asked the Minister for Social Welfare the present position in regard to social welfare payments arising out of the industrial action taken by the Civil and Public Services Staff Association; the payments that are effected; the approximate length of delays in those payments; and the special arrangements being made to ensure that beneficiaries receive the payments due.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Payment Delays.
6.
Since Monday 29 June the staff of some sections of my Department who are members of the Civil and Public Services' Staff Association have resumed their industrial action. They have placed a ban on overtime working and are refusing to operate computer equipment which provides the insurance record for 1979-80 on which entitlement to benefit in 1981 is based. This action is being taken in support of a civil service-wide pay claim for the staff concerned.
The main effect of this action is that new claims to disability, maternity and injury benefits cannot be processed in the absence of the relevant insurance records. Payments to existing claimants, however, continue to be made although there may be some delay in the issue of such payments. The processing of claims to other benefits and pensions where an insurance record is required may also be delayed.
My Department are concerned about any situation where delays arise in making payments to claimants and I would sincerely hope that the existing difficulties will be resolved before very long.
How many new claims are held up? How many new claims for disability benefit, injury benefit and maternity benefit are held up? Are claims for unemployment benefit held up? Are the Department now refusing to pay supplementary welfare? I quoted yesterday a notice which was printed to the effect that those refused unemployment benefit will not get supplementary welfare. This notice was placed in one of the centres on Tuesday this week. Further, is the Minister of State aware that the 3,600 busmen, who are not involved in the CIE dispute but who were laid off by CIE on 9 July, are entitled to full unemployment benefit but they have got nothing so far and the labour exchanges have refused to pay them? They then went for supplementary welfare which they were also refused. Today they are standing in to get money at Cumberland Street and Gardiner Street exchanges. Tomorrow it seems that 750 more will be standing in in Gardiner Street. These are men and families who are entitled to the benefit and can get no money. Is this a new departure in the Government's hard-line industrial relations policy which will have a very severe effect on workers?
As to the numbers affected, the situation is extremely serious and could potentially become more serious. Regarding the effect on disability benefit claims, the number of new claims on hands which have not been authorised amount to 9,400 — at least that was the figure I had and I am told they are now up to about 12,000. From now on the number of unauthorised claims will increase by about 1,000 a day. In the case of current claims, approximately 3,000 cheques a week are not issued where claimants quote incorrect numbers. Many current claims are going ahead but where there is any difficulty about incorrect information these are not being processed.
However, despite this industrial action taken, the bulk of disability benefits, about 90 per cent, are still being issued. This proportion will decline as current claims expire and as no new claims are being authorised. The effect on the unemployment benefit claims is that claims already in payment will continue to be paid both at employment exchanges and branch employment offices. The claims which will be affected are new claims which amount to approximately 4,000 a week countrywide. Unless an applicant has an old insurance number and he or she qualified for unemployment benefit on the basis of his or her 1978-79 contribution record, it will not be possible to determine entitlement until details of the 1978-79 record extracted from the manual records will be supplied by central records section. It is understood, however, that some exchanges are now blacking the authorisation of claims on such records. Heretofore this difficulty was overcome at the employment exchanges by utilising income tax forms or employers' statements to determine entitlement. However, under an instruction issued by the CPSSA to their members the use of these sources of information has been blacked from 18 July 1981. Indications from employment exchanges suggest that eligibility in a high proportion of the 4,000 new claims received each week could not be determined because of this action. It is known that the P60 action has been put into operation in the Dublin employment exchanges. Information is not yet available as to the extent to which provincial offices are affected.
Regarding the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, in the normal course any claimant who could not immediately establish entitlement to benefit could have recourse to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. The Eastern Health Board have, however, indicated strongly to the Department that the community welfare officers will be unable to deal with claimants who might claim supplementary welfare allowance by reason of industrial action at the Department of Social Welfare. Their organisation is geared to dealing with between 5,000 and 6,000 and as they are at present operating at maximum capacity they have neither the personnel nor the space to deal with additional numbers.
There are indications also — and this would refer to the matter of the CIE bus drivers and busmen — that the unions representing the community welfare officers have instructed their members not to operate any scheme designed to pay persons eligible for social welfare benefits where payment is not made as a result of industrial action in the Department of Social Welfare.
I do not accept that this has anything to do with Government policy. These are the details of an industrial action the ramifications of which are most serious and this seriousness is understood fully by the Department. The negotiations on this are at an extremely sensitive stage, and nobody should know better then the questioner in this case the nature and sensitivity of this dispute and the whole area and its implications. I assure the Deputy that the full seriousness of this is understood by the Minister and the Department and that every effort is being made to prepare contingency plans for further breakdowns and to respond to the existing extremely difficult situation.
Would the Minister of State agree that this is a complete shutdown bringing about a gravely serious situation which has not existed at any time before? The fact that supplementary welfare should be closed down entirely as well is very grave. What special measures are the Minister of State herself or the Government taking to make sure that people get some money in this situation? I appreciate the difficulties. After the lapse of a certain amount of time, and with the problem growing at the rate of 4,000 a week on unemployment benefit and 1,000 a day on disability benefit it has reached crisis proportions. What measures do the Minister and the Government propose to take to remedy the situation and to ensure that people get some money?
I reject the claim that the system is effectively at a standstill. Ninety per cent of disability claims are still being paid. The only unemployment benefit and supplementary welfare schemes affected in employment exchanges are those which relate to another industrial dispute. The effects are serious and very worrying but not as extensive as the Deputy is suggesting. I am not in a position to say what measures are being taken. Obviously the Deputy, with his knowledge of the Department will understand that given the number of persons involved in this dispute, and the fact that the supplementary welfare scheme will not operate claims rejected by the Department of Social Welfare on the basis of an industrial dispute, the major avenue of support has now been closed. We are looking into alternative measures, the nature of which cannot be disclosed at this stage. They are being energetically pursued.
Is the Minister correct when she says 90 per cent of the payments are being made and that there is only a 10 per cent hold-up at the moment? My information is that no payments are being made. It almost calls for an emergency service to be set up by the Department to alleviate current hardship.
I do not wish to go into details of the dispute but to suggest that a Department which is in industrial dispute, and support it within itself, could set up an emergency service is an indication of a failure to understand the complexities of industrial relations within the Department. I assured the Deputy that per cent of disability claims were being dealt with. Some but not all new claims are affected. New claims which need recourse to certain information on computers which are not being operated, new claims which relate to the industrial dispute in one section are not being dealt with by another section. I admit the figure we are talking about can only increase, as more of the continuing payments on a regular basis come up for reconfirmation and the necessary information will not be available. The situation is serious and, if the dispute continues, the implications will be even more serious. I cannot deny that. We understand its seriousness. Given the numbers involved and the fact that so many of the avenues normally available for supplementary welfare are closed, the options for contingency action are fairly limited but, such as they are, we are examining them and hope to have proposals in the very near future.
The Minister of State may recall that on a similar previous occasion when there was industrial action, there was a danger that old age pensioners would not be paid. I, as Minister for Social Welfare, invoked the assistance of voluntary organisations and succeeded in overcoming the difficulties. I succeeded in ensuring that old age pensions were paid despite very serious industrial action. Would the Minister consider something along these lines in the present emergency?
Every possible avenue will be explored and such a course will be considered. I accept that the reference which the Deputy is making referred to a situation which was less complex because in that case the persons operating the Social Welfare Department schemes were willing to supply all the necessary information, pension books, clerical assistance and so on. In these circumstances, with no possibility of departmental involvement, given the current dispute the problems are more difficult but we will investigate every avenue to prevent genuine cases of need, or hardship or suffering obviously inflicted on social welfare recipients.
Arising out of what the Minister said in relation to supplementary welfare, in view of the industrial action and the burden it will put on officers dealing with supplementary welfare in the various counties, is the Minister aware that very often the figure allocated by the health boards is substantially lower than that which would normally be arrived at by the Department of Social Welfare? This is causing a further burden to those in need. Would she be prepared to state if there is a regular figure or accepted criteria in relation to the amount that can be allocated in the interim measure by the health boards?
Obviously the supplementary welfare scheme can in no way equal the payments that will be made from the normal social welfare channels. The use of the supplementary welfare scheme will be limited as an answer to this because already the indications are that the staff are unable physically to cope with much more and are unwilling to do so because of the industrial dispute. We will attempt to take into consideration in making emergency arrangements what the Deputy said.
Would the Minister agree that as there is a section of the Social Welfare Act which provides for the payment to wives and dependants of people who are on strike that the same would apply in this instance even though it is slightly different from people being on strike?
The problem is that those who are operating the supplementary welfare scheme are not willing to handle claims which have been held up by their strike-bound Departments. The possibilities of a supplementary welfare scheme and its extension do not enter into it because those who are working the supplementary welfare scheme will not, in effect, deal with claims that have been rejected by other members of their unions from other sections. It is because of the original dispute that we need to have recourse to supplementary welfare schemes.
A final supplementary from Deputy Gene Fitzgerald.
In view of the seriousness of the position, as outlined by the Minister of State, for so many recipients of the various benefits and in view of the fact that this is the last day of the present Dáil session and we will not have the opportunity of asking further questions, are any efforts being made to end this industrial dispute or has this Government thrown in the towel in the whole area of industrial relationships?
You are running away from the question.
I am sorry to be asking the Minister of State these questions. Have they thrown in the towel in the whole industrial relations scene and have they completely lost their concern for people?
They have lost their nerve already.
It is not the responsibility of the Minister for Social Welfare to handle industrial problems. The Minister responsible is making all efforts within the normal channels of conciliation and arbitration.
I regret that this Government has had to carry the can for the last Government's manner of handling industrial relations. A certain attitude, by which normal methods of negotiation and arbitration were by-passed, had been established by that previous Government. This led to a false attitude of what was possible in the area of pay claims. We are at this stage suffering from the consequences of the previous Government's record in that area.