Skip to main content
Normal View

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 21 Jun 2012

Chapter 40 - Rural Social Scheme

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue(Secretary General, Department of Social Protection) called and examined.

Today we will deal with the 2010 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General - Vote 38, Department of Social Protection; chapter 33, welfare and employment schemes; chapter 34, welfare overpayments; chapter 35, regularity of social welfare payments; chapter 36, controlled measures at scheme level; chapter 37, information driven controls; chapter 38, measuring review outcomes; chapter 39, bank and An Post reconciliation; and chapter 40, rural social scheme.

Before we begin, I remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile telephones as interference from mobile telephones affects the sound quality of transmission of the meeting. I advise witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against a Member of either House, a person outside the House nor an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 158 that the committee shall also refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister or the merits or objectives of such policies.

I welcome Ms Niamh O'Donoghue, Secretary General at the Department of Social Protection. I invite her to introduce her officials.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

On my right is Mr. Brian O'Raghallaigh, assistant secretary in charge of the finance brief, Mr. Seán Reilly, principal officer from our account branch in the finance unit, Ms Anne Vaughan, deputy secretary general, and Ms Kathleen Stack, assistant secretary general in charge of control and regional operations.

I welcome Mr. John Conlon, principal officer in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, social protection Vote.

Mr. John Conlon

Thank you.

I invite Mr. McCarthy to outline and introduce the Vote.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Thank you, Chairman. In view of the fact that there are so many reports, I will just touch briefly on the main points that arise.

Expenditure on welfare schemes is met primarily through the Vote for social protection and the Social Insurance Fund. Chapter 33 consolidates the expenditure. This indicates that the total expenditure in 2010 was around €20.6 billion. A further €1 billion was spent on a range of schemes designed to get unemployed people back into the workforce. Following considerable restructuring of departmental responsibilities in 2010, the Department of Social Protection now also plays the lead role in relation to those schemes. The Accounting Officer has provided an update on welfare and employment scheme spending since 2010. The audit opinion in relation to the appropriation account of the Vote for social protection for 2010 drew attention to estimates of the level of payments in excess of entitlement included in the account. The concern is outlined in more detail in chapter 35.

In summary, evidence from a series of fraud and error surveys carried out by the Department indicated there was a problem of excess payments in relation to many of the big schemes it operates. The scale of the problem was evidently greater for means-tested schemes which are funded through the Vote. The chapter emphasised the importance of the Department continuing to carry out fraud and error surveys based on random samples of cases, so that it can inform itself of the underlying level of fraud and error in its payments, and devise strategies to detect excess payments and deter fraudulent or incorrect claims.

I note that the Department has recently completed fraud and error surveys of three schemes, and that reports on the results have been provided to the committee. As indicated in chapter 35, my office will audit the survey implementation and results against criteria set out in the chapter. I will report on the conclusions of that work in due course. In light of the significant expenditure and the level of irregularity indicated in the fraud and error surveys, much of our audit work is focused on the effectiveness of the Department's efforts at reducing unwarranted recourse to the welfare system.

Chapter 36 presents the results of audit work in relation to the application of controls on a number of schemes. For jobseekers, there was a lack of evidence in many of the Department's case files of the efforts made by claimants to obtain employment. There were also some cases of incorrectly assessed means. While responsibility for disability allowance had transferred to the Department from the health boards in 1996, the audit found the Department had never reviewed the means of over 9,000 cases still in payment, or the medical conditions of almost 12,000 current claimants. It was also found in two local offices visited that prescribed management reviews of claims in payment had not been carried out in 2010. Reviews of claims with recent transactions had been carried out in one office visited, but had not been applied in another. Prescribed medical reviews of invalidity pension cases were also not carried out in a substantial proportion of cases. The report concludes that the Department needs to allocate the resources available for control activity to reviews based on an assessment of the risks of excess payment, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the different forms of control activity. It is important that risk assessment is repeated from time to time to take account of significant changes in factors that impact on each scheme.

Chapter 37 examines the use by the Department of third party data to assist it in focusing review activity on areas where there is a higher risk of fraudulent claiming. The audit found that when third party data was matched with claimants' data, large numbers of claims were identified where further investigation was required. A total of 36% of the cases subsequently reviewed resulted in identification of an overpayment. However, half of the cases referred for investigation to local offices had not been followed up. We also found that there were delays in receipt and matching of some categories of information in 2010. The Department stated that it is putting new procedures in place to ensure more timely receipt of third party information and more efficient data matching.

Chapter 38 examines the Department's main measure of the success of its control activity. This uses the concept of control savings. The Department reported control savings of €483 million in 2010. This combined overpayments detected in the year and estimated future savings based on the average amount of time a claimant whose payment is stopped is expected to remain off the Department's books. The audit found that many claimants had not stayed off the books of the Department for the time periods used in calculating savings, and that about one fifth of the reported savings did not comply with the Department's own estimation methodology.

Chapter 34 reviews the Department's management of overpayment debts arising from fraud or errors in payment. The chapter notes that the value of overpayment debts recorded in 2010 was €83 million. A total of €26 million, or 31% of the total, was classified as being due to fraud. The total value of debts owed to the Department at the end of 2010 was €315 million. Recoveries in the year were around €35 million, of which some €20 million was recovered through deductions from current welfare payments. The audit noted that less than 3% of fraud cases progress to criminal prosecution. In general, these are the higher value cases. In response to the reports findings, the Accounting Officer stated that the Department would review its overall approach to overpayment recovery, particularly in fraud cases. The Accounting Officer will be able to update the committee on progress in that regard.

Chapter 40 deals with the rural social scheme, which was introduced in 2004. The aim of the scheme was to provide income support to low-income farmers and fishermen while allowing for the provision of certain services of benefit to rural communities by harnessing the skills and talents of the scheme participants. The Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs had overall responsibility for the scheme until September 2010, at which point responsibility transferred to the Department of Social Protection. Pobal provides a central payroll and payment function and other scheme management and administrative services. The scheme is managed at local level by 35 local development companies and by Údarás na Gaeltachta, the employer of the scheme participants. The outlay by the State on the scheme in 2010 was €44 million and a total of €257 million has been spent since 2004. The welfare benefits paid to participants accounted for 48% of the overall cost of the scheme. A social cost-benefit analysis of the scheme using 2007 data estimated that the benefits to individuals, communities and the State were almost three times the scheme outlay over and above the welfare payment element. The audit results for the administration of the scheme have suggested a need for clearer rules and procedures for projects and improved performance monitoring to inform allocation decisions.

Chapter 39 deals with deficiencies in the bank reconciliation processes and in arrangements to independently confirm balances due to An Post. The Department introduced a new computerised payment reconciliation system in June 2009. The system did not, however, deliver a standard format bank reconciliation. The Department required additional work around procedures to generate the necessary reconciliations but relatively minor unverified differences remained. Another element of the planned reconciliation system was intended to ensure that An Post balances could be independently validated but this was not delivered. The Accounting Officer stated that arrangements were in place to adjust and enhance the system to produce automated reconciliations. We are reviewing these developments in the context of the 2011 audits.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I welcome the opportunity to make a brief opening statement. As requested, I have already provided the committee with an update on the conclusions contained in the chapters. Arising from decisions by Government on the Department's remit, it is now the largest Department with a budget of €21 billion in 2012. It has three clear functions: first, provision of income support; second, activation support and services; and third, control of fraud and abuse. I will make a brief comment each of these functions.

When I last addressed the committee in September 2011, I commented on high levels of activity and this continued in 2010. More than 1.4 million people were in receipt of weekly social welfare payments, which were paid in respect of a little under 2.2 million beneficiaries of the Department's schemes. The biggest issue the Department's staff had to contend and cope with during this period was the surge in jobseeker's claims. This reflected the changing economic climate. This change also had significant impact on both income to and expenditure from the Social Insurance Fund. During 2010, churn in the live register was 1.1 million. In other words, we dealt with 550,000 new claims as against 554,000 sign offs, compared to 1.12 million in 2009. This represents continuing record levels of activity. The average live register in 2010 increased to 442,000 compared to 398,000 in 2009 and the share of long-term unemployment increased rapidly from 22% at end 2009 to 36% at end 2010. While this volume of activity presented significant challenges for us in terms of processing claims, we have made significant progress in responding. Processing times for these claims are now well within operating target.

I am aware, however, that the time taken to process claims across several schemes remains one of the greatest areas of concern to the public and to the committee. I acknowledge that for certain schemes, especially those which require medical and means assessment, the Department's performance currently falls considerably behind the targets in place. I am acutely aware of this and I am working with my colleagues throughout the Department to address it. I am keen to provide assurance to the committee in respect of this area. I point to the significant improvements that have been evidenced during the past two years in the timescales for processing jobseeker's, pensions, child benefit, and illness benefit payments. Productivity improvements have come from a mixture of improved processes, new systems and targeting of some additional resources in appropriate areas. Our experience indicates that in a period of continuing high demand it takes time and effort to deliver real improvements in processing times. I am confident, however, that with the same approach and mixture of tools we will achieve improvements during the coming months in the schemes with which we are currently experiencing difficulties.

Since I last addressed the committee, the Department has seen considerable change. The community welfare service of the HSE, made up of 1,100 staff, was integrated with the Department on schedule in October 2011. The employment services and community employment divisions of FÁS, comprising more than 700 staff, were transferred to the Department on schedule on 1 January 2012. Department organisation structures and systems have been revised to incorporate these new staff and the functions they perform and integration of services is ongoing at an operating level.

As part of our process of integration and as committed to in the project plan for the establishment of the national employment and entitlements service, the Department has developed and is implementing a new service model. The purpose of this new service model is to address identified deficiencies in the State's approach to the provision of employment and income support services and, in doing so, to expand and improve the quality of the employment services provided to unemployed people; to draw a clear linkage between an individual's entitlement to income support and his responsibility to engage with the State's employment services; and to enhance the engagement with employers, especially at a local level. Good progress has been made and I have provided detail in the update already sent to the committee.

Given the scale of operations of the Department, it is not surprising that the subject of control is covered in five of the eight chapters in the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual report. The committee will recall that the Department's fraud initiative was launched in September 2011. The initiative takes a revised and renewed approach to the challenges posed by social welfare fraud. Structures and oversight mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that the initiative is implemented and outcomes monitored. Given the expanded remit of the Department, a more integrated approach to fraud control can be realised. With regard to progress and outcomes, the level of control review activity amounted to some 980,000 reviews and targets established for 2011 were exceeded with total savings of €645 million realised. Thus far in 2012, review targets are being fully met.

The Department has recently finalised three fraud and error surveys which have been made available to the members of the committee. These surveys will help the Department to refine the implementation of control strategies for each of the areas covered. The Department is applying both new and expanded approaches to enhance fraud investigation and control activity such as predictive risk analytics; greater inter-agency co-operation at national and local level; legislative provisions to give additional powers to departmental staff; the examination of new ways to recover social welfare fraud overpayments; increasing penalties for fraudulent activity; and systematic and regular data matching exercises on internal systems and with external agencies.

The roll-out of the public service card has commenced. This is a multi-annual project but for several reasons it has been slower to move to full production than had originally been envisaged. We have now put in place the infrastructure, staffing and training to ensure that we will significantly escalate the roll-out of the card to our customers throughout our local office network during the rest of this year.

The committee will note in the briefing already provided that the Department and its accounting software provider have continued to make progress in addressing deficiencies in our accounting reconciliation system as set out by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his 2010 report.

I wish to acknowledge the great dedication and continued flexibility of the staff of the Department, including those who have recently joined us. Our reorganisation, which has included the transfer of large numbers of staff from the public sector to the Civil Service, is an important part of the public sector reform agenda. I trust the committee will be assured that in delivering on our mandate we are conscious of our duties to our customers, to the taxpayer and to the Oireachtas.

Thank you very much. May we publish your statement?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Yes.

I welcome Ms O'Donoghue and the delegation to the meeting. I understand I have 15 minutes.

You have 20 minutes.

That is even better, although I might take 25 minutes. I will begin with the issue Ms O'Donoghue began with, that is, the processing time for claims. She tells us the Department has made great progress and she instanced jobseeker's allowance, child benefit and illness benefit. Can she quantify the progress made? Could she tell the committee the average waiting time for jobseeker's allowance?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The average waiting times for jobseeker's benefit and jobseeker's allowance are two weeks for the former and five weeks for the latter. However, the averages reflect the fact that a considerable number of cases, particularly regarding jobseeker's benefit, are being handled within a week or day when the applicants present with appropriate information. That is detailed-----

What is the extent of variation across the State? Ms O'Donoghue obviously mentioned an average waiting time.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

If the Deputy gives me a moment, I will dig out that information. We document and provide information right across our entire office network with regard to average processing times.

What about child benefit?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

With regard to child benefit, there are a number of constituencies. There are domestic child benefit claims and child benefit claims in respect of EU nationals and posted workers or workers in the country. They are different because of the verification required, particularly regarding children based abroad.

The processing time for domestic claims is three weeks. With regard to international cases, it very much depends on the country from where the applicant is presenting.

Does that mark progress in respect of waiting times?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Absolutely.

However, I would like to know about the variation across the State in respect of jobseeker's allowance applications.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

If it helps, I could furnish information to the Deputy separately.

Thank you. I would very much appreciate that.

The waiting time for carer's allowance is 28 weeks. The waiting time for invalidity pension is a pretty staggering 31 weeks. Ms O'Donoghue states the Department has made progress in respect of the processing of pension payments. However, the non-contributory pension waiting time is still 11 weeks, according to the Minister. What is the operational guideline? What is the target waiting time? How far beyond that target do the specific payment targets fall?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Let me concentrate on the areas where we would readily acknowledge we have significant difficulty, namely, the areas of disability allowance, carer's allowance, invalidity pension and family income support. In respect of these, waiting times are very significantly outside the target range. The target range for many of those schemes is somewhere in the order of eight to 16 weeks, bearing in mind that there are means assessments and medical assessments involved. Currently, the waiting time for carer's allowance is somewhere in the order of 28 weeks, as the Deputy stated.

We are focusing in particular on carer's allowance, disability allowance and invalidity pension. We have invested very significantly in putting in place a new computer system, which was developed over the course of 2010 and 2011. It has now gone live for all new claims across the three schemes. In fact, the stock on those schemes is to be migrated onto the system at various points over the coming months. We have examined the business processes for the schemes and are putting some additional resources into the various areas to deal with backlogs and ensure our core capacity is used to deal with the inflow of claims into the areas. We are paying particular attention to those schemes.

Does that include additional staff working on the schemes?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Some temporary resources have been put into the scheme areas. If the requirement is to have additional staff, we will certainly consider it. However, on foot of the business process improvement, together with increased familiarity with the new systems put in place, we expect to see a productivity gain. If staffing is an issue in addressing the backlog, we will take measures to deal with that.

Can I respectfully suggest to Ms O'Donoghue that a processing time of 28 weeks, or seven months, is astonishing, notwithstanding business applications and processes? I am baffled as to how Ms O'Donoghue believes she will reduce that waiting time or the 31 weeks associated with the invalidity pension to any acceptable range in the absence of additional staff.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

There are a number of elements. First, the new system will definitely speed up the processing of claims, particularly as staff become familiar with it. There are hand-offs and assessments to be carried out. We are considering how these can best be achieved. I include improvements regarding customer forms and engagement with customers to ensure we receive complete information from the customer at the point of claim, rather than having to engage in ongoing correspondence.

Medical assessment is an absolute issue for us and we are taking steps in this regard. We have a recruitment competition under way to recruit new medical assessors. We are investigating seriously the possibility of going to the market to outsource medical assessment to supplement our internal capacity. The various steps will be of benefit in addition to some temporary resources. However, it is a question of ensuring that we obtain best value from the investment we made in the new systems and business processes we have put in place.

At what point will the claimant for the carer's allowance have a claim processed within operational targets? When will the period of 28 weeks be reduced to the target period of between eight and 16 weeks?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

It will take a goodly number of months. This is based purely on our experience in that we have faced similar problems in other scheme areas in the Department over recent years. Based on our experience, even with a targeted approach, additional resources and new systems, it can take up to six or nine months to achieve the desired target. However, we envisage a continuing process of improvement over that period.

Does Ms O'Donoghue believe this is an acceptable state of affairs? I understand she is viewing the matter from an internal and management perspective in the first instance. I invite her to view the scenario from the perspective of the claimant, who must wait seven months on average for the carer's allowance and eight months for the invalidity pension. That is extraordinary in that it involves almost a year of waiting.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The Department's view is that the customer is at the centre of its services.

Those waiting times do not suggest that.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

This must be considered in a context that takes into account our continuing high level of activities across all of our schemes. We operate some 70 schemes in the Department. As we seek to improve, deliver real efficiencies, be more effective and meet our targets, which were set at different times, we must tackle problems sequentially. We cannot tackle them all at the same time. I do not find it acceptable that customers must wait for as long as outlined, and that is why the matter is now the focus of our attention. We must balance our activity between trying to get customers who are entitled to services into payment as quickly as possible and engaging in control activity to ensure people who are not entitled to services do not access payments.

We will come to that presently. The domiciliary care allowance is one of those schemes that has been hugely problematic from the point of view of claimants who, in this case, include families of children with severe disabilities. The level of refusal of the payment is very high, while the level of granting on appeal is very high also. The Minister has acknowledged that the administration of the scheme is opaque and difficult and a review is being undertaken. Will Ms O'Donoghue explain why this is the case and why it is necessary to have such a review in the first instance? This must be considered in conjunction with the very lengthy waiting times for applicants for carer's allowance, invalidity pension, non-contributory pension and the one-parent family payment which, in the latter case, are running to 17 weeks. I accept that there has undoubtedly been an increase in demand for jobseeker's payments, given the unemployment problem. Nevertheless, this amounts to a series of failures within the Department, possibly at the most basic administrative and management levels. That is what the very long waiting times, including for domiciliary care allowance, indicate.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I do not accept that we have failures in the Department. There are certainly challenges in reaching our targets across a number of schemes in a context in which there are increased applications across the board, not just for jobseeker's payments but also for pensions, disability and carer's payments. When the Department took over the domiciliary care allowance scheme in 2009, it was placed on a statutory footing and an assessment mechanism was put in place which sought to ensure consistency of application to enable those meeting the requirements as defined in legislation to access the services. There were consultations with experts, both nationally and internationally, in devising protocols for how cases would be assessed. This was the first time a national assessment process was put in place. As I said, we took over the scheme in 2009 and the stock later that year. In terms of actual turnaround times under the scheme, claimants are not, in the first instance, experiencing the levels of delay to which the Deputy referred in regard to some of the other schemes. There is, however, an issue in the case of applicants seeking a review of their case. In the case of some of those who are successful in accessing the allowance, there are other schemes which then come in play such as carer's allowance and the respite grant.

Every social welfare scheme includes a review policy, the purpose of which is to ensure those accessing the scheme continue to meet the conditionality for which it was designed and established. The domiciliary care allowance scheme is no different from any other in this regard. We began making determinations under the scheme in April 2009. In 2010, therefore, it was only cases that had been marked for a one-year review which were subject to review, while those applicable in 2011 were cases marked for one and two-year reviews. There has been a considerable escalation in the number of cases coming up for review. The basis for review was recorded at the time of the original assessment, with the deciding officer and medical assessor ascertaining the appropriate review date, having regard to the evidence presented at time of claim. I acknowledge that this has given rise to significant concerns for parents and representative groups. The matter will be re-examined in the context of the review to which the Minister referred.

Did the Department write to all families in receipt of the payment?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Yes.

Is Ms O'Donoghue confident this was the right thing to do?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

In order to review a claim, we require the beneficiary to provide evidence that he or she continues to satisfy the requirements of the scheme.

To clarify, I am not seeking a debate on the necessity of a review; let us take that as a given. My question relates to the method of review. The Department chose not to distinguish between any of the 27,000 claimant families, with all of them being informed in writing that their payment was up for review.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

No. It was only in cases where we put the claim in payment in the first instance and where the information captured on our system indicated that the case should be reviewed in one, two or five years. In 15% or 16% of cases, no further review was indicated. In other words, when a claim was initially assessed and put in payment, the advice of the medical assessor was that there was no need to review it for the duration of the claim, which is up to age 16 years. To reiterate, we did not write to all 27,000 claimants.

How many were written to?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

We reviewed 134 cases in 2010, 403 in 2011 and 506 to date in 2012. Some 1,700 cases were scheduled for review this year, but that is on hold in the context of the policy review announced by the Minister. As I was explaining, in 2010 we would only have reviewed cases that had been put into payment in 2009 with an indicator that they should be reviewed in one year.

Will Ms O'Donoghue confirm that there was no written correspondence with the general cohort of recipients?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

That is correct.

When will the Minister's review be completed?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I understand she is finalising the membership and terms of reference of the review group and that there will be an announcement shortly. The review should be completed by the end of the year.

I wish to move on to the issue of fraud. Ms O'Donoghue did something in her opening statement that is regularly done at these meetings when she spoke about the Department's fraud initiative for 2011 to 2013 and the associated structures and oversight mechanism, before stating, "With regard to progress and outcomes, the level of control review activity amounted to some 980,000 reviews and targets established for 2011 were exceeded with total savings of €645 million realised." That is a staggering figure. Will she state clearly and unambiguously that this does not mean there was fraudulent activity to the value of €645 million in the system?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

There absolutely was not.

I appreciate that clarity. I am not attributing it as her intention, but statements such as Ms O'Donoghue's certainly give the impression that there is this level of fraud within the system. I welcome her clarification that that is not the case.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

That figure represents expenditure the Department would not have incurred on the basis of control activity carried out, which comprehends both fraud and error.

We have established that the figure is not a reflection of fraud activity, which is useful, but there is another problem with it. The figure itself is notional, is it not?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

As I said, it is an estimate based on established multipliers in relation to the expenditure that would have been put on.

Could Ms O'Donoghue put that into plain English?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

If a claim is stopped, we have a series of multipliers which are established on the basis of quite considerable investigation as to how long a claim would remain in payment if there had not been an intervention.

Therefore, it is a notional figure of what might have been lost to the system had an intervention not been made.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Yes.

So it is a notional figure, is it not?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

It is a figure based on what would have been lost to the system had there not been an intervention.

Does Ms O'Donoghue think it is entirely accurate to use that type of figure and claim it as a saving in the way that is often done?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

It is an approach that also has validity in an international context in so far it is valid as being a statement of what it is, which is a representation of the expenditure that would otherwise have been incurred had there not been that intervention by control efforts on the part of the Department.

Notwithstanding international standards and complicated mathematical constructs, I find that to be a dubious claim, as I think taxpayers and citizens would also, because it is a measurement of "what ifs". It is not a categoric statement of a concrete sum of revenue that has been saved or captured for the system, in real terms and real time.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

It is because it is expenditure forgone. That is the difficulty, as opposed to the measure of overpayments, which is a categoric and absolute figure.

Yes, and I will come to that in a moment. In his earlier remarks, the Comptroller and Auditor General raised some query in respect of this reported notional saving for 2010 of €483 million. For instance, we heard him this morning raising the issue that, in fact, there were holes even in that notional calculation.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

One of the things which is acknowledged in the update to the committee is that the audit carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General indicated that there were some practices in different parts of the Department which ensured that savings were not recorded in accordance with the guidelines that had been in place. In the update to the committee, I have provided details of what we have done since to try to ensure that Department practice accords with the guidelines we have in place. That includes not alone briefing and training to staff right across our network, but also a number of validation exercises carried out by our central control unit across scheme areas to try to ensure that what is actually happening in practice on the ground, in terms of how savings are being recorded, does accord with the guidelines we have in place.

So they are notional savings in this regard.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Notional savings and payments in excess of entitlement.

Yes and, as I said, I will come to that. Is Ms O'Donoghue saying quite categorically that she is happy to stand over the 2011 calculated figure of €645 million? Will she be saying that there is not a similar flaw in that calculation as was identified for her 2010 figure?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

What I am saying is that is certainly what we are reporting as a Department. We would expect that the initiatives that we would have carried out throughout 2011 would have helped to give greater assurance about that figure. I am comfortable in saying that these are the savings that are reported across our scheme areas by staff on the ground, having regard to the training they have got.

I wish to repeat, because it is so important for people to understand, that they are calculations of savings or income forgone.

Let us come to the more concrete figures of overpayments. Between 2007 and 2010, the level of overpayments due for recovery increased from €149.5 million to €315 million at the end of 2010. That is quite an increase, is it not? It is more than a doubling between the years 2007 and 2010.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

It would reflect the increase in activity across our scheme areas and the significant increase in overall expenditure across scheme areas as well.

Let me acknowledge that absolutely, but it is still a pretty staggering increase by any standards. For the figure due for recovery from overpayments to double in that period is quite something, is it not?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Given the attention that the Department is reinvesting in control, that figure is going to increase. We are trying to manage down on the one hand but as one enhances control and investigation, one will obviously uncover issues which is what gets reflected in the overpayment outcomes.

In the same period 2007 to 2010, the quantum of those overpayments that were identified as fraud fluctuated from €21 million to €26 million. I am reading from paragraph 34.5 in the report. I should have said that initially. I am trying to unpick the phenomenon of overpayment and get a fix on that portion of it that is straightforward fraud and that other portion that is overpayment, which is an entirely different matter. That is why I am drawing Ms O'Donoghue's attention to these figures. Can she throw some light on this for the committee, and make that distinction by unpicking the overpayment figures for me concerning fraud and error?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I have figures to hand for 2009 and 2010, but not for 2007 and 2008.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I can at least help in that regard. In 2010, entire recorded overpayments were €83.4 million, of which €25.9 million was attributed to suspected fraud, €42.4 million was attributed to customer or third party error, and €5.2 million was attributed to departmental error. Some €9.9 million was assessed against estate cases.

In 2009, the figure for suspected fraud was €20.7 million, customer or third party error was €31.5 million, departmental error was €3.9 million, and estate was €10.7 million.

What was the total for 2009?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I beg your pardon, it was €66.8 million.

Taking those figures therefore, between 2009 and 2010 we are seeing a rise from almost €67 million to €83.4 million in respect of overpayments. A portion of that is attributable to what Ms O'Donoghue calls "suspected fraud" - that is, €20.7 million in 2009 and €25.9 million in 2010. We then have what Ms O'Donoghue calls "third party or customer error", in addition to departmental error. So the figures tell us that the error portion of overpayments far outweighs and outbalances the suspected fraud.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Yes.

What does Ms O'Donoghue mean by "third party or customer error"? Did they fill out the forms wrongly?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Yes indeed, or they would not have updated us - inadvertently would not have alerted us - to a change in circumstances.

Therefore the culpability rests with the citizen?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Yes.

The level of departmental error is very modest at €3.9 million for 2009 and €5.2 million for 2010. How does Ms O'Donoghue make the distinction between where the Department has got it wrong or the citizen has got it wrong? What is the line of distinction?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

If a wrong decision is made or information which the customer has provided us has been assessed incorrectly in terms of making a payment, that would be a departmental error but if the customer has not given us the right information or, inadvertently, has not given us an update on his or her circumstances, then that is a customer error.

For instance, to draw back in the threads of a previous part of our discussion around the domiciliary care allowance, there has been a significant level of error within the Department. Given that the Department refuses many applicants, they appeal and then the Department subsequently accepts them on appeal, would that be captured in that figure?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

No. What happens is somebody provides evidence on a claim and gives us supporting documentation on it. A decision is made on the basis of the evidence provided. Particularly in a case where there is a medical assessment involved, what very often happens is that additional information is furnished-----

I am familiar with that.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

-----at a review or appeal stage, and it is the additionality then that leads to a different decision. Because a decision is upheld at appeal or, indeed, is revised by a deciding officer is not an indication that the original decision was incorrect because the original decision may well have been correct on the basis of the information provided.

One could speculate from case to case. However, given the trend - I instance the domiciliary care one because it is in focus - Ms O'Donoghue is stretching plausibility.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

One of the challenges with that particular type of scheme is that there is a degree of subjectivity involved at the final determination.

And clearly that is problematic in that case.

Ms O'Donoghue instances the Department's fraud initiative 2011-13. Does the Department have an overpayment initiative? Does it have an error initiative? The fraud piece is clearly important but it is a much smaller portion of the Department's problem than issues of error due to what, Ms O'Donoghue states, are mistakes made by customers and then a small level of mistakes made by the Department. It jumps out at me that Ms O'Donoghue calls this a fraud initiative. It seems the far bigger piece of work is around Ms O'Donoghue's departmental systems and, indeed, to address that issue of error, whether it is made by the citizen or it falls in the lap of some of the civil servants.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

We are taking action on all of those fronts.

Why did Ms O'Donoghue call it a fraud initiative?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The fraud initiative is what it is. It is an initiative in terms of combating fraud. Bearing in mind that the overpayments are suspected fraud in terms of claims that are already in payment, a very significant part of the fraud initiative is trying to ensure that claims do not get into payment at all in the first instance so that they do not get reflected in overpayments and they do not get reflected in our actual payment system.

The fraud initiative is very targeted at what it says. It is trying to ensure that we have the systems, information, intelligence, training and supports available to ensure that people who are not entitled do not get into the system, and if they do, that we have the control mechanisms in place to identify them as quickly as possible.

It is accepted that the Department needs to have a targeted set of initiatives in respect of it. I take that as given, and laudable and necessary, but the astonishing aspect is that the same level of emphasis does not fall in respect of overpayments, which are either due to error by customers or by the Department.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

With due respect,-----

That strikes me as astonishing.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

-----the issue in relation to Department error is an internal activity and it absolutely receives the same amount of emphasis within the Department in terms of guidelines, training and new systems being put in place.

Does the Department have a particular initiative geared towards it in that kind of rigorous way?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Absolutely. It is part of our control activity. Again, it is detailed in the information that has been provided to the committee in terms of the various different control activities that took place, particularly in 2011 and 2012, which are very much about bringing staff up to speed, improving the training and improving the guidelines - making them more easily understood.

Similarly, in terms of customer error, what we have been doing is trying to improve our information to customers, both at claim stage and, indeed, in terms of, at claim award stage, reminding them of their obligations to appraise us of any changes in their circumstances and, indeed, to engage with us on review mechanisms or certification mechanisms to ensure we have as up-to-date information as we can so overpayments do not arise.

I will end with this, Chairman, if I may. In Ms O'Donoghue's opening remarks, she referred to the fraud initiative, reported progress, outcomes etc. and offered us up this notional figure of €645 million saved. She offered that information to this committee under the umbrella of what is described as a fraud initiative.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

It is fraud and control. Sorry, it is a fraud initiative but the savings are in control of fraud.

It would be immensely preferable if the Department decoupled fraud, which we need to have quantified accurately in real time and on which we need to know that the Department is doing everything it can to recoup those moneys, and the phenomenon of overpayment and error from whatever source, be it third party or the Department, and to delineate those two matters. The Department should separate them out. It is grossly misleading to offer up such a significant sum under the umbrella of a fraud initiative and then, only upon questioning, argue the toss over what is what. With all due respect, I consider Ms O'Donoghue's opening statement to be misleading. We managed to pick through some of the detail - I thank the Chairman for his forbearance - in terms of unpacking that. Ms O'Donoghue should not come before the committee, and none of the senior officials from the Department go on public record, offering up this narrative because, frankly, it is misleading on a number of fronts.

Has Ms O'Donoghue figures on overpayment and fraud for 2011? In terms of overpayment and fraud, she might let us know some of the individual figures. Are we talking about individuals having claimed a substantial amount of money in terms of overpayment or what is the extent of individual fraudulent claims?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

In relation to overpayments for 2011, the provisional overall value is €92.4 million, an increase from €83.4 million in 2010.

In terms of fraud.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I do not have that breakdown with me but I will certainly furnish it.

On an individual sample of cases, what type of figure are we talking about?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The detail available to me relates to 2010. The average value of overpayments - this would be across fraud and error - would be €1,585. A very significant proportion of the overpayments would be relatively small. It would be overpayment where somebody might have received ten days or less additional payment than he or she would have been entitled to.

At the other end of the spectrum, the largest overpayments, there have been some notable ones, and even court cases, over the course of the past six to 12 months which indicate the scale of fraud that has been perpetuated, mostly in impersonation issues but, obviously, some inappropriate claiming.

What is the figure for those?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

They would be in the multiple hundreds of thousands of euro.

Is that an individual case?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

In an individual case, yes. In 2010, 75% of overpayments had a value of less than €1,000.

But these are all average figures.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

As 75% had a value of less than €1,000, the remaining 25% then, obviously, had more - the average being €1,500. In terms of the most significant overpayments, I do not have specific figures but we have successfully pursued several prosecutions over the past six to nine months, some of which were in the order of €200,000 as a result of multiple claims and personation issues.

I welcome Ms O'Donoghue and her officials. We always look at bad news in this committee but the Department has a mammoth budget of €21 billion and I commend it on the considerable good work it does with it. The recent Pathways to Work initiative and the national employment welfare services are both positive developments. Unfortunately, however, we are not here to discuss those matters.

I propose to raise specific questions which occurred to me from my reading of chapters 34 to 38. I will attempt to avoid overlapping with the issues raised by Deputy McDonald, who went through the figures set out in chapter 34 in respect of the ratio of overpayments and frauds. The report indicates that the total value of overpayments has increased from €50 million to €83 million, which Ms O'Donoghue explained as being due to an increase in the volume. However, the average overpayment has increased from approximately €1,000 to €1,585. Why has that happened?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

A couple of issues have come into play. The number of cases increased, as has the spectrum. As I noted earlier, at least one successful prosecution has been brought in a case involving hundreds of thousands of euro. Cases involving large amounts of money will distort the average. We have also been successful in matching data and taking money back in estate cases where significant overpayments occurred. In other words, somebody died and his or her true means only became apparent when his or her estate was being settled. The individual may have been in receipt of a means assessed payment but we were not aware of the true value or extent of his or her means. Such cases tend to be of high value and would also distort the average.

Is that a newly introduced control measure?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

It is just that we have become more effective in matching data and accessing income information from other sources, including UK pensions, of which we would not otherwise be aware.

I calculate the figure for fraud in 2009 and 2010 at 31% of overpayments. Sometimes overpayments are automatically assumed to be fraud, which wrongly creates the impression among the public that the Department is being taken for a ride by those who use the system. If one believes the social welfare system exists to protect people, one must avoid negative public opinion. Targeting fraud is important in this regard but we should not overestimate the level of fraud.

Ms O'Donoghue noted that €315 million in overpayments remained outstanding at the end of 2010. What is the current figure and how much progress has been made in recouping the money?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I do not have a figure for 2011 in terms of the balance. With specific reference to 2010, however, I can say our ability to recover money and our recovery rate are improving, albeit slowly. Considerable progress remains to be made. We recovered approximately €34 million in 2010 and, I understand, €50 million in 2011. We are limited in our recovery methodology because we are required by legislation to limit the recovery of payments from continuing customers to the difference between their rate of primary payment and the rate of supplementary welfare allowance, unless an individual agrees to the recovery of a more significant amount. We are seeking to amend the legislation to enhance our ability to recover, but difficulties have arisen in this regard. The Minister for Social Protection hopes to bring proposals in the next social welfare Bill, but certain issues must be addressed beforehand to get to that space.

The most that can be deducted from social welfare payments is the difference between the social welfare payment and the supplementary welfare allowance, which currently stands at €2.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

That is correct.

Ms O'Donoghue wants to increase the gap. What will be the determining criteria for setting the deduction amount? If people are to be forced into penury, it is a questionable strategy.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

When we are recovering an overpayment we try to reach agreement with the individual concerned. The approach we take depends on how the overpayment occurred in the first instance. If the overpayment occurred due to fraud, our approach would differ in the degree to and speed with which we act compared with cases where an overpayment was due to error. We will have to work through these issues. When the supplementary welfare allowance was initially put in place, it was considered to be a basic subsistence rate of payment. There is no doubt the level of supplementary welfare allowance has increased in tandem with the rate of payment of other social welfare benefits over the course of the past eight to ten years. It is questionable whether the level of supplementary allowance still equates with what is required for basic subsistence. We have to establish a floor that is representative of what would be regarded as basic subsistence level.

It is noted in the report that while the Department categorised the overpayments, it did not categorise recoveries. In other words, it did not indicate how much of the money it recovered was paid fraudulently or otherwise. Has it started to do this and, if not, why is it not being done?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

We have not done so to date because our overpayment system focuses on the individual customer rather than the particular overpayment. Customers may have received a number of overpayments due to fraud or error. Our recovery method does not attribute cause to particular issues. We are investigating the issue further in the context of the concerns that have been expressed.

Approximately 38,500, or 75%, of the people who were overpaid in 2010 serviced their debts by the end of February 2012. Our policy is to pursue all overpayments and effect recovery wherever we can. We are considering various approaches for effective recovery, including our own systems.

Could one say that 25% are not co-operating?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

It is a measure of different factors. Either they are not co-operating or they are not in a position to co-operate. I cannot break that down any further but it should provide some assurance that 75% have serviced their debts.

If the Department does not separate between recovery of fraud and recovery of overpayments, how will it measure or keep control of its fraud initiative? How can it determine whether the initiative is successful if it is not recording how the money is being recouped?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The fraud initiative comprises a number of different elements and involves clear measures. It is against the measures set out in the initiative that we will be determining its success. We are considering how best we can do that in terms of recovery. We must bear in mind, however, that if we are limited in terms of recovery and if there is a statutory limitation, that cannot be a measure of success or of our increased effort.

The report mentions that it would not be cost beneficial to prosecute everybody involved in fraud and that approximately 2% to 3% of cases are prosecuted, usually for large sums. The average sum is €6,500. Leaving those cases aside, what sanctions are in place for the other 97% who have been caught out as deliberately defrauding the system, bar paying back the money they owe?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

There is no administrative penalty system within the social welfare system but we seek to recover the overpayment.

Can somebody be disqualified from payment?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

If he or she no longer meets the conditions for the scheme, the payment can be terminated but he or she cannot be disqualified in the future. If a customer presents to us and satisfies the eligibility conditions for a payment by the State, we are obliged to pay him or her.

I want to be very clear that I am talking about issues of fraud. If someone defrauds the system and the Department catches him or her out, all it can do is take the money back. If he or she is still entitled to jobseeker's allowance, for instance, he or she can still claim that money. Is he or she flagged? Are his or her files marked? I find it difficult to accept there is no penalty. There is no deterrent to defrauding the system if all that happens is that one has to pay the money back. It seems there is a very poor deterrent in the system.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

We have the opportunity to prosecute, although, as the Deputy said, we only proceed to prosecution in a very small proportion of cases. We have regard to a range of different factors, including the previous history of the customer. If a person serially defrauds, that would be an influencing factor in us prosecuting. It is value, history and the nature of the particular problem which gave rise to the issue in the first instance. I think nine different criterion - we have a prosecution matrix - feed into a determination as to whether we prosecute. The previous behaviour of the customer is a key feature in that.

We record all overpayments and overpayment recovery against the customer, so that history lives with him or her for the duration of his or her engagement with us. Even if somebody goes off our payment and comes back to us, because of the PPS number, we still have that history on the customer and are aware of what it was.

Has it been suggested, or have any Department reports suggested, that a defined penalty system would be beneficial in running the Department's systems?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The issue of penalties has been raised previously, in particular in the context of comparison with the tax system, but that is a policy matter for the Oireachtas to decide on.

In regard to Chapter 35 and the regularity of the social welfare payments, the Comptroller and Auditor General went through a number of the different fraud and error surveys and noted that while such surveys had been done, some had been done quite a long time ago and there was a need to update them and for them to be done more regularly. I note in the update which Ms O'Donoghue sent the committee this week that the Department has put in place a table of when it plans to do more surveys. For instance, it plans to do a jobseeker's allowance one in September of this year but the next time it intends to do one is in September 2017, which is a five year gap. Does that really match with what the Comptroller and Auditor General said in regard to the need for more regular surveys? If, in 2010, he is criticising a disability allowance survey done in 2005 as perhaps being out of date, perhaps a scheme where the Department carries out the surveys every five years might not be frequent enough.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I am very mindful of the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General in regard to more frequent surveys. What we have tried to do in the schedule in the fraud initiative is to be upfront and very clear about our planning in this regard because our performance, in terms of carrying out surveys, has been somewhat patchy over recent years due to the other demands on the system. What we have done is commit very clearly to a programme of regular surveys.

We have 70 different schemes. Some are of higher order in terms of the number of claimants and the value of those schemes. Even though the Deputy pointed to the five year gap, he will see that with other schemes, the gap is much greater. Even up to 2017, we are not touching on every scheme the Department is paying. Carrying out a fraud and error survey is hugely resource intensive and takes time, in particular from the start of the survey right through to being able to revisit it and have a final outcome for it. We have to take a statistically representative sample to ensure we can spot trends.

It is our best estimate that, in the context of the existing resource demands, if we can complete two major surveys per year, we will be doing very well. In 2014, because we are looking at smaller schemes, we will carry out four surveys with a smaller sample. It is to try to match the resources and the demand and ensure we have a frequent pattern.

We are also looking at other issues. We are engaged in a very interesting data analytics project with a view to looking at how we identify risk and to help target our efforts much more clearly. That will also supplement the kind of risks that become apparent from the fraud and error surveys, because their prime value is identifying the areas of risk.

I fully accept their benefit. My point was that in the conclusion to that chapter, the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out that some major expenditure schemes had not been subject to this kind of survey and the latest survey results in regard to some schemes go back to 2004 and 2005, which implies that there was a criticism that they had not been done for quite some time. What we plan in the years ahead is to stick with that kind of timeframe between some of the major surveys.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Certainly we are not meeting what the Comptroller and Auditor General would wish us to meet but this is a huge step forward from where we were in terms of the regularity of surveys.

Does Ms O'Donoghue believe it is acceptable for the Comptroller and Auditor General to make a recommendation on, or a criticism of, a practice and for the Department not to follow through on it?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I think what the Comptroller and Auditor General is most concerned about is that we have up-to-date information on what is happening. If we can supplement the fraud and error surveys with other methods and if we can show they have a value in identifying risk and that it informs our management of risk, I think the Comptroller and Auditor General will be happy with that.

We will see when we get the next report.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I would like to make a comment in regard to that. There might be a possibility - it is something we could discuss with the Department - of organising a rolling random selection of cases for review. It is a different model for delivery. Where there is a high level of review activity anyway, one could basically select cases and take the results and accumulate them over a year rather than try to do special exercises. I take the point that fraud and error surveys can be very disruptive of normal activity. There are probably a number of ways of doing it but regularly carrying out these surveys is important for many reasons in managing the whole area of fraud and error.

I will move on to Chapter 36. I compliment the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General on its report which made very interesting reading and was very well put together. It looked at two offices in particular, namely, the Cork and Tallaght offices during 2010. The impression I got from reading the report was that the offices were completely overwhelmed and that there was a huge increase in the workload, so much so that they were reacting the entire time rather than being able to take any kind of structured approach to the work and that, as a result - this is not a criticism - corporate governance or the fraud prevention measures and so on, including random surveys, suffered. The conclusion on the Cork and Tallaght offices is that they did not follow procedures for the year. Has this frantic period of activity settled to allow the Department to return to a more controlled approach to its offices?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Absolutely. During 2009 and 2010 in particular, our local offices were under siege because of the sheer volume of activity which was unprecedented. The claim load hit 500,000 in terms of the number of people who had to be managed through our local office network. This has stabilised. As the Deputy heard in my opening statement the inflow and outflow was 1.2 million in 2009 and 1.1 million in 2010. There was huge demand from people in very difficult circumstances who were all very anxious to get their claims processed so they could get into payment as quickly as possible. Part of the coping mechanism of this was that control activity was relaxed. Because of the work done in the intervening period, the new processes put in place and the fact we are dealing with a more stable claim load, albeit extremely high, I am very confident the control mechanisms which had been relaxed have been reinstated. Part of the reason we invested so heavily in the control seminars and training in the course of last year was to reinforce the importance of the controls that need to be put in place.

During this period the number of jobseeker claims pending, in other words in process, reached a high of 17% of our claim load. In normal times until 2007 and 2008 the number of claims pending for jobseekers was approximately 10% of our claim load. At present it is at 6% because our processes have improved to such an extent that we are managing the inflows and outflows to a much better extent. We put a huge renewed emphasis on the control mechanisms in the course of 2011. I am very confident they are in play. We have indicated that performance at regional and divisional level is being monitored.

In this chapter the Comptroller and Auditor General states, with regard to the management audit whereby a 1% sample of claims is taken, that this control was not operated in the Cork office during most of 2010, and in Tallaght the audit suggested that 95% of the list produced for random checks was not subsequently reviewed. It seems not to have been done across the board. Another check was done with regard to daily verification procedures where it was found the control was not operated in Cork during most of 2010 and was reinstated in November last year. However, it was operated satisfactorily in Tallaght. The entire country was besieged by this yet one office managed to do it and another did not. I am not picking on Cork as it just happens to be the one covered in the report. What action was taken with regard to the Cork office to see why it was not able to do it whereas Tallaght was?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The Cork office is our biggest local office and services the highest number of claimants. We have only one office in Cork which services the entire city so the level of increased demand was of a higher order than in many of our other offices. We worked closely over the course of 2011 in particular with local management on reinforcing the controls. I am very keen on achieving consistency throughout the local office network. This is done through communication, training, guidelines, circulars and a range of different tools and we engaged all of them in 2011. In late 2011 we reintroduced and clarified the guidelines for our staff to ensure people appreciate the importance of the measures in place.

There is much in this and other chapters on data matching and how it was done or not complied with. No fraud and error surveys were conducted that year. I accept this because I know from being a public representative it was due to the fact the offices were completely overwhelmed. However, it means there is an onus on the Department to show this has now changed. Rather than stating programmes have been put in place and briefings were held we need statistical figures showing what has been done in Cork, Tallaght and Galway. This type of information would probably need to be provided to the committee.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Absolutely Deputy. We ratcheted up considerably the number of reviews we carried out on all of our schemes in 2011. We are reporting on the type of control measures we have in place. With regard to the fraud and error surveys, we now have a programme of activity with three surveys completed in the recent past, one of these referring to an earlier period. I assure the Deputy this is very important in the Department's approach. It is not just about guidelines and talk. We are giving evidence to it with real activity.

With regard to chapter 38 on measuring review outcomes, perhaps I am being pedantic but I note it is one of the few chapters in the update which does not start with an acceptance of the review or the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Chapter 37 begins with the Department accepting the conclusions and stating it is working towards their implementation but chapter 38 does not begin similarly. Is this saying something?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

We do accept the conclusions.

Chapter 38 deals with a little of what Deputy MacDonald spoke about with regard to notional savings and the multipliers being used. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General states while a large proportion of debts may be recoverable over the long term the Department's practice of including all overpayments arising from control activity as savings is questionable. There is a definite issue between the Department's recording of savings and what the Comptroller and Auditor General states is appropriate. Is this why there is no sentence stating the Department accepts the recommendations?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Not in the slightest, we completely accept the view of the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, issues arise with regard to some of what was pointed out in that chapter. In my answer to Deputy MacDonald I referred to the fact we are aware there were shortcomings in the consistency with how our guidelines were applied but we have taken steps to try to address it.

I remind the Deputy of his time.

I will finish on this topic and I thank the Chairman for reminding me.

Deputy Deasy is reminding me.

To give the worst example, the Comptroller and Auditor General will state that of the 100% saving which the Department states was made with regard to the one parent family payment only 56% was an actual saving. This is with regard to figure 158 on page 511. The Department states a saving of €2.3 billion was made over the past five years, with €483 million in 2010, but the Comptroller and Auditor General states this is not accurate because the multipliers used by the Department do not take into account that someone may come back onto a benefit later or receive a payment again at a later stage. Therefore these savings are notional and not cash savings. The State cannot state its cash flow is impacted to this amount.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

They are notional but I need to be very clear that if we did not intervene in the manner in which we did, the level of social welfare expenditure would increase over the time. I want to give some assurance that the multipliers are not plucked out of the sky. In view of the concerns raised we are looking again to validate the multipliers we use to ensure they are appropriate for the various schemes. The same multipliers are not used for short-term and long-term schemes.

The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which I have in front of me, goes through some of these, takes sample cases and states with regard to an illness benefit that 100 cases were reviewed and 73 were reinstated in the period for which the Department claims savings. A total of 73 people were reinstated but the Department states it saved the full amount.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Indeed, but the savings are reported within the scheme. The Department and the Comptroller and Auditor General would comment on this in different ways with regard to what is reflected. If we intervene, as a consequence of which a particular level of payment to somebody on a particular scheme is terminated or reduced, it represents a saving on the scheme. Some of the surveys, with which we provided the committee in the past couple of days, indicate the level to which people move from one scheme to another or become eligible for other schemes. It is difficult to anticipate that. We are trying to provide a measure that is at least consistent and comparable year-on-year. We cannot however anticipate everything that might happen.

That would appear to me to be exaggerating figures. It is the Comptroller and Auditor General rather than me who believes that is questionable.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The Comptroller and Auditor General says two different things. He would question the validity of the savings being recorded. In other words, we were not operating in accordance with our own guidelines. There is no question but that an issue arises in terms of our inter-scheme adjustments. What we are trying to do is provide information on a year-on-year basis that is comparable. For example, a lone parent from whom lone parent payment is withdrawn because it becomes apparent he or she is married, cohabiting and so on could potentially - this is evident from the most recently concluded survey - become an adult dependant on another person's claim. We cannot anticipate that. We cannot expect that will be the necessary consequence of stopping the lone parent payment. We may end up making a payment to that individual in a different context because he or she meets the criteria of a different scheme. However, we would not have known that at the point of making the determination. I am sure there will be ongoing engagement with the C&AG's office in this space. We have no wish to over-state or misrepresent the position on the ground. We are trying to measure things in a year-on-year way to ensure activity in respect of one year against the next is comparable and to ensure that the methodology we employ in so doing stacks up in terms of the evidence nationally and international best practice.

The C&AG states that the Department reduced its control measures so that it could get through cases quicker and that as a result there was less control, leading on review to huge savings. However, these savings are due not to great emphasis on behalf of the Department but its lax attitude. If one were to take a holistic view of the Department's savings, many of them are attributable to its lax attitude

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I do not accept that.

That is what the C&AG says.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

No, he has not said that.

Ms O'Donoghue and Deputy Nolan will have to agree to disagree. I call Deputy Deasy.

I agree with Deputy Nolan. We have a very good relationship with local social welfare officers. We agree with Ms O'Donoghue that the offices were under siege in 2009 and 2010. People were desperately anxious to access payments, which was a bad situation. I am glad to hear the position has stabilised. That leads me on to what we would regard as an inconsistency. This specifically affects people coming from the workforce who are applying for invalidity pension, having previously being eligible for illness benefit.

In our experience, the Department up until recently dealt with invalidity pension applications quickly. It would have given them priority. That was the situation up to six months ago. As Ms O'Donoghue will be aware, people applying for invalidity pension have come from the workforce. They have paid their stamps. Invalidity pension is in part based on the applicant's level of contributions. In our experience, these applications are not being dealt with as speedily as heretofore. Delays of six months or more are now being experienced. I have received representations in my office from eight or nine people in that particular situation.

I will outline where the inconsistency arises, which some people would say is quite unfair. A person applying for invalidity pension, whose spouse or partner has a job, is not entitled to supplementary social welfare benefit. In other words, where there is another income coming into the household, an applicant for invalidity pension cannot, until that application has been determined, receive any supplemental payment. These are people who have been in the workforce, many of whom have debts. On the flip side, applications for disability benefit, which is a means tested payment to people who have never worked, are being dealt with in approximately three months. These people can in the intervening time between application for the benefit and the time it is dealt with, apply for supplementary welfare benefit. Our experience is that it is taking half the time for disability applications to be dealt with, during which time those applicants receive supplementary welfare benefit. However, those people coming from the workforce who make an application for invalidity pension are disallowed any payment. As I stated I am aware of eight or nine cases pending in this regard.

I do not want to get into the realm of pitting people who work against those who do not work. I want to avoid that. That is dangerous. I believe the comments made over the weekend by a particular Minister of State were polarising. Many people in Fine Gael were upset by those comments. I personally regard them as moronic. I do not want to get into that type of situation. As I stated people coming from the workforce are being penalised when it comes to applying for the invalidity pension. We are basing this against the alternative scenario of the person applying for the disability allowance.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I will try to address the Deputy's point. There are a number of different points I would like to make. In relation to access to supplementary welfare allowance, the entitlement of people applying for a social welfare payment to supplementary welfare allowance is the same regardless of from where they are coming. Much depends on the level of means in the household. For example, an applicant for disability allowance, which is a means-tested payment, who is part of a household wherein the other partner is working would not receive disability allowance because he or she would not qualify on means grounds.

I understand that.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

There is no difference in terms of the treatment of a person from the workforce versus a person not from the workforce. It is about the means assessment of the household unit. The position in terms of access to supplementary welfare allowance is the same regardless of the payment for which the person is applying. I am not sure if Deputy Deasy was here when I said this at the outset but I am acutely aware that we have particular problems in particular schemes in terms of processing times. Invalidity pensions is one of the schemes. I also have a particular concern in regard to the disability allowance scheme. We are taking steps to improve processing times and the service to customers in that space.

The level of application for invalidity pension has increased significantly, precisely because of changes that were made to the illness benefit scheme. When illness benefit was curtailed at two years entitlement there was then a flow of applications to invalidity pension, which is a long term scheme with significant consequences and conditionalities. There was a flow into that scheme which historically would not have existed. Previously, the level of flow from illness benefit to invalidity pension was reasonably low. In effect, the movement into invalidity pension is a very serious decision both by the claimant and the Department.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Effectively, under current legislation there is a suggestion that the person is incapable of working again.

It is a natural progression.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

There is a different natural progression. A new scheme has been established called the partial capacity benefit. We are reviewing the customers on invalidity pension because we are very conscious that, historically, the kind of medical assessment was that they were either capable or incapable of work. There was a focus more on the incapacity rather than capacity. The partial capacity benefit aimed to move people currently on invalidity pension to a position where they could legitimately become employed and get some support recognising the extent of the particular condition they have. We see this as also being a solution for a number of people on illness benefit but who expect not to be able to work to full capacity into the future. I do not accept that our current processing times are acceptable in this space and we are working very hard to try to address that issue.

I thank Ms O'Donoghue for saying that. We should get down to the nitty-gritty on the delays we are experiencing. We are in different economic times. The people we are dealing with have come from the workforce and may have debts and serious financial problems. They may not have access to supplementary benefits. The issue may have changed for such people over the past six months. I ask the witness to examine the times for processing those invalidity pensions, as we are finding people with serious problems arising from the delays in that particular payment. It takes too long. The people we are dealing with have major financial problems and need this dealt with a bit more quickly. I am sure Ms O'Donoghue understands my point.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Those areas are my priority for us in improving our performance.

The second issue regards retained firefighters and their social welfare entitlements. The issue has been kicked around, so to speak, for approximately four or five months, and I and other Deputies with retained firefighters in their constituencies have spoken to the Minister about this. In my case, the Minister requested that I speak to the senior social welfare people in Waterford, which I did. They were fantastic and reported to me on the issue but we were repeatedly given the response that the report was being dealt with in the Department and no decisions would be made until the review was completed. I know some decisions have been made with regard to the review, but my understanding is it is not complete.

We were told repeatedly with regard to the individual cases of part-time firefighters getting a jobseeker's payment that no decision would be made until the review was completed. We would have to speak to the Minister on particular issues raised by the social welfare officers in the constituencies. I have one case from 23 May with a reply from the deciding officer regarding a retained firefighter in Waterford. The response indicates the person in question has been and continues to be employed as a part-time fireman and has therefore not suffered a substantial loss of employment. It also points out that the part-time employment restricts availability for full-time employment and the person in question has not provided evidence to show the person is genuinely seeking employment. The box was ticked that the person was unavailable for full-time employment.

The difficulty with these people is they cannot enter full-time employment as there are personal and professional restrictions. In some cases they must live within a certain distance of the fire station. They cannot get full-time jobs or make themselves available for full-time work. We were told all along during this process that once this review was completed and the report was done, these issues would be dealt with and there would be an opportunity to speak to people in the Department and the Minister. We are finding that social welfare officers are making the decisions on retained firefighters before the review has been completed. That practice should be stopped.

We should wait until the review is completed and there should be a chance for us to speak to people in the Department, social welfare officers in our constituency and the Minister before further decisions are made. There should be a cessation of the practice of making these decisions now, as the people in question cannot enter full-time employment. They are being turned down, in some cases, on this basis, so it is a real difficulty.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

This is not an easy issue. There is a review and some very tricky issues have been highlighted in the course of that process. We are discussing the matter with the Minister but this is a policy issue. Whatever determination is made and how we proceed will represent that policy issue. I hear what the Deputy is saying about the cases being made. On the one hand we must ask deciding officers to make decisions in accordance with the law and guidelines which exist, but we are acutely aware of the issues relating to this particular group, and we are actively considering the matter.

The witness maintains it is a policy issue and is distancing herself from the policy issues, as she should. The practice needs to stop. I and others have been told repeatedly that until the review is completed, the decisions relating to retained firefighters would not be made. There must be a cessation in the practice of making these decisions, at least until the review is completed and we have had a chance to deal with the Department and the Minister. That policy was expressed to us in meetings. I cannot continue to go to meetings with groups of retained firefighters and tell them nothing will happen until the completion of the review, which was what I was told. It puts me and others in a difficult position when I get such a response from the Department and I repeat it to the affected people. It is not good enough that decisions like this continue to be made. I will involve myself in the process as long as bona fides are repeatedly shown. There is a contradiction between what I have heard and what is actually happening. I request that the practice of such decisions by deciding officers would cease until the review is completed and we have a chance to speak to the Minister on the issue.

The social insurance fund stood at €3.6 billion in 2007, but that has changed considerably since. Some €1.86 billion was taken from the Vote in 2010. The issue is being reviewed, but what is the figure for 2011?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

In 2011 the figure was €1.4 billion and the estimate for 2012 is €1.8 billion. That is the subvention from the Vote to the fund.

I thank Ms O'Donoghue and her officials for being present and the comprehensive briefing material that has been provided. I do not know if she is trying to drown us with information but it is very useful. It is refreshing that she came so prepared in comparison with some people who come before the committee.

We have decoupled the issue of fraud from control, but I have a question on the amount of fraud which the system detects. Is there an indication of how much of that comes from the public informing the Department and local offices of the neighbour, man or woman claiming a fraudulent benefit?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

There is undoubtedly some value to the Department in that. As the Deputy may see from the statistics, the rate of reporting has blossomed over recent years. We investigate everything. Where we get a report and we have sufficient information to identify the individual, we will investigate and pursue. In quite a number of cases we establish that the person is receiving his or her entitlements. That can be a misimpression on the part of the public. A very significant number of scheme beneficiaries are entitled to a social welfare payment and to work at the same time, be it lone parents or people receiving disability payments or even invalidity payments in certain circumstances, subject to thresholds, disallowances and so forth.

We have tried to pursue the value. One of the issues for us in doing that is that when cases are sent to inspectors it is not signalled that this information has come in anonymously or from a member of the public. The reporting back and the decisions that are made are not reported on the basis of something being from an anonymous source or otherwise. Nevertheless, we have looked at some of the activity. We would suggest that it is approximately 15%, in terms of value-----

Is it 15% of the fraud value?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

It is 15% of the savings we would establish or the value of changes we would make. To clarify, 15% of the reports would lead to values.

Therefore, 15% of the reports of fraud lead to savings.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I am sorry, it is 15% of cases. It is confusing.

They arise from public tip offs, for want of a better description?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Yes. There are a number of ways in which the public can alert us to something, including on-line or through a telephone number. We have seen a huge escalation in the number of people who avail of those processes.

I wish to return to the domiciliary care allowance. The Department does many things very well but it handles the domiciliary care allowance very badly. That is a personal view, but it is a view based on interacting with a significant number of families on this issue. I am confused. The Minister has stated in the House, which one presumes to be correct, that there has not been a great difference between the number of people applying for and receiving domiciliary care allowance this year versus previous years, and that there is no difference between the number of children with autism and children with other disabilities receiving it. That is not my experience or that of other public representatives, or of the parents who stand outside the gates of Leinster House. Clearly, something is happening. That could be a combination of a number of factors or one could go down the conspiracy route, which I will do for a moment. The Department is under great pressure to make savings. The Oireachtas did not vote to reduce domiciliary care allowance, so the allowance rates remain the same. However, considering the Department is under such pressure to make savings, there is nearly an unofficial instruction to apply the criteria in a stricter fashion or the Department is more inclined to review more applications. Even if it is not, it would be useful to parents if the witness would expand on or address that point.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I can categorically assure the Deputy there is no informal, formal or otherwise instruction to cut back on expenditure in this area. The Department adopts a view across all its 70 schemes, and the vast majority of those schemes are based on statute, that if people have an entitlement and satisfy us that they are eligible in accordance with the legislation, they are entitled to the payment. As regards what has happened with the domiciliary care allowance, DCA, there is no doubt that when the Department took over administering the scheme in 2009 it introduced a rigour and consistency in approach that had not been present previously. That might have given rise to some misperceptions about what we were doing. However, I am absolutely certain about our view. It is our duty to ensure that if the Oireachtas votes to put a particular scheme in place and specifies entitlement, where somebody satisfies that entitlement he or she gets the payment.

It is very important to hear that.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

We can give the Deputy any number of statistics relating to the cases and the medical conditionality attached to the cases who received payment in terms of claims awarded and disallowed since the Department took it over. I am happy to provide those statistics separately. Certainly, there has been no change in that. There is an absolute situation year on year. What has changed, and this is what I was discussing with Deputy McDonald, is that there is a review policy in the Department, as with any other social welfare scheme. The review policy in DCA means that since the scheme came into the Department, when the claims are put in payment at day 1, the medical assessor gives us a view at that stage on when the claim should be appropriately reviewed. That review period can be, currently, anything from one year to "do not review again", depending on the condition and the evidence that has been presented at the initial claim.

As a result of the DCA being on a statutory footing and based in the Department, is it true that there are more reviews coming on stream, which would be natural?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I would probably speculate that that is the case.

I believe the witness gave figures earlier.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The point is that obviously the review process has become much more public because we are now in a situation of not only carrying out reviews after one year but also two years and potentially heading for three years. There has been a huge amount of public discontent about what purpose the reviews serve. It is probably worth pointing out that in a very significant number of cases where the reviews took place and the claims were terminated, nothing further happened. In other words, no appeal was pursued.

Does the witness have a percentage for that?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I do not have it to hand but I will happily provide that.

It will be interesting to see it.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

There is no doubt that many parents are extremely concerned about the review policy, have views that the medical diagnosis of their child might not have changed and wonder why we are reviewing it. That is to do with the basis for the scheme in the first instance. Medical conditionality alone does not give access to the scheme. It is the level of care and attention that is required. One can have a situation, for example, where there is a very young child with a cleft palate who requires a great deal of care and attention in terms of normal daily feeding and so forth. That child and the environment and circumstances might well warrant payment of DCA and the assessor will do that. However, if surgery takes place and the child no longer has a cleft palate, something has happened.

I accept that the care needs can change.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Similarly, with conditions such as diabetes, for example, if one is talking about very young children managing diabetes on their own, they might not be able to have the wherewithal or maturity to know about the discipline of injecting or whatever the case may be, but as they mature, even though they still have diabetes, their physical circumstances and environment have changed to enable that aspect to change. I accept that the autism spectrum has been profiled to a very significant extent, as well as the degree of care and attention. I am aware that many people have a perception that the Department has an agenda in this area. We do not. Our view is clearly that the same conditionality is applied in that area as is applied in any other area. However, it is precisely because of the concern that exists that the Minister announced the policy review. We are going down that road to ensure that the type of expectations parents have regarding what the scheme is there to serve are actually allied with the legislative basis of the scheme.

I will not accuse the Department of having an agenda relating to autism, but there is a potential ignorance about autism. The reason I make that contention is that, first, I have a question about the medical assessors. Who are these medical assessors? There is a total lack of public awareness as to the qualification of medical assessors, their experience with autism, whether they have an understanding of autism, how they differ from the child's GP and the opinion of their psychologist and so forth. Perhaps the witness will answer that question.

I will put a second point. Some children have very visible disabilities and the system generally works quite well for them. The disability is evident to anybody who inquires and it is possibly easier to document that disability on an application form. When one is dealing with a condition such as ASD, the application process is quite tricky. I made this point to the Minister on a number of occasions and I am making it to the witness in terms of the actual application of the scheme. It is harder to explain it. When parents have an autistic child they are under severe pressure and have better things to do than fill out forms and the process is not very user friendly for such families.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The legislative basis of the scheme is not based on the medical condition of the child but the care and attention that is required. Our intention in the design of the forms is to try to encourage parents to give us as much information about the environment and the care and attention that they are required to give. Our medical assessors are not there to second guess the medical diagnosis of the child but to assess the medical, social and economic evidence that is presented. Our medical assessors are medically trained and also have an occupational medicine background but in the context of the domiciliary care allowance, DCA, specifically, they have received specific training in relation to the management of childhood disability. Our chief medical assessor would engage on a constant basis in terms of both international protocols and getting evidence, so that the protocols against which we are assessing have been developed against what would be considered to be best practice. All of this in a sense is part of the review in terms of ensuring there is a consistency, backed up by understanding when dealing with the expectation of the parents, the legislation and the systems and processes that are in place to support it. The Minister has directed, and we have made changes already in terms of the application forms and the communications to parents, that parents must be aware of what is at stake when a case is being reviewed, and we also give them ample time to give us the evidence. There was certainly a perception that the amount of time given before was too short. I should say all of that is in a context now where that policy is under review.

I heard Ms O'Donoghue stating that there will be no further reviews pending the policy review. Is that correct?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Yes, however I should say, in a number of cases parents have filled out those form, have given the evidence and have gone through a process, but we will not conclude that process now until the policy review is finished.

That is great. Ms O'Donoghue will recall that around the budget time there was a political discussion and public discourse about the DCA and the disability allowance and reducing the disability allowance for younger people. I know that was frozen by Government pending a review. Will Ms O'Donoghue update the committee on where the review is at?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The advisory group on tax and social welfare have been asked to look at this issue and that is currently underway.

When is it expected that the advisory group will report to the Department?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I understand it will report back in September.

Thank you, Ms O'Donoghue. On the issue of rent allowance, I know the rent allowance is due to transfer to the local authorities but I believe I read in the media that there are complications in relation to ICT systems being in communication with each other. In the relatively short time I have been on this committee, the communication between ICT systems seems to be an ongoing issue right across all aspects of Government and State agencies. Will Ms O'Donoghue confirm to the committee if there is a difficulty with the transfer of the administration of rent allowance to local authorities and if it is still planned to proceed with transferring responsibility for rent allowance from the Department to local authorities?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Yes, it is absolutely still the plan and policy direction, as I understand it. All the commitments and evidence, both in terms of statements by the Ministers for Social Protection, and the Environment, Community and Local Government, and the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, is that this is the long-term strategy of Government. We have ICT systems that communicate with lots of other systems, so we do have a problem with talking but occasionally there are problems if systems are being asked to do things that they are not designed to do.

As I understand it, in terms of the transfer of the administration of rent allowance to local authorities, there is no system or IT problem but there is a different issue in relation to the collection of rent supplement or rents. The officials from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government have been talking to officials from the Department of Social Protection on how we can help and assist them. There were some proposals that were expected to be included in the social welfare Bill this year to give effect to a deduction at source mechanism in the post office. We have not been able to bring that to a conclusion. We hope to be able to do that reasonably soon.

On the issue of rents, there is one section of the Department of Social Protection that does not respond, namely, the telephone number for the rents unit for those in receipt of rent allowance. As a public representative dealing with that section, I find it to be most efficient but unfortunately my constituents do not. I think my colleagues could testify to that as well.

We have a situation where we take the policy responsibility for changes in the rent allowance rates but it is the Department that should be taking responsibility for ensuring that assistance is there for constituents who are trying to comply with the law and who are seeking advice on whether they can continue to live in the home they have been renting or whether they need to find alternative accommodation. There is not a day where my office does not receive complaints about not being able to get through to this number. We have conducted trials on the system ourselves and it can take a number of hours or days to get the telephone answered.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I will be happy to take any information the Deputy has on this matter. As the Deputy is probably aware in terms of the integration of the community welfare service in the Department, what we have been trying to do is to look to see the different areas of activity that might be better centralised. Rents is one of the areas where we have been conducting trials on a centralised approach, but if there are issues, I am happy to hear about them. I was not aware of that difficulty.

My final point is on the Croke Park agreement on public sector reform. Obviously the Department of Social Protection with its mammoth budget and increasing customer base is a case of a Department being asked to do more with less. Will Ms O'Donoghue give the committee an overview in terms of managing staff allocations, the redeployment agenda and meeting public sector reform requirements under the Croke Park agreement?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Obviously the targets for public service reform are very ambitious and we are committed to playing our full part in that. In the context of recognising the challenges faced by the Department over the past number of years, the staffing numbers, the ECFs that we operate within, the tapering of those and the adjustments required have been backloaded rather than frontloaded, if I may use that term in recognition of the work we do. We have been a major beneficiary of redeployment. Since 2008, we have received close on 1,000 staff who have been redeployed from other Departments and indeed other public service bodies. That is in addition to the 1,100 community welfare staff and the 700 FÁS staff that have transferred to us. All of those redeployments have happened in a seamless fashion, in other words there has been very little disruption to day-to-day business and great tribute is due to all of the staff and support services in doing that. It has enabled us to fill priority vacancies and target resources where we have need for them. We are the leading exemplar of taking staff into the Department. The challenge for us will be in terms of reducing numbers in the coming years, when the economy changes and in light of Government commitments. The big issue is to ensure that we are still pursuing a very ambitious programme of improving productivity through other means in addition to additional staff. We have a very extensive programme of automation. We are also looking at where we can buy services so that we will not need the core staffing to provide it in its entirety, particularly if there is a boom demand at a particular time for particular types of services. In the context of a budget of €21 billion, our administrative cost is somewhere in the order of €500 million, and of that money about €100 million is spent on outsourcing, whether it be for the delivery of payment services by the post offices and the bank; claim processing, and we have a network of 60 branch offices on contract, which the Department hires to provide services in locations where we do not have local offices. We also provide services such as employment advice, so in the same way the local employment services are contracted by the Department to provide those services in different spaces. We spend in the region of €100 million to €120 million on outsourcing. Our administrative overhead is quite tight in the context of servicing the overall budget.

We all have experience in our constituency offices of dealing with domiciliary care matters. I am taken aback by the number of what I would see as genuine cases, where the focus on the care and attention of the child is clear as compared with other healthy children going to mainstream schools. Those parents are nevertheless being pushed to get reports from professionals in order to prove to the Department that the child requires more care and attention. It is a cost to the family that it may not be able to shoulder very well but these people persevere. The genuine cases stand out so surely the Department has some mechanism within the analysis of the application and so on that would indicate these cases are different. The cases which clearly should continue on the allowance should be aggregated; if these people are not in receipt of disability or carer's allowance, they could be dealt with more quickly.

Another issue related to domiciliary care is the application form. I have seen forms for the UK, which are far more detailed in the information sought. It would become clear on analysis that there is a difference and certain children would qualify for the payment. It would be based on care and attention. Why not follow that model? There is an existing model in the UK to be followed with regard to application forms and the process. The parents I have met - who stand outside the gates of Leinster House and have been doing so over the past few weeks - are not in this for the good of their health or scamming the system. They are doing this because they feel they have a genuine case not being heard by the Department.

The question was asked about medical assessor qualifications. When such people read the reports carried out by professionals, it does not seem to impress on them that these children and their circumstances are different. In these cases the domiciliary care allowance should be continued on review. If a child is accepted where the parent is in receipt of domiciliary care allowance, it is an acknowledgement by the Department that it is an exceptional case and the child needs greater care and attention, fulfilling the criteria of the scheme etc. When the child turns 16, he or she moves to disability allowance and the parent would often ask for a carer's allowance. They may be refused and appeal in a process that could take six or nine months, leading to hardship for the family.

If a family qualifies for domiciliary care in the first place and it is accepted as an exceptional case, why are these people not automatically moved through the system when the medical reports are current? I cannot understand that and other Deputies have given a clear indication that within their offices they are experiencing the same level of frustration, anger from parents and details of the hardship that all of the system creates for those people. Surely there must be a way of dealing with this more efficiently, where the benefit can be delivered speedily when a person has qualified properly. It would not be delivered to those who do not qualify.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The Chairman raised a couple of matters. I note the comments about the application form and we will look at it in the context of the review. If there is evidence of something in the UK that we have not taken account of, we will do so. The scheme is very new in the Department of Social Protection and has only been in place since 2009. The concerns expressed indicate a discontent with how the scheme is perceived to be administered, and that discontent is being aired mostly by people who are not able to access the scheme. A significant number of people make claims, are assessed and are granted access to the scheme.

My understanding has always been that rather than relying entirely on professional reports, parents are encouraged to give as much evidence on care and attention so it can feed into the assessment when the claim is being made. In a number of cases I am aware that it is at the point of review decision or appeal that additional information becomes available which makes the difference.

With regard to the progression from domiciliary care allowance to disability allowance and the linkage with carer's allowance, there is no doubt that it is not an absolute that somebody on domiciliary care allowance will progress to disability allowance, although a high proportion of those people will progress. For certain conditions there is no question whatever that one is a gateway to the other. Currently, if a child has been assessed as requiring domiciliary allowance and satisfies the means test, the parent will automatically receive the carer's allowance. Disability allowance is a different scheme, meant for adults, and that is one of the reasons for the change mooted in the budget to bring it into line with the age limits that applied to other adult schemes and payments. The care assessment is in the context of providing care to another adult and the conditionality attached to it. I accept that this can be difficult for people to understand, as it is the same person requiring the care. The problem is it is a different scheme with different conditionality attached.

One of the difficulties is that the information from the Department specifically on domiciliary care allowance, disability allowance and the carer's allowance does not match what is happening out there. These families have made a case, stood outside our gates and marched everywhere. There is an application form from the UK which has been sent to the Department with the suggestion that it should be used. These people have been proactive and constructive in their approach to the issue and there seems to be a most awful lack of understanding in the Department when dealing with this group.

I understand there is no automatic progression from domiciliary care allowance to disability allowance or the carer's allowance. The families out there do not have any other income or supports and in some cases they have been engaged with the Department for in excess of 12 months. This is the experience I have heard in my constituency office and that is what I must bring to bear here. It is entirely unacceptable and this misunderstanding is one of the areas in the system which angers me.

Ms O'Donoghue made the point that there should be detail from the family about the extra attention and care required by the child. That could come from the family but the application form does not allow it to happen. In some cases families have been directed to professionals to obtain the information they need to make their case stand up. One can argue that the issue is one of policy or the way in which the system is administered or that people do not fully understand the progression from domiciliary care allowance to disability allowance. A further complicating factor arises in respect of carer's allowance. The issue, however, is that parents do not have anywhere else to turn. It is for this reason that they visit Deputies in their constituency offices. We are accused of clientelism but the parents in question cannot successfully engage with the system in a manner that delivers an outcome. I am referring only to genuine cases. It is heartbreaking to deal with these parents.

I appeal to the Department to consider the costs, hardship and difficulties caused to families who must stick with a process that does not deliver for them. They are not receiving support from the Department, despite taking a constructive approach. For example, with regard to the form, families accessed information in the United Kingdom and are using it to try to be helpful. If I was to select one of the 70 schemes operated by the Department, I would ask it to focus on trying to clear the backlog for domiciliary care allowance or at least show parents some understanding. Children are my concern in this regard.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I would hate an impression to be given that the Department is not understanding of the concerns and issues that have been raised by the families in question. We are acutely aware of them. I go back to the point that the scheme is relatively new in the Department's history. We have been operating it for less than three years. The systems and processes that were put in place in good faith when we took on the scheme were based on the law that had been enacted and best international advice to us on how assessment processes could be effected. A large number of families have been able to access that and have had the certainty of consistency in approach, regardless of where they lived in the country in relation to the scheme. Undoubtedly, however, the rates of refusal and review policy cause concern.

All of the public discussion has certainly alerted me to the fact there is a difference in expectations on the part of families in terms of what the scheme is expected to deliver and the legislative basis which we are required to operate. It is in that context that the Minister has committed to the policy review, which will seek to establish and be clear about what it is the Government wishes us to have a scheme in place for, to ensure everything that supports the scheme is consistent with that and to bring forward legislation if change is required. I am aware from lots of correspondence and coverage of the very difficult issues that face families in very vulnerable circumstances.

Ms O'Donoghue indicated this is a new scheme. I do not accept that a new scheme dating back to 2009 is causing such difficulty. The Department operates 70 different schemes and this particular scheme relates to a very defined number of people. The problems they are experiencing could be easily overcome as they are largely administrative. The policy decisions the Minister produces are the Government's business and certainly not the business of this committee. However, the way in which the scheme is administered is a matter of concern to me. If there is some misunderstanding between the Department and those who are trying to access domiciliary care allowance, disability allowance or carer's allowance, the Department should have dedicated staff explain to applicants that they may be in the wrong scheme or the scheme is not working for them. Surely it is not beyond the Department, despite the tremendous pressure it is under, to respond to the people concerned in that manner.

Deputy Harris raised the issue of autism and referred to the possibility of some form of conspiracy - perhaps that is too strong a word - being at play here and Ms O'Donoghue dealt with that. This is the type of misunderstanding people have. How does this relate to the work of the Committee of Public Accounts? It costs all of us a great deal in terms of the hours we spend trying to support, direct and assist the people in question in accessing the scheme through the Department. It cannot be beyond the Department to inform all of those who are on the scheme and are affected by this issue - the latter group is smaller in number than the former group - as to what are the problems. That is the least the Department should do, notwithstanding the fact that it is waiting for the Minister to act. I say this in a direct way because I have first-hand knowledge of the difficulties experienced by the families in question. Having visited many of them in their homes, I was shocked by their experience.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

We will write to anyone who was in the review process and advise them of what is happening in the context of the policy review. We will seek to engage and there will be consultation with their stakeholders and representative groups as part of the review. I hear what the Chairman is saying but I reiterate that the difficulty is that we designed the scheme in accordance with the legislation that was in place. There is a subjectivity attached to making determinations in this scheme, which makes it a more difficult scheme to administer than some of the other schemes where eligibility and conditionality are very much black and white. This is a different type of scheme. We have some years' experience of that in terms of initial applications, appeals and reviews, all of which will feature in the review to see how can we improve the scheme and ensure that what is presented better matches people's expectations and what Government authority is there for us to deliver. We will work hard to try to do that.

Am I to understand from Ms O'Donoghue's response that very little will be done to explain the scheme to those who are in it?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I am not sure what the Chairman would like us to explain to people who are currently in payment.

Will any attempt be made by the Department to separate out people who are caught in an appeal or review and inform them as to the difficulties of their case, shortcomings in their application or further information that may be required? Rather than simply sending them a letter, will the Department engage with them?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I am trying to answer the Chairman's question. In relation to the cases where the Department has initiated a review and the review has not been brought to conclusion, we will write to the families in question and indicate what we are currently at in the context of the policy review so we will not bring the review process to conclusion pending the outcome of the policy review. There is a different group to which I think the Chairman is also referring, namely, the group whose reviews have been completed and who may have had their claims terminated and are now in an appeals mechanism and seeking to have payments reinstated. In relation to those cases, what we have certainly been doing is looking within the appeals office to see what can we do to fast-track those appeals. I certainly hear what the Chairman is saying in terms of what advice can we give to the families. We will look to see if that is possible and if we can give them advice as to why decisions were made or what additional information they might best supply. I am not sure what else the Chairman is asking me to do. Sorry.

I am asking that the Department be helpful to the families in question.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I am trying very hard within the context of the law.

The families might disagree with that.

On a general note, while I find the officials excellent to deal with, the job of the committee is to delve into the various issues. To what legislation did Ms O'Donoghue refer in respect of the domiciliary care allowance?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

It was introduced in the Social Welfare Bill 2009 and it put the domiciliary care allowance on a statutory footing. Prior to that it had been an administrative scheme under-----

When did the Department of Social Protection take over the administration of the scheme?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

We took over its administration in 2009.

Was that before or after the legislation?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

After the legislation.

Did the scheme change from the time it was administered by the HSE?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The definition in statute is tighter than the administrative definition used by the health sector.

The empirical evidence suggests that there has been a marked change in the rate of refusal since it has been administered by the Department of Social Protection compared with the HSE. That might come under the context of the review. I have not got the numbers in front of me, but clearly the empirical evidence suggested this. Ms O'Donoghue and her colleagues are aware of this, but the people they are dealing with are vulnerable.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Indeed.

That has to be taken into account. There is an old rule that one needs to be communicating with people, regardless of the end result. From what the Chairman is saying, I think the Department should review current communication and see if there are other ways to communicate with these people and inform them about the status of the review, the status of their appeals and any other areas they might be able to access. In many of these cases people are under enormous financial pressure as they are experiencing other costs.

I deal with many people on social welfare issues, and the number is increasing rather than decreasing. If it is increasing for me, it is also increasing for the Department. How many staff has the Department lost under the early retirement scheme? In what areas were they lost? I brought up the issue of fraud detection when the Secretary General was last before the committee. CWOs have come back under the umbrella of the Department of Social Protection. In my view they have an unmatched reservoir of knowledge within the Department. They are at the coalface. They dealt with rent supplement and with supplementary welfare allowances and they dealt with these people daily. I put it to the Secretary General that they should be put into the area of fraud detection. Overpayments are taking place every day and the horse has bolted to a certain extent when that happens. Overpayments often arise due to initial procedures, but we talk about dealing with fraud at the end and overpayments when they have happened. Are there procedures in place at the start? When an overpayment takes place, letters are sent out, people panic and they invariably come to us. We get onto the Department and even if we come to some sort of an arrangement, it is over a very long period of time. Along with the number of staff lost under the early retirement scheme, how many staff have been redeployed to the Department under the Croke Park agreement? I know that the number of inspection officers has gone down, from dealing with them on the ground.

The self-employed are very badly served by the current social welfare system. They do not qualify for jobseeker's benefit, but they should and we must find a way so they can do so. In many cases it is then impossible for them to qualify for jobseeker's allowance, and if they do qualify they go through a series of hoops and have to wait for inspectors to come and visit them. I understand the numbers in this area have gone down, so I would like to know the current staff level.

In the great majority of cases, those in receipt of the rent supplement scheme are genuine and well-behaved. However, there is a flaw in the scheme. People are getting rent supplement, they are going into areas and there is anti-social behaviour. They are creating difficulties for their neighbours and they are giving the rent supplement scheme a bad name. We get onto the rent supplement section and we find out that the Department has no control over anti-social behaviour, so the whole thing falls into a black hole. This takes up a huge amount of time for public representatives. That is the harsh reality of it.

In summary, people working in social welfare are great on an individual basis, but can the Secretary General tell me about the Croke Park agreement, the numbers lost and redeployment and fraud detection? Can she then specifically deal with the rent supplement scheme and jobseeker's allowance for the self-employed?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Before that, I would like to go back to the domiciliary care allowance.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The Deputy mentioned that the rate of refusal in the Department is higher than in the HSE. I do not have information on the rate of refusals in the HSE.

I have seen it. It is quite significantly higher.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The rate of refusal, according to our evidence over three years, has been consistent in the Department year on year. The empirical evidence shows that there are more people in receipt of domiciliary care allowance now than there ever has been. In other words, the numbers on the scheme continue to increase.

With due respect, Ms O'Donoghue is missing the point. A system must be seen to be fair. There is a view among people in receipt of the allowance that the system is not fair.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I accept that. I understand the divergence between what people perceive and how the scheme is operated by the Department. In case there is an impression, I would like to point out that there are more children currently in receipt of the allowance than would have been the case when we took over the scheme. The trend in the domiciliary care allowance scheme is on the increase, which would have been projected at the time.

Our population is going up anyway.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The trend is evident, and what we have is what would have been projected before the scheme came over in 2008. It is no different to that in terms of the numbers who are actually on the scheme.

Ms O'Donoghue is missing the point. I do not wish to go on about this, but she is missing the fundamental point. This is a group of people under enormous pressure. We feel that there is a need for communication right now.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I accept that completely.

I would like a response from the witnesses to the effect that they will communicate.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Absolutely. We will do everything we can.

We are in agreement.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I am in agreement about that, but the point I am making is that there are more families in receipt of domiciliary care allowance-----

I take the point, but it is a separate point.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Yes, but it is simply correcting the point.

Since 2008, we have had 990 staff redeployed into the Department to fill critical vacancies. Between March 2011 and February 2012, 347 people retired from the Department. The vast majority of those, 224, retired in February 2012. We continue to accept staff on a redeployed basis to operate within our employment control framework. Allied to that, we have also taken in almost 2,000 additional staff from FÁS and the CWOs.

Under existing schemes. I assume they bring their body of work with them to the Department.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

They bring their body of work with them, but there is no doubt that because of the synergies with the work of the Department we have been able to reallocate staff to different areas.

From what areas did the 224 staff retire in February?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

They were deployed right across the Department. There is no doubt there was a big hit at what equates to higher executive officer level which includes local office managers, inspectors, community welfare officers and employment services officers.

We can see that on the ground.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

We are still focused on making sure the special investigation unit, in particular, is fully resourced to carry out investigations in serious fraud cases. As we build our new business model, obviously there are synergies that can be achieved from both the employment services stream and the community employment stream. We are examining that aspect.

The Deputy asked specifically about the role and contribution of community welfare officers in fraud cases. We are acutely conscious of the fact that they have very good local intelligence and a feel for what is happening. We have engaged in a series of joint operations in which they and the social welfare inspector co-operate in examining cases. We have good examples of this happening in Navan and Carlow. Activation and control teams in local areas are also involved. In speaking to CWOs when they first came into the Department, we emphasised the contribution they could make to our control and fraud determination efforts.

How many staff in total are specifically dedicated to fraud detection?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

If I were to consider those dedicated to this task full-time, with no other function, I would be talking about somewhere around 400 staff. However, there are significant numbers of other staff who have control functions as part of their overall duties, including claims assessment by CWOs. Thus, focusing on full-time control staff understates the resource, but the number entirely dedicated to control activities is about 400.

How many of those were previously CWOs?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I do not have a number off the top of my head.

It is my personal view that people genuinely entitled to social welfare should receive it. There are major delays. It strikes me that there is a strong need for a process in which applications are screened not only well but quickly.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The CWOs as a group are additional to the 400 staff I mentioned, who are predominantly in our inspectorate. The CWOs have the role of screening applications. As I said, there are the 400 staff who are dedicated full-time to control work and have no other role but obviously there are a range of other staff in different areas of the Department for whom control features as part of their work. That is the point I am making about the CWOs.

A proportion of them should have been transferred to the specialist unit. They have a knowledge base which is second to none. I have brought up this issue before.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Okay.

I do not want to delay the meeting, but I want to talk about the rent supplement and jobseeker's allowance schemes.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

With regard to the rent supplement scheme, there is authority in terms of anti-social behaviour if a person is in a dwelling provided by a housing authority or approved body. The difficulty is that in the vast majority of rent supplement cases the person concerned is in a private tenancy and the contract is between the landlord and the tenant. In that case, there are a number of avenues for dispute resolution available to the landlord where there is anti-social behaviour, but it is difficult for us to become involved because the contract for letting is between the tenant and the landlord.

Are there no circumstances in which rent supplement can be withheld from a recipient if there is a complaint of anti-social behaviour against him or her?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Not for a private tenancy.

Under any circumstances.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Not for a private tenancy.

Would Ms O'Donoghue not agree that is a major weakness in the scheme?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The difficulty is that the rent supplement payment is to the individual in the context of the criteria for accessing the scheme, but the actual agreement for a particular tenancy is between the individual and the landlord.

Does the Department have the powers or the wherewithal to come up with protocols of its own? For example, the rent allowance scheme which is administered by local authorities is far more structured.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Indeed.

Under the RAS there is an agreement between the landlord and the local authority. There are 96,000 in receipt of rent supplement, more or less. It is an enormous scheme which was introduced as a temporary measure, but it has effectively become a quasi-permanent scheme. As Secretary General, could Ms O'Donoghue come up with a protocol whereby the Department could check to make sure people in receipt of rent supplement were meeting certain criteria and if there was anti-social behaviour, rent supplement could be withheld? This applies to such a small proportion, but they are causing untold problems in various areas and giving the scheme and decent people in receipt of rent supplement a bad name. All public representatives are getting calls about this. Could Ms O'Donoghue not, as Secretary General, decide to put protocols in place for anti-social behaviour?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

There are a couple of things that must be said. The Deputy is absolutely right in stating the rent supplement scheme was introduced as a short-term measure. It is certainly our intention to return it to being a short-term scheme, with the RAS as the longer term solution for persons with housing needs.

I do not wish to cut across Ms O'Donoghue, but I must point out that schemes seem to be shifted from Department to Department. I do not particularly care who administers it; the problem is the inherent flaw in the rent supplement scheme. Ms O'Donoghue is hoping it will be transferred to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in order that it will no longer be the concern of the Department of Social Protection. I am more concerned about the design of the scheme. As Secretary General of the Department currently administering the scheme, can she decide to establish a protocol whereby if tenants engage in anti-social behaviour, the Department can curtail or reduce the amount of rent supplement they receive? That would work overnight.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Currently, I cannot do so. This is because the relationship is between the landlord and the tenant. If the landlord chooses to end the tenancy, that ends the rent supplement entitlement for the client who will then have to reapply for the scheme and there would be an issue in satisfying-----

The Department's arrangement, effectively, is with the tenant. If someone applies to the local CWO and is placed on the local housing list, he or she receives a payment which he or she then gives to the landlord. There is an agreement between the tenant and the Department with regard to rent supplement. Surely the Department could insist, as the entity providing taxpayers' money for the tenant, that if there is anti-social behaviour engaged in by the tenant, it restrict the payment of rent supplement. Money received under the rent supplement scheme is given by the tenant to the landlord, as opposed to the RAS, under which the money goes directly from the local authority to the landlord. I am asking a direct question. Surely it is within Ms O'Donoghue's role as Secretary General to say to tenants, "We are providing you with this rent supplement, but if there is a complaint of anti-social behaviour against you, we will reconsider the payment." Overnight, there would be a complete change of attitude among the small cohort in receipt of rent supplement.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I hear the Deputy's point but again I would say I cannot do that. It would change the conditionality of the scheme because of the fact that the relationship in terms of the tenancy is with the landlord. That is how the scheme currently operates.

Is Ms O'Donoghue saying the Department is paying out taxpayers' money and she can do nothing if there is anti-social behaviour in a house?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

No, what I am saying is that the issue relates to the tenancy and there are various avenues open to the landlord in terms of pursuing that.

Does Ms O'Donoghue agree there is a flaw in that?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I am saying it is not perfect but that is the conditionality of the scheme that exists and that is what I am required to administer.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. If the Department is paying the money to the tenant rather than the landlord, will Ms O'Donoghue seek legal advice whereby if it receives complaints about anti-social behaviour against a claimant, his or her rent supplement payment will come into play?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

I hear what the Deputy is saying and certainly it is something we can look at but rent supplement is set up as a short-term income support scheme for an individual rather than a tenancy arrangement and to put in place conditionality alters the nature of the scheme. I am simply making that point. I am not saying that it should not be looked at or it is not worth looking at. I cannot unilaterally make that decision.

I had a question about the jobseeker's allowance.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

The Deputy asked about the self-employed and the allowance. The Minister signalled some time ago that this was an issue of concern and it is an issue that she has asked the advisory group on tax and social welfare to look at. That is on its agenda and is being worked through for this year. There were changes. I appreciate that in certain circumstances people who are self-employed can access jobseeker's assistance. There are issues in this regard and we have revised our procedures over the past number of years in terms of how we assess means having regard to the economic circumstances. If the Deputy is saying there are still difficulties, I will happily listen to him about that.

By the time the self-employed claim jobseeker's allowance, they have reached the end of the road. Invariably, they have tried to stay in business and they get to the point, like many PAYE workers, where it is their first time ever dealing with the social welfare system. They are asked to produce documentation, with which I have no issue, but the problem is they must wait a significant period. That may be down to a resources issue, including a lack of availability of inspectors. Perhaps Ms O'Donoghue might approach this issue on a procedural basis and deploy staff to examine this. There are major problems with the processing of claims and the time it takes.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Is that a localised problem?

There has been a reduction in the number of inspectors. That is why I am asking about this in the context of redeployment within the Department to ensure it will examine if all the areas in which there are problems have sufficient staff. It is one of the Departments in which there is a possibility of understaffing in certain areas.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

Within the ECFs and redeployment protocols that are in place, we have a system of prioritising vacancies, and inspections is one of those.

Does the deduction at source relate to local authority rents?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

We were exploring the possibility of using the household budgeting system available in the post office for deduction of local authority rents.

Would that extend to charges as well?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

That is not a matter for me, with all due respect.

Is that what the Department is looking at?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue

That is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. In the context of people moving from rent supplement into RAS, the concern for local authorities is their ability to recoup the rents payable and they were looking at means of doing this. This was a solution that had been identified but we ran into some difficulties in terms of doing it. We are still hopeful of resolving that in the coming months.

Does the committee agree to Vote 38 and to dispose of chapters 33 to 40, inclusive? Agreed.

I thank the witnesses for attending. I refer to the comprehensive briefing given to the committee prior to the meeting. It is a model for other Accounting Officers to follow. I will mention this to them as we proceed because it was exceptional and very helpful.

I would also like to thank the staff generally in the Department for their help in what is a difficult time for people. The response time for information is excellent and the quality of replies to parliamentary questions, which often come to us in the form of correspondence outside the parliamentary question system, is also helpful. Perhaps they should be encouraged to put as much information as they can in the letters of response regarding waiting times, outcomes and the particular circumstances of the case. It helps the customer to understand, which is the point I was making about the domiciliary care allowance and so on. However, in general, I thank the staff for their input because, again, in the context of parliamentary questions, it is a model for other Departments to follow and I have said this at previous meetings of the committee.

I again thank Ms O'Donoghue and her officials for attending.

The witnesses withdrew.

The committee adjourned at 1.20 p.m. until 10.10 a.m. on Thursday, 28 June 2012.
Top
Share