asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has any proposals to expedite decisions in respect of social welfare claims; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers.
1.
It is not clear to what particular type of claim the Deputy is referring in his question and for this reason it is difficult to deal specifically with the matter.
My Department receive about 25,000 claims and are responsible for a total of about 750,000 payments each week. There is a very large workload and the vast majority of it is dealt with expeditiously.
Delays can occur for a variety of reasons some of which undoubtedly are the responsibility of the Department but in very many cases delays arise due to circumstances which are outside the control of the Department.
In the case of insurance-based schemes, claimants and Deputies making representations on their behalf very often fail to quote the RSI number. It frequently happens that an insurance record is deficient and in the case of pay-related benefits the Department may not have received details of reckonable earnings which are necessary to calculate the benefit. In the case of occupational injury claims it frequently takes a lot of time to establish fully the circumstances of an incapacity which is necessary before a claim can be authorised. In the case of means-tested schemes, on-the-spot investigations must be carried out before means can be established. These investigations can be protracted, particularly if questions arise relating to the ownership or disposal of property.
These then are some of the circumstances in which delays can occur. The majority of claims are straightforward and are dealt with promptly. Where, however, claims are not straightforward lengthy inquiries may be necessary before it can be established whether the conditions for entitlement are fulfilled.
Every effort is being made by improving administrative structures and by the use of modern technology to increase the efficient operation of the Department so that they can cope satisfactorily with the increasing numbers relying on their services. In conclusion I would ask the Deputy, if he has any particular area in mind where he has experience of undue delay, to write to me and I will have the matter investigated.
The Minister must be aware of the huge number of complaints about delays in social welfare payments. A look at the Order Paper for any day here is proof of the frustration, the anxiety and the hardship being experienced by many people because of these delays. Has the Minister proposals for speeding up the system? For instance, would he consider bringing about a situation where the decision-making could be at local level? In other words, are there proposals to decentralise the decision-making process?
There are no proposals to decentralise. We are hoping to bring about a greater degree of computerisation into the system and in that way to expedite the process. Obviously, there are some problems which necessitate visits to applicants and so on. There are instances in which people are slow to furnish information, and, as I have said, wrong RSI numbers are a feature also in cases of delay. Obviously, these wrong numbers would not be given deliberately but they cause delay. I assure the Deputy that so far as I am concerned everything will be done to ensure that people receive their payments on time. The disability benefit system works fairly effectively and the same goes for unemployment benefit. The main area of complaint seems to be in respect of the unemployment assistance system. The volume of applications is becoming greater and we have increasing problems of staff numbers to cope with that situation but I assure the House that I will do everything possible to deal with the problem of delays.
I accept that the unemployment assistance area is the one that is causing problems but would the Minister not accept that the method by which the assessments are carried out in this respect is the sole cause of the problem in the vast majority of cases? Is he aware also that when the applicant applies to a branch manager, the social welfare officer who is next door and who will eventually make the decision does not receive the application until after it has been sent to an exchange that may be 50 or 60 miles away and then returned by that exchange to the social welfare officer? The social welfare officer may then send it to the supervisor who then sends it back to the exchange. The exchange then send the form to Townsend Street where a decision is made on whether the applicant is entitled to any assistance and, if he is so entitled, how much he is entitled to. Having regard to that sort of situation in this day and age and having regard to the fact that the system was probably intended to cope with a figure of 20,000 at most whereas now there are almost 200,000 involved, would the Minister not accept that the time has come when decisions should be made at the exchange? The managers of these exchanges are very responsible people. If there must be standardisation throughout the country, let them be the ones to send the documentation off to Dublin to have it monitored here. Surely there is some way of shortcircuiting the present long drawn out process?
This is a long question.
I will consider what the Deputy has said. I am concerned about the situation. I am receiving complaints about it but I have assured the House that I will check out the procedures so as to ensure that they allow for claims to be processed in an expeditious and proper way.
Does the figure of 25,000 refer to the number of claims per week under all headings?
Yes.
Would the Minister agree that there are serious delays even in the disability benefit section and would he accept that payments could be expedited by way of enlarging the first certificate from a doctor so as to include details of marital status and the number of dependants of an applicant? If payment is made in error could not the Department recoup that? Would that not be a means of eliminating delays?
As I indicated, I am satisfied that the disability benefit side is working satisfactorily. It would be wrong of me to say that there are delays in that area though there may be some individual delays. Invariably, these delays are caused by the furnishing of wrong numbers or of insufficient information.
I agree that payments are made fairly quickly in respect of disability benefit claims but these payments do not include the allowance for spouses and children. A considerable length of time elapses before the payment for the dependants is made. I am recommending that that problem can be resolved by including on the first certificate the information I have outlined. Has the Minister information as to the average delay in dealing, first, with old age pension applications and, secondly, with unemployment assistance applications?
In respect of unemployment assistance, the delay is from six to seven weeks on average. I do not have the corresponding information in respect of old age pensions but in the case of contributory old age pension, there should not be any problem.
I am referring to non-contributory old age pensions.
I will ascertain the information for the Deputy.
Again, the Minister blames computerisation for the delays. This is an excuse that we have been hearing about from the Department of Social Welfare for a number of years but the situation has still not been put right. There is concern in regard to delays on the unemployment assistance side. Claims are made to a social welfare officer for a supplementary welfare allowance which is recoverable by the Department of Social Welfare but that is not very satisfactory because——
The Deputy must ask a question.
——many social welfare officers are not prepared to adhere to the process of paying over the money until such time as a decision has been made. The means test is the problem in this regard.
I have reminded the Deputy that he must ask a question.
The means test criterion should be standardised. The same problem arises in respect of non-contributory old age pensions. Different standards are being used apparently in different areas of the country. This is an area that the Minister should pay attention to with a view to eliminating the hardship that is caused either to old age pensioners or to people applying for unemployment assistance especially now that the numbers of applications are increasing. A situation in which after a delay of 20 weeks no decision has been reached, is intolerable.
As I indicated before, when a person is on unemployment benefit, that person is advised to get a qualification certificate before his unemployment benefit runs out, when that person will automatically go on to unemployment assistance. Therefore, there should not be a delay there. If there is I would want to know about it. I would like the Deputy to bring those cases to my attention because there should not be such delays. Those people should be advised at the exchange about this.
We have the situation where a person gets two or three weeks' work, goes off the benefit and then has to re-apply.
We cannot have speeches at Question Time.
The Minister should look at this area very sympathetically.
The Deputy should not ignore the Chair.
I did not.
The Deputy just continued after the Chair intervened.
Would the Minister seriously consider regionalisation and decision making at local level in a lot of the areas? I believe this is part of the Minister's policy in relation to social welfare, if I recall it correctly.
That is the answer.
It is not. We would have files all over the country and we would lose track of records quite easily. That might mean a worse situation than we have at the moment.
The local man would know the problems.
He might, but he would have to come back for payment.
Would the Minister consider it in some cases such as the old age pensions and unemployment assistance?
I will certainly look at it. Deputy O'Hanlon raised a point about toing and froing between the exchange and Social Welfare. I will have that examined to see if there is a breakdown in communications and what can be done to speed things up. I do not want to give any commitment about decentralisation.
I am calling the next question. We have spent almost 15 minutes on this question.
The Minister said before the election he would do it.
I am calling Question No. 2, I have to restore some sanity into things. Will the Minister please answer Question No. 2?
2.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he intends to give a double payment for dependants on social welfare payments in the autumn.
I presume that the Deputy is referring to a double week's payment in respect of the child dependants of social welfare recipients on the lines of that provided in September 1982. Provision for that double payment was made in the March 1982 budget and entailed a re-allocation of money provided in the January 1982 budget for a scheme of family income supplements which was not proceeded with at that time. No provision for a similar double payment was made in the Estimates for 1983 which were based on those drawn up by the previous Government and published in November last.
Would the Minister not have regard to the fact that in his Government's budget the amount given to social welfare recipients it much smaller this year than in previous years? It is half what it was last year and the year before. Would he not consider it necessary, when autumn comes, to give some supplement to those people who have children going to school, who are obliged to buy school uniforms and some of whom have to pay for the school bus? Would he not consider that this is more necessary this year than it was last year?
I do not consider, given the consumer price index, that the social welfare payments are as bad as the Deputy is trying to convey. Last year was a typical once-off situation. When the Government of the day came into office they found themselves with £4 million which we had allocated for a scheme of family income supplements. They did not proceed with that and used this money to give money to people in the social welfare code. In their Estimate proposals, which would have formed their thinking on this year's budget, they clearly had not made any provision for it this year. It was quite obvious it was a once-off situation, because they found when we were in Government we had money allocated for a particular area of family income supplements which they were not prepared to take on board. That is the reason why we are not proceeding with the matter this year.
The Minister did not really deal with the question I asked him, which was: does he not believe that this payment is more necessary this year than it was last year having regard to the fact that the payments this year were so much less than they were last year and because of the rise in the cost of living and all the various impositions on people? When September comes people who have children going to school will need some supplementary income added to their social welfare payments.
I believe I dealt with it, although perhaps not in the way the Deputy wanted it dealt with. I dealt with it by saying that it was quite obvious that last year's payment was a once-off situation and was not intended for a repeat performance this year, regardless of who was in Government. Whether this year it is more necessary than last year is a moot point and one can argue that. All I am saying is that provision has not been made for payment of this supplementary benefit next September.
Would the Minister indicate what the estimated cost would be to fulfill the substance of Deputy O'Hanlon's question? Would he agree that the question of allowances which might or might not be given——
It sounds as if we had this yesterday. It was certainly something very like it.
It related to payments to all.
They are moving backwards.
That is precisely the way the Minister is going as far as giving anything to the old age pensioners is concerned. Would the Minister agree that the question of the amount of allowance to be given to social welfare recipients is a budgetary matter? If the Minister's Government had the interest of social welfare recipients at heart they could have made this provision. Let the Minister not blame other people for his Government's inadequacies. How much would it cost? Is the Minister prepared to look for the money for it?
The Deputy is great when talking about what we should or should not do. I will remind him again that his Government did not make any provision whatsoever for giving this money this year.
It is the Coalition Government's budget.
There is no point in shedding crocodile tears in here about this. It is quite obvious that the Deputy's Government had no intention of doing this. The cost would be in the order of £2.1 million, probably a little more than it was last year.
In view of the fact that the Minister considered that last year's payment was once-off and that he does not consider it necessary this year, can he indicate in what way the situation of social welfare recipients has improved to the point where they do not require this supplement?
I did not indicate they were better off or worse off this year. Last year the Fianna Fáil Government found themselves with money which the previous Government had allocated for a particular purpose. They found themselves with £4 million and they scratched their heads to decide what they would do with it. They used the supplementary benefit given last September as a means of disposing of some of the money. It was not intended that it should be given this year.
Question No. 3.
It is marvellous that the Minister can joke about this.
When one looks across the House one often smiles and that is not making a joke of anybody.
3.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will ignore British and other foreign pensions payable to husbands and wives of spouses who apply for non-contributory pensions to his Department.
Non-contributory pensions are subject to a means test and existing legislation requires that account be taken of pensions of the type mentioned by the Deputy when assessing means.
Ignoring income on the lines suggested by the Deputy would involve the Exchequer in substantial additional expenditure in paying non-contributory pensions to persons who already had means. I would not favour such an approach having regard to present financial constraints and the need to conserve scarce resources.