Vol. 503 No. 4
38 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the arrangements, if any, in place to provide for consultation and communication with and between his Department and regional health boards; if he has satisfied himself with these arrangements; and the proposals, if any, he has for improvements in this regard. [10430/99]
My Department has overall responsibility for the supplementary welfare allowance – SWA – scheme which is administered as part of the community welfare service by the health boards.
There are extensive communication and consultation arrangements between my Department and the health boards on all aspects of the SWA scheme. These range over a broad spectrum of meetings, seminars, presentations, working manuals, circulars, letters and communication by e-mail.
These communication arrangements are for the purpose of providing guidance and advice on the interpretation of legislation, on procedural issues involved in the implementation of new schemes and on matters relating to the administration of existing schemes. My officials met with health board officials on 70 occasions in 1998.
My Department has a duty of care to the users of its services to ensure they are treated in a fair and equal manner, consistent with the relevant legislation, regardless of which office or official is dealing with their case. Communication plays a crucial role in achieving this.
There are large numbers of scheduled and once-off meetings held between my Department and senior health board officials on a wide variety of issues. These can range from daily operational matters concerning the computerisation of the SWA scheme to presentations and seminars to health boards on specific issues relating to policy, control and appeals procedures.
A variety of joint committees were established with the health boards in recent years to facilitate consultations on SWA related matters. A number of working groups meet regularly on specific issues to ensure that there is an appropriate degree of liaison between health boards and the Department in relation to the administration of the SWA scheme. The purpose of these groups is to discuss policy, technical, legislative and procedural issues, and to iron out difficulties that can arise. One such group was involved in drafting and issuing the first comprehensive SWA procedures manual to health boards in 1998.
I intend to rationalise some of the existing groups and committees in the near future when the computerisation of the Eastern Health Board is completed to ensure that SWA issues can continue to be identified and addressed in full co-operation with the health boards.
I understand that an advisory committee dealing with matters of policy and administration and comprising a representative of each of the regional health boards and departmental officials has not met since the Minister took office. Why is that?
Perhaps the Deputy could give me some more detail about the committee.
The committee comprised a member of each of the regional health boards and departmental officials and dealt with policy matters such as SWA. I understand it has not met since the Minister took office.
Many of these groups are, to a certain extent, no longer necessary because of the ongoing computerisation – known as ISTS – of the health boards. Most of the health boards are operating on this system and only the Eastern Health Board remains to be computerised. We need to rationalise many of these advisory groups because a great deal of business is now carried out on the computerised programme.
Does the Minister accept that while e-mail and technology have a role to play, they cannot replace the human interchange of ideas? Does the Minister accept that the advisory committees which existed up to the time he came into office performed a very useful function in terms of discussions between the representatives of the health boards and his Department? Does he further agree that the debacle in his Department last Christmas over the infamous circular would not have taken place if the advisory committee had been sitting and if the issues arising in the circular has been discussed by it?
I do not agree at all. We have discussed this. The fact that the Deputy is raising this issue in April shows the paucity of things he has to give out about. For example, I note there are no questions this month about issues concerning farming.
We will be back.
This is probably because, as Tom Parlon validly acknowledged, the main demands of the 40,000 farmers who paraded in Dublin have been met with the implementation of farm assist.
The Minister is filibustering.
The Deputy must have difficulty concocting some of the stories. I could read out a long list of advisory and liaison groups which have met on an ongoing basis. There are nine groups concerned with connections between the CWOs in relation to the SWA system and my Department. Because of ongoing computerisation, I do not think there is much need for many of these groups. As I said in my reply, there will be a rationalisation of these groups. Regarding the Christmas bonus, an effort was being made to bring uniformity to the system in relation to the delivery of the Christmas bonus. The circular issued because two of the major health boards were out of step with the others. The objective of both circulars was to bring some uniformity and fairness to the system.
Does the Minister accept that efforts to bring about uniformity by diktat is the wrong approach? Does he further accept that the advisory committee to which I referred performed a very useful role in terms of consultation? Does he agree that it was very unwise to essentially make that committee defunct? Does he accept that it would be useful to revive the committee so that the type of consultation which took place between the Department and the health boards can again take place in order to avoid a debacle similar to that which occurred last December?
I do not accept that at all. I took no action to ensure any advisory or consultative group did not meet in my Department. I could read out a long list of groups which exist and which meet on a regular basis.
Does the Minister know what is happening in his Department?
The advisory group is no longer necessary because all the issues it dealt with are now dealt with by the ISTS programme project managers as a result of the system being – thankfully – computerised, except in the case of the Eastern Health Board. As I have already said, my desire is to ensure the Eastern Health Board is computerised through the CWO system so that the uniformity which exists in all other health boards can also be present there.
