6,350,000 annually. In addition, local office staff interviewed nearly 15,000 claimants. As a result over 1,500 signed off. The question of overpayment is not normally raised in cases where people sign off following interview. There may be no hard evidence of fraud at time of interview. However, the fact that people sign off is a saving. Prosecutions are made where a charge of wilful concealment or knowingly making false representations can be sustained. Within these constraints in all possible cases of prosecution the courts adjudicated on 120 cases in 1984, 78 of which related to unemployment benefit and 42 to unemployment assistance. All these cases concerned working and signing. In a number of cases where it would have been desirable to prosecute proceedings were not taken for one of the following reasons; expiry of the time limits or insufficient evidence.
That is a general view of the position. The present £5 fine referred to relates to offences in connection with widows' noncontributory pension and social assistance allowance. The increase of £500 brings it into line with fines for summary convictions in respect of all other social welfare schemes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Section 13 has not got very much publicity. It is a section which when I read it and re-read it worries me considerably. The section is described as a section dealing with the appointment and duties of social welfare officers. It starts off very innocently, indicating that "the Minister for the Public Service may appoint as many persons as he thinks proper to be social welfare officers for the purpose of this chapter". One would welcome that and one would hope that the Minister for the Public Service would give his sanction to the appointment of more social welfare officers to deal with appeals. There is considerable concern in the west of Ireland where the method of assessment of small farmers for unemployment assistance is absolutely unsatisfactory. There is considerable concern that there are not sufficient people available to carry out oral hearings. I would hope that the Minister would urge the Minister for the Public Service, if he has not already done so, to sanction the appointment of such officers.
What I worry about in relation to this section is what is stated first in subsection (3) (c). It would appear that the social welfare officer will now have the option to examine alone every person that he requires to examine. This is an appalling provision. It is a provision that defeats any justice in the social welfare system. It is a provision which leans absolutely against those people who cannot deal at arm's length with bureaucracy.
Applicants for social welfare payments are usually the less well-off. Normally, they are people who come from a section of society which does not have benefits in a broad sense. These people can now be examined alone, if the social welfare officer so opts. It would appear to me that the option for the examination to be in the presence of another person is an option that lies, not with the examinee but with the examiner. My understanding of the section may be incorrect but if it is correct, I totally oppose the provision. If I am wrong, I stand corrected. Anybody who is subject to examination for social welfare purposes should have the right to be accompanied by another person, whether that other person is a member of his family, or a political, legal or social adviser. One of the problems that we have in dealing with the social welfare code is that the people who are subject to the code do not understand it. They do not know what their rights are and they are very frequently faced with people who implement the code and certainly do not advise them of their rights.
The section goes on to say that the investigating officer can require "every such person to sign a declaration of the truth of the matters in respect of which he is so examined". We have the situation where the examinee, the unfortunate person who cannot be represented, must now go even further and sign a declaration of truth. If I am right in my understanding of the purpose of this subsection, that subsection should be deleted from the Bill.
We have a situation where people are assessed for small farmers' dole in the west of Ireland and where they appeal against that and where appeals officers call on their houses in a most peremptory manner and certainly do not advise them of their rights and certainly do not advise them of the matters which are allowable as farm expenses in respect of their claim or in respect of their appeal. If such people, who are not to be advised of their rights, do not have the right to be accompanied by any person in respect of their examination and if that becomes law it seems to be a totally improper situation. I would ask the Minister for the reasons I have mentioned to review that provision again.
There are other aspects of this section that I am unhappy about. We have the phrase "wilfully delays or obstructs". This is double phraseology. Wilful obstruction encompasses wilful delay. There are many situations where delay may not be wilful and it would be sufficient for the purposes of the Department of Social Welfare if subsection (5) (a) simply read: "wilfully obstructs". That would be adequate.
Towards the end of the section there is the addition of a phrase which I find quite offensive in social legislation, and that is "but no one shall be required under this section to answer any question or to give any evidence tending to incriminate himself". I find that appalling in social legislation. That phrase is proper in legislation dealing with crime. There is the right of an individual to give evidence or to refuse to give evidence tending to incriminate himself in relation to the investigation of a criminal matter or in relation to proceedings in which he is giving evidence dealing with the prosecution of a criminal matter. That phrase cannot properly be used in relation to the investigation of a social welfare matter. I cannot see how a person shall not be required to give evidence tending to incriminate himself. Does the section mean that somebody has the right to remain silent? If that is so, then I cannot see how subsection (5) (a) can be included. If one is entitled not to give evidence tending to incriminate oneself then one is entitled to refuse or to neglect to answer any questions. Unfortunately subsection (5) (b) makes that a statutory offence. Subsection (5) (a) makes wilful delay or obstruction a statutory offence. On the other hand, there is the apparent contradiction that if one actually does these things they are, by statute, in order. This whole section would need to be looked at again.
When I am talking about this section and the type of examination that goes on — because this section deals with the appointment and duties of social welfare officers — I want to put into the record that I believe there are many excellent social welfare officers. I believe the majority of social welfare officers are excellent. I believe a little PR is necessary from the Department of Social Welfare in approaching people — I am speaking principally of the smallholders in my part of the country who are being scalded in relation to incorrect and improper assessment of small farmers' dole. The social welfare officers should receive some minimal training not merely in the individual's rights under the Act but in ordinary courtesy.
Recently a small farmer came to me and said "I am in about the appeal". I said "good" and he said "she was out last week". I said "good". I asked him what happened. "I was having the dinner and it was a very wet day and I heard a horn of a car hooting outside and I went out and she wound down the window and that is where the re-examination took place". That kind of thing is appalling. That is one example.
The rights of the smallholder in relation to appeals and assessment must be examined. This is an issue about which I and my colleagues on this side of the House have spoken to the Minister and to the Minister of State, Deputy John Donnellan. If there is to be confidence in the system the method of assessment must be improved. I do not complain about the factual as distinct from the notional system. In many ways the factual system is a good system but the operation and administration of that system are very bad. This does not instil confidence in the people who are subject to the system.
It is relevant to speak on the inadequacies of the system in relation to this section. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on the points I have raised specifically and also on the wider questions which the section raises.
Briefly, having regard to the fact that Senator Durcan has appealed so strongly about the Bill I wonder what attempts, if any, he has made to formulate policy in regard to this section at his own party meetings, or to introduce an amendment. Obviously, the Senator feels very strongly about the matter. I recall his criticisms in the past about social welfare officers.
I am not criticising officers. I am criticising the way in which they carry out their duties.
The point I make is that this is the place for determining the terms of reference of social welfare officers. It is the Minister, and subsequently the two Houses of the Oireachtas, that decide and define their terms of reference. I would accept that in an army of social welfare officers there are bound to be 4 of 5 per cent who may well deserve criticism from time to time and who may let the force down. Some officers may lack courtesy or diplomacy and may let the side down. I stress that it is here we decide on the terms of reference, and once we decide on the terms of reference and the way these people are allowed to carry out their functions then we should allow them to get on with the business which they were appointed to do, and that is dealing with the public in the best way possible and determining the facts in the kindest way possible so as to decide a suitable rate for them, whether it be on appeal or on the original application.
It is unfair, and I accept Senator Durcan's point, for anybody to criticise social welfare officers for doing their job. If the terms of reference are given to them and if more training is required, then let them have more training, but it is only right and proper to emphasise that these social welfare officers have a job to do. At times it is an unpleasant job, but they are endeavouring to do it to the best of their knowledge under the terms of reference given to them by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Senator Burke, before you speak, I want to make my position clear. On Committee Stage you may stand up and reply but it did not seem to me that Senator Durcan was making a point of order. He had the opportunity of coming back to clarify a point had he needed to do so. I want to prevent the debate from getting out of hand.
I will clarify the point. Somebody was being referred to who was not in this House and I was not making any allegation about any specific social welfare officer.
Acting Chairman
The point is that it was not a point of order and on Committee Stage you can stand up and say your piece when the other person sits down. There is nothing to stop you.
I appreciate that and I stand by your ruling.
I hope my comments on section 13 will not be interpreted by the Opposition as criticism of social welfare officers. It is rather glib to suggest, following Senator Durcan's contribution, that Senator Fallon said that Senator Durcan criticised social welfare officers. Unfortunately in debates on topics such as this very often the Opposition have latched on to and misrepresented the contributions of many people in this House, and on occassion on questions such as the health board situation we have debated long into the night. I hope that Senator Fallon and other Opposition Members will not interpret what I have to say as criticism of social welfare officers. I do not intend it to be taken in that way.
I feel very strongly about many aspects of section 13. When social welfare officers assess persons and go into the details of their income, then self-employed people, and within that section the farming community, particularly in the west, who apply for unemployment assistance, or dole as it is locally known, have no means of finding out the details of the assessment. If the assessment is in excess of whatever guidelines might be relevant to an applicant he or she cannot get from the social welfare officer the actual details of what was assessed. Therein lies much of the confusion that exists between social welfare officers and applicants for unemployment assistance at present.
I would like the Minister to state whether a person, alone or in the presence of another, has that facility to get from the social welfare officer what is being allowed as part of income or what is not being allowed. I do not care what PR job must be done, the person should be told frankly, but that has never been the case. The whole issue is fudged whether by design, accident or incompetence on whose behalf I do not know, but it needs urgent attention. I ask the Minister to comment on a way in which the applicant can find out exactly how the assessment has been done.
I welcome the assessment structure if it is done properly. Previously I think legitimately, urban dwellers could point the finger at rural people and union leaders in particular said that farmers were driving up in their cars and getting unemployment assistance, they were better off than town dwellers, and so on. That kind of perception was creating an urban-rural divide. When the new method of assessment was introduced most people welcomed it and I think most people would still abide by it and be very happy with it if they knew exactly what was being assessed, but the divergences seem very great. I have seen the details from the Department of Social Welfare of young persons living at home in rural Ireland. One person may be assessed as having an income based on his lodging at home of £29 and another person also living at home whose parents' circumstances may be different would have an income assessment of £19. To the ordinary person who has not recourse to the information there is no logical reason for that difference. I could bring into this House bales of replies from the Department of Social Welfare to questions on this. Some unemployed young people living at home are not getting anything at all.
I welcome the section in that it will allow the Minister in spite of the embargo, if he sees fit, to appoint additional officers to avoid delay in dealing with these matters. An applicant may wilfully obstruct the social welfare officer. I understand that the processing of an ordinary appeal can take up to 16 to 18 weeks, at the last count. Therefore, I welcome the facility to employ additional officers to speed up the process.
The Minister referred to overpayment in 1984 in unemployment benefit of £284,000 and unemployment assistance of £245,000 and the element of fraud within that. In relation to section 13 (4) which states, "The occupier of any premises or place liable to inspection under this section..." the way I interpret the position is that there are throughout the country many unemployed people whose employers obviously know or may not know, that they are claiming to be unemployed.
This is a very questionable section in so far as social welfare officers may go into places of employment where people are legitimately employed and find that there is a person employed there who is at the same time drawing unemployment assistance. Certainly it beats the fraud element in it and for that reason it is important in that instance but there is social embarrassment. I would give the House an instance that happened only last week of social embarrassment that was caused to all employees. I am not talking about the person that has offended, if there is an offence there in any instance; I am talking about where a social welfare officer walks in and is recognised as a social welfare officer on the one hand, or is in disguise, as has happened in the instance to which I will relate further. If that happens it creates a very bad feeling within the workforce. It is important. I would like to ask the Minister another question directly related to that. Is it a fact that the Department of Social Welfare call in the assistance of unauthorised local people by way of getting information as to the actions or whereabouts of particular people who are under the suspicion or under investigation by the Department of Social Welfare? Are the Department of Social Welfare at present availing of these local, unauthorised personnel but who are secretly there? There are rumours rampant and I call them nothing else at present. There are people who will believe them. It is very important to retain the dignity of the Department of Social Welfare and their officers. If such people have been used in the past they should be dropped instantly. The Department of Social Welfare's investigation processes should go on legitimately and be carried out by authorised persons and not by what I would call backdoor methods, if that is the situation. I am not too sure, but I want the Minister to leave me without any doubt in my mind that no such personnel are being utilised by the Department and ultimately by the Government and this State.
I would ask therefore that the practice of a social welfare officer going into a place of public employment be stopped. If a person has to be investigated the provisions within this subsection are that he be notified and met at home on a particular date or at an appointed place. Other employees are embarrassed by a social welfare officer going to their workplace and their presence there is questioned under those circumstances. I would ask that that be discontinued if that is the intention of that provision.
I will instance a case in my own area recently of people who are full time self-employed getting timber from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, and providing that timber under contract on to the roadside for delivery to processing plants. A fortnight ago cars parked on the side of the road in the forest were spotted by social welfare officers. They disguised themselves with boiler suits and wellington boots and proceeded through the forest with axes and saws where they came upon a group of people working legitimately. They asked them to identify themselves. They had the names of the people and that is the important part about it. They said, "Are you X, Y or Z?" The people had to identify themselves and they all returned home. I must say it was a very effective way. Certain other people did not return to work the next day. It was a good operation in so far as it found people that were prepared to deceive the Department of Social Welfare. It goes back to the entering of the place of residence but I believe there is some other method whereby the social welfare officers can do it in a more authoritative way. That is the point I make.
Those people who are in authority must do their job in an authoritative way and not devise such schemes. I do not intend to draw in in my contribution in any way and I would ask the Opposition Members who are present not to say that we are slating the social welfare officers again. These are instances that I have seen in everyday practice. These are the once that I presume need to be investigated more thoroughly and more fully in a more professional way. There are people within this scope who are not professional. This professionalism is certainly lacking in that many young people are not geared for the work. Let me say I have nothing at all against people from Dublin, Cork or Galway city being social welfare officers. But I would say the people from the biggest urban area we have, without naming it, investigating in the west do not understand the whole situation with regard to farming and how to assess the farming community.
Senator Durcan mentioned that there is a need for training and assessment. Training they have, but not the experience of contacting and being able to converse with people. A small farmer might feel intimidated by somebody, might not necessarily understand the terms being used to try to explain the position and the roundabout way the person might use in explaining it. Tempers could become frayed on both sides and that might be interpreted in many cases that people were refusing to answer questions directly when they did not intend to do so. That is referred to on the top of page 7, paragraph (b). Very many interpretation of refusals to give information are not correct but are due to a breakdown in communication between the officer and the applicant.
There is a very great need for the Department of Social Welfare in this instance to have people who are capable of extracting the information in a more pleasant way, in better surroundings, in so far as it is not necessary to go into places of employment or where they suspect that people are employed. There is no doubt, going back to a previous point, that the building and construction industry has been singled out as an area where much abuse of this nature has been going on. I am sure that in the great urban areas that can happen. I would hope that there are other ways of investigating cases than social welfare officers going in on a site and embarrassing legitimately employed people. I hope that the reason for this section being included is not a direct response to the criticism that might have been made over the past 12 months or two years of social welfare officers. I can see in it many direct responses to criticisms which have been made in public and in private by other people. I would hope that as they have not had all these facilities up to the present that this section will not give them additional powers where they can dismiss legitimate claims of applicants.
Would I be right in saying that this section is there specifically to deal with people who are working and drawing social welfare at the same time? What extra powers are being given to social welfare officers to deal with applicants for old age pensions? Last year the old age pension committees were abolished. I was surprised that this was allowed to happen and that that section of the Social Welfare Bill went through nearly without mention in the Dáil. There was appreciation in this House of the role of the old age pension committees. I asked at that time what recourse an applicant for an old age pension or an increase in pension would have when the old age pension committees were abolished. Has the social welfare officer a role in determining the amount of pension or pension increase? To what section of the Department, apart from the appeals officer, does the social welfare officer apply when in doubt about the exact contribution? In other words who is to fill the gap created by the abolition of old age pension committees? Who will advise the social welfare officer and the applicant as to their rights and entitlements and provide other information to help the officer to decide on the merits of an application?
The old age pension committee played a very important role in helping applicants and the social welfare officers. They educated the social welfare officers in how to go about their duties. Could the Minister tell me how many extra staff were recruited to deal with problems in this area? Could he also tell me how many applications were made to the Ombudsman by old age pension applicants who were not satisfied with the results they achieved from the Department of Social Welfare in determining the exact amount of their pension?
From my experience the social welfare officers play a very important part and a very difficult role. I have found them to be very fair while very dutiful. The social welfare officer would refer any case where there was doubt to the local pension committee. This system got the social welfare officer out of conscientious trouble in determining the exact amount in a particular case and gave the applicant the right of appeal to the appeals officer. I am very curious to know what section of the Department will act on behalf of applicants for old age pensions and what improvement, if any — and I doubt if there has been any improvement in the system — has occurred since the abolition of the old age pension committee.
I would like to ask the Minister, in support of some of the points that have been made already, if it would be possible to have a more accessible and more open system of determining income for the purposes of unemployment assistance. Most of the provisions in this section are geared towards assisting social welfare officers to establish whether or not individual applicants satisfy the means test for the purpose of payments of one kind or another. There is not available to public representatives or indeed to the public at large a means by which we can be satisfied that the conditions are met by the social welfare officers. I mentioned in the course of my contribution at Second Stage that a totally different system is being operated by the ACOT services in determining real farm income and a separate system is operated by the Department of Social Welfare. I spoke to a social welfare officer recently, a man for whom I have the highest regard, who makes a very genuine attempt to be sympathetic to cases where there is need, and he asked me a simple question as to whether the Department of Social Welfare were totally wrong in the system they were operating in determining farm income.
The point I made was that circumstances can change quite dramatically. They have changed dramatically in the last couple of months in relation to beef prices and the curtailment imposed by the super levy and there is not the same scope for improvement. A person could have a reasonably good income if he had sold his animals in January of this year and a disastrous income if he is selling them now after feeding them for the whole winter. What kind of openness is there to cope with fluctuating and changing circumstances which make the job for everybody more difficult? To be fair, one has to interpret and adjust as circumstances change. What we have here is a rigid and in many ways an inoperable system. Social welfare officers are viewed in a way they should not be by the public. Individuals may be incapable of coping with the system. As a public representative, and I speak for some of my colleagues in this House, I find it extremely difficult to advise constituents in what circumstances they would qualify. After a year in which their income happened to be reasonably good they would be over the limit. Within six months or perhaps even within three months of that time their circumstances could have changed quite dramatically. Is there anything that the Minister can suggest that would make it easier for all concerned so as to avoid this combination of legal constraints and additional powers which do not help the people we are genuinely trying to support.
I am in some difficulty because many of the points raised by Senators were dealt with by my colleague, Minister of State, Deputy Donnellan, who replied to the Second Stage debate this evening. He dealt with many of the points raised under section 13 and similarly the point raised by Senator Lynch about the old age pension committees. I was in this House some months age when the change was made. There were many questions raised and answers given in the debate when the old age pension committees were being abolished. I pointed out at that time that they were being replaced by deciding officers. There is also the facility of appeal to an appeals officer. There is no change in the function of social welfare officers in regard to old age pensioners. They simply interview the applicants to find out their means and their findings are passed on to deciding officers.
Section 13 is more or less on the same lines as sections in the Consolidation Act which have stood the test of time in the courts. This section is designed to strengthen the powers and duties of social welfare officers in relation to the unemployment assistance scheme in particular and in relation to control of abuse by the insertion in the relevant chapter of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981 of a specific provision in this regard. At present an applicant for unemployment assistance is required under section 136 of the Act to show in the prescribed manner that he fulfils the conditions for entitlement to a qualification certificate.
The onus, therefore, is on the applicant to prove his entitlement by providing the Minister with all the information necessary to determine his claim. However, in the area of control of abuse of unemployment assistance such as working and signing, there are no specific provisions laid down in Chapter 2, Part III, governing the investigation of such cases by social welfare officers. There is no obligation on the employer in such circumstances to give details of such employment to an investigating officer for the purpose of disqualifying the person concerned from unemployment assistance and taking appropriate legal proceedings. Heretofore, it was possible to carry out such investigations and inquiries by the exercise of the powers of inspectors contained in section 114 of the Act for the purpose of social insurance. It is considered doubtful, however, if information obtained in this manner could be used for the purpose of bringing legal proceedings against offending claimaints. For these reasons it is now proposed to insert a new provision in the Bill setting out the powers and duties of social welfare officers for unemployment assistance purposes, in particular in the area of fraud prevention and detection.
Senator Durcan rose.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
As it is now 6.30 p.m. could I ask the Senator to report progress?
I report progress.
I would just remind the House that we will be resuming discussion of the Committee Stage of this Bill at 9.30 p.m. this evening or earlier if No. 6 is completed before then.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.