I have given permission to Deputy Mitchell to raise the subject matter of Question No. 24 on today's Order Paper and also the reasons for the present delays in social welfare payments.
Adjournment Debate. - Social Welfare Payments Delay.
I wish to express my gratitude to you for allowing me to raise this very urgent matter. I apologise for keeping you and the staff of the House and for dragging the Minister in here. I believe it to be a necessity because this matter has become a grave national scandal.
The House will recall that about two weeks ago I raised this matter on the Order of Business and was ruled out of order. Having received several other cases in the past few days I again raised the matter this morning and was greatly encouraged in doing so by the full page report on this subject in yesterday's Evening Herald. I was also encouraged by the 51 questions on today's Order Paper for oral reply by the Minister for Social Welfare, almost all of which referred to delays in social welfare payments, mainly payments of disability benefit. In addition there were about ten questions for written reply. We must ask why Deputies are driven to this use of the parliamentary question on such an extensive scale.
The first reason is that it is almost impossible to contact the Department of Social Welfare by telephone. If that is the experience of Deputies, what must be the experience of a pensioner living in Ballyfermot who tries to find a coin box in working order in order to contact the Department? If one writes to the Minister one gets a stereotyped acknowledgement to the effect that the matter is receiving attention and that is probably the last one hears. Any further communication arrives so long after the original contact that the person concerned may long since have died. The result is that Deputies are forced to put down parliamentary questions every week, most of which are for written reply. It is to the credit of Deputy Pattison that he allowed his questions to accumulate on the Order Paper in order to highlight this scandal and the article in yesterday's Evening Herald is also to the credit of that paper.
During Question Time today the Minister was at pains to explain that it would be necessary to have 1.25 million staff to keep tabs on the 1.25 million people in the social welfare system.
I did not say that.
That was the burden of what the Minister said. It is not just today or yesterday that many thousands of people have become entitled to weekly payments, but during the past few months this national scandal has arisen and has now reached breaking point. No Deputy wants to be disorderly or to misuse parliamentary questions as we have been forced to do in order to get action on this matter. The putting down of a parliamentary question usually results in action on the specific problem raised but it has no impact on the general problem.
Two weeks ago I put down a Private Notice Question on an individual case but it was ruled out of order on the grounds that it was not of urgent national importance. I was also informed, not by the Department but by the Ceann Comhairle's office, that the cheques were paid that day and this was confirmed by a telephone call next morning from the person concerned. He received eight weeks' arrears of payment. I want the Minister to know that this man and his family were starving because they were too proud to go to their neighbours for help. However, their neighbours noticed and informed me of the case, which is not an isolated one. The man concerned had gone to the community welfare officer in the local health board and he was allowed £25 per week on which to keep himself, his wife and four children. He was threatened with disconnection of his electricity supply and has received notice from the corporation to quit his house. All these things have created immense emotional pressures on this man and his wife, not to mention that their children have been hungry going to school. That man telephoned me this morning and referred to the cheques he had received two weeks ago but said that he had not received any since. My Private Notice Question on this matter was, understandably, ruled out of order but the Ceann Comhairle's office, not the Department of Social Welfare, have informed me that the cheques were issued today. Must I raise this individual case every two or three weeks? I was told that the man had not submitted medical certificates but this is not the case. He had queued for hours to hand them in at the Department and to inquire when he would receive his money. I was told he did not use his RSI number but he certainly did so. I object to the Minister giving false information.
That is not true. Let the Deputy give an example.
It is true. Of course, the Minister is not deliberately giving false information, but all the replies drafted for the Minister are not correct. However, the Minister is responsible and if I were Minister for Social Welfare in present circumstances I would not leave the section concerned until this was sorted out. I make no apologies for being very angry about this. I invite the Minister to go down to those queues at his offices, the queues which were highlighted in yesterday's evening paper and ask those people what they have experienced. This is a case of gross maladministration.
We enacted a Bill to provide for the appointment of an ombudsman but he has not yet been appointed. If an ombudsman is appointed these should be the first questions to be dealt with along with the questions on the Order Paper today because this is a case of gross maladministration and gross negligence by the Minister. I am giving the Minister notice that if this problem is not resolved within two weeks there will be scenes in this House the like of which have never been seen before.
The Deputy should not give that sort of notice to the Minister. The Chair is responsible for order in the House.
It is to the Chair that the Deputy would want to give that notice.
I am giving the Minister and the House notice that we cannot tolerate a situation where people dependent on social welfare income are left for weeks on end with no income and because of their natural pride they and their children are going hungry. These people have their electricity cut off and they are getting notices to quit from the corporation. This is not just a local problem as has been illustrated by questions put down by Deputies Pattison, Hegarty, Harte, Begley, Deasy and others. The problem is nationwide. I charge the Minister with gross negligence.
I am on the board of a few hospitals and I know that the Minister is great at visiting hospitals but not at giving them money, that he is a great man at singing a song and for auctions. The Minister was auctioned for so many hundred pounds and then he sang for a few extra hundred pounds. The Minister should be in his Department sorting out the problems.
At eleven o'clock at night?
The Minister should have been in his Department at eleven o'clock last night when people were going hungry because they were not being paid. This is the worst case of maladministration that this House has ever witnessed. The Minister should be ashamed and he should resign.
Has the Deputy commented on the subject matter of Question No. 24?
The subject matter of Question No. 24 is part of the grand scene. I rest my case although I make no apology for being angry. I will be angrier still if I have to come back here in two weeks because this problem has not been solved. I will now concede to Deputy Pattison who has done a great service to the House by allowing his questions to accumulate on the Order Paper.
I thank Deputy Mitchell for giving me a few minutes of his time. We must remember that the Department of Social Welfare are dealing with the most helpless section of our community. The biggest problem is the remoteness of the Department particularly from rural people. The excuse about the change-over is unacceptable. I do not know how necessary the change-over was but if it was necessary extraordinary steps should have been taken to ensure that this would not happen. The questions on the Order Paper today give a small indication of the total problem.
To make matters worse when these people approach their representatives their public representatives find themselves in an equally helpless situation. From my constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny I cannot call into the Minister's office every time someone has an urgent problem about the non-receipt of social welfare benefits and I have to rely on the telephone system. I have wasted days not just hours trying to get through to that Department, with no reply. Most people on sickness benefit claim about once in their lives and very few of the total number claim often. The case that I outlined today was the case of a man, his wife and five children who were left for five or six weeks without anything. They came to me and I went through the normal procedures as I have been doing for the last 20 years and phoned the Department. Now one cannot get through to the Department. If one writes a letter a reply is received after a while but it takes some more weeks before the case is resolved. Sometime around Christmas I wrote in about a case and only this week did I get a full reply. Public representatives as responsible people cannot sit around waiting for replies that take that long. It is sad that parliamentary time has to be taken up in this way but having got the information I received today I am satisfied that what I did was justified.
The Deputy has one minute left.
The other point relates to letters going to people about their insurance record. There are cases where employers have not paid their contributions and claimants should not be put into the position where they have to go after the employer with letters from the Department and so on. These people are sick, many of them are in hospital and their families are suffering hardship. They should not be asked to do the Department's work and it should be stopped.
I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to the allegations made by Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Pattison. I especially give my thanks to the staff in the Department of Social Welfare for the work they have been and are doing without gratitude from this House, the media, or any of the other people who want to jump on to the bandwagon. We are talking about a situation which was advertised in advance and of which people were made fully aware. I suggest that Deputy Mitchell learn more about the PRSI and RSI system. Both numbers are the same. There is no need, as he suggested earlier, to get any other number. They are both the same number.
Major changes have taken place in the system and there is no way one can regionalise or get information down the country unless it is computerised and put on video screens and so on. If we do not change we will stay the way we are and still have delays which were accepted as standard and necessary. The whole purpose of computerisation is to provide the kind of service Deputy Pattison is looking for on a regional basis. One cannot start that process without going through this one and it is my task to do so. It is a very difficult task and there are many problems, for example, employers who do not pay in money and so on.
An advertising programme was undertaken to try and make people aware of the need to use RSI numbers. In total only a relatively small number of people do not use them but it is still too big a number and I accept that. After Christmas is a time when we have heavy bouts of disability and sickness. Flu and other problems add to the burden. Inquiries from Deputies who do not include the RSI and insurance numbers add to the Department's burden in meeting the situation.
The transfer of records is now completed in so far as they are available from Revenue. There are a number of records which are not available in complete form but the records section is now completed. Before Christmas I introduced a regulation to enable officers of the Department, where the 1979-80 contribution record was not available, to use the 1978-79 record. This has been effective in saving difficulty in that area.
Of the post which came into the Department today and which was examined by my officers 30 per cent of certificates were from doctors and were dated between 23 and 27 February. It can be seen that these were not submitted with any particular urgency. Although it is only 30 per cent it creates great difficulty for the Department when one considers that the volume for one week is seventy thousand.
As regards Deputy Pattison's list I pointed out that the problems in virtually all cases related to the RSI number and the contributions paid by the contributor in the governing contribution year which, in many instances, were missing and were subsequently credited by the Department. Medical referees denied a number of them and on repeated reference continued to do so. Pay-related benefit was not due in other cases. I am surprised Deputy Mitchell gets such poor response from everyone although listening to him this evening I should not be surprised. He seems to have established a particularly bad relationship with the people from whom he seeks information.
That is scurrilous and untrue.
The Minister without interruption.
The Deputy said my Department was of no help or assistance to him.
I did not.
He said he could not get answers or anything from the Department.
The phones are not answered.
The Deputy should not interrupt the Minister.
The Minister made scurrilous remarks about me.
As regards phones there are 70 in total, 40 incoming and 30 outgoing. They are continually busy. There is need for a larger system. It is possible for the phone to ring if it picks up on a call which is finishing and with the volume of calls going through it happens fairly often. One can pick up an outgoing call and get a ringing tone although it is not ringing in the Department. This is due to overloading and the only answer is a totally new system.
Deputy Pattison also said that people do not claim often. Of the 70,000 claims a week for disability benefit 45,000 are continuous claims over a long period and they are paid automatically provided the once a month certificate comes in. The principle problem currently relates to disability benefits. Deputy Mitchell mentioned pensioners and while there is no problem in relation to them generally it is possible to find a case at any time. In 25 per cent of the questions which were put down in the House Deputies did not quote the RSI number and this makes it particularly difficult for my Department.
The Minister will exclude me from that remark.
I find it hard to see why Deputy Mitchell wanted Question No. 24 brought up again at this stage. The person concerned was a single person who claimed disability benefit from 17 November 1980. He said he had no insurance number as he had been insurably employed in Britain only, prior to taking up employment in Ireland in July 1979. According to the records in the Department this man had no paid or credited contributions in 1978 or 1979 and did not, therefore, qualify for disability benefit. From the information given by him it was not clear how long he was in Britain. In one letter he said he was 25 years in Britain and I can show that to the Deputy if he wishes. In another letter he said he was 20 years in Britain and on the claim form he said his period of last employment in Britain was from 1976 to 1979. This is Deputy Mitchell's concrete example. Before seeking his British number it was decided to see if an Irish insurance number could be traced. It was established that prior to departure to Britain he had held a number. It was also established that he had no paid or credited contributions under that number. Eventually it was decided to treat this person as a new entrant into Irish insurance under his RSI number. He was given the benefit by the Department in that respect. He was also given pre-entry credits which were allowed for 1978 and 1979.
When will the Minister sort out the problem?
I accept that there are problems but this is not a fair example. This is a very biased example and anyone who is objective can see that the case he refers to is a special one. There is difficulty in this area. We must make the necessary changes if we are ever to have the situation Deputy Pattison wants to see. I am trying to put it through. It would be easier for me not to bother, especially at this time. Deputies should bear with us and we will give every assistance we can to solving problems. Deputies should get from people who raise a claim both the RSI and insurance numbers and quote them.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 March 1981.