MP insists doctors must be 'politically neutral'

Opposition social affairs spokesman Karl Chircop insisted yesterday that doctors appointed by the Social Security Department to assess applications for an invalidity pension needed to be "politically neutral".

The opposition, he said, would be keeping a close eye on such doctors to ensure they were "pure" and had no connections with the government such as to give rise to suspicion of discrimination.

Dr Chircop was speaking during the debate on the Social Security (amendment) Bill. The Bill introduces tighter controls on the granting of invalidity pensions and gives a legal basis to the Benefit Fraud Directorate.

He said the Labour Party was as committed as the government to stamp out benefit fraud, including abuse of invalidity pensions.

But one needed to look into the reasons for the increase in the number of applicants for an invalidity pension. There were those who sought an invalidity pension because they could not find suitable employment and sometimes ended up with an illness of a psychiatric nature.

He was told that about half of the people who had been boarded out, had earlier being forced out on early retirement schemes. The government needed to stop encouraging such schemes.

The Bill emphasised that persons who applied for an invalidity pension would, if possible, be retrained for other occupations. The Opposition agreed with this.

But he feared that the ETC was ill-equipped to handle such cases, which could amount to several hundreds. The corporation was already stretched in the provision of training for people registered for work, he said. People with limited capabilities who needed retraining should not be simply dumped on the ETC without a proper set-up, he stressed.

Abroad there were centres which took care of these people, carrying out simulations of real work stations.

The Social Security Ministry in Hungary had twinned with that of the UK to set up ability assessment centres. These were centres where people who did not suffer total invalidity were given assistance. Such centres were essential and had to be created as soon as possible, he said.

Dr Chircop also asked how two or three doctors engaged by the department would assess applications for invalidity pensions when there was already a six-month waiting period, despite the service given by 47 doctors. Would the department engage its doctors full time? How would they be selected; would it be on the basis of their qualifications or, maybe, because of associations with the government? Would they be able to refer their cases to specialists?

Such doctors needed to be politically neutral, to avoid the risk of discrimination and give credibility to the system. The Opposition would keep a close eye on these two doctors to ensure they had no political connections. Should such connections exist, there would be "serious problems" between the government and the opposition, Dr Chircop said.

Turning to the Benefit Fraud Directorate, Dr Chircop asked what training would be given to the inspectors. What powers would they have? He knew of a case where inspectors warned that if they were not allowed to search a residence they would stop a beneficiary's pension. Did they have this power? Would they be accountable and would they hold a warrant? What safeguards would there be against possible abuse?

It was important that the directorate had the necessary tools with which to operate. It also had to have specific responsibilities for Gozo.

Dr Chircop said that with these amendments, the concept of invalidity for life was to be removed and individuals would be re-examined every three years. But would a 56-year-old be re-assessed at age 59 when retirement age was 61? There should be more specific guidelines for the different age brackets, he said.

On arbitration, he said the number of arbiters at the Social Security Department should be increased to avoid a bottleneck because appeals were likely to increase. Alternatively, the directorate could be also be given the powers of arbitration, Dr Chircop said.

Labour MP Silvio Parnis said that the majority of those who received an invalidity pension deserved it. But there were a few who abused. The opposition was against abuse but he believed solidarity should be expressed with those who deserved such a pension and did not get it.

He said that people would prefer to find employment than to get a miserable pension. People deserved to improve their life and MPs had to help them do so.

However, the employment situation made it difficult for people in their late 50s, for example, to find a job.

Mr Parnis said that abuse had to be stopped but when it came to the invalidity pension, one also had to remember that the applicants were humans who were going through a difficult experience.

People who received a social benefit they did not deserve would be taking this from others.