COMMITTEE of PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 10 May 2001

Vol. 3 No. 10

1999 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts.

Vote 40 - Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs (Resumed).

Mr. E. Sullivan (Secretary General, Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs) further examined.

Chairman

I apologise for the delay which was due to a vote in the House. With regard to privilege within the committee I shall read the first paragraph without including the rights. Members' and witnesses' attention is drawn to the fact that as and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act, 1997, grants certain rights to persons who are identified in the course of the committee's proceedings. Notwithstanding this provision in the legislation I should remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We resume examination of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs account. We examined this on 26 October. Before proceeding to the specific paragraph I ask Mr.Sullivan to introduce his officials.

Mr. Sullivan

I am accompanied by Mr. John Hynes, director general of social welfare services, Mr. Benny Kevitt, director of long-term payment schemes, Ms Anne Tynan, accountant, and her colleague, Ms Maeve Carroll, accounts branch.

Chairman

We shall move on to paragraph 37 which was discussed briefly at the last meeting when we discussed the Vote. I invite the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Purcell, to reintroduce it to refresh our memory on what was covered and then it will be open to members to contribute.

Paragraph 37 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

37. Recovery of Maintenance Contributions

Introduction

One Parent Family Payment (OPFP) is payment for both men and women who for a variety of reasons are bringing up a child(ren) without the support of a partner. A person who is unmarried, widowed, a prisoner's spouse, separated, divorced or whose marriage has been annulled and who is no longer living with his/her spouse is eligible to apply for payment. The other schemes that may apply in this area are Deserted Wife's Allowance and Benefit.

Liable Relatives and the Recovery of Maintenance

Part III of the Social Welfare Act 1989 (as amended by Part IX of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993) imposed an obligation on spouses to maintain each other and their children. The Act also imposed a liability on the spouses or partners of certain social welfare recipients to contribute to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs (the Department) towards payments of Lone Parent Allowance and Deserted Wife's Allowance and Benefit. The legislation was effective from 29 November 1990 and was subsequently amended to provide for OPFP when it replaced some of the earlier schemes in 1997.

The issue of maintenance payments is first and foremost a private matter for the persons concerned and if they cannot resolve the problem, for the courts through Family Law provisions. Social welfare payments act as a safety net for people who have failed to obtain adequate maintenance, but those claiming must satisfy the Department that they have made reasonable efforts to obtain such maintenance. The Department encourages the parent caring for the children to pursue the other parent for maintenance in line with the conditions of the OPFP scheme. Take-up of schemes for lone parents has grown significantly over the years. This is mainly due to social change (more births outside marriage, increasing marriage breakdown) but also because scheme conditions have been extended, thus allowing more people to remain qualified - e.g. an earnings disregard of £115 per week on the OPFP scheme now applies.

Persons who are liable to contribute to the maintenance of lone parents and their children who are being supported through OPFP are known as liable relatives. Where the lone parent has failed to secure any, or adequate, maintenance then the Department can take direct action to recover some or all of the cost of OPFP issued to the lone parent. It should be borne in mind that the Department's action to get contributions is aimed at a liable relative target group that has already shown a marked reluctance to make maintenance payments to their spouse and children.

1 Efforts to seek maintenance prior to award of OPFP is not a qualifying condition but unmarried recipients are expected to make efforts to seek maintenance after the OPFP claim is awarded.

2 It is a condition that a separated OPFP claimant must make efforts to seek maintenance before the claim is awarded.

Mr. Purcell

At its original meeting on this paragraph last October, the committee decided to revisit the subject matter after six months to see what progress the Department had made in implementing an effective system for recovering maintenance moneys from those who had left it to the State to pick up the tab for their financial responsibilities to lone parents and their children. At that meeting, there was general agreement that the task faced by the Department was not easy.

It was also accepted that there was considerable room for improvement. The committee will recall that only a very small proportion of the so-called liable relatives paid anything. In 1999 the Department collected only £630,000 in maintenance. Many areas were identified in the report but I highlight just three. At the end of 1999 there was a two-year backlog in assessing liable relative cases that had a potential to make contributions. There was no meaningful follow-up with those who evaded or defaulted on their responsibility for maintenance contributions. Liable relatives were receiving tax relief for their children even though they were not contributing to the cost of the social welfare payment to their spouse or children.

The Accounting Officer saw the advent of a new computer system as one of the means by which improvement would be achieved and I expect he will update the committee on this and other developments and their impact in the period since last October.

The Department should have a credible system in operation, which acts as a visible deterrent to those who might be tempted to welsh on financial responsibilities arising from their actions.

Chairman

Mr. Sullivan gave a comprehensive statement on the last occasion. A brief summary pertinent to paragraph 37 would be sufficient now.

Mr. Sullivan

Thank you Chairman. As the Comptroller and Auditor General said, this is not an easy area. Liable relatives are addressed in the area of the Department that deals with all the long-term payments. It has a claim load of 500,000 cases with which it deals. This is just one aspect of a wide range of control measures that are in place in that area. The Department provides means-tested support for separated, unmarried and widowed lone parents through this scheme.

As the Comptroller and Auditor General said, the liable relative provision has been in place for a number of years. The money that has been collected has not fallen in overall terms. However, there are additional cases where people are in receipt of maintenance privately and it is increased somewhat. The report indicates that there were 2,223 people who were in receipt of maintenance privately in 1999 and that figure has gone up to 4,000. The number of liable relatives that are active for maintenance contributions has only gone up slightly in the past year.

One issue identified last time related to the resources that we had in this area. It is just one area of the total control activities in our pensions office. We undertook to review the staffing and decided to increase the staff in the area and to relocate the function. At present we are training staff and we hope to be operational next month.

We are starting a pilot scheme on what we call localising the claim processing for lone parents. It is currently centralised in our office in Sligo and we hope to have claims processed at local offices, which would allow a better interaction with our customer base. We hope to see benefits from these changes within the next year.

Deputy Durkan

As has been mentioned, this is a sensitive subject and needs to be treated carefully. What prompted the audit to be set up? Was there any particular event that triggered it?

Mr. Purcell

As part of our risk analysis of the Departments activities, which we carry out at the beginning of each year, we would have been aware that this area that was not working. There was prima facie evidence that the maintenance recovery unit was not as effective as it might be. It was purely that rather than any individual case. There were also some media references to this area and from looking at our counterparts in the UK and other countries, we knew that this was a troublesome area.

Deputy Durkan

I hope we will not follow all the tactics applied in the UK. There are two sides to the argument as I have pointed out many times. What is the total number of people that have been assessed in the course of action taken following the audit and report?

Mr. Sullivan

I will need to check that figure.

Deputy Durkan

According to the report before us, only the 35% of liable relatives who are in employment or self-employment at the time of the award of OPFP are assessed for maintenance. If the liable relative is among the 43% on social welfare payment, or the 22% who are untraceable, no further action can be taken because the person is only on the basic minimum in terms of welfare payment in any event. It tends to tie up a huge amount of administrative time, effort and energy. However, it is not as openly abused as people would claim and there are other means that could be used particularly when the use of the social services number is readily available.

When this welfare legislation was first introduced, it was done to try to get fathers to take some responsibility for their children. However, in practice the mother often bears the brunt of the burden and she is forced to produce all the evidence to support the case as to whether the father is available or liable for maintenance. That can be cumbersome and costly and is not helpful to the unfortunate mother.

Mr. Sullivan

Of course a balance has to be struck in relation to our efforts in this area. We are very conscious that it is a very sensitive one. The return in terms of the investment we made is not as good as it would be in other areas of control work which we undertake, perhaps by a factor of ten. Therefore, we must be careful in terms of the resources we put in, but as I said earlier, we are going to apply some additional resources to see if we can tighten up the procedure.

The concentration of effort is in relation to separated cases. People are expected to have made efforts to seek maintenance before it is awarded. The separated cases only represent a small fraction of the total number of cases - unmarried cases would account for a much larger percentage. In unmarried cases we expect there would be some efforts afterwards.

The Deputy is correct in relation to the number of people who cannot be traced. There are difficulties in tracing a certain number of people and trying to get maintenance from those on social welfare, a difficulty we cannot ignore.

Deputy Durkan

I am a little concerned by another issue which takes up quite a bit of time in terms of constituency work. Currently, if a mother of a child is separated and her partner's or husband's liability for maintenance, or her case for one parent family allowance is being investigated, the requirements and burdens placed on her put her under serious and undue financial pressure. For example, there is a requirement to show whether she has a mortgage. This has nothing to do with entitlement to one parent family allowance, it is purely for information purposes, which is fine, but it should not hold up the entire process. Neither should unlimited funds be spent wasting time in pursuing something which in itself is not central to the issue. Let us assume, for example, the person has a shared ownership loan from a local authority and applies for one parent family allowance. One request will be for information from the local authority to indicate the precise payment for which the person is liable at the time. This cannot be assessed properly as the partner or husband is elsewhere. As a result, the subsidy to which the person would normally be entitled is not payable as her account has not been brought up to date. One such case took me at least one year to resolve, which is stretching it a little. I hope the paragraphs in question will not become a swinging pendulum which will clog the system and seriously militate against the rights and entitlements of individuals in such circumstances.

Mr. Sullivan

I cannot comment on the specific case to which the Deputy is referring, but there must have been some extraordinary circumstances if it took one year to resolve as, clearly, it should not take such time. We ask people for information in relation to their separated spouse and try to process claims as quickly as we can thereafter. We will certainly examine a particular case if the Deputy so wishes. We try to treat these cases as sensitively and sympathetically as possible and are aware of the circumstances which give rise to claims. We have a responsibility in terms of satisfying ourselves that all the conditions of the scheme are being met.

A development since the last time I was here is that there has been a change in the legislation to allow 50% of maintenance payments to be held by lone parents themselves. This should act as more of an incentive for people to help in this area, and I expect there will be some improvement in the overall situation.

Deputy Durkan

Might it be possible, using the RSI or PPS number, to pursue the liable party directly as opposed to through the applicant for one parent family allowance and thereby eliminate the hardship to which I referred? A corollary in more than one case with which I have dealt is that the person concerned will have difficulty getting supplementary welfare by virtue of the fact that the case is pending, which causes serious problems for vulnerable families. We must be certain that we get good value for money and that funds are put to good effect. While we must also eliminate fraud, particularly deliberate fraud, we must have due regard for the rights, including constitutional rights, and entitlements of individuals.

Mr. Sullivan

In general, we expect the person claiming to provide us with information. If he or she runs up against a stone wall, then we take the matter up and pursue it. I cannot comment on a specific case.

Deputy Durkan

As a general course, would it not be more effective to pursue the potentially liable parent or partner as opposed to the person perceived to be the victim by using the PPS number, which is readily available? By using this number it is quite easy to find out whether a person is in employment in the country and would not require investigation over two or three months, or even one year - it could be done in a few minutes.

Mr. Sullivan

In general, where there are difficulties we step in. Regarding the PPSN and the additional controls which have been introduced, since last year we have taken over more control of the issue of those numbers. We are satisfied that there are various controls in place in terms of their allocation. This will improve the situation in the future in terms of tracing people. We allocate PPS numbers to children when they are in their mid-teens - nobody should be without one.

Deputy Durkan

I was going to say that, in regard to value for money and the need at the same time to have due regard for the findings of the audit, we should be able to use modern technology to a far greater extent than in the past, since it is readily available. Can this be done as a matter of policy as opposed to a matter of option? If I was asked how I would pursue things, I would automatically go after the potentially liable person as opposed to the victim. This can cause extraordinary hardship to a woman separated from her partner or husband where the dissolution of the estate has resulted in an amount of money arising from the sale of the house to which she is entitled to provide her family with a home. It is extraordinary that money held pending the purchase of a home is assessed against that person. This has happened and I hope the practice will cease because it is totally counter-productive. The unfortunate woman who is attempting to pick up the pieces, put all the building blocks together and try to get up and running again will have the £40,000 or £50,000 from the proceeds of the sale of the former family home assessed against her. In such circumstances, this should not be allowed. There is no need for legislation in this regard and this hardship should be eliminated. A great amount of time, effort and money could be saved in not pursuing these people. Is this aspect currently under consideration?

Mr. Sullivan

I am not sure if I can reply directly to the Deputy today in relation to the case he mentioned. Perhaps I will come back to that point. I accept the processing of claims in these circumstances may be very sensitive and difficult. We try to deal with these issues speedily. This is a balancing act. We try to provide a good service to the individuals, while respecting their dignity and being sensitive to their circumstances, and at the same time ensure we are not putting a claim for payment where all the conditions of the scheme are not being fulfilled. That is basically the balancing act we must perform. The Department is always upgrading and updating technology. There are huge investments in this area but it is a rolling programme which has been going on for years. Substantial progress has been made over the years and there is a programme for continued investment in technology in the coming years.

Deputy M. Ahern

I note that seven officials were attached to the maintenance recovery unit in 1999. Has that number increased or decreased? Are there procedures to follow up liable relatives, employed or self-employed, who have maintenance orders against them and who have ceased making payments? Are there procedures to review the income of liable relatives following initial assessment? What is the Department's policy in regard to debt collection? For example, are there individual debtor accounts, age profiles of the debtors, follow-up procedures and debt review procedures and what are the procedures for writing off uncollectable debt? Is there cross-checking between the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners, particularly given that an individual can claim child allowance if he or she has a child for just one night? Does the Department cross-check this aspect with Revenue to see if these people are paying maintenance? On tax clearance and insurance cover in relation to contractors, I note in the report that there had not been questions to the contractors to see if they had up-to-date tax clearance certificates and insurance cover. Is that procedure being carried out year on year?

Chairman

The last point was dealt with at the last meeting. Perhaps you can deal with it briefly.

Mr. Sullivan

On the last point, the Comptroller and Auditor General did a special review across a number of Departments and identified a number of weaknesses in procedures. These are now being dealt with and implemented.

On liable relatives, as I said, we are in the process of increasing the number of staff working in this area from seven to 15. We must consider this aspect in the context of the general controls in the pensions services office where approximately 10% of resources relate to control work. This is just one element of that work. Staff are currently undergoing training in this area and we are relocating. This will provide more opportunity to deal with the issues raised in terms of following up the response from people who are either employed or self-employed and also from reviewing the income of people after initial assessments have been carried out. This Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned in his report that this work was not being carried out. Given the additional staff, we should be able to target some of these areas. In general there are reviews done outside of the lone parent claim load for a variety of different reasons, including change of circumstances that might yield over-payments, people signing off, cohabiting or whatever.

In regard to debt collection, this is a more general thing within the Department. It is also reported on in paragraph 25 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in terms of over-payments. Every over-payment is regarded as a debt in the organisation which we try to collect, even when people are off schemes or are between different schemes. We are very conscious of the level of over-payments that arise in a year, which we try to minimise through the various procedures. We also have procedures in place for recovering as much as we can either in cash or by withholding from other ongoing social welfare payments. We also write off debts if we have not been able to do anything after approximately three years. These are reported on in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.

On tax relief vis-à-vis Revenue, I am not aware of the contacts between Revenue and ourselves in this regard. We are looking at this issue but I need to check the facts.

Chairman

The Comptroller and Auditor General said in his report that on 31 December 1999 there was a two year backlog in assessing liable relative cases that were classified as working or self-employed at the time of decision. On that date there were 14,895 cases, that is, 5,741 separated cases and 9,154 unmarried cases where the liable relative was in employment. As the liable relative was in employment and as there is a considerable backlog, perhaps Mr. Sullivan will outline the progress in this regard.

Mr. Sullivan

There has not been progress. Towards the end of last year the number of cases had increased to more than 16,000. This is one of the reasons we have increased resources in this area. The claim note has gone up and continues to go up in this whole area so we are trying to deal with increasing numbers all the time. To answer the question directly, the numbers increased to over 16,000 at the end of last year but I hope we can make some inroads in that by assigning additional staff.

Chairman

Would you not be disappointed by this as normally the Committee of Public Accounts would probably review the Vote on an annual basis? In this case we did not finish the agenda six months ago and then it was mentioned that you installed a computer in November 1999. I am sure the objective was to improve the systems. Do you not think on the basis of what the Comptroller and Auditor General reflected in his report that that situation prevailed and the Department did not really take any action on it?

Second, it appears that a different situation prevails. For example, I see old age pensioners chased for over-payments on a zealous basis, though they are often over 70 years of age. That causes a certain amount of trauma and in many cases a predeceased spouse may have banked money or effected changes. The Department pursues them with great diligence and concern but they appear to be the soft targets while what we are discussing may be the hard targets. You do not appear to show the same tenacity in going after those cases the Comptroller and Auditor General has identified as people working or self-employed.

You mentioned the number of people involved, seven officials at a direct salary cost of approximately £150,000 per annum. The amount of money received was not vastly different from that. You talk about localising this situation and probably dealing with this issue on a more local basis. To what degree is the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs conscious of the needs of the consumer, whether they are signing on for unemployment benefit, assistance or other payments? It has come to my attention that a queuing system prevails in most social welfare offices. A person going there for the first time often finds it very traumatic when someone who is used to going there regularly may be behind them, almost shouting at the newcomer to hurry. Questions can often be asked out loud. I ask you to investigate this and where the current system prevails, if the office is being extended new areas should be encompassed. The person coming in should be recognised as having certain rights and should not have to queue in a situation like that to have their details taken down. This has been brought to my attention and there is a deficiency here. The consumer, whatever they are signing for, has certain rights and I ask you to address this as I am concerned about it.

I am a little disappointed that, given that the Comptroller and Auditor General referred to this and gave a timeframe of six months, it appears you have not taken action except to appoint extra bodies to a deteriorating situation. This should be a priority for your Department - I contrast it with the vigilance with which you chase over-payments to pensioners. I do not know if you have any observations to make.

Mr. Sullivan

As I said, it is not a fact that we have not done anything or that we are not conscious of this. We are very conscious of it. As I explained earlier, the liable relatives matter is one aspect of the control work we undertake in this whole area and approximately 10% of staff are involved in it. The return on this kind of work is much less than it is in other areas. If we were to look at this purely in terms of return on the investment we would not do it at all. Having said that, it is an area we ought to be involved in and I am concerned we have not made any inroads into it. The overall number of claims we are dealing with has gone up and so has this. We have assigned additional resources to it and there is a limit to that.

There have also been a number of changes in the pensions area which we have had to deal with. In the past few years changes have been brought about with improvements, such as the pre-1953 changes and capital assessment, that have impacted on work in this area, which is very heavy. It is very difficult and, naturally enough, the committee might look at this in isolation but we have to look at it in a broader context.

Regarding the more general point about treating people as consumers, if one looks back at the record of the Department, we try to instil, and have instilled to a large extent, a customer service ethos in the organisation at all levels. We expect people to look at those coming into our offices as if they were customers and to think of what they would expect in terms of the service we give them, the information we give them and the way they are treated. Regard must be had to the circumstances in which those people find themselves. We have made a lot of progress in that area which is backed up with training for our staff. We have a customer action plan——

Chairman

I am not disputing you have a customer ethos. I am saying that quite often your offices are not conducive to the customer, even though in many cases those offices are modern, on the basis that they do not have specific interview rooms to interview clients on an individual basis. If there is a queue of people and, say, a young girl goes in for the first time, it is an intimidating environment to her. She may not want to be there in the first place and there may be people behind her in the queue who are used to being there. If she is asked publicly for details such as her name, address and date of birth it is totally unfair. If one has the space discussions should be on a private basis, and people are entitled to that.

Those of us who are public representatives and deal with a whole raft of social welfare inquiries from the public find the Department extremely efficient, as do the consumers. However, there is an inherent weakness in that often the Department may not have the structures to provide certain facilities. That is something worth looking at and that is why I made the point in a constructive tone. One can always improve. However, regarding over-payments to pensioners the Department is extremely vigilant in chasing them. We as public representatives often deal with the trauma caused to those people by virtue of overpayments being claimed back and so on. I have identified the section of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report which refers to the self-employed. Does the same tenacity prevail?

Mr. Sullivan

The same tenacity does apply. We do not single out particular groups for particular treatment in that sense. I take the point about our accommodation but part of our customer action plan is an accommodation improvement programme. Over the years we have tried to improve our accommodation to best fit the requirements. In the past much of the accommodation left a lot to be desired and some of it still does, but in terms of new offices or reconstruction we try to provide as much privacy as we can for people. There are private interview rooms in some offices. I am not saying the situation is perfect but there is a programme in place to improve our accommodation both in terms of refurbishment of existing accommodation and, where there are opportunities, to build new offices.

Chairman

We did not receive your Waterford survey until late last night so members will not have had a chance to study it. The same applies to the recent Galway report. There is a reference in the Waterford report to an ESRI employability study and the Paul Tansey report. We had officials from the Central Statistics Office here and there was an overlap in terms of figures which caused confusion. We should probably return to this at a later date to discuss the report and its findings. It is very interesting.

I had a chance to look through the Waterford report last night. The long-term unemployed are a continual feature and constitute a high percentage here. The report refers to literacy problems, which are embarrassing. I often wonder whether our attention and focus in training the people concerned afterwards could be better employed in giving them literacy skills, even if we pay them. It would give them a chance to find mainstream work in the long-term. There are many elements we would like to discuss, but it is something to which we can return at a later date as there are many components to it.

Mr. Sullivan

I would be delighted to further discuss it whenever it suits the committee. The Galway survey was done last year. We undertook two surveys, in Galway and Waterford, the results of which are striking. We engaged the Economic and Social Research Institute in a complementary study of employability to see what it means and what information could be gleaned from books, academic literature and data from the live register. Results will be available later this month and will be a useful input into our work.

Part of the reason for these surveys is that issues for those on the live register have changed as a result of the decline in the numbers on the register. As you said, literacy and low educational skills have become main issues for the unemployed. The two surveys were trying to find the differences between a body of unemployed persons and available employment. As one would think, there was a mismatch between the skills needed by employers and those possessed by the unemployed. We will be delighted to come back to talk about these matters when it suits the committee.

Chairman

We received the Tansey report. All the reports seem to interlock. A discussion at a later date with you and the Central Statistics Office would be worthwhile. Before I leave this matter to note the Vote, I would like Mr. Purcell to make some closing remarks on paragraph 37.

Mr. Purcell

I share the Chairman's disappointment that in the six months since the committee last reviewed the matter there has not been any measurable progress. I know things cannot be changed overnight, but the backlog of which I was critical at the end of 1999 has grown rather than decreased, if I heard the Accounting Officer correctly. As I understand it, the amount of money collected, small though it may have been in 1999, fell again in 2000.

While I appreciate the difficulty of this scheme and take on board the comments of Deputy Durkan, I have to take an approach to these matters. Legislation was passed by the Oireachtas that states that certain things should be done. A unit has been set up within the Department to discharge this function to the best of its ability. While it has worked in certain areas, clearly it has not worked in the way I imagine our legislators envisaged. It is always important to report back to the Legislature through a committee if that is the case.

Deputy Durkan

I am loath to interject again, but I accept the criteria within which the Comptroller and Auditor General has to do his job. Very often, however, what we say and do can be misinterpreted elsewhere and the wrong message goes out. I fully support the notion that we must eliminate those who abuse the system. As a means of doing so, we must also be absolutely certain that we do not victimise others who are much more vulnerable. The direct approach is much more cost-effective and far less liable to cause the problems to which I referred and with which all members of the committee are familiar.

If I were a separated mother and made an application for one parent family allowance, I hope I would be treated in a way that shows due regard for my current financial situation, the recent trauma of the break-up of a marriage or partnership and the impact of the separation on the children. How would one feel when walking in to make an application to be asked a question like, "Have you gone to court?" The last thing on an unfortunate woman's mind having come through a traumatic era is thinking about the process of going to court. She will be then told to produce evidence that maintenance has been sought through the courts from the recently departed spouse. The immediate issue for the family, however, is that her needs and those of her children are met.

Regardless of legislation, there cannot be a situation where individuals find themselves isolated and forlorn, as is often the case. I emphasise that the person's trauma is serious. For that reason I fully take into account and support what the Comptroller and Auditor General said. I strongly urge that the potentially liable relative be pursued and that the unfortunate person, male or female, who has to look after the child be supported. There have been some horrendous and unbelievable cases. One must meet the people concerned eyeball to eyeball to fully appreciate the circumstances in which they find themselves.

Chairman

As Mr. Sullivan said, this is a sensitive and difficult area. By attempting to localise this problem it becomes more personal, but one would be conscious of these factors in any event. We must take on board what he said. I thank him and everyone else for their comments. We will now move on to our discussion of the Central Statistics Office.

Vote 5 - Central Statistics Office.

Mr. Donal Garvey (Director General, Central Statistics Office) called and examined.

Chairman

I ask Mr. Garvey, who is before the committee for the first time, to introduce his officials. We will not keep them very long as the Comptroller and Auditor General has just a brief observation to make on the report.

Mr. Garvey

I am accompanied by Mr. Bill Keating, director with responsibility for macro-economic statistics, and Mr. Gerry O'Hanlon, director with responsibility for social and demographic statistics.

Mr. Purcell

As there are no paragraphs in the report on the Central Statistics Office, it falls to the committee to consider the account itself.

Deputy M. Ahern

How many employees does the CSO have?

Mr. Garvey

Just under 600, excluding temporary staff which we recruit for cyclical activity like the census of population. We have about 440 core staff in Cork and 160 in Dublin.

Deputy M. Ahern

What is happening to the current census? Is it going ahead, or has foot and mouth disease put a temporary hold on it?

Mr. Garvey

It was due to go ahead on 29 April, but has been postponed for one year. We intend to hold it on 28 April 2002.

Chairman

If Mr. Sullivan and his staff intend to leave now, they may, but this discussion will not take much longer. I think the CSO and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs interlock a little.

Mr. Sullivan

That is fine.

Chairman

Are there any further questions?

Deputy Durkan

I have looked at this matter, with the exception of the census and what it entails. Has everything been put in place to meet the requirements of the census, with the exception of the interruption caused by the threat of foot and mouth disease?

Mr. Garvey

We were ready to roll, but, unfortunately, the outbreak in County Louth happened three or four days before our field enumerators were to begin going from door to door. The high level expert group stated that the census was high risk, given the recent outbreak that had happened in County Louth and the fact that it entailed movement between farms, and recommended to Government that it be postponed for one year. Everything else was in place. Forms were printed which will have to be destroyed and reprinted. The cost of postponing it could run up to £6 million.

Deputy Durkan

The form process will have to be duplicated next year.

Mr. Garvey

We will have to reprint the forms. The Deputy mentioned duplicating the process, the printing was only the final stage. There was a public consultation process prior to our recommendation to Government on the content of the form. The Government decided on its content. The form will have to be reprinted because it has this year as the census date and so on. It will have to be reprinted as it will be held on a different date.

Deputy Durkan

That process has resulted in a loss of £6 million and there is nothing we can do about that.

With regard to the format of the form, statistics are the most interesting and informative material on which one can get one's hands provided the information sought is sufficiently broad based. I note Mr. Garvey is looking at a document. I presume that is one of the forms.

Mr. Garvey

It is one of those that escaped the shredder.

Deputy Durkan

The format of the form is different from previous years?

Mr. Garvey

Yes.

Deputy Durkan

Does the expert group propose any further changes for next year, or is it proposed to replicate the documentation?

Mr. Garvey

The Deputy is probably hinting at the greater use to which the statistics could be put if produced in a timely fashion. On this occasion we had planned a new departure. We had invested in consultancy and new technology to scan in the information with the result that the full range of census material would have been expected to be available years more quickly than in the past.

Deputy Durkan

How long is it envisaged that will take now?

Mr. Garvey

The census will be done in April 2002 and I expect some results will be available within a few months and most will be available by the end of 2004 or early to mid-2005.

Mr. O’Hanlon

Provisional results for a head count based on our field returns would be available within two or three months of census day. We expect the processing of the forms would be completed within one year of the census and the publication-dissemination programme would be completed within a further year. We publish about ten volumes. The census results should be available within a year of the census date, which would be substantially ahead of the position on previous occasions.

Deputy Durkan

How does our system compare with the system employed by the UK authorities, other EU member states and the US?

Mr. O’Hanlon

From the point of view of the collection of the statistics, we still have a delivery and collection of forms system. That is our enumerator system. The UK system has an interviewer-delivery of forms system, but it has a postal response plus an interview-collection system. We investigated such a system for Ireland in 1999 in a pilot study and decided we did not have enough of the necessary conditions regarding full postal registers to go ahead with it on this occasion. As Mr. Garvey mentioned, on the processing of the returns, the United Kingdom and the United States have introduced scanning and automatic recognition of the forms and that is what we intended to do on this occasion. That is effectively the cutting edge technology.

Practices vary in most other European countries. Many countries have population registers and household registers containing an up to date record of the population and its movement. To a certain extent those countries are able to use a lighter approach, if I could put it that way, in respect of their censuses as they have comprehensive administrative data on which to base their statistics. It is not possible to make direct comparisons. On the time limits for the production of the results, we consider the time limits we indicated would be up to the level of best practice internationally.

Deputy Durkan

I presume all the information will be retained on a central database.

Mr. O’Hanlon

There are two issues involved there. First, while the name and address of the household is recorded on the form, it will not be recognised electronically. In other words, on our database of returns, the name and address of the person will not be maintained in the same database.

Deputy Durkan

On that basis I presume it will not be possible for a hacker to break into the system and collect all the information on the database.

Mr. O’Hanlon

Not directly in that regard. We would scan the forms and essentially there would be an archive of scanned images, but that is a different issue from having a database of returns. In other words, the scanning process is as simple as if one had photocopied the forms.

Statistics Acts provide that census returns can be accessible after 100 years through the national archives. We envisage that the scanned images will be the medium through which that access will be facilitated in 100 years' time.

Deputy Durkan

I do not propose to be around at that stage.

Deputy M. Ahern

With regard to the miscellaneous items expenditure, No. 10, in accordance with the administrative budget agreement, 161 awards were made under an exceptional performance scheme. What is that scheme?

Mr. Garvey

As part of our administrative budget agreement, a certain proportion of our funding can be set aside to acknowledge outstanding performance in the office.

Deputy M. Ahern

It is effectively a type of SMI system.

Mr. Garvey

Yes. Such awards are given to people who put in an effort above and beyond the call of duty, people who invariably are helpful to the public. A person might contact us and say on visiting the office he or she got outstanding help from an officer who was particularly helpful.

Deputy M. Ahern

Who assesses that performance?

Mr. Garvey

Our exceptional performance awards are broken down in two parts. A large slice of the available funds are set aside for what we call director's generous prizes, which are assessed at the end of the year. Any staff member can recommend a colleague or a superior for these awards. We have a staff committee which shortlists those recommended. We bring in a facilitator to help some members of senior management and staff members to make the final decisions. That is one side of it. On the other side local managers are given at their discretion a certain amount to reward people for particularly good efforts they make in their local areas.

Chairman

Mr. Garvey is talking about a staff of 600, effectively he is saying that more than 25% of the staff get an exceptional performance reward, the amount of which is not very high.

The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs has a big staff. Does it have an exceptional performance scheme in operation? Does the scheme operate through the Civil Service?

Mr. Garvey

It is part of every Department and it is set up through a legal administrative budget agreement. As part of the SMI, on the last occasion, it was doubled from 0.1% to 0.2% of wages and salaries. It is a standard feature.

Chairman

I think it is a good idea.

Mr. Sullivan

We have a scheme like it, as do all Government Departments. As Mr. Garvey said, it is a percentage of the payroll that is available. We spent £73,000 in 1999, which was divided between individual and group awards. We tried to recognise where people were making a special effort through teamwork or as individuals. It is done through the management structure, through which individual managers might make recommendations. However, we have introduced a change. We have a partnership committee in the organisation consisting of staff members to consider the suggestions put forward and to recommend payment in particular cases. It also complements another scheme, an input scheme. In 1999, we paid £13,000 to 63 officers. People make suggestions for improvements in the various schemes and services. They are the two types of schemes in operation.

Chairman

I have a question based on the consultancy services. Was that a financial management system that was put in place?

Mr. Garvey

In our 1999 account, the outturn was considerably less than what had been provided for under consultancy services. As far as I recall, the main consultancy at that time was IT-based. We took on an expert to help us develop a medium-term IT strategy.

Chairman

He got the £139——

Mr. Garvey

He did not. He was paid whatever directors' rates were at the time, £65,000 or £70,000.

Chairman

We note the Vote. I thank Mr.Sullivan, Mr. Garvey and their officials for attending.

The committee adjourned at 12.35 p.m. until Thursday, 17 May 2001.