Vol. 443 No. 7
7 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will make a statement on the recent survey carried out by FLAC which found that the supplementary allowance system is in chaos and that the appeals procedures vary from one health board to another, the chances of winning an appeal ranging from 4 per cent in one health board area to nearly 50 per cent in another.
58 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Social Welfare in relation to the study that was carried out by FLAC on the appeals system for supplementary welfare allowance, if he will institute changes that will protect the right to appeal to an independent body and the efficient running of the service; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 58 together.
The supplementary welfare allowance (SWA) scheme is administered on behalf of the Minister for Social Welfare by the eight regional health boards. Under the legislation governing the scheme the determination of entitlement to supplementary welfare allowance is a matter for the chief executive officer of the board. The legislation provides also for an appeals process and an appeals officer has been appointed in every board for this purpose.
The SWA scheme is designed to offer immediate assistance to people in need and, therefore, a rapid and localised response to supplementary welfare allowance appeals is required. Given the often urgent nature of provision under the SWA scheme a balance needs to be struck between the introduction of more formality to the appeals system and the need for a speedy response to appeals. The priority is to improve the capacity of the scheme to determine appeals speedily, fairly and with consistency between and within boards.
Discussions are being held with the health boards on improving the appeals system and next week I will be hosting a major seminar on the appeals system which will be attended by the eight health board programme managers and appeals officers and invited speakers. The purpose of the seminar is to bring forward proposals for improving the quality of the appeals service to all clients.
The provision of better information to clients at the initial decision stage is of crucial importance in this regard. It is important that the basis on which decisions are made is available to clients. I am on record with regard to my intention to publish all such guidance as soon as possible. Guidelines in relation to rent and mortgage supplementation, for example, are nearing completion and will be published later in the year. At the end of the review of the appeals arrangements currently under way I intend to set down in regulations the basic operating principles of the SWA appeals system.
If the matter were not so tragic and serious the Minister's reply would be amusing. He said that because of the urgent nature of the scheme a hasty decision is required. Is he aware that the period of appeal can vary from 24 hours in one health board to six weeks in another? Does he realise that the chances of winning an appeal vary from 50 per cent in the Eastern Health Board to 4 per cent in the Southern Health Board? Will the Minister bring the social welfare allowance scheme into line with the other social welfare benefit schemes so that an independent appeals system will operate instead of the "ad hocery" which exists at present as shown by the FLAC investigation?
It is not a social welfare allowance scheme; it is a supplementary welfare allowance scheme devolved to and administered by the health boards. There is concern about the variation that exists between health boards, which matter is currently under examination. A seminar is being held with representatives of the health boards to discuss and clarify the approaches taken to different matters which arise.
There is need to do something further about the question of appeals as they are a matter of concern. As the Deputy is aware, I established what is generally regarded as a good and successful appeals system in the social welfare appeals office which is an independently operating office. That is now well established. I would consider broadening that kind of system into this area. Where there is discretionary power there will be variations of one kind of another. We want to minimise them and ensure people have the best possible information. We must ensure that the guidelines are clearly seen. However, there will be variations because it is the line of last defence for people who have difficulties and a decision must be made on their case. I am examining the position and hope to be able to come back with further developments reasonably soon.
Would the Minister agree that applicants for the supplementary welfare allowance scheme are the most marginalised and least well off people in the community? Is the Minister telling me it is acceptable for a person with no other income to wait for up to six weeks for the result of an appeal on a decision by a health board not to pay him or her? Is he prepared to stand over the procedure whereby each health board judges the decision of its own staff, or will he set up an independent system comparable to the one he mentioned?
For 18 months we have listened to the Minister say he will issue new guidelines for mortgage and rent payments under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. How long more must the most marginalised wait until the Minister makes a decision?
These are not simple matters. Individual health boards have their own approaches, rights and practices. It is not as simple as the Deputy suggests. These are delegated responsibilities given to the health board.
They are the Minister's responsibilities.
I do not administer it. Please stop confusing people. I pay the bill at the end of the day.
The Minister is responsible for them.
I am not. I do not make the decisions.
The Minister without interruption.
The Minister issues instructions.
The Minister makes the regulations and sets the guidelines.
We cannot make regulations to cover every situation when dealing with discretionary decisions. The Deputy said that these people were on the lowest income. Generally that is so but not always.
It is the case 99 per cent of the time.
Anyone can have an emergency, they should have support, that is the reality and I have seen the scheme operate that way in practice.
That is not the case; that is not how it works.
It does.
The Minister does not know how it works.
The Minister shows an appalling ignorance of the way the scheme works.
I do not know if there is any point in trying to explain further to the Deputy because he just wants to argue about everything.
What does the Minister want? Does he want us to stay quiet and expect people to suffer?
I gave the Deputy a clear reply.
I would remind the House of the time limit. We have been on the same question for the last eight minutes.
I have emphasised that it is a localised system. Discretionary decisions are made. We have regularised many of the functions and brought in new schemes to provide regular application on a uniform basis. We did that for thousands of people. We will prepare guidelines in co-operation with the health boards which will meet people's practical needs. They will be available soon.
We have been hearing that for 18 months.
As regards variations between health boards, we are trying to achieve as uniform an approach as possible. This issue will be fully discussed at the forthcoming seminar.
The people going to loan sharks will not be too impressed with the Minister's seminar.
We are doing tremendous work in that area and that has been recognised. I do not know why the Deputy does not recognise it as it has been recognised in the Cork area. Cork has been to the forefront in that good and difficult work. Anyone who has been involved in it knows there is no magic wand. It takes a great deal of time and the co-operation of people from different backgrounds to arrive at solutions. Why not give credit for what they are doing?
The Minister is happy with the situation.
More than half the time available for dealing with priority questions has been exhausted on the first question.
