Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 May 1981

Vol. 328 No. 9

Private Members' Business. - Administration of Department of Social Welfare: Motion.

Mr. Tully

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann:—

deploring the chaos which has arisen in the Department of Social Welfare in respect of the payment of, and applications for, benefit and assistance;

recognising the totally inadequate level of staff and facilities in the Department; and

having regard to the unprecedented level of unemployment in the economy.

calls on the Minister for Social Welfare to resign forthwith in view of his failure, despite repeated requests, to manage his Department efficiently, and calls on the Government, as a matter of urgency, to provide all the resources necessary to enable the Department to discharge its responsibilities fully and humanely towards those who are the most socially and financially vulnerable in our society."

The Labour Party decided to table this motion having regard to the fact that during the past few months there has arisen in the Department of Social Welfare a situation which is almost unbelievable. Perhaps I have had more contact with this Department than any other Deputy has had. Down through the years I always found the staff of the Department and the various Ministers who were in charge of it to be anxious to try to facilitate those who were unfortunate enough to be ill or unemployed or old or poor but from the end of 1980 in particular some time towards the end of December when a change was made in the system of payment, especially payment of unemployment and disability benefit — week after week matters became worse. At first there were delays of a week but these delays increased to three weeks and then to four weeks and so on. Only this morning I received a letter from a lady informing me that although she has submitted 16 doctor's certificates to the Department, she has not received any benefit to date.

I can well believe this, because personally I have handled several hundred complaints. I have not passed these complaints to the Minister because I do not believe that Deputies should write to Ministers complaining about such matters. Such questions should be taken up with the Secretary of the Department and that is how I have proceeded in respect of these many complaints I have received. In some instances I got replies fairly quickly but in other cases I have not had replies for several months after making the inquiries while in other cases I am still waiting for replies.

I understand that the main cause of the trouble was that some time around the end of December a decision was made to change the system of payment. As a result, instead of paying applicants benefit as they had always been paid under their old social welfare number, when a man whose number, for instance, ended with a 1 would be paid by benefit 1 and, if it was 5, was paid by benefit 5 and so on, that system was completely changed. The decision taken was to pay benefit on the RSI number. I do not think it was too well thought out. For a start a doctor's certificate for social welfare has no space on which to put an RSI number. It does specify "insurance No." On the first certificate a person receives there is a space in which the RSI number can be entered but there is no space on subsequent certificates. The result is that most people omit to give the appropriate number although I understand it was advertised on radio, television and in the newspapers. Of course everybody knows that people who are sick or unemployed buy all the newspapers, look at television, listen to the radio and therefore should know.

When it was discovered that the appropriate numbers had not been entered on certificates apparently the Department had instructions to put such certificates to one side until the number turned up. As a result of this, immediately after Christmas, people discovered that they just could not receive payment. In one case the man's name — and I think I should use it because it is significant — was Oliver Plunkett and to make matters worse his address was Eden. Obviously the Department thought he was dead, was in Heaven. That man had five children. He had been employed continuously by one big firm of manufacturers since 1937. He had such a good insurance record he was able to tell me he had been out ill for three weeks in 1947 but had worked every week since. At the end of December he had a slight accident, went into hospital, applied for benefit and towards the end of February his wife telephoned me asking if I could arrange to have him paid. She had telephoned the Department on numerous occasions getting no satisfaction at all. I took their case up with the Department officials whom I have always found to be most courteous. They told me they would investigate the matter. I wrote numerous letters. Then the Department were to pay him; he was not paid, and there were constant telephone calls to me to the effect that no money had been received. Eventually I was told that it could be several months before payment would be made because there was such chaos in the Department. I said I thought I could improve on that. I put a question down to the Minister here which came up for reply on the following Tuesday. I had a bet with some of my friends that the man would be paid on the Tuesday morning, and he was.

Deputies putting down such questions in the House is one thing but one must remember all the people who cannot put questions down, who do not know the right way to go about it. There is no point in telling them they can seek assistance from the local health authority because, in country districts particularly, assistance from a health authority is still referred to as home help and they do not want to take it. Such people have stamped their insurance cards, want their benefit, and insist on receiving it. I heard the Minister on the radio assuring all and sundry that the situation was somewhat chaotic but it had been cleared up, everything was now all right, that people were being paid, that there were now very few complaints, that he knew, because all Deputies contacted him. I want to make it clear that I never contacted him. I do not know whether or not others did. I did a brief count on today's Order Paper and, if everybody has been paid, there are 55 oral questions to the Minister and 27 written asking him why people throughout the country have not received the benefit for which they have applied. I wonder what is the answer to that.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

A very simple answer but we can go into that later. They are not all about disability benefit, they are about old age pensions, various things.

Mr. Tully

They are about social welfare benefits.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister will be moving his amendment when Deputy Tully has finished.

Mr. Tully

I will come to the question of old age pensions in a few moments because they form part of the story also.

I put down two questions to the Minister here asking him why two people in particular had not been paid although they had submitted all the necessary documentation. Because we were going into recess for Easter I asked for written replies which I received. One was a case in Westmeath and the other in Meath. In respect of both cases I was informed that the people concerned had not entered their RSI number. I must remain within the rules of Parliament and say that that was untrue. One of those applicants was my son-in-law and I had entered the numbers myself. The other was a man who had assured me — and I believe him — that he had entered the numbers. That being so why should the Minister give me a reply saying they had not entered their numbers? I have met numerous people who did not at first enter their numbers, did so subsequently, but still did not receive payment. The usual story was that they had applied, they had not been paid, they then wasted a fortnight, when they wrote into the Minister or the Department, or telephoned the Department. They would be told that the matter was being looked into, that they would be paid. The next thing is that they would receive an application form on which to re-apply. One man in particular received no less than three application forms within a period of six to seven weeks.

Can there be anything more frustrating than a person stamping insurance cards, paying insurance, all his or her working life and when he or she falls ill and applies for benefit, receiving a series of forms from the Department requesting particulars they have given already? Some applicants have told me that when they applied they were told, after five or six weeks, that their certificates could not be found, and they got duplicates. One man I know came up and handed in his set of duplicate certificates. He was informed, when he wrote to the Department a few days afterwards, that those certificates could not be found. Subsequently he complained to me. I took the matter up on his behalf with the Department and he was paid.

I have come to the conclusion that two things have happened. One is that the staff in the Department are terribly overworked. They must be endeavouring to do two or three people's work. Secondly I have come to the conclusion that, for some extraordinary reason the money out of which social welfare people are paid, has dried up, making it impossible to pay people the benefit to which they are entitled. The Minister contended a few minutes ago that I was not talking about social welfare disability benefit, that I was talking about people on pension. Does the Minister not know that very many people who have reached pension age have supplied the necessary documents to his Department, have waited months before being paid, eventually receiving their pension books pressure having been brought to bear by somebody like myself. I do not believe I or any other Deputy should have to make representations to the Department to have benefit to which people are legally entitled paid. When Deputies make such representations payment is made, the applicant concerned receives two or three weeks payment in the book and the balance is not paid. The Minister may contend that it is not paid for a few weeks, or a few months but eventually it is paid.

I had experience of one case about which the Minister might know of a man who died and his widow applied for a widow's pension. Under his insurance she was not entitled to the pension, but under her own insurance she was entitled. There was confusion over the stamps and all the rest of it. Eventually it was decided that she was entitled to her pension but she was not paid. In July of last year, the Department agreed that she was entitled to a pension for herself and two children and they paid her from that date. I pointed out to them that she was still due a substantial amount of back money. They said first she was not, then they said: all right, she was. It took numerous letters and telephone calls, with the usual threat that I would raise it in the House with the Minister. They found it possible, in the middle of December last, 18 months later, to pay her £1,803. Does the Minister not appreciate that people who are entitled to benefits should receive them when they are entitled to them, and that giving them a lump sum at a later stage is no answer?

I can give the Minister a number of other cases of people who applied for old age pensions who were told that they were not entitled to it and who were eventually paid months later. I got a letter this evening from a man who is due several months' pension. He has eventually come to me. Many people do not like coming to a politician to get their entitlements but they are reduced to that. I do not know how these people can be expected to live when there is a doubt cast on their entitlement, from the low level where they apply right up to the offices of the Department. People receive letters from the Department saying that their insurance cards have not been returned to the Department. Recently a man employed for 14 years by Meath County Council received such a letter. I queried it with the county manager, who assured me that his cards were stamped. What has happened in the Department? Why are all these mistakes being made? Is it because there is not enough staff or is it because the Minister has made such a mess in the changeover of the system of payments? Has it been decided that only a certain amount of money may be paid out and only into the areas where it will prevent a big row? Working women who leave work to have a baby are often refused unemployment benefit when they wish to return to work and find that their job is unavailable on the grounds that they are unavailable for work, even though they produce evidence that they have somebody at home to mind the child.

Alternative arrangements do not seem to count. The Minister is the political head of his Department and it is his job to see that the Department is properly run. It is no use to blame somebody else. Over the years I have met and written to hundreds of officials of the Department and they have always proved most courteous. I drew to the attention of the Secretary of the Department a matter which has been occurring over the last couple of months and which I resent. When I make representations on behalf of constituents in relation to overdue benefits and so on, at a very late stage, perhaps a month or so after the benefit has been paid, I receive a letter from the Department saying that it has been paid. There is no reason except political opportunism why when the applicant is being informed of his entitlement I should not be informed at the same time. There is no point in my informing the applicant that he will receive his benefit a month after he has received it.

Dr. Woods

That is an accusation about the Secretary of the Department. It is most uncalled for and the Deputy knows that this is not true.

Mr. Tully

I do not give the reason why it has happened but it has happened and I have written to the Secretary of the Department about it.

Dr. Woods

But not for political reasons.

Mr. Tully

I will accept the Minister's word for it.

Mr. Harte

It is happening wholesale.

Mr. Tully

When the decision to change the system of payments was taken, were arrangements made to ensure that the files would follow the numbers? It is quite obvious from inquiries I have made that there is no way in which a person who has been paying insurance all his life and who has his cards stamped could be held up in relation to claims unless adequate arrangements were not made. I know that a huge number of people apply for sickness benefit and for all the other benefits and I know that the officials in the Department have been doing a tremendous job in ensuring that people get paid every week. Why should it suddenly fall down unless the decision to alter the arrangements was not carried out at the proper time in the proper way? The Minister is as aware as I am that the last week in December is the week in which most people would apply for disability benefit, but that was the week in which he decided to change the system. People on unemployment benefit do not sign for it just because they like being unemployed but because they need the money. It is annoying for them when they have done everything that the book says they must do to find that they cannot be paid. Eventually, when things are straightened out, payment is made. A large number of people have been complaining that they were not paid because their cards were not in. This cannot happen with the RSI system unless the employer does not pay the PAYE either.

Dr. Woods

It does happen.

Mr. Tully

If it happens, how many prosecutions against employers have been taken? Is it not correct that a number of employers deliberately stop the RSI contribution and do not sent it in, that they do it again and again and that they did it with the social welfare stamps? Is it not true that inspectors of the Department have a job to see that this is not allowed to continue? Yet when somebody applies for benefit he is told that he cannot get it because of this.

I had a case of a man recently who has been employed for 15 or 16 years by Meath County Council and he was seeking optical benefit. He was told by the Department that Meath County Council had not submitted his cards. There must be some better way of keeping records than the one which the Department decided on at the end of December. It is not unusual now to find people being left short a couple of pounds per week in their benefit. It may not be much to the Minister or to the senior officials, but it is a lot to the unfortunate person who is sick or unemployed and who is trying to live on the benefit. In relation to unemployment assistance, when all the proofs are submitted and the claim is considered people find that they are not entitled to it because they are living with a parent or something like that. Very often mistakes are made, very often the wrong person is listed and very often the person who is cut off for months, who is left on the breadline and told that he is not entitled to assistance, suddenly, if the person is persistent or I am persistent, is told that it has been discovered that payment is due and the person is paid the benefit. It is not very funny for somebody who has been working all his or her life to find that the Department of Social Welfare are unable to deal with him or her.

All of us who have been dealing with the Department over the years found it very convenient to ring the Department about certain claims. It would often save them time as well as saving us time and the matter would be dealt with very quickly. It has not been possible recently, except in very exceptional cases, to get through to the Department. The number will ring but there will be no reply. When the Minister was asked about this he said that the telephone number was out of order, that it kept ringing and the people in the Department could not hear it. I understand that can happen. It has happened in my home and in my office. When it happened to me I got on to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and they repaired the telephone. It is an extraordinary thing that for several months the Department of Social Welfare do not appear to be able to get their line repaired. I dialled the number of the Department of Social Welfare 31 times on one occasion. Eventually somebody answered me.

I am quite prepared to accept the Minister's word if he says that the telephone is out of order but I am not prepared to accept that he should have allowed the telephone to be out of order for all that time and done nothing about it.

Dr. Woods

The phones are not out of order. I will explain later what the situation is.

Mr. Tully

The Minister said that he had made available four lines to his office but those of us who prefer to deal directly with the Department have not been using those four lines. The people we are talking about cannot carry on without payment for a long time. For years they have been depending on a weekly wage and have no surplus money. When they become ill or unemployed they are entitled to be paid. In case the Minister says that the people who ask him questions want to embarrass him, I have been running my eye over the questions asked and I have discovered that quite a number of them are from backbenchers from his party. Perhaps they want to embarrass him. Most of the written questions are from people who are as frustrated, as I am, trying to get a reply.

It is the job of the Department of Social Welfare to ensure that when people require payment of the benefits to which they are entitled, those payments are made. It is not good enough for people to feel that they should be left for an indefinite period. The one I heard about this morning was possibly the longest. The lady in question said she has been submitting doctor's certificates for 16 weeks but has not received any payment. She has submitted all the necessary documents and has a good insurance record. I cannot see any reason why that lady has not been paid her benefit. There seems to be a shortage of money in regard to everything the Government are paying at the moment. People are coming to me and complaining that they cannot get the money they are entitled to. Those people will not accept from the Department of Social Welfare or from me that the Department are too busy and are unable to deal with them. They will not accept that their insurance record does not entitle them to payment of benefit. I would not feel inclined to persuade them that they should have more patience, having waited for up to 16 weeks for the benefit they are entitled to.

My experience with the officials of the Department of Social Welfare over the years has been that they were always most courteous and anxious to be helpful. The only thing which has changed over the years is the Minister. This trouble started since the present Minister became Minister for Social Welfare. There is no use saying that it is purely coincidental. If the Minister is not able to do the job, if he feels that it is a job that he does not want to do, somebody else should do it. There is no point in giving the impression that it is just a slight snarl-up which has been cleared. The Minister should remember his radio interview when he assured everybody that matters had gone back to normal. My post every day contains many queries from people who feel they are entitled to various types of social welfare benefit but cannot get them. We have complaints from people who say they applied for a widow's pension or an old age pension but did not get it. We receive complaints from people who say they sent in their books and did not get them back. When the matter has been brought to the attention of the Department of Social Welfare in most cases the books have been sent out very quickly. It should not be necessary for a person after five or six weeks to come to a TD and ask him to write in to the Department about the matter. It should be possible for the Department to issue the books to those people when they become due.

The Department of Social Welfare worked very well during the postal strike when they had great difficulty in ensuring that payments were made. In most cases payments were made within a reasonable time. I know there were some mix-ups but nothing like what is happening now. The large number of complaints which have come to me and to other Deputies about non-payment of benefits is astonishing. The Minister has not even the excuse which the income tax people use. They tell us that it is the Computer's fault. The Minister does not use that complaint. I used to phone the benefits section. I have been pestering the Secretary of the Department who has been most courteous. I get an acknowledgement from him within a day or two of every letter I send in. I know I am increasing his workload but he can solve the problem if he can arrange to have the benefits paid out without people having to come to me. I do not know how many Deputies are in the same position, but I believe some of them are as bad, if not worse than I am. It is the people who have very little who are not getting their benefits. There are many men with families of five children who have not received any payment for eight or nine weeks. It is no use telling a person at the end of that period that a cheque for £450 is in the post to him. What good is the cheque to that person who has been drawing credit anywhere he could get it? Those people have lost face among their neighbours. They have not got sufficient money to buy anything.

There must be an explanation although I do not know what it is. The Minister being the political head of the Department, must carry the responsibility for what has gone wrong. Why should a decision be taken to change the system of payment without checking on the people who are to operate the new system and telling them how exactly it should operate in conjunction with the old system?

Recently I met somebody who had been out for some time and had not an RSI number. I sent in his old number. I was surprised to find that when I sent in a person's RSI number to the Department, but not the old insurance number, I got back a letter asking for the old insurance number. There is a fabulous index section in the Department. If you gave them a person's name, address and approximate date of birth, within 30 seconds they could come up with the number. Has all that been scrapped? Has all that expertise been thrown over board in an attempt to ensure that those who are working — and I assume this is the thinking behind this move — and liable to pay income tax are doing so? Why has that system being changed?

The Government have an amendment down asking us to agree to all the increases. I do not want to go too deeply into that but I meet a great number of working class people and I have worked with them all my life. People who tell me they used to buy two bags of coal and a container of gas every week say that they now cannot buy anything else out of their pensions. Recently a grocery store manager told me the pattern now is a loaf of bread and a tin of beans. That is what the poor of this country are living on and tonight we are asked to commend these fabulous social welfare benefits. Not too long ago I saw a person going into a shop and I was surprised to see him buying one rasher costing 10p. That was his meat for the week. We are not supposed to be angry or annoyed about this. We are supposed to accept it as normal.

I do not get any pleasure saying this I have no animosity against the Minister because he is a very pleasant person to deal with but when I find that people I have known for years — decent, honest, hard-working people anxious to earn their living — cannot get what they are entitled to, there is only one thing to do and that is to put pressure on the Minister for Social Welfare because he is the only person who can alter the situation.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute:

"Dáil Éireann affirms its confidence in the Minister for Social Welfare, express appreciation of the improvements he has made by way of substantial increases in social welfare payments as well as the extension and improvement of existing services, the introduction of new schemes and the action he has taken to modernise the administration of his Department."

In the original Motion before the House Deputy Cluskey tried to suggest that the Department of Social Welfare under my direction are not fully and efficiently discharging their responsibilities. I deny that suggestion most emphatically.

I would like to begin by drawing the attention of the House to the actual performance of the Department of Social Welfare in making payments because this is the criterion by which it must be judged. I will first of all deal with the position over the last few months and in particular with payments made to those people who are claiming disability benefit because it is at this scheme that most criticism has been levelled. There are an average some 70,000 disability benefit payments, including a pay-related element, made each week. This has been the level of payments for some time and this number of payments has been made each week throughout the period from the beginning of this year. These payments alone totalled almost £31 million between January and March. Since the beginning of April the weekly rates of flat-rate benefit have been increased by 20 per cent as provided for in the budget.

These are essential facts which must be kept firmly in mind in making any judgment on the performance of the social welfare system and they are to my mind incontrovertable proof of a Department which despite certain difficulties that had to be faced in recent times have continued to provide a very high level of service to the public. A closer look at the actual expenditure on disability benefit for each of the six weeks up to 4 April will bear out even more forcibly what I have just said.

The total amounts of flat-rate and pay-related benefits made by the Department were of the following order:—

Week ended 27 February — £2.3 million involving approx. 72,000 persons; Week ended 6 March — £2.4 million involving approx. 72,000 persons; Week ended 14 March — £2.7 million involving approx. 71,000 persons; Week ended 21 March — £2.5 million involving approx. 72,000 persons; Week ended 28 March — £2.6 million involving approx. 72,000 persons; Week ended 4 April — £2.8 million involving approx. 73,000 persons.

I am quoting these figures so that the House may see clearly for itself that persons claiming sickness benefit are in fact being paid the moneys to which they are entitled.

Of course disability benefit is only one of the numerous services provided. My Department make some 540,000 payments each week. On top of this there are some 440,000 children's allowances payments each month. These are very large numbers of payments which are continually being made without disruption and are proof of an organisation which is functioning effectively. Any attempt to suggest the contrary is grossly misleading.

As this motion is directed at me personally, I feel I am entitled to inform the House of my record since taking office as Minister for Social Welfare.

We all know that in the last few years we have been experiencing the worst effects of an economic recession on an international scale in modern times. This has posed very considerable difficulties for the financing of social security schemes and in fact in many countries deliberate policies have been undertaken to cut back on those services. We had to face those difficulties in the same way as everybody else, but nevertheless we have been able to achieve very substantial real increases in the levels of social welfare payments. Since I became Minister for Social Welfare the levels of social welfare payments have been increased by 20 per cent for short-term benefits and 25 per cent for long-term benefits in each of the last two budgets. These increases represent the highest allocation made to social welfare services in the history of the State.

During my period as Minister for Social Welfare there have also been substantial increases in the rates of children's allowances. Last year these allowances were increased by 28 per cent and this year by a further 30 per cent. In the comparatively short time that I have been Minister for Social Welfare, children's allowances for a family with three children have accordingly been increased from £14.50 a month to £24 a month, an increase of some 60 per cent.

The increases given during my time as Minister for Social Welfare not only fulfilled the Government's commitment to maintain the real value of social welfare payments but have brought about a substantial improvement in the level of those payments in real terms, particularly for long-term beneficiaries like widows and old age pensioners.

The improvements for which I have been responsible during my period as Minister for Social Welfare have not been confined to increasing the rates of payments alone.

Last October I introduced a National Fuel Scheme which was the first such scheme to apply to the whole country. More then 115,000 pensioners and others are benefiting under the new scheme this year. The value of the vouchers over the winter months is now £90 per beneficiary, or double what it was when I took office. During Deputy Cluskey's time the number of beneficiaries was 57,500 and the value to each over the winter months was about £25.

Mr. Harte

They were able to buy two bags of coal, not one as now.

Dr. Woods

There are double the number benefiting now. In December I introduced a special Christmas bonus of a double week's payment to all long-term beneficiaries. This action gave welcome assistance to those who are most in need at a time of year when it is particularly welcome.

Another widely welcomed development for which I was responsible was the recent introduction of a new scheme of maternity allowance for working women. In conjunction with the legislation giving working women a statutory right to maternity leave I provided a new and improved scheme of maternity allowances. I eased the contribution conditions for the allowance, extended the allowance from 12 to 14 weeks and granted an improved rate of pay-related benefit from the first day of maternity leave. Most important of all I provided for a minimum allowance of £45 per week in order to assist those women who are on low incomes. I am proud to have been associated with the introduction of this scheme which is undoubtedly a major social advance for women in this country.

Another measure of major importance was the recent Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act. This massive piece of legislation embraced all social welfare statutes from the beginning of this century. It grouped together in a logical and orderly fashion the existing legislation dealing with each topic. It involved the rewording of old and archaic constructions and the repeal of those provisions which had become obsolete in the course of time and no longer had any validity.

The task of consolidation was necessary because of the continuing expansion of the social welfare system. The volume of legislation dealing with social welfare schemes had become so complex that it was extremely difficult to ascertain the provisions relating to a particular scheme. The Consolidation Act has streamlined all of this law and made for ease of access and clarity. The Act will prove to be an invaluable aid to Deputies, social and community workers and organisations involved in helping the public in social welfare matters.

Apart from the improvements already mentioned I have introduced numerous other measures since I became Minister for Social Welfare. I reduced the qualifying age for blind pension purposes from 21 to 18 years. I removed anomalies in the means test. I introduced major improvements in the free telephone rental scheme which I extended to people receiving disabled person's maintenance allowance and British retirement pensions, I removed restrictions on the use of free travel to enable pensioners to travel over holiday periods. I extended the orphans' pension scheme. I granted the first increase since the inception of the scheme in the amounts payable in respect of multiple births. I made new regulations which double the amount of income which certain recipients of disability benefit and unemployment benefit are allowed to earn without affecting their right to benefit. I modified the way in which land transfers are treated for non-contributory pension purposes to enable claims for those benefits to be dealt with more expeditiously. I arranged for those in the 65 to 66 age group to receive their unemployment benefit on a four-weekly basis if they so chose. To help young persons living at home who apply for unemployment assistance, I reviewed the method of assessing board and lodgings and I introduced worth while reforms. For the disabled I have introduced a number of significant improvements. The Disabled Person's Maintenance Allowance was increased by 25 per cent this year and provision will be made from next October for their dependants for the first time. I have increased the domiciliary care and mobility allowances as well as the motorised transport allowance. The free telephone rental scheme has also been extended to those receiving Disabled Persons Maintenance Allowance. Finally, in this regard I established a national committee and an advisory council to promote and co-ordinate activities for the International Year of Disabled Persons.

I would underline this matter further by giving the House some particulars of overall expenditure on social welfare. In 1976 the last full year during which Deputy Cluskey was in the Department of Social Welfare total expenditure by the Department amounted to some £450 million. The estimate of expenditure for the present year is some £1,110 million.

These are some of my achievements in the short period of 16 months since I took office as Minister for Social Welfare. These achievements speak for themselves. Actions speak louder than any words and they are a measure of my concern and of the concern of the Government of which I am a member to discharge their responsibility fully and humanely towards those who are the most socially vulnerable in our society.

What I have said so far outlines some of the many achievements of my Department in recent years. Though certain problems have arisen in recent months in relation to the disability benefit scheme, it must not be forgotten that the numerous other services of the Department have continued to operate speedily and efficiently despite increasing numbers of beneficiaries, despite increasing complexity in the schemes themselves, as they are continuously adapted to meet people's needs, and despite the introduction of new schemes.

All these have placed a considerable strain on the staff of the Department who have always responded without fail to ensure that claimants are given a high level of service. For example, the budget increases at the beginning of April of 25 per cent and 20 per cent involving thousands of recalculations and adjustments to the payment procedures were implemented in time. Thousands of new pension books had to be ordered and delivered in the very short period between the date of the budget and 1 April and hundreds of thousands of new children's allowances books are being made available in time for the increases due from the beginning of July.

This performance bears comparison with that of any other institution, Government or private. In the United Kingdom it should be noted increases announced in their budget at the beginning of the year are not implemented until the following November.

The problems in the disability benefit area have given rise to certain delays in payment. To meet this situation I ordered a range of administrative measures to be taken to deal with the matter. As a result of these measures considerable improvements have been made and I am pleased to be able to say that the position generally is not far from normal. It would perhaps be helpful if I were to give a brief outline of what was involved.

Since April 1979 the method of collecting social insurance contributions by means of stamped cards was replaced and modernised by the Pay-Related Social Insurance scheme, PRSI, under which contributions are collected by the Revenue Commissioners alongside PAYE deductions. This system was a major advance from the social point of view on the old system in that it introduced proper pay-related contributions. This is a fairer system and of considerable advantage to lower paid workers. It also has advantages from the employers' point of view in that it did away with the need for a separate system of retaining and stamping social insurance cards. The new system of course involved major administrative changes for all concerned, the dimensions of which can be appreciated when it is realised that more than one million insured persons are involved.

Since January last disability benefit entitlements have been calculated for the first time by reference to the new PRSI contributions collected during the first year of that scheme in 1979-80. The Department of Social Welfare was confronted with two major problems which despite the most careful preparation on its part and on the part of the Revenue Commissioners it was simply not possible to overcome completely. This arose because the problems were largely outside the control of either Department. The first problem arose because a large number of claims and medical certificates were received in the Department which did not quote the relevant insurance numbers that would enable the insurance records of the claimants to be identified immediately and linked with their claims. Secondly, perhaps partly because of the newness of the system, a number of the returns from employers under the PRSI system were defective in one way or another. Each of these problems created serious difficulties for the processing of claims and because of the size of the operation they gave rise to delays not only in relation to the individual claims concerned but also throughout the disability benefit system.

In December and January last an extensive publicity campaign on press and television was undertaken advising claimants of the vital need to quote both their social insurance numbers and their RSI numbers in all claims and certificates. This campaign to remind people to quote numbers has continued in one way or another in the meantime and I am glad to say that it has evoked a significant response.

In the normal course an appreciable number of claimants — some 6 per cent to 7 per cent — fail, for one reason or other, to quote their correct insurance numbers and this is a problem we will always have with us. At the time of the change-over at the beginning of this year the proportion of disability benefit claimants not quoting the correct numbers had risen to some 25-30 per cent. Due to the publicity campaigns which I have mentioned, this percentage has fallen considerably and now stands in the region of some 10 per cent, which has helped considerably in the continuing improvement which has taken place.

The collection of social insurance contributions under the new PRSI system came into effect in April 1979 in the middle of the postal strike. This factor, together with the novelty of the system, resulted in a number of social insurance records being defective for the first year which is the year governing entitlement to current claims. This gave rise to delays because inquiries must be made to establish a claimant's insurance record to enable benefit to be paid. As a result of these inquiries and of special efforts made by the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the position has improved. I think it only right to say here, however, that as long as records are incomplete there will always be some delays in dealing with claims. Everything possible will be done to minimise the difficulties but in the last resort the responsibility lies primarily with employers and employees to see to it that contributions are properly deducted, that records are properly kept and that returns are made in good time.

It must also be borne in mind that in dealing with the large number of claims and inquiries presented to them, the Department must continue to fulfil their responsibilities to ensure that only those persons are paid who are entitled to benefit.

I must refer to what Deputy Tully said. There is an onus, under the existing legislation, for the officers of the Department to check whether people are genuinely available for work. Legislation dictates that situation. He mentioned that particularly in regard to eligibility. That is a problem which will always be there.

Mr. Tully

I think the Minister misunderstood what I said.

Dr. Woods

To achieve this, the Department must enforce a range of control measures and institute their own inquiries in cases where there are genuine doubts as to the claimant's entitlement. An obvious form of control in the disability benefit area is that claimants from time to time are referred to the Department's medical referees for examination.

When delays first came to notice I decided that a wide range of administrative actions would be called for and to ensure quick and efficient action a special group of officials from a number of Departments was set up. These came from all the major Departments either involved in the scheme or whom it was considered would be in a position to help. This group produced a range of proposals which were put into action almost as soon as they were made. Among the first measures taken was the diversion from other areas of the Department to the disability benefit areas of staff who had formerly worked in that branch. It is an area which requires considerable experience. Staff with experience of disability benefits administration, who had been assigned to other Government Departments, were then sought out and as a result, it was possible to provide an additional number of experienced staff. I thank the staff concerned. On top of this a considerable number of extra posts were created to cope with the additional work. Finally, I have created a team at a high level to review and streamline the administration of the disability benefits payments system.

Telephone facilities were increased but this ran almost immediately into difficulties. The staff dealing with claims ceased to answer telephone inquiries because they felt that answering telephones interfered with the processing of claims. They felt that by discontinuing this activity for a period they could concentrate on bringing payments up to date. This matter is being kept under review. In the meantime my office is dealing with inquiries as far as possible.

Recent developments in the area of staff relations have not, however, been very helpful. Due to considerations which are related to a civil service-wide grade claim, the staff association involved has refused to allow the use of any additional video display units in the computer system in the disability benefits area for the time being and has not so far agreed to the resumption of answering telephones. It will not be possible to bring our services fully back to normal until these matters are resolved. Perhaps this explains some of Deputy Tully's queries.

I have always been conscious that any organisation, and in particular one which caters to such a large extent for the immediate needs of almost the entire population, must be continually improving and developing to keep pace with the changing needs of claimants and with developments in the outside world generally. I am, therefore, concerned with improving the administrative capacity of the Department as well as improving and modernising the actual schemes themselves to bring them more into line with present day requirements.

One of the major deficiencies in the social welfare code is the absence of pay-related pension or any adequate social insurance coverage for the large number of our population who are self-employed. Plans for a Government White Paper which will set out definite proposals in both these areas are now at an advanced stage. These will eventually lead to major improvements in the social welfare services.

I have also had the whole social welfare code examined to establish the areas in which discrimination against women still remains and I am at present considering proposals in this area which will be implemented in a progressive manner over the next few years.

I am very conscious that any delay no matter how short in making payment can result in hardship to the person concerned. The operation of all the various services is subject to continuing scrutiny with a view to ensuring a speedier and more efficient service to the public.

Arrangements are already well advanced for improving the extent to which computerised methods can be used in the Department. Deputy Cluskey is quoted as having said that in his time in the Department of Social Welfare children's allowances and pensions were switched over to computer. Deputy Cluskey is quite mistaken.

Mr. Harte

When did Deputy Cluskey say that?

Dr. Woods

Children's allowances and pensions were not computerised in his time and in fact those schemes have not yet been computerised. Detailed planning commenced in 1980, is now at an advanced stage and is expected to commence operation during the first half of 1982. Roughly a further two years will be required to finish the job.

What happened during Deputy Cluskey's time in the Department of Social Welfare is that in 1973-74 the payment of disability and certain allied benefits was computerised. This was the flat-rate system which up to that time had been dealt with by clerical methods. The full information relating to the insurance records of claimants was already available in the Department in manuscript records. This was a relatively limited operation to which subsequently was added the payment of pay-related benefit with disability, unemployment, maternity and occupational injuries benefits.

A much more extensive operation was undertaken from January of this year. A more powerful computer system was installed which is capable of taking from the Office of the Revenue Commissioners computer system the records of PRSI contributions collected by that office in conjunction with the PAYE tax system. This is a major advance and will in time provide a base for further advances and developments in the administration of the Department of Social Welfare.

One aspect in which I am most particularly interested in the possibility of regionalising to a greater extent the services of the Department. The more powerful computers at present being installed will give the facilities which will enable this to be done. Facilities of this nature are socially desirable and will lead to speedier processing of claims and to a more immediate and humane service for claimants by making it possible to deal with inquiries to a much greater extent at local level.

I am determined to press ahead with my programme of improving facilities generally. Over the years as services have expanded the Department has acquired additional office space in a number of modern offices such as those in D'Olier House, Oisín House, Marlboro House, Townsend Street and Gandon House. In the latter premises I am making available a new public office which will increase considerably facilities for the public. We are providing new employment exchanges in the Dublin area in Dún Laoghaire, Navan Road and Thomas Street. In County Leitrim a new employment exchange is being provided in Manorhamilton and will be ready for occupation in the near future.

Side by side with all of this, staff numbers have been increased. The number of staff serving in the Department at present is roughly 3,480 while in Deputy Cluskey's time the number was roughly 3030. I appreciate the difficulties with which staff can be faced when large scale developments, such as those that I have mentioned, take place. I thank the staff for their co-operation and I express the hope that the problems they are having with their grade claim will soon be resolved.

I have given the House some indication of my achievements during the short time since I took office as Minister for Social Welfare. I have outlined the on-going activities of the Department as well as some of my plans for the future. I am sure the House will agree that this is an impressive record and bears a more than favourable comparison with anything that can be put forward by occupants of the benches opposite.

Deputy Tully raised the question of the index and asked why it is not possible to cross index immediately when a case comes in. The old index was the insurance card index and it was a relatively simple matter to check it. The new cross-checking between the RSI numbers and the insurance numbers has been built up over this period and is now approximately 85 per cent efficient. Docket books do include a section for the two numbers. The Deputy must have been referring to older books——

Mr. Tully

For the first week only.

Dr. Woods

I confidently appeal to the House to give me its support and confidence so that I can carry on with the good work.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 6 May 1981.