Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Minister and the Minister of State for their response to the Covid threat. Those congratulations apply to the Government in general. I also congratulate the previous Government. This pandemic is an unprecedented attack on our society that still continues.

I echo the words of a number of other people when I say that in the event that some of the support schemes terminate on a specific date, it would be helpful if those availing of the schemes could be given advice well in advance as to the prospect of the schemes' continuation. The requirements of households continue regardless of whether deadlines have come or gone. That is something that could be of great benefit to people who are dependent on the supports.

I thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the Department for how they have dealt with queries. That applies particularly to appeals. Most appeals have been dealt with administratively and satisfactorily. That is a good thing.

The Minister referred to the availability of exceptional needs payments and I agree with her. That is what they are there for. I spent a small time in that Department some years ago and used to advise people on that subject. However, it is important that the response from the individual concerned is not always the same. That needs to be looked at, not in a critical way but in a way that simply addresses issues that might arise.

The last point I want to make relates to something that still puzzles me. It has not happened in recent times but it did happen over the past couple of years. There have been cases where someone won an appeal and the appeal was subsequently overturned by a higher executive officer. I have my doubts about that because two of the things that always prevailed in the Department were due process and natural justice. Overpayments have always happened for one reason or another, including people not reading the regulations properly and so on. It was always possible that where a person received an overpayment and it subsequently transpired that he or she did not qualify for the payment which was the question of the overpayment but did qualify for an alternative payment at the same time, that was taken as being an underlying reason for granting the alternative payment. That has been discontinued over the past couple of years and I have not seen evidence of it in recent times. That was a part of the ethos of natural justice of the Department. The Minister and the Minister of State might look at that when they get a chance, notwithstanding the existence of other challenges.

See this speech in context