I move:
That Dáil Éireann, in view of the failure of the Minister for Health and Social Welfare to ensure that eligible persons receive their social welfare payments on time, resolves to appoint an all-party Committee of the House to investigate and report on the matter.
I believe this is a constructive suggestion. The first and most fundamental point when talking about delays in payment of social welfare is that we are talking about a person's right to payment, not merely a charitable hand-out which a person might be fortunate enough to receive whenever it might arrive. The right of social welfare recipients to receive prompt payment is a key issue worthy of debate in this House and we are not simply attacking the Minister for Social Welfare or saying that he is not doing his job. Our attitude to this problem of delays in payments is indicative of whether we view social welfare as a legal entitlement or as a charitable hand-out. It is the latter attitude which I have always maintained supports a negative and complacent view towards the poor in our society. It is this attitude which must be condemned at each opportunity.
The second most important point to bear in mind is that while a delay of a week or two in, say, a tax rebate might cause the average middle class household only a minor inconvenience such a delay in payment for an old age pensioner, a deserted wife or a person struggling to eke out an existence on supplementary welfare allowance can mean the difference between having enough food to eat, clothes to wear or coal to light a fire and having to go without these basic necessities of life. We must appreciate the urgency which should be attached to the payment of these benefits and underscore the point that we cannot tolerate any complacency in the Department of Social Welfare concerning delays in social welfare payments. Too much hardship has been and is being caused.
I recognise the Minister's argument when he points to the fact that his Department make weekly payments to 522,000 beneficiaries and monthly payments of children's allowances to 420,000. This is an extremely large volume of business. The Minister maintains that delays are in some cases inevitable given such a volume of work and that these delays do not constitute a crisis situation. I should like to caution the Minister with regard to this argument because these delays do constitute a crisis for those who do not receive their payments. The argument fails to take account of the very serious impact these delays have had and are having on the poor and under-privileged and contains within it the seeds of complacency. It is an attitude which regards such delays as inevitable, given the volume of work, and which looks to what might be called the "acceptable" level of delay in social welfare payments. People have a right to these payments and, given their vulnerable position, they are very likely to experience hardship if delays occur. In my opinion there is no acceptable level of delay in payments to social welfare recipients and there is no room for complacency. Our old age pensioners, disabled and unemployed deserve nothing but the best in terms of administrative efficiency and this is what we will continue to demand.
A delay in payment may not be a crisis within the Department which deals with so many thousands of claims but it is certainly a crisis on the receiving end. It is certainly a crisis for the one person in a hundred or a thousand who falls victim to delay. For this reason I advise caution regarding the argument that these delays constitute a minor and not a frightening percentage of the total business undertaken by the Department. Another aspect of the problem which must be examined is the link between the Department's information service and these delays in payment. The Minister said during the debate on the Estimate that his officials understand the importance of being helpful, courteous and considerate in dealing with applications. He said that sometimes they have difficulty in getting full information from applicants, some of whom may be worried, disturbed or agitated. He also said that the public do not, unfortunately, always realise the service these public servants provide. While I do not wish in any way to denigrate social welfare officers as a group, I believe there is a minority who continue to view social welfare recipients as "chiselers" out to defraud the Department. This prejudice contributes in no small way to a negative, unhelpful attitude among some social welfare officials. A courteous and efficient information service within the Department is crucial if these delays are to be avoided. Social welfare recipients are among the most vulnerable sections in the community and patience, tolerance and understanding are called for from officials of the Department.
It must be asked whether sufficient personnel are employed by the Department in the information field. They receive on average 46,000 inquiries each month and 56 people are employed in the information section to deal with these queries. Taking sick leave and holiday leave into account, I am not satisfied that there are a sufficient number of civil servants attached to this vital area and more people must be assigned to it if we are to develop a new, positive policy towards informing people of their rights to social welfare benefits. This policy is crucial to the policy of social welfare as a social right. I envisage a policy which goes beyond the mere provision of information on request; much more is required. We need a policy of actively informing social welfare recipients of all their entitlements by means of radio, television, newspapers and leaflets. There should be well-trained and informed officials who are able to inform people as to their entitlements. The policy on information within the Department is a passive one and a contributing factor to the problem we are discussing today.
I wish to mention two small changes which the Minister might immediately consider. First, he might ensure that officials in his Department identify themselves on the telephone at all times and also write legible signatures on all letters. This not only lends a personal touch to the work but also makes future queries easier to pursue. This is a small but important point. Too often we deal with faceless people who will not disclose their identity and this makes work more and more difficult.
The Minister said that the delays caused by the postal strike were largely eliminated by the end of 1979 and that social welfare recipients would get all the payments to which they were entitled with the minimum delay. What constitutes the minimum delay? The Minister's predecessor indicated that it took six to eight weeks for the payment of unemployment assistance, six weeks for the right to free electricity, six to eight weeks for the payment of non-contributory pension and four weeks for the normal contributory pension. These are official estimates which indicate delays between application and receipt of various benefits. In individual cases these official estimates can be stretched by periods of weeks and even months. Even on the official estimates, delays are too long. I have spoken about the effects of delays on social recipients particularly in cases such as unemployment, deserted wives and so on. Delays acknowledged by the Department are only half the problem. There are many reports from Deputies about other delays in social welfare payments.
One of the biggest problems is with disability benefits. Officers working for the National Social Service Council stated that 75 per cent of all cases dealt with since the postal strike ended related to the non-payment of disability benefit. This has been the experience of community information services around the country. When such an officer queries a case with the Department they are told that a cheque will be issued but if they do not query the lack of payment no cheque will arrive. Are the Department operating a go-slow on the payment of this benefit? There is something odd going on.
A person receiving disability benefit is one least likely to fight back over non-payment and the most likely target for delays in the Department. The non-payment of this benefit has reached epidemic proportions. In the Cork region over half the cases handled by community welfare officers are cases where disability benefit has not been paid. We should pause and examine the ramifications of this abominable situation. Health board money and community officers' time is being held up dealing with unnecessary delays. They are busy handing out money which should come from the Department and then they are busy trying to recoup it when the Department do send it out. This is an unacceptable state of affairs. Health money should not be used to cover up for bureaucratic inadequacies in the Department of Social Welfare. Time, energy and money which should be used to help cases of need outside that sphere are not being applied. The result is not only deprivation but an inexcusable waste of precious time and resources. I have been told that when community officers telephone the Department they are held up for hours and are told that files are not available but are somewhere else. I spoke to one person who was delayed on the telephone for two hours.
I realise the Minister's concern in this area relates to the problem of abuse. It has been alleged some workers claim benefit in respect of unnecessary frequent short absences from work. The Minister has decided that in future the first three days of absence from work will not qualify for payment except in a case where a person suffers a relapse within three days of returning to work. There would be a three day waiting period for each application. What about a person with a chronic illness or asthma and so on? Will they be punished as well?
In addition to the restrictions on disability benefit the Department are operating a semi-official go-slow on the payment of social welfare benefit to cut down on the amount spent in this area. There may be a few malingerers in the bunch but there is no excuse for holding up payment for those genuinely in need. Pensioners also experience difficulty and must wait for a long time to get pension books. They have difficulty in recovering arrears. Employees made redundant sometimes find themselves paying the price for employers who failed to deduct their social welfare contributions. When a social welfare insurance number is quoted there should be no question of delay while the Department investigate the employer. Pay-related benefit is another area where people experience lengthy delays. There are inordinate delays in the transfer of benefits, from disability to retirement or old age pensions and so on.
How should the problem of delays be tackled? The Minister said he would ask the Minister of State to make a special investigation into the cause of the delays. He acknowledged that there were delays and said the Minister of State would make appropriate recommendations for remedying shortcomings in the procedures. This recommendation does not go far enough and in the light of the urgency associated with the matter, an all-party Committee of the House should be set up to investigate and report on the matter.
In a recent Parliamentary Question I asked what examination, if any, had been undertaken of the structure of the social welfare system over the last five years. Although the Minister listed some areas where there had been review the question regarding delays in payment was not among them. The time is ripe for such a committee to get to grips with the problem, summon the relevant civil servants from the Department and put the operations of the Department under the microscope and make recommendations for improvements. An internal investigation by the Minister of State will not suffice. The public and the Department would benefit from the involvement of Deputies from all sides with a knowledge of the working of the Department.
The National Social Service Council as well as voluntary bodies engaged in social work should be invited to give their views. These are people who have day to day experience of the problems and are most likely to help with realistic suggestions for reform. I counsel the Minister against an internal department review where civil servants would be asked to assess the performance of other civil servants. With that kind of self-policing mechanism at work I would have faint hope for any radical reform of the kind necessary in the Department. An all-party committee, which would hold some sessions in public, would be a more effective means of getting to the root of the problem and could bring all the expertise, experience and ingenuity which exists outside the Department to bear on the problem of delays.
I do not wish to repeat myself but I must counsel the Minister again about an internal civil service review of civil service procedures. Naturally, civil servants would lack the objectivity that a fresh view from the outside would bring to bear in an effort to reform the structure of this Department. I do not wish to be harsh about the civil service. I know the problems they face, but civil servants in any Department have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. If anybody doubts this let him observe the glacial pace with which reforms outlined in the Devlin Report are being implemented. I do not wish to be critical of officials in the Department, many of whom, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, have worked very hard to clear the backlog of claims after the postal strike last year. They are labouring under cumbersome structures which must be streamlined for the benefit of all concerned.
I suggest that an all-party review, with civil service advice and assistance but with a mandate to summon assistance from outside, is the way to deal with the problem. It is in the interests of all that the Department would function smoothly, efficiently and effectively. These delays cause social welfare recipients to rely more and more on the intercession of TDs to speed claims through the Department. I daresay that you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, have experienced this among your constituents.
These delays contribute to the mistaken belief that social welfare payments are not a right but rather handouts, available only through the intercession of someone high up in politics, and this is yet another factor serving to undermine the concept that social welfare benefits are a social right, and we must all work against that concept. We hope that the long awaited ombudsman Bill will serve to eliminate the myth that social welfare benefits are available through TDs and not as a legal entitlement.
A related point in the matter of delays in payments is that an independent appeals authority is necessary to enforce the rights of social welfare beneficiaries. As I have said, the Department's appeals system is not fulfilling the function of a genuine appeals body, particularly in cases like that involving a woman on unemployment payments. Such cases should be decided objectively instead of on the present bureaucratic basis where the mere fact of having children seems to disqualify her from eligibility. God knows, this has happened over and over again. I have had to raise these matters in the Dáil when a woman who has a child is disqualified automatically because it is said she cannot provide care for the child while she is working. Applicants should be given clear reasons for refusals of benefits which they are not getting at the moment.
I submit that an independent appeals body with an effective ombudsman would take much of the pressure from TDs and put the system back where it should be. It is not our duty as legislators to be interceding on behalf of constituents but to undertake an investigation of the whole system to try to find where things have gone wrong and to make realistic helpful suggestions for streamlining. I have made many such suggestions in letters to the Minister, and I must pay tribute to him because in many cases he has accepted my suggestions and promised that they will be implemented.
However, a committee of Deputies from all sides of the House would go a long way towards improving the system and ensuring that the delays would be eliminated so that people would not have to be imploring their TDs to make representations on their behalf.
I learned in an employment exchange today of people coming back from Britain, applying for unemployment benefit, quoting their British social welfare numbers and waiting up to ten weeks before being told they are entitled to benefit. I am not saying the delay is on this side. Indeed I am inclined to believe it is more in Britain than here, but I am suggesting ways and means by which we could streamline the system. For instance, there is no reason on earth why the Department should not have here a telex straight through to the department of social security in Newcastle-on-Tyne so that queries in respect of payments could be sent directly. There is no reason why officials from here could not go over there to try to eliminate such delays
I am not saying that the Department of Social Welfare are refusing to do their work: this is not a vote of no confidence in the Department. I should like to see a mature attitude being adopted in this House. If motions and suggestions come from the Opposition they should not be automatically refused by the Government, no matter which Government. There is an input from both sides and because we make suggestions on this side they should not be rejected automatically. The Minister should say, for instance, it is a good idea to have a committee to look into these matters. Neither the Minister nor the Department of Social Welfare have the monopoly of wisdom in this respect. It would be an enlightened approach to the whole problem if the Minister were to accede to our request. I was disappointed that he put forward an amendment which is in other words saying that any ideas from the Opposition are unacceptable. I would have thought that the Minister might say there is some merit in what we are saying, let us examine it and try to improve the system. Perhaps the Minister might reconsider his position in the light of what I have been saying.
