Michael Ahern
Question:35 Mr. M. Ahern asked the Minister for Social Welfare the overall cost of overtime payments in his Department and in the State-sponsored bodies under the aegis of his Department.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Department Overtime Payments.
Overtime payments in my Department in 1994 amounted to £2.4 million. This represents 3.3 per cent of the total 1994 expenditure on pay.
Overtime is worked in my Department to ensure that it delivers its services in a timely manner. It is used in areas where experience and special skills are necessary and to cover peaks in the normal workload. Seasonal factors such as budget changes also necessitate overtime working.
There are three State agencies under the aegis of my Department — the Combat Poverty Agency, The Pensions Board and the National Social Services Board. Neither the Combat Poverty Agency nor The Pensions Board incurred expenditure on overtime in 1994. The National Social Services Board incurred expenditure of approximately £650 in 1994.
Overtime payments in excess of £2 million are considerable. Has the Minister details of the maximum amount of overtime earned by any employee in his Department during the year?
The Deputy's question does not refer to a particular year, but we have taken 1994 as the most relevant period. Overtime expenditure in that year was £2.408 million, representing 3.3 per cent of the total 1994 expenditure on pay. The main expenditure areas for 1994 on individual items was £0.78 million on local offices, £0.265 million on part of the ISTS computerisation project and £0.274 million on the ISTS project in local offices, £0.36 million on the pensions services office, £0.446 million on other social welfare services and £0.280 million on the Aireacht. Local offices tend to use substantial amounts of overtime each year to cover staff on annual and sick leave and to deal with seasonal factors giving rise to fluctuations in the live register.
Does the Minister have details of the maximum amount of overtime earned by any employee in his Department during 1994?
I do not have that information.
Will the Minister outline the number of individuals who benefited from overtime payments of £2.4 million? Is it his view that more full-time employment could be offered to individuals to avoid the payment of £2.4 million to a limited number of people?
The Deputy appears to have gone beyond the bounds of the question.
In my reply I pointed out that overtime is used in local offices to a significant extent and is spread quite thinly across the country. It is not a matter of a small number of people at the Department's head office availing of it.
Will the Minister indicate the number of people who benefited directly from the overtime payment of £2.4 million?
There is a staff of approximately 4,000 in the Department and it is likely at some point during 1994 that each member of staff might have benefited from overtime.
I do not want to know what is likely, I want to know the exact number of people who benefited. It has been revealed frequently during meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts related to Departments that a limited number of people appear to have benefited greatly from overtime payments. If the Minister does not have that information today, perhaps he would make it available to the House at a later stage.
I am not sure it would be a proper use of Department of Social Welfare resources to identify every individual who had to avail of overtime to fulfil the responsibilities of the Department.
That is not the question I asked.
I am answering the Deputy's question.
I wish the Minister would.
I do not believe it would be a proper use of departmental resources to use staff to dig out that type of information. As I already pointed out, we have 4,000 staff and overtime payments in my Department in 1994 amounted to £2.4 million. Most, it not all, local offices use overtime at some time during the year. In addition, because of the exceptionally heavy workload at budget time, overtime is required and is also required to deal with matters regarding the live register. From what I told the Deputy it is obvious that probably the majority of staff at some time avail of overtime. It would be a total waste of departmental resources ——
This is extraordinary.
Bearing in mind that the Deputy wants us to spend resources on benefits to people, it would not be a proper use of resources to use staff to elicit what is, essentially, useless information.
It is extraordinary that an accounting officer does not have difficulty providing this type of information to a meeting of the Committee on Public Accounts but that a Minister who made a commitment to openness, transparency and accountability does.
The Deputy has an odd sense about what is open and transparent if he cannot accept that I have given him specific statistics. A total of £2.4 million was spent on overtime payments in my Department in 1994. There are 4,000 staff in the Department, most of whom do overtime to some degree during the year and I indicated the matters on which there is a need for staff to do overtime. I am sure the Deputy can divide £2.4 million by 4,000 and arrive at the figure he is seeking.