Vol. 691 No. 1
105 Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if social welfare offices are operating with a full staff capacity; and if extra staff have been allocated to deal with the number of claimants. [34381/09]
Since May 2008, 357 extra staff have been assigned to local offices, new central support units and the Department's inspectorate. Of these, some 200 have been assigned since January 2009 as follows: 16 social welfare inspectors were assigned in March 2009 to various locations around the country to undertake means testing and other work associated with processing claims for the jobseekers allowance — I gave a more up to date figure in this respect earlier; 68 posts have been assigned to date for local office central support units in six locations; some 116 posts have been assigned to local offices around the country, some of which have been filled by temporary staff pending the assignment of permanent staff. The position will be kept under review and whatever additional resources are required will be allocated.
A number of measures have also been taken to improve the processes used in processing claims. These include the introduction of a streamlined process for people who had a claim in the previous two years, an improved procedure for claimants moving from jobseeker's benefit to jobseeker's allowance, fast-tracking of certain categories of claims, on-line availability of application forms for the jobseeker schemes and new arrangements to include claims from casual employees to be processed in a more timely fashion.
One of the most significant initiatives introduced recently aimed at reducing queuing and waiting times involves the customer attending the office by appointment at which time the claim is taken and decided. This system has already been introduced in 20 offices and the Department is finalising plans to extend the initiative to a further 20 offices.
I assure the House that every effort is being made to ensure that claims are processed as quickly as possible. However, anyone who is under financial pressure while awaiting a decision on their claim for a jobseeker's payment can apply for supplementary welfare allowance.
I wonder if the Minister knows how well the new system of appointment is working. I have heard that some of the appointments are running over resulting in people having to wait a lot longer than expected.
Of the 357 extra staff, how many took up contract positions which were not being renewed? Has an additional 357 staff been appointed or were 357 permanent staff put into this area? Also, how many vacancies exist in the Department that need to be filled to ensure social welfare offices are fully operational and able to cope with the enormous queues at social welfare offices every morning, of the type we experienced in the 1980s?
If the current appointment system is not working local managers need only increase the time for appointments from 30 to 40 minutes. It is a local matter. It is far more preferable to tell a person who attends in respect of a claim to call back on a specific date at a specific time to a particular hatch rather than simply tell him or her to join the queue. As I understand it, the system is working well. Any regional difficulties that arise can be addressed at local level.
Temporary staff will be removed as soon as permanent staff are appointed. The Deputy will be aware there is an embargo on recruitment to the Civil Service and as such the new staff are being redeployed from other offices. The numbers I gave are significant in terms of the ones already in place.
There are no vacancies within the Department. It is simply a matter of staff redeployment.
Knowing what a stickler the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is for formalities I was reluctant to stand while the Minister was standing.
I was allowing the Minister some time to find her notes.
Prior to last Christmas I raised in this House the plight of thousands of unemployed people in Balbriggan which has no social welfare office and of unemployed people in Swords who have to stand in long queues in the rain outside the social welfare office there. It is almost Christmas again and there is still no social welfare office in Balbriggan. The Minister promised me this matter would be addressed. What does she have to say to the people of Balbriggan who must travel to Coolock or Gardiner Street to obtain their social welfare payments and are now faced with the loss of their post office?
The Deputy has raised a specific question that would have merited the tabling of a separate parliamentary question. Perhaps the Minister would like to make a general response.
Why no action? Why is there still no social welfare office in Balbriggan almost 12 months later?
I will revert to the Deputy with a reply on the matter. I am aware that the Office of Public Works was informed of the priority of providing a social welfare office in Balbriggan.
God help Ireland if that is priority.
I will obtain an update on the matter for the Deputy and have it forwarded to him.
Performance in respect of tackling the waiting lists has been unsatisfactory in recent months. A particular problem appeared to have arisen during the month of August when waiting times increased by, on average, 16%. In places like Roscommon and Tullow the waiting time increased by seven weeks during the month of August alone. In Clondalkin the waiting time increased by four weeks. The key problem appears to be the lack of adequate cover for staff during holiday time.
It is completely unacceptable that people who applied for the jobseeker's allowance this month or even last month will not receive their payment before Christmas. By any standard, that is completely unacceptable. Performance in this area has been very poor. What arrangements has the Minister made to ensure adequate cover when staff are on holiday or on sick leave, as can be expected given that winter is approaching?
If the Minister is brief I will try to allow an extra supplementary question.
The Deputy will be aware that the Minister does not determine who covers for whom and in what area. Issues continue to arise in particular in regard to term time and annual leave, especially in the Department of Social and Family Affairs which in the main comprises female staff.
I asked the Minister what provision she is making to deal with that.
I acknowledge that we should ensure people do not incur additional delays. However, it should also be noted that big inroads were made in July and August on the number of outstanding claims, which were reduced by more than 20,000.
Waiting times increased by 16% in August alone. How can the Minister defend that?
In only one or two offices.
The reality of the situation is that files are left sitting on the desks when staff are absent from work due to illness, maternity leave or annual leave. I am being told when I contact the social welfare office that particular matters are not being dealt with as the person dealing with them is out of the office. The Minister needs to tackle this issue. It is not in one or two places, it is across the board and that is the Minister's responsibility.
The Minister said the new appointment system is in place in 20 offices and will be set up in 20 more. If it is working so well, why not put in place everywhere?
The main reason is to ensure the management and staff of the particular office are in a position to be able to take it and that the accommodation in that office can facilitate the number of hatches for appointments. It is a straightforward process and will be rolled out.
Some claims, such as benefit claims, are very straightforward which is why they can be done in a week in some places. The system can be checked and if the contributions have been made the person qualifies. People must be trained, however, to make decisions on assistance because so many documents must be considered and so many interests must be taken into account. It is not quite as easy as saying someone can have immediate cover. I do not want to see delays but huge inroads have been made into the backlog.
106 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will make public the contents of her initial evaluation paper prepared for the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34376/09]
The special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes was established by the Minister for Finance to examine current expenditure programmes in each Department and to make recommendations for reducing public service numbers to facilitate a return to sustainable public finances.
At the special group's request, my Department submitted an evaluation report on the various schemes and services operated by the Department as well as expenditure trends, to facilitate the group's examination of my Department's expenditure. The evaluation report described the Department's work, identified some key policy issues and provided a range of options for changes in schemes and services to assist the special group in its deliberations.
Those options were not advanced as the proposals of the Department but as items which might be technically feasible within the parameters of given schemes or across schemes. Some of the options identified are mutually exclusive. Others interact with each other, often in a complex way. The cumulative impact of proposals on various categories of social welfare recipients also have to be taken into account. Finally, some options, as indicated by my Department, might need to be reconciled with wider Government policies, such as policies to promote employment, education or training.
The document prepared by the Department has been made available to individuals who sought its release under the Freedom of Information Act, including the Fine Gael leader's office. It has also been published on the website of the Department of Finance and can be accessed at www.finance.gov.ie.
As per the FOI guidelines, certain material has been withheld from publication as it concerns matters relating to the deliberative process which were not put forward as proposals by the special group. The deliberative process is ongoing for the upcoming budget and the Estimates process. In this context, and giving due regard to the public interest, it was considered to be inappropriate to publish certain elements of the document prepared by the Department at this stage.
I am stunned by the material that was released under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. I accept that this is a series of options as opposed to recommendations but the people and those who represent them on the Opposition benches should be entitled to see the options. Going through the report, there are pages and pages of blacked-out measures. That is not transparent governance.
People are entitled to some appreciation of the thinking of the Department. We face one of the most crucial budgets in the history of the State and the Minister and her Department are withholding important information that ought to be put in the public domain so different elements of civil society and those affected can look at the options available.
This has fed into the findings of the McCarthy report and the Government has been completely irresponsible in forcing Mr. McCarthy to defend his own report. The only Cabinet Minister with the gumption to defend any of the recommendations in the report is the Minister for Finance. Every other Minister has failed to stand up and be counted. There is a proposal for savings of €1.8 billion in the Department of Social and Family Affairs and no one on the Opposition benches is any the wiser as to where those savings will come from.
Decisions have not been made on several of these issues and will not be made until the budget so it is important we be allowed to take time in the deliberative process. The Freedom of Information Act facilitates that, specifically allowing for exclusion of information where a decision has not yet been made. Every decision related to social welfare is linked to the budget so those decisions have not been made yet. There are other areas of the report that were excluded because they would disclose positions to be taken in Government negotiations.
We are not trying to keep information from people, we are trying to allow a reasoned debate on the issues. The public knows the issues, everyone knows the schemes and the numbers benefiting from them. No decisions have been made on any issue and the documents provided to the McCarthy group are the very documents the Government will use to make its decisions in the next few weeks.
The McCarthy report has been described as a red pen exercise. It is easy to go through budgets and slash left, right and centre with no regard for the implications of the cuts.
One proposal was the discontinuation of the €30 million funding for the Family Support Agency. I am keen to know the Minister's thinking on this area given her background as Minister with responsibility for children. Presumably the Minister accepts the need for early intervention in family difficulties and the need to provide family support services. What is the Minister's thinking about such services now? It is easy to say we could save €30 million but has there been any estimate of the likely savings in justice, social welfare, education and other areas through the provision of early intervention services from the Family Support Agency? It is a "no-brainer" as far as I can see.
It would be possible for me to ask but not to answer regarding all of the proposals in the McCarthy report because decisions have not been taken on any of them. In all of our considerations I have made it clear that we examine how a scheme or payment impacts on other schemes and not just in my Department. I want to ensure any decision made in social welfare that relates to children is examined in terms of its impact on the same family through changes in education or health. It is only when the budget is being worked out and we make our recommendations that we will see the impact.
The way the Family Support Agency was addressed in the McCarthy report was misleading. It gave the impression that by abolishing an agency there would be a €30 million saving. When the figures are broken down, much of the funding goes to the Family Support Agency while another large amount goes to counselling grants. It is not quite the same as a €30 million saving from abolishing an agency. It almost gives the impression it is entirely concerned with administration and that does a disservice to the work of the Family Support Agency.
The Minister claims that blacking out passages allows for debate, something I do not understand. One section in the report received by Deputy Kenny's office covers carer's allowance, carer's benefit and respite care grant. Every single possible option is considered and 12 paragraphs are blacked out. How does that enable debate? How do we know what is being considered for carers? There is a great deal of concern about these proposals among carers.
Are the Minister's considerations for the budget solely based on the McCarthy report and the Commission on Taxation or is the Minister also considering other changes or reductions that are not in those reports?
The only instruction that we have at the moment is to reduce the social welfare budget. It has not been predetermined as to how that is going to be done. When I say that it leads to a debate, I mean that it allows discussion at Government level and in here to take place, in the knowledge of what people are getting, how many of them are getting it, and so on. The fact that a 5% or 3% cut is recommended in the McCarthy report has resulted in a panic being created throughout the country. There are 600 groups that receive grants from the Family Support Agency, and they are all writing in to me in a panic.
It was the Government that created the panic by ordering the report.
It does not help people if they feel that they are being threatened from all sides. In our deliberations, we will not take a red pen to different things.
They will take a black pen.
We will be looking to see how we interact with other agencies and Departments, and how the cuts are being examined overall. The most sensitive and most difficult area in which to make change is the social welfare budget. It is still a priority and a policy of this Government, no matter what changes we make, that we protect the most vulnerable.
107 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her plans to amend the mortgage interest supplement scheme; if she will make revised guidelines publically available; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34271/09]
The mortgage interest supplement scheme provides support for people who have difficulty meeting their mortgage repayments and whose means are insufficient to meet their needs. The scheme provides a short-term income safety net within the overall social welfare system, to ensure that people do not suffer hardship due to loss of employment. A supplement in respect of mortgage interest only may be paid to eligible people who are unable to meet their mortgage interest repayments in respect of a house which is their sole place of residence. There are currently over 14,100 people in receipt of mortgage interest supplement, an increase of 75%, or 6,000, over the number in payment at the end of 2008.
The assessment for the mortgage interest supplement scheme provides for a gradual withdrawal of payment as hours of employment or earnings increase. Those availing of part-time employment and-or training opportunities can continue to receive mortgage interest supplement subject to their satisfying the standard means assessment rules.
The review of the administration of the mortgage interest supplement scheme is progressing. The main purpose of the review is to consider how the mortgage interest supplement scheme can best meet its objective of catering for those who require assistance on a short-term basis, where they are unable to meet mortgage interest repayments on their sole place of residence. The review group includes representatives from this Department, the community welfare service, the Department of Finance, the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Office of the Financial Regulator. The group is examining trends in programme and administrative costs, the impact of the Financial Regulator's statutory code of practice on mortgage arrears on the mortgage interest scheme, and legislative and operational issues that arise, including the cap on hours of employment. The review is also considering whether alternative approaches to achieving the scheme's objectives are warranted in the light of recent changes in the economic climate and the mortgage market. The full review should be complete in early 2010.
Following consultation with the community welfare service, guidelines on specific and immediate operational issues for the community welfare officers operating the scheme were updated recently. The guidelines are available on the Department's website, www.welfare.ie.http://www.welfare.ie/
Will the Minister change the eligibility criteria as part of the review? If one person in a household is working more than 30 hours, he or she will not get mortgage interest supplement, regardless of how much money the household is bringing in. Does the Minister intend to make any changes to that? People are being penalised and being refused mortgage interest supplement on the basis that they should never have taken the loan out in the first place. That is placing full liability on the household who took out the loan, regardless of the fact that the banks should not have given them the loan in the first place, if it is to be considered as reckless lending. There is no responsibility being put on the banks for providing such a reckless loan, yet the person will suffer the repossession of their house because they are being refused mortgage interest supplement on that basis. Does the Minister intend to consider this and ensure it is fair?
There seems to be a difference in how the criteria have been interpreted around the country for mortgage interest supplement. Will that be changed?
One of the criteria is to look at the time the person took out the mortgage, and whether he or she had an ability to repay it. That is reasonably valid, because the question could be asked as to whether he or she will be able to repay it. It must be asked if the State should continue to pay the mortgage interest for somebody who this time next year might never be able to attain that level of repayment.
The Government is going to support the bank who gave the person that loan through NAMA, yet the person will not be supported in his or her own home. It is very difficult to explain that to somebody.
It is difficult, but it is a legitimate question. One of the other questions is to ask whether the person is in a house that is greater than his or her needs. In other words, are there other ways in which he or she can get an income? Can a room be let out or can the house be shared? That is a valid question when supplementary welfare is being provided to somebody.
The Minister surely cannot expect a family to let out a room.
I have had people in my own clinic who have done this. One man with a large house ran into difficulty, and it was suggested to him that the house was bigger than his needs. He told me he was looking to see if he could let out a room, because it is a tax free income. It would give him the same amount of money as he would get from the mortgage interest supplement.
If he was paying tax, he would not have got it anyway.
There is also a protocol that has attached to the financial institutions. No move is to be made on repossession for six months on people who are making a genuine effort to make repayments.
The issue that the Deputy raised regarding hours is being considered.
This situation is urgent. There are hundreds of people in negative equity and facing the prospect of losing their homes. The Minister promised reform by last Easter, but we have not yet seen it. As well as the areas that have already been identified by Deputy Enright that urgently need reform, such as the 30 hour rule and the means test, does the Minister accept that the Government needs to look at putting in place a much more creative scheme to enable people to stay in their own homes when they have financial difficulties? Is she prepared to look at a scheme where the State might take an equity share in people's homes if they can no longer afford to make the repayments? Does she accept that the priority must be to enable people to stay in their own homes as far as possible? If so, what steps is she taking to make that happen?
It is a priority that people need to be supported to remain in their own homes. Mortgage interest supplement is only one way of doing that. The mortgage interest supplement will only apply to a relatively small number of people who find themselves in difficulty in repaying their mortgages. People might find themselves in that difficulty by virtue of lower incomes or having lost their job, or whatever. Therefore, it must be tackled in a number of different ways.
The mortgage interest supplement is meeting the needs of over 14,000 people today. There is evidence that perhaps 10% of those who apply do not qualify for it. That is the information we are getting back from CWOs. It is not as high as might have been indicated in different reports earlier this year.
The arbitrary rules preclude them from applying.
There are other ways. Somebody may be in negative equity and a number of people are very upset——
Over 200,000 people are in negative equity.
There is a number of people who are in negative equity, but that does not mean that they are not able to repay the mortgage. They are still repaying a mortgage which relates to the loan that they took out but unfortunately, the value of the house has declined and that would impact on them if they sold it. Where real support can be given to mortgage holders is with regard to the capitalisation of the banks, and with the agreements and protocols that have been made with them so that they will not move on people, but negotiate with them instead. There has also been a new housing Bill, with a new incremental house purchase scheme for people, which allows them to find a new, innovative way of buying houses. That has been initiated by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
That does not help people in debt already.
This issue is being dealt with. The mortgage interest supplement is just one small element. It is a valuable element of it, but what is just as important is the work that is going on with the Department of Finance and the Department and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
When is the Minister going to reform it?
Yesterday's ESRI report suggested that another 35,000 people who will not be able to meet their mortgage repayment next year. Is the Minister calculating that into her deliberations on the numbers who will be dependent on the mortgage interest supplement?
In so far as people need and qualify for the scheme, additional money will of course be made available. A total of €40.2 million was originally provided for this year, but we anticipate that the scheme will cost about €59 million.
Before I answer the next question, I would like to clarify for Deputy Reilly that the Office of Public Works has secured premises for the Department in Balbriggan and arrangements are being made to fit them out to the Department's needs.
108 Deputy Shane McEntee asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of persons on a national, county and local social welfare office basis awaiting their application for the back to education allowance to be processed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34287/09]
155 Deputy Dinny McGinley asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she is satisfied with the processing times for the back to education allowance in view of the numbers applying for the allowance due to redundancy; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34289/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 108 and 155 together.
The back to education allowance, BTEA, is designed to facilitate people of working age on welfare payments to return to education to gain qualifications which will help to enhance their employment prospects. Jobseekers who avail of the scheme are exempt from the requirement to be available for work while participating in an approved course and, in addition, an annual €500 cost of education allowance is payable. Participants may continue to receive any secondary benefits to which they have been entitled.
Improvements to the scheme were announced in the supplementary budget which came into effect on 1 May 2009. To qualify for participation, an applicant must now be in receipt of a relevant social welfare payment for three months if pursuing a second level course or 12 months if pursuing a third level course. The qualifying period for access to third level courses is reduced to nine months for those participating in the national employment action plan process or engaging with the Department's facilitator programme. People awarded statutory redundancy may access the scheme immediately, provided an entitlement to a relevant social welfare payment is established prior to commencing an approved course of study. In general, an applicant must be at least 21 years of age prior to commencing an approved course of study. However, lone parents and recipients of jobseekers' payments who are out of formal education for at least two years can qualify at 18 years of age.
A total of 11,710 applications have already been approved in social welfare offices this year. This is an increase of more than 2,420 on the number of applications processed this time last year. I have made a table available of the number of applications processed at each local office. Because these claims are not recorded as a separate scheme until the person transfers from their primary payment to the relevant second and third level options under the back to education scheme, statistics are not readily available as to the number of claims awaiting a decision. However, indications are that there may be up to 4,000 applications still to be decided. A significant number of these are awaiting additional documents or information from the applicants.
Due to the nature of the scheme the majority of applications are made in August and September in advance of the commencement of the new academic year. Overtime is made available to the local offices to prioritise these claims and ensure that all applications are processed as quickly as possible and in time for the commencement of the academic year. However, quite a number of people delay sending in their applications and in those cases it is not possible to guarantee that a decision will be given before commencement of the relevant course. All possible steps are being taken to ensure that applications are dealt with as speedily as possible.
|
Local Office |
Total |
|
Achill |
15 |
|
Apollo House |
59 |
|
Arklow |
157 |
|
Athlone |
271 |
|
Balbriggan |
56 |
|
Ballina |
218 |
|
Ballyfermot |
154 |
|
Ballymun |
91 |
|
Bantry |
60 |
|
Belmullet |
12 |
|
Bishop Square |
390 |
|
Blanchardstown |
130 |
|
Bray |
398 |
|
Buncrana |
99 |
|
Cahirciveen |
26 |
|
Carlow |
428 |
|
Carrick-on-Shannon |
38 |
|
Carrigaline |
171 |
|
Castlebar |
122 |
|
Cavan |
194 |
|
Clifden |
33 |
|
Clondalkin |
152 |
|
Clonmel |
176 |
|
Cobh |
60 |
|
Coolock |
128 |
|
Cork |
231 |
|
Donegal |
315 |
|
Drogheda |
245 |
|
Dun Laoghaire |
108 |
|
Dundalk |
512 |
|
Dunfanaghy |
45 |
|
Dungloe |
39 |
|
Ennis |
186 |
|
Finglas |
196 |
|
Galway |
306 |
|
Kenmare |
8 |
|
Kilbarrack |
162 |
|
Kilkenny |
310 |
|
Killarney |
50 |
|
King’s Inns Street |
238 |
|
Letterkenny |
231 |
|
Limerick |
491 |
|
Listowel |
92 |
|
Longford |
101 |
|
Loughrea |
47 |
|
Mallow |
76 |
|
Manorhamilton |
39 |
|
Mullingar |
139 |
|
Navan |
153 |
|
Navan Road |
177 |
|
Newbridge |
268 |
|
Newcastlewest |
159 |
|
Nutgrove |
190 |
|
Sligo |
293 |
|
Swords |
100 |
|
Tallaght |
281 |
|
Thomas Street |
293 |
|
Thurles |
407 |
|
Tralee |
311 |
|
Tullamore |
114 |
|
Waterford |
565 |
|
Westport |
90 |
|
Wexford |
504 |
|
Grand Total |
11,710 |
I appreciate the table was not circulated in the House. What is the minimum, maximum or average time it takes to process these claims? A figure of 4,000 outstanding still in October seems a significant number. I appreciate that if people did not apply on time, they cannot be processed on time. However, what about those who did? From the people I know, I am sure a significant number of that 4,000 applied on time. The situation is a bit like dealing with the third level grant and will be an annual problem. Has the Minister any plans to front-load staff in the future to deal with the issue? The facilitators I have dealt with have been excellent in helping people, but there is a problem in that people are borrowing to attend third level in the expectation of receiving the allowance. If they do not get it now, we will see them drop out of the system.
The Minister mentioned that those who have been made redundant and who may have redundancy payments will have immediate access. Is the allowance means tested and if so is a person's redundancy payment taken into account, which would in many cases disallow the allowance.
I will have to come back to the Deputy on that, but I do not believe they are taken into account. The table will be of assistance to Deputies in seeing the number of applicants from each different area. There has been an increase in the numbers this year because we have promoted the initiative significantly, the facilitators have been very positive and there has been a significant increase in the number of places available. There are some 146,700 extra places available in the further education sector, which demonstrates the level of activity. If some people do not qualify for the back to education allowance for full-time courses, there are thousands of new part-time evening courses available for people in receipt of social welfare benefits. I would encourage them to continue to participate in those courses.
Are there any plans to increase the post-graduate option, which only applies to certain courses currently, for the back to education allowance?
Currently, if people have a masters degree they are considered not to need anything else. The allowance is restricted to people doing a course in education or the higher diploma in education. I intend to see if other post-graduate courses that might lead to a professional qualification can be considered for it.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
