Vol. 440 No. 1
8 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will ensure that specific reasons are given when health boards refuse applications for supplementary welfare allowance and that, in the event of appeals, detailed information is given to the appellant outlining the grounds for the refusal in view of the fact that health boards are not giving this information when informing applicants by letter.
The Supplementary Welfare Allowance Scheme is administered by the eight regional health boards on behalf of my Department. Unlike other schemes, it contains a number of discretionary elements which are without prerequisites for a scheme which must be flexible and responsive to immediate needs. The combination of discretion and the fact that the scheme is administered by separate health boards are factors which have contributed to certain inconsistencies in the operation of the scheme. I have acknowledged that these need to be addressed.
The supplementary welfare allowance service can be improved significantly by standardising the application process for supplementary welfare allowance payments. This would involve the introduction of a common application form for all supplementary welfare applications in all health boards and the provision of better information to clients on the reasons for a board's decision.
I have established an advisory group under the chairmanship of my Department which includes representatives from all health boards to examine aspects of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. The group has been asked to consider the design of such a form and will consider also the information and appeal requirements.
A review of the supplementary welfare allowance appeal system is also under way in my Department and, when concluded, it is my intention to set down certain criteria for the operation of appeals under the scheme. These initiatives will improve consistency and transparency in the operation of the scheme and will ensure equitable treatment for all applicants.
Will the Minister agree that the one line refusals given to applicants for supplementary welfare are unacceptable? Was the instruction to give such answers issued by his Department? Is this part of the cover up regime being operated by his Department where information is not given to applicants for supplementary welfare and equality payments? Approximately 100 women who cannot get information from his Department on their entitlements marched outside the gates of Leinster House today. Will the Minister undertake a review of the workings of his Department and the health boards in terms of the serious lack of information given to people about their entitlements?
The Deputy will understand that the supplementary welfare allowance scheme is operated by the health boards on behalf of the Department. Following discussions in the House, I made it clear that I would set up an advisory group to look at the operation of the scheme. I will try to make the scheme as uniform as possible bearing in mind the need for some discretion in its operation. This will include the standardisation of application forms, the provision of more information on decisions and an examination of the appeals system. The Deputy referred to a cover up regime in my Department. There is no such regime. Very few Departments give more information than the Department of Social Welfare.
The Minister's silent partner would not come into the House last week to speak on the Social Welfare Bill. She did not want to answer any questions.
I have set up an independent appeals system with which most people are very satisfied.
Will the Minister agree that the appeals system for supplementary welfare applicants is not independent as it is operated within the Eastern Health Board? How soon does the Minister expect the advisory group to report on the appeals procedure for applicants for supplementary welfare allowance? Is it intended in the meantime to ensure that all people refused assistance by community welfare officers are informed of their right to appeal? Most applicants are not informed of that right. Will he ensure that the appeal form is simple so that applicants can pursue what they regard as their right and that appeals under this system are dealt with speedily? This system is intended to assist people in dire need, it is a safety net, and it is surely not in the spirit of its provision that people should have to wait months for the result of an appeal.
As I implied in my initial reply, I am not happy with the operation of the appeals system. I am having the matter looked at and will come back to the House on it as soon as possible. The Minister of State, Deputy Burton, has taken an interest in this matter and the Combat Poverty Agency has issued some reports on it. The Deputy referred to the need for speed when dealing with appeals. I am looking at the integration of decisions. The computerisation of the system, which should be completed in one year's time, will bring about very substantial changes. The problems referred to by the Deputy are being dealt with. As he probably knows, the amount of information provided varies.
It sure does.
That is the problem.
Most community welfare officers give a good deal of information but lack of information is a problem in some cases. This is part of the ongoing review. I accept the urgent need to address this issue. This is being addressed at present.
Would the Minister prefer to see the entire supplementary welfare allowance scheme brought within the remit of the Department of Social Welfare so that the Department of Health is taken out of the equation altogether? The duplication in the operation of the scheme confuses applicants and gives rise to inconsistency. It is enough that this very marginalised group of people should have to deal with one Department without having to deal with two of them. The Minister should bring about a change whereby the supplementary welfare scheme will be operated by the local Department of Social Welfare.
We are providing the basis now for the closer integration of our schemes with this scheme. Whether it should be operated directly by the Department of Social Welfare is dependent on the particular areas. In some areas, for instance, it might fit in well; it may work in the one stop shop arrangement provided the administrative arrangements are in place. We ensured that as many interim payments as possible were cut out and the question of the Department taking over interim payments directly is very much to the fore. As Deputies are aware, there will always be a discretionary element in this matter and the supplementary welfare officer must exercise that discretion.
There is no necessity to wait for at least a year until the computerisation is completed or indeed until the whole supplementary welfare allowance system is revised before indicating to community welfare officers that they must inform applicants who are refused the allowance that they have the right to appeal. The Minister should have a simple appeal form drafted which would include the name and address of the person to whom an appeal should be sent and sufficient space for a person to state the basis for the appeal. These are two simple matters and it is unnecessary to wait for the outcome of computerisation or a review of the whole scheme. It is simply indicating people's rights to them.
As I said earlier, a number of community welfare officers do this in practice. The Eastern Health Board is arranging training courses to ensure there is consistency and uniformity in as many aspects of the scheme as possible. I agree with the Deputy that people should be informed of their right to appeal.
Will the Minister ensure that is done?
I will. There have been discussions in this regard.
The only circulars the Minister sent out dealt with removing the discretion.
Deputy Allen should not always adopt that attitude.
We have spent a considerable length of time on the question and I want to facilitate other Deputies who have tabled questions. I am now calling Deputy Allen and I will then call Deputy Keogh for a final question.
Will the Minister agree that the people claiming supplementary welfare are marginalised and dependent on State systems? Will he also agree that they cannot wait until the Minister gets his act together in relation to computerisation and his other administrative problems? Will he agree that the only circulars he sent out so far concerned the dirty dozen cuts which were not withdrawn and which removed the discretionary powers of community welfare officers?
The Deputy's comments are ill informed.
It is true.
I mentioned earlier that if one wanted to make the system as modern as we would like, as part of the total arrangement——
The Minister would like to forget it.
——a substantial investment is required for the computerisation of the whole service. Other Deputies seem to have grasped that fact without difficulty; it is only part of the total arrangement. Many measures can be introduced in the meantime and discretion must prevail but the investment, substantial in money terms, is being made——
Everybody welcomes investment but the Minister should not use it as an excuse.
——at this stage to ensure the link.
I hope the investment is not coming from the national plan.
There has been investment in social welfare over the years but that does not take from the fact that other steps can be taken independently. I am not suggesting we must wait indefinitely but until we reach this stage, because of the numbers and complexities involved, one cannot deal with the problems as efficiently as one would like. The people doing the job on our behalf will be able to do it better when they have the integrated systems at their disposal.
It is hardly worth replying to the question about circulars.
The Minister of State would not reply to it last week because she knows they are still there. The dirty dozen are still in place, they are still alive.
The circulars were removed and a code of practice——
She would not come into the Dáil last week to defend them.
Deputy Allen should get his colleagues to teach him about the social welfare system.
She has a voice, she was silent last week. She is the first Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare not to contribute to the debate on the Social Welfare Bill. The silent partner.
The circulars were removed and a code of practice was implemented.
She spoke to the The Sunday Tribune but she would not answer questions in this House.
The Deputy should get his colleague to tell him about the social welfare system.
The Minister of State did not come into the House to answer any of the 12 questions I tabled. She ran away.
I did not.
I have sympathy for Deputy Allen in this regard. I would like to return to an issue raised already with the Minister in relation to the appeals procedure. We can waffle forever about the whole system but we are all aware of the sometimes arbitrary nature of decisions. They are made with the best of intentions but sometimes they are peculiar. A simple mechanism should be put in place because people are not aware of their right to appeal, which is a major problem. Will the Minister address that simple problem?
The Deputy must understand that the Department of Social Welfare is not running the scheme.
I know that.
Any steps we take are in consultation, for example, where we request a review of a particular area. The appeals system and the introduction of the process which I mentioned earlier will provide for more uniform information and application arrangements for dealing with appeals. There has been a review in that area; appeals officers have been asked for their views in relation to it and we believe there is room for improvement in the information system and processes. I said already that we hope to issue an explanatory leaflet on the appeals process to people seeking supplementary welfare. They will then know they have the right to appeal. Earlier, I referred to my concern in a broader way about the whole system but we are currently discussing how to improve the provision of information and proper follow up in terms of advising people of their rights, etc. As I said to Deputy De Rossa, that will be followed up further by the provision of explanatory information.
How soon will it be available?
I expect the review to be completed shortly.
