Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have two issues to raise in respect of this section. First, Deputy O'Dea, whether he realises it or not, has opened up a can of worms. There is a case currently before the appeals office on the specific issue he raised. When the Department official in that case was asked to explain at oral hearing why the office had found against the client, this person was unable to give an answer. Deputy O'Dea spoke about reasons not being given in writing but, in this case, the official could not even give an answer orally. The Deputy is 100% correct that this is not only illegal but probably unconstitutional. I hope the Minister will confirm that sections 8 and 9 have no bearing on the case to which I referred that is currently before the appeals office. I am very concerned that we should not be amending legislation before there is a determination in respect of that case. These provisions should deal only with lump sum compensation payments.

Second, section 8 relates to circumstances where false or misleading statements have been given or there has been a wilful concealment of facts, in which case there is a liability on the individual concerned. I am in possession of a letter issued by the State pension non-contributory section of the social welfare office in Sligo which contains false and misleading information. Will the Minister ensure this letter, which was sent to old age pensioners, is withdrawn forthwith? The false information it contains is the advice that it would be to the greater convenience of pensioners to switch their payment from the post office to a bank. Such a move will, the letter states, provide them with easier access to their money, greater personal security and a time saving.

I do not know what planet people in the Department are living on, but the reality is that the banks in this country do not want personal customers to deal in cash. While post offices are open and dealing in cash six days per week, one particular bank will only issue cash to customers on the Monday after the second Sunday of every second month. There are no longer any tellers in many bank branches. It is misleading for departmental officials to say there is greater convenience for an old age pensioner in having his or her money paid into a bank versus a post office. The banks do not want these types of customers and are, in fact, actively discouraging them. Even when a branch is open, there are certain days on which it will not issue cash to customers. Departmental correspondence should clearly state that banks will only handle cash on certain days rather than telling people it would be more convenient for them to switch their payment from the post office to the bank. Will the Minister give me an assurance today that this misleading letter will be withdrawn and everyone who has received it will now receive another letter clearly explaining that if they wish to continue to deal in cash, they should not have their State pension payment, contributory or non-contributory, made through a bank?