Vol. 673 No. 2
101 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if additional staff will be deployed to social welfare offices in each region to deal with the increase in social welfare applications; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3535/09]
With the increase in the number of people applying for unemployment payments in particular, staff in social welfare offices have been working extremely hard to process claims as quickly as possible.
Productivity has increased significantly. Nearly 155,000 claims were processed in local offices in the last quarter of 2008. That includes the one family payment. This compares with less than 89,000 in the last quarter of 2007, representing an increase of 74%.
I know that processing times in some areas are still too long and I assure Deputies that we are doing our best to reduce them. I appreciate that becoming unemployed is a very difficult time in a person's life and that they need to get access to financial and other supports as quickly as possible. To this end, extra staff have already been appointed to social welfare offices, while more are also on the way. An additional 31 staff were assigned to 15 local offices following a review of the number of staffing levels in local offices in May and June last year.
Following a further review late last year, it was decided to put an extra 115 staff in place. A total of 57 of these have already taken up work, while start dates have been agreed for a further 19 staff over the next two to three weeks. Work is ongoing to complete the assignment of the remaining 39 staff as quickly as possible.
In order to maximise the number of people paid before Christmas, a temporary central decisions unit was set up in Dublin city centre for three weeks at Christmas. Following on from the success of this initiative, four more such units are being set up in Dublin, Sligo, Finglas and Carrick-on-Shannon. Each unit will have ten staff.
In addition to this, a further 16 social welfare inspectors are being assigned to various locations throughout the country to do means and other work associated with processing claims for jobseeker's payments. That brings to 202 the number of additional staff being assigned to local offices and claim processing roles.
A number of process improvement initiatives are also being implemented with a view to reducing processing times. For example, under a new initiative introduced in Dundalk last December, 40% of applicants for jobseeker's payments are having their claims taken and decided upon during an appointment with a deciding officer. This initiative will be extended to other offices on a phased basis.
I am not particularly interested in the average processing times the Minister has been giving out in the past number of weeks. What I am interested in is when the 202 additional staff she referred to will be in situ and when every social welfare office in the country will be processing claims within the average time about which the Minister likes to speak. Throughout the country, in Navan, Tuam, Clonakilty, Tullow — I could name one town after another — people are waiting 11 and 12 weeks and they are getting into more and more debt as they wait. There is a knock-on effect which the Minister has not dealt with or spoken about yet because she continues to tell people that if they are being delayed they can go to community welfare officers. Those same community welfare officers are inundated with people applying, particularly in the areas where the dole queues are as long as they are now. In respect of the 202 staff the Minister is talking about, I want to know the exact date each of them will be in situ.
As I indicated, a number of these staff are already in place. As all of these staff——
Fifty seven of them.
——are coming from other Departments, processes have to be gone through to ensure they are placed because none of them is being recruited from outside the public sector. I appreciate the necessity of ensuring that people are put into position as quickly as possible and to have them trained. As I indicated, in the next two to three weeks there will be an additional 19 and we are hopeful the next 39 will be in place very quickly after that. We are keeping the position under review to determine the additional staff that are needed.
The Deputy spoke about towns throughout the country where delays of 12 and 13 weeks were being experienced. In fact, out of all the offices, of which there are more than 60, only eight have waiting times of over ten weeks. While I accept that is a particularly long period, one could also consider the likes of Ballymun where one can get jobseeker's benefit in just over a week or jobseeker's allowance in just over three weeks.
What about Balbriggan or Swords?
In Finglas one can get the jobseeker's allowance in 1.2 weeks or just over two and a half weeks for jobseeker's benefit. We should acknowledge those.
No, Minister——
We should acknowledge Coolock, which is also a very busy office, where in one and a half weeks one can get jobseeker's allowance and jobseeker's benefit in just over two weeks.
I will allow a brief supplementary.
It is not true to say, therefore, that throughout the country——
If the Minister would allow we will hear a brief supplementary from Deputy Enright.
Certainly.
There is a geographical spread throughout the country in terms of this problem. Is the Minister telling me that the advice she is giving to people in Ballyconnell, where they are waiting just under 11 weeks, is to go to Ballymun to apply for their social welfare benefit? If someone with children to feed has been waiting 11 weeks, it is irrelevant that some people elsewhere in the country only have to wait a week or two. That is not dealing with the problem. It is not good enough for the Minister to say she is hopeful that more staff will be in situ. We will hear figures tomorrow that are expected to indicate that 300,000 will be unemployed. The Minister must deal with this problem. We brought it to her attention last October but she only acted in December. We want to see decisive action. This matter needs to be dealt with.
The Deputy obviously did not listen to the answer where I indicated that from the summer onwards additional staff were put in.
Thirty one.
An additional 31, followed by 115, many of whom have been put in place or are currently being put in place in the areas where there is greatest demand.
There are tens of thousands unemployed — 330 a day.
I appreciate that nobody wants to be left waiting but nobody is left waiting for their money——
They are.
——because the community welfare officer pays within the week.
They are left waiting.
It is wrong to give the impression to people losing their jobs or those who are applying that no matter where they go in the country, they will be waiting for weeks. There are thousands of workers in social welfare offices who are genuinely working flat out and our aim is to ensure average waiting times in all the offices are brought down.
The Minister is not achieving that aim.
We are doing that——
The Minister can talk about it but she is not achieving it.
——by ensuring we put in the staff as quickly as possible to meet the current demand from people who genuinely need that money.
102 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will review the rules applying to jobseeker’s allowance for the assessment of self-employed persons and contract workers to social assistance payments in view of the sudden drop in income affecting both sets of workers. [3534/09]
The combined employee and employer social insurance contribution for general employees, paying class A PRSI, is 14.05%, excluding levies. Self-employed people, on the other hand, are only liable for PRSI at the class S rate of 3%. These much lower contributions give coverage towards long-term benefits such as State and widow's pension but do not enable a person to qualify for short-term insurance payments such as illness benefit or jobseeker's benefit.
A system of separate arrangements for employed and self-employed workers within a social insurance context is common in other European social protection systems. Self-employed people can apply for the means-tested jobseeker's allowance if their business ceases or if they are on low income as a result of a downturn in demand for their services.
Their means would be taken as any net profit that they will earn in the coming 12 months. While their income from the previous 12 months is used as an indication in estimating their likely future earnings, it is not simply assumed that the previous year's earnings will be received in the coming year. Instead, account is taken of the potential for significant upward or downward variations in income from one year to the next.
For example, if a self-employed person lost a contract and was unlikely to find a substitute contract in the coming year, this would be factored into the assessment of future income. The implications of the present downturn in the economy are of course taken into account.
If a self-employed person's situation changes after they have made an initial claim for jobseeker's allowance, they can apply to have their means reviewed in the light of their changed circumstances. In addition, it is open to the individual, if he or she is dissatisfied with the means assessed, to appeal to the social welfare appeals office.
I appreciate the difficulties currently being faced by many self-employed people. However, extending social insurance cover for short-term benefits to this group would have significant financial implications and would have to be considered within a budgetary context.
Consideration would also have to be given to an appropriate increase in the rate of the PRSI class S contribution. In that context, the Government has no immediate plans to change the current arrangements. Instead, we will continue to ensure the mechanisms used for assessing means for jobseeker's allowance are sufficiently adaptable to meet the challenges presented by the current economic situation.
I wonder if the Minister is aware of the scale of the problem. In recent years, a significant number of people were forced to become self-employed. In many cases self-employment is not a matter of choice. For example, it has been difficult to secure regular employment in the building industry because contractors have insisted that those working for them are treated as being self-employed. Similar conditions applied in the information technology industry.
In the current economic circumstances, where work has dried up in many sectors, it is completely unrealistic for a deciding officer to consider a person's means to be his or her income from the previous year. People seek assistance at social welfare offices because they cannot secure employment and work has dried up. Last week, the Minister spoke of showing solidarity to the unemployed. The people to whom I refer find themselves without income and, unfortunately, unable to access support from the Department. While the circumstances I describe do not apply in all social welfare offices, deciding officers in certain offices are still using the old method of assessing a person's means. Under this approach, a person's income from the previous year is considered as applicable for the current year. This method is completely unrealistic in the current circumstances.
Does the Minister accept that the problem I describe is real? If so, will she issue new guidelines to deciding officers to take account of the changed economic circumstances and provide some level of support to self-employed people who find themselves without income?
A large number of self-employed people are finding things very difficult. It is true that many self-employed people will not necessarily earn the same level of income this year as they did last year. This is particularly true in the case of those may have secured employment in a large contractor in the construction industry. For this reason, a degree of flexibility is provided. The Deputy, like me, will be aware of cases where this flexibility has been applied and people have been given jobseeker's allowance based on poor projected earnings for this year and having regard to the economic downturn. While I am not sure further guidelines are required, I am conscious that a flexible approach must be taken to self-employed people.
Even in the context of income for self-employed people from the previous year, many allowances are made for outgoings such as property, savings and investment and so forth. All these items are taken into consideration.
I will keep the matter under review because I am aware that people in the self-employed category have suddenly found themselves in difficulty. As I stated, I have observed in practice how the flexibility available to social welfare offices allows people to receive jobseeker's allowance based on a genuine, realistic projection of income rather than the previous year's income.
That is not the case. I have details of two cases. One of these relates to an IT worker living in south Dublin who was obliged to be self-employed last year when his income amounted to €306 per week. When work dried up he applied for assistance and is being assessed as having income this year of €306 per week. Although the man in question does not have any income or any prospect of income, the Department is not providing any support.
The Minister stated that flexibility is available to social welfare offices. While that may be the case, not all deciding officers are exercising it. In light of this and given the current circumstances, will the Minister consider issuing new guidelines on the need to deal with circumstances in which people find themselves without an income? The Department must stop the current nonsense whereby a deciding officer considers that when a person has a certain income in the previous year, he or she is likely to have a similar income in the current year. Those circumstances no longer apply.
The Department is aware that they do not apply in the case of many people. This is the reason flexibility may be shown. I will ensure that deciding officers are aware that they have such flexibility and may exercise it. The people in difficulty to whom the Deputy refers should also be aware that they may qualify for many supplementary benefits.
Will the Minister issue new guidelines to deciding officers?
I do not believe new guidelines are required because flexibility is available. We will, however, make the deciding officers aware that they may show flexibility.
103 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her views on the fact that measures aimed at saving money on welfare fraud secured savings of some €60 million less than expected; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3536/09]
The prevention of fraud and abuse of the social welfare system is an integral part of the day-to-day work of the Department. More than 600 staff at local, regional and national level are engaged on a full-time or part-time basis on work related to the control of fraud and abuse of the social welfare system.
Last year, almost €476 million in social welfare payments was saved through fraud control measures, an increase of €29 million on the previous year. The main areas where savings were made were on pensions, one parent family payments, unemployment payments and illness payments. More than 560,000 social welfare claims were reviewed in 2008, compared to less than 350,000 the previous year.
There was also a notable increase in the number of possible frauds reported by members of the public to the central control section of the Department, which rose by 70%, to more than 1,000 reports. The target set for savings from general control activity in 2008 was very ambitious, at €63 million more than had been achieved in 2007. Nonetheless, with the type of extra activity I have outlined, savings were close to the target at year end.
Unfortunately, however, the increase in the volume of applications for jobseeker's allowance payments in the last six months of 2008 meant that social welfare inspectors who had been concentrating on anti-fraud activity had to be diverted to means testing applicants in order that claims could be decided on faster. This resulted in slightly less being realised under the general fraud control measures than had been envisaged at the start of 2008.
However, the €25 million of savings in targeted programmes announced in July will be exceeded. A sum of €9 million was saved as a result of the increased emphasis on the unemployment schemes by the Department's special investigation unit while €20 million of savings are estimated to result from increasing the frequency of mailshots to child benefit recipients. A project related to the one parent family payment in Kilbarrack local office resulted in savings of almost €500,000 by the end of 2008.
Another measure introduced in 2008 aimed at preventing fraud was the requirement for new claimants of jobseeker's payments to collect money in person each week at the post office rather than being paid by electronic funds transfer. The Department will continue to prioritise fraud control across all of our schemes to ensure that the correct payments are made to the correct people for the duration of the period to which they have an entitlement to them.
No one would disagree with the importance of fraud control measures in the Department and the Minister has my support in her efforts to tackle the problem of social welfare fraud. Our views diverge, however, on the notion that €59 million is slightly under target. The Taoiseach would be a happy man if he believed he could find another €59 million before entering the Chamber at 4 p.m. It is not acceptable for the Minister to state she met the €25 million target announced in July when the overall projected savings were not achieved.
This returns us to the lack of forward planning in the Department and my previous question on the lengths of queues in social welfare offices. If the Government had shown a little foresight and anticipated the increase in unemployment, it would not have been necessary to transfer social welfare inspectors, whose function is to tackle fraud, to dealing with dole queues. How many social welfare inspectors were transferred? How much of the €59 million shortfall in projected savings from social welfare fraud measures can be ascribed to the need to transfer social welfare inspectors from anti-fraud activity to dealing with lengthening dole queues and the Department's failure to appoint and train staff?
It is not possible to indicate exactly how much each individual inspector was doing.
How many inspectors were moved?
The important issue is the amount of money saved through anti-fraud measures. As the Deputy indicated, we all agree on the importance of such measures. The Department has set significant new targets for this year. Savings of €476 million through anti-fraud measures are significant.
The processing of applications by inspectors or other departmental staff is an anti-fraud measure in itself as it ensures sufficient care and attention is given to making correct decisions on payments. Removing a payment from someone is much more difficult than awarding a payment. The assessment process is also a control measure.
Desk operations are another useful measure. The Department undertakes data matching activities with Revenue to ascertain whether people are working, with FÁS to determine whether they are in training and with the Health Service Executive. The Department of Education and Science provides the names of all third level students. We also match our data with commencement of employment data and the names of those who have been sent to prison. Data matching, as a desk exercise, is a successful way of controlling fraud and will continue this year.
The Minister said this year's target is significant and data matching is quite successful, but it is still €59 million short from where she said she would be. How do we know she will reach the target this year? What is she going to do this year that is different to ensure the targets are met, targets she failed to meet by €59 million last year?
When one sets targets at the beginning of the year it is not always possible at the end of the year to know what additional measures or initiatives would be needed or put in place. As I have already said, 600 staff are working on this, dealing with millions of claims and payments.
The Minister's targets are meaningless.
They are doing more interviews with people to check if they are genuinely looking for work. They are working particularly on target groups, which are high risk groups. These groups include 18 to 25 year olds, people who were put on an employment action plan and are still on the live register and those who have been put on suspended payments, whom we are targeting in particular.
Regarding child benefit, we will also be targeting those who have shown up as being high risk. In particular this includes non-Irish citizens or those working here whose children are living abroad. We have had significant savings in child benefit in targeting such groups last year. It is an area we will be concentrating on even more over the next number of months.
104 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of applications in 2008 with regard to mortgage interest supplement; the number of persons refused the payment; the average length of time to process an appeal; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3537/09]
The supplementary welfare allowance scheme provides for a weekly or monthly supplement to be paid in respect of mortgage interest. The purpose of the supplement is to provide short-term income support to eligible people who are unable to meet their mortgage interest repayments for a house which is their sole place of residence. The supplement assists only with the interest portion of the mortgage repayments.
There are currently more than 8,500 people in receipt of mortgage interest supplement, an increase of over 4,400 over those receiving payment at the end of 2007. The scheme is administered by the community welfare service of the Health Service Executive on behalf of the Department and delivered locally by community welfare officers.
A community welfare officer interviews applicants for mortgage interest supplement when they first present in order to determine if they satisfy the statutory qualifying conditions for entitlement. They also ensure that all the documentation required to make a decision has been provided. Claim details are recorded electronically only in cases where it is established that mortgage interest supplement is payable. For this reason, statistics are not held on the number of people who were refused mortgage interest supplement. It is estimated, however, that on average 20% to 25% of claims are refused.
Under existing arrangements, an appeal against a decision on entitlement to mortgage interest supplement is made in the first instance to a designated appeals officer in the HSE. A person may, if they so wish, make a further appeal to the Social Welfare Appeals Office if they are dissatisfied with the decision of the HSE appeals officer. The average time taken to process an appeal to a HSE appeals officer is estimated to be approximately six weeks.
The Social Welfare Appeals Office has advised that it does not hold details of the average duration of a mortgage interest supplement appeal. However, the average duration of a supplementary welfare allowance appeal in 2007 which would include mortgage interest supplement was eight weeks. As priority is given to such appeals by the Social Welfare Appeals Office, processing times for 2008 are being compiled at present but are expected to be of the same order as in 2007 for supplementary welfare allowance appeals.
It is beyond belief that details are not held on the number of people who are refused the supplement or on the duration of appeals. I ask the Minister to deal with that matter and get the information, because I do not think one can make improvements to a system if one does not know the current situation in the system.
The Money Advice and Budgeting Service estimate that as the number of people looking for the supplement is rising, the number of people being refused it is not rising in direct correlation to the number of applications, which, if its figures are correct, would make the Department's estimate of 20% or 25% wrong.
Is the Minister aware that in June 2008, before the Government decided we were in a financial crisis, the Financial Regulator estimated that more than 14,000 mortgages were more than three months in arrears? When the new figures come out, the Minister will probably agree that will be in excess of that figure. In the current climate, considering the number of people who are in difficulty with their mortgages, will more money be made available than was in the budget?
The Minister should bear in mind that if homes are repossessed, people will receive rent supplement. The State will have to pay for these people one way or the other and it would be far better to keep them in their homes.
It is far better to keep people in their homes and the fear that they might lose their home is an added worry when they lose their jobs. A number of people have responsibility for this matter. The financial institutions themselves must ensure they are willing to reschedule payments from people who find themselves in difficulty.
We have flagged this as part of any recapitalisation programme for the banks and have also spoken about it in the framework document which was agreed last week. These are issues which financial institutions have to take very seriously. In fairness, the major financial institutions have foreclosed on very few people and are conscious of this situation. Where people go to them to seek a reschedule of a loan, they should agree to it.
The next step is for the person themselves to seek help with their interest. We have set aside a budget of almost €30 million this year to cope with the demand for mortgage interest supplement. As I indicated, more than 8,000 people are receiving it and we anticipate that there will be more. As the year progresses, we will keep the situation under review.
I will allow a brief supplementary question from Deputy Enright.
The amount allocated would not even allow for a doubling in the numbers who applied last year. There were 276 people put in prison last year for failing to make loan repayments. Not all of those people were jailed because of a failure to pay mortgages, but some were. Does this Minister think that is an adequate way of dealing with the situation?
The Minister said she flagged the attention of financial institutions to this issue and it is in the framework document. What exactly is she going to do to ensure financial institutions are not foreclosing on these people?
The Minister can make a final reply.
It is a matter for negotiation between the Government and the banks, particularly at the time of recapitalisation. It is one of the criteria mentioned and was a specific part of the framework document published last week. It would be distressing for people if they thought they would also lose their homes. The rescheduling of payments and support available for people through supplementary welfare can help them get over difficulties they are having.
105 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will confirm that the half-rate carer’s allowance will be protected in the context of budget cuts; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3538/09]
The budget in 2007 provided for new arrangements whereby people can receive a maximum payment equivalent to a half-rate carer's allowance while receiving another social welfare payment, other than jobseeker's benefit or allowance. These measures came into effect in September 2008 and there are currently just over 16,100 people in receipt of half rate carer's allowance and another social welfare payment.
The introduction of the half-rate carer's allowance is only one of a number of improvements to payments to carers in recent years. Since 1997, weekly payment rates to carers have greatly increased, qualifying conditions for carer's allowance have significantly eased, coverage of the scheme has been extended and new schemes such as carer's benefit and the respite care grant have been introduced and extended.
The means test for carer's allowance has been significantly eased over the years, most notably with regard to a spouse's earnings. Since April 2008, the income disregard has been €332.50 per week for a single person and €665 per week for a couple. These levels surpass the commitment in Towards 2016 to ensure those on average industrial earnings continue to qualify for a full carer's allowance.
From June 2005, the annual respite care grant was extended to all carers who are providing full time care to a person who needs such care, regardless of their income. The rate of the respite care grant has also been increased to €1,700 per year in respect of each care recipient since June 2008. In June 2006, the number of hours for which a person can engage in employment, self-employment, education or training and still be considered to be providing full time care for the purposes of carer's allowance, carer's benefit and the respite care grant was increased from 10 to 15 hours per week.
In budget 2009, I increased the rate of carer's allowance for those aged 66 or over by €7 to €239 per week and for those aged under 66 by €6.50 to €220.50 per week. These increases took effect from January 2009. Recipients of carer's allowance are also eligible for household benefits, free travel and the respite care grant. It is estimated that combined expenditure on carer's allowance, carer's benefit, the respite care grant and half rate carers will be €650 million in 2009. I have no plans to change the conditions associated with half rate carer's allowance.
I welcome the Minister's answer that she has no plans. Why did she comment that this was a matter which was under consideration if she had no plans? Is she aware of the distress caused to many carers all over the country when the issue was raised and discussed?
Did the Minister have any discussions with the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney, on the knock-on effects of this decision? It is somewhat irrelevant if she is not going to cut the payment.
We have been waiting since December 2007 for the publication of a national carers' strategy which was committed to in the programme for Government. There may be associated costs, depending on what the strategy contains, but when will it be published?
I never said I was going to cut the half rate for carers.
The Minister said she was looking at it.
Nobody ever indicated that I was going to cut it. I never said it was under consideration.
The Minister said it was a target.
In fact, I specifically said in a newspaper article that I would not be recommending a change to the half-rate carers' allowance.
A week after her original order.
If the Deputy cares to read that interview, which was printed on the day, she will see that I said I would not be recommending it. It arose in the context of a question about major improvements that had been made in the past five years, which led to the social welfare budget now hitting almost €20 billion. I pointed to the fact that there had been major increases in pensions, as well as changes to the hours lone parents can work, major increases in child benefit and the introduction of the new half-rate carers' scheme. The latter scheme is costing €57 million this year. As I indicated, all the social welfare supports for carers alone cost almost €650 million, and probably more this year.
The strategy is being co-ordinated by the Department of the Taoiseach and involves quite a number of Departments. My Department's interest is only from a payments perspective. Of more importance to many carers are health and respite supports, home help, access to education and training. All those elements are important for carers. Undoubtedly, the current economic situation has made it more difficult not only for my Department but also for the HSE and the Department of Health and Children to be able to set out what targets they will be able to meet within a particular time. Therefore we are currently examining the draft document that has been prepared in order to see where we can take it from here.
