Mary Flaherty
Question:6 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for changing the payment of social welfare allowances from the new regional offices to local post offices. [464/94]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Payment Locations.
The elimination of cash payments from social welfare local offices is part of my strategy for improving services for unemployed people and indeed for all social welfare customers. I have an evolutionary programme which progressively envisages a developing and expanding service at all local offices for all of our customers. This modernisation programme is based on new approaches to the way we provide our services for unemployed people. They now sign at the local office less frequently than heretofore and receive their payments on a weekly basis at the most convenient post office.
As part of an agreement with An Post, who are already a major paying agent for the Department, cash payments have been transferred from social welfare local offices to post offices. An Post is committed to modernising its network of offices to cater for this additional business. One of the benefits of the new post office system is that customers in receipt of unemployment payments are able to avail of the household budget facility under which deductions can be made automatically for services such as electricity, gas and rent in many local authority areas.
A recent survey of customers indicated that there is generally a high level of satisfaction with the new arrangements.
No doubt the Minister will recall that 18 months ago a rather fine building was opened in Finglas, heralding a new era of accommodation of the kind we would all like to provide for social welfare recipients, they will receive their benefits in this vastly improved environment within their locality. Despite what the Minister's survey indicates, will he accept that I received quite a number of complaints from people who, within a few months of having received their benefits in that fine setting, found themselves sent back to overcrowded, small local post offices, often having to queue on the streets? Is the Minister determined to maintain this policy? For example, will he consider initiating a further review — if he can satisfy me that everybody is satisfied with it then I will accept it — or making known to us the nature of the survey undertaken and its findings?
First, An Post has given us an assurance that it is capable of making these payments. The underlying development is to render our offices cashless and, therefore, capable of giving a high level of service to our customers and clients, that is the overall objective and is taking place nationwide. In that endeavour, of course An Post must upgrade its offices, particularly in terms of counter facilities and the numbers of people with whom it has to deal at any given time. There has been a big change even between last year and this year in the capacity of An Post to do that. The Deputy will realise that this represented an injection of new life into An Post, indeed into all small towns and villages, because they had been under tremendous pressure to close whereas they now have this volume of business coming from the Department of Social Welfare which is generally working very well. Of course, that will progress further in that there is now a huge annual investment in upgrading facilities.
Deputy Flaherty asked about the survey of my Department. It was undertaken to determine customer satisfaction with the level of service provided by An Post at its offices and 94 per cent of those surveyed declared themselves satisfied with the new payment arrangements. The reasons given by the majority of those questioned were: faster service and less queueing at post offices, which is the overall general development.
In regard to some offices — Deputy Flaherty mentioned Finglas specifically — I should say there are six post offices in that area through which we pay, not merely through any one of them, so it is evenly spread.
I accept that paying benefits at local post offices constitutes an improvement. However, reverting to the position in Finglas, will the Minister explain exactly how a fine new office, which people considered to be somewhat too palatial for the purpose intended — it is certainly one of the finest public offices in the Finglas area — suddenly became closed to them? How can the Minister state that rendering that office cashless, telling people they are no longer to go there but to the very crowded post office — for the whole of Finglas west and south where there are huge numbers of social welfare dependants, there are two post offices only, one in the village and one at a greater distance in Finglas south, both under tremendous pressure — constitutes a better service? How can that be considered to be a better service for the people who had welcomed having had that fine new facility? Will the Minister specify exactly the regional service being provided for the unemployed if they no longer avail of it essentially to communicate with the Department vis-à-vis their entitlements?
In line with that development we have introduced job facilitators and a variety of new schemes which allows us to meet the unemployed, to get to know them better in the first instance——
——not if they are going to post offices.
No, but when they come into our offices for that purpose. By and large the money is now transferred automatically by electronic transfer, when people collect the money in the post office or, alternatively, leave it there, if that is what they wish. While there may be specific short term problems it does constitute a huge overall change in the system and there is general satisfaction with it. I will have inquiries undertaken again in relation to what is happening in Finglas but my information is that An Post can deal with the position there and that, when people become used to the system, they will be able to deal with them quite efficiently.
While accepting that I have no problem with payment through post offices, which is a progressive move, will the Minister recognise that there is severe overcrowding, that very often the square footage of sub-post offices is totally inadequate for the provision of a service to its customers? Is the Minister also aware that Dublin Corporation, for the first time, is allowing 30,000 of their tenants to pay their weekly rents through post offices, which will add a possible additional 30,000 customers to these very small, inadequate sub-post offices? Will the Minister use his influence with An Post to arrange a higher standard, a larger square footage area in such sub-post offices, to accommodate the increased business which various State and public bodies, in addition to the Department, are passing on to them?
We are making a financial contribution to that improvement in that there is a huge transformation to which we are also contributing in a number of ways. Ultimately, it will be a very good arrangement in that there is a wide spread of post offices so that, at the end of the day, people will be provided with a better service. They are opting for electronic transfer. I congratulate Dublin Corporation on making use of the household budget facility, a modern facility, people are very anxious to avail of. When we first introduced this facility I remember people asking why people on low incomes should use it, in that they would not have much income. Nonetheless, as I thought at the time they now find it to be a very valuable facility, made available free. I am particularly happy that there has been such widespread acceptance of the facility by Dublin Corporation tenants because there had been some reluctance to avail of it for for some time. Nonetheless, I appreciate their adjustment difficulties in relation to staff and so on.
It is to its credit that it has made adjustments, the service has developed and is used by customers whom both my Department and An Post seek to facilitate.
A fine social welfare facility in my area was intended to be used as a local resource as it is easily accessible and in an upgraded setting. Given that the unemployed will no longer call regularly to their local social welfare offices, how will the Minister ensure that they will be informed of initiatives such as job placements and other services provided by regional social welfare centres? Is it not the case that they will remain unemployed and cash their claims for unemployment benefit on a regular basis and that the potential benefit those centres were expected to provide for the unemployed will be lost?
Previously much of the work of the staff of my Department involved making cash payments to local social welfare offices. Cash payments have been transferred to An Post, leaving staff more time to relate to the problems of the unemployed. Job facilitators have a particular function in that regard and other members of the staff will have more time to provide a better service. Changes in that regard have taken place in many offices and many of the unemployed are calling to the offices and having their needs assessed. Assistance is given to help them return to work, to participate in FÁS schemes, where appropriate, or become involved in many other enterprises. The service is much improved and has taken a new direction. The appointment of job facilitators last year was an important step, because it was consistent with changes in administration and will enable staff to give more time to the individual needs of the unemployed. Account can be taken of their talents and strengths and assistance given to relate them to the opportunities available.
Staff now have more time to deal with lone parents. Changes in the lone parent payment system were introduced earlier this year which will improve the position.