Vol. 855 No. 1
83. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection the key performance indicators and measures of evaluations that are in place to underpin the performance of the customer charter and action plan for 2013 to 2015; if she will provide an assessment of the way the charter and action plan is performing in regard to each criterion; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39802/14]
There are two elements to this question, one relating to the targets set by the Minister for the services that will be delivered, and the second relating to who delivers the service in regard to customer training. In respect of the first element, I refer to the length of time it takes to process particular applications. For example, it takes up to one year to process appeals, three months to evaluate medical evidence and six months to one year to adjudicate in respect of illness schemes. Essentially, I am seeking a benchmark in order that we measure that.
The overall aim of the Department of Social Protection is to provide people with the information, financial support and other services they require in a timely and customer-friendly way. The Department demonstrates its ongoing commitment to a strong customer service ethos through the customer charter and action plan. The plan sets out a range of mechanisms to deliver a high quality of service to people who use the services of the Department.
The Department rolled out 44 new and revamped Intreo offices during the past three years. The feedback through customer surveys has been one of very strong approval. Given that the Department pays approximately 1.45 million people every week and has almost 89 million payments per year, the number of complaints in 2013 was slightly more than 1,200 and the corresponding figure for this year to date is 867. All these complaints are very important and we follow them up.
In addition, the Department spends €46 million each year to enable the Citizens Information Board, including the Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, to provide independent information, advocacy and advice to people who have business with the Department and who may need independent advice and assistance.
The Deputy referred to the timespan for processing payments, a matter which we have discussed on a number of occasions. Two years ago, we revamped over a period all the IT related to many of the payments she referenced. As she will know, almost all the backlogs have been cleared and the last significant area to be updated in terms of IT is disability.
With regard to the customer-friendly approach, I acknowledge there are very many people who go far beyond the call of duty but I certainly come across serious problems. Serious misinformation is given to people quite routinely. For example, people are told not to sign on for credits as there is no point although not doing so could have a very serious implication for them, including in respect of pension entitlements. The mid-Leinster rents unit employs one person on the telephone although there is a population in excess of 600,000. Thankfully, not all of them are looking for housing but there is a sizeable number of people in the area who will be trying to get through to the service. People come to my constituency office in frustration over their not having been able to get through. It is not the fault of staff members if there is an inadequate number of staff allocated to deal with people. There are difficulties that are not being complained about. If somebody is given incorrect information, he is unlikely to make a complaint about it although it may have an impact on him.
With regard to the timelines, I am certainly happy to provide to the Minister the names of and information on the individuals in question. The timelines to which the Minister refers are not comparable with those I am experiencing.
We have had many debates in this House on allowances, including the carer's allowance, family income supplement and domiciliary care allowance. Deputies O’Dea and Ó Snodaigh, in particular, have raised these, and Deputy Catherine Murphy herself had questions on the domiciliary care allowance. The whole allowance system has been transformed dramatically. In fairness to the staff of the Department, they have worked very hard to change the whole experience of people. I am not saying some people do not experience problems.
I am always advising people, particularly women who are for some reason out of the labour force, to sign for credits, if appropriate, because, as the Deputy says, it is very important in maintaining entitlements. I would be very surprised if any social welfare staff actually suggested to somebody that signing the credits was not relevant. One would think that the importance of signing for credits would be one of the first things people would know about the social welfare system.
I can state absolutely to the Minister that it happens, and it will pose a serious problem in the future. It happens too often. As the Minister knows, Members of the Oireachtas are all given software, a constituency database. I use it for every case so we can track and identify peaks concerning difficulties. The difficulty I mentioned arises routinely. If the Minister does only one thing consequent to this discussion, she should organise a refresher course for staff so people who come in to sign for credits can be facilitated.
There is a serious problem in the mid-Leinster rents unit. The telephone service is inadequate and people cannot get through. If there is only one member of staff on the telephone and a population in excess of 600,000, a problem arises routinely. It may not reach the Minister in the form of a complaint but I can confirm that people are complaining to me that they cannot get through. I ask her to examine this because it relates to a serious shortfall.
Since the economic collapse from 2007 and 2008 onwards, there was a vast increase in the number of people seeking to be assisted by the Department of Social Protection. As the Deputy knows, the number claiming in a very wide range of areas increased enormously, most notably among those who lost their jobs. Consequently, the pressure on the system increased enormously. As the Deputy is aware, 1,000 community welfare officers who formerly worked in the HSE came into my Department in 2012, as did the people who worked in the FÁS employment services, who numbered approximately 700.
The Department has undergone this major transformation. I visit local social welfare offices, probably at the rate of two offices a month. There is still a number of offices which have to be transformed. We must also start upgrading a number of the branch offices. Any objective observer of the Department would accept, given the sheer volume of cases with which we deal, some of which arise from the difficulties of the recession, that the numbers of the unemployed are going down.
I must go on to the next question.
We have revamped the service. I will take any details the Deputy has and ensure that they are examined.
84. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection the number of persons working in Departments and agencies under the JobBridge scheme and other such labour activation measures; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38304/14]
The only activation measure that specifically allows placements within Departments is JobBridge, the national internship scheme. At present, there are approximately 24 JobBridge interns based in Departments and agencies. The following table provides the breakdown by Department and agency. Since the scheme started in 2011, a total of 330 interns, including the 24 interns who are currently active, have been hosted in Departments.
The success of JobBridge as a route into paid employment for those who have prolonged period of unemployment has been shown by independent research. This research indicates it provides progression into employment. As the Tánaiste stated earlier, the success of JobBridge is demonstrated by the fact that nearly 34,000 persons have already participated in the scheme and interns and host organisations have overwhelmingly been positive regarding the benefits of the scheme. I believe that it is incumbent on the State, as an employer, to set an example by providing high quality internship opportunities as and when a suitable opportunity arises.
In addition to setting an example to other employers, public sector internships are of direct benefit to jobseekers. Independent research has shown that notwithstanding the public sector recruitment moratorium, JobBridge interns benefit from the work experience and skills gained while on public sector internships and that approximately 41% of these interns have progressed into employment with other employers on completion of their internship in the Departments. The progression rate is comparable with other training and employment schemes and is much higher than the general progression-to-employment rate for the long-term unemployed.
|
Current Interns |
|
|
D/Communications, Energy and Natural Resources |
11 |
|
D/Education and Skills |
1 |
|
D/Health |
1 |
|
D/Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation |
1 |
|
D/Justice and Equality |
4 |
|
D/Public Expenditure and Reform |
3 |
|
D/Taoiseach |
2 |
|
D/ Transport, Tourism and Sport |
1 |
|
24 |
Did the Minister of State say there have been 330 interns in the public sector in total since the scheme's inception?
Since 2011, there have been 330.
I have stated on many occasions that the internship schemes are simply for the purpose of cynically manipulating the unemployment figures to the benefit of the Government and to provide cheap labour for employers, and I want to ask the Minister of State a number of specific questions. Has the moratorium on public sector employment meant that no jobs could be offered to interns? If so, was the Minister of State confirming the abuse of interns as yellow-pack and free labour? Is it true that the Taoiseach's Department took on interns for responsible jobs, such as international communications, policy analyst and researcher? Did they get jobs? How many were taken on in internships in the Department of Social Protection?
How many got jobs in the Department on completion of their internships? Has a Department been among the companies or organisations banned from using internships because of abuse or misuse?
I am extremely disappointed in the response of Deputy Higgins.
Deputy Kevin Humphreys is the Minister of State.
The purpose of JobBridge is to give people experience that will allow them to move into employment. All international research shows that if one is more than six months unemployed, it is very difficult to return to the workforce. Departments give good quality work experience that helps people to get experience that will allow them to get employment. Unfortunately, Deputy Joe Higgins appears to want to criticise young people who get such experience. During the past three months I have made it my business to talk to many young men and women who have been involved in internships. They have told me, overwhelmingly, that they have got the experience to go back into employment. That is what JobBridge is doing; it is not about roars, screams and catchphrases. It is about providing experience to young people to allow them to get back into employment. That is something I support.
Nobody believes that the 3,000 Gateway positions with local authorities are for any other purpose than to fill the gaps left in local authority services by the consistent underfunding of local authority services. It is cheap, yellow pack labour.
Will the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, please answer the questions? How many public sector interns got jobs within the public sector as a result of their internships? Did any get positions in the Department of the Taoiseach? How many interns served with the Department of Social Protection, and did any get jobs in the Department as a result? Was any public sector organisation disbarred from taking on interns due to it not using the scheme properly?
A total of eight interns worked in the Department of Social Protection over two years and some of them have moved on to very prestigious positions due to the experience they received in the Department.
Interns who work in Departments are also covered by the relevant protections that are clearly set out. Internships involve shadowing, training and experience. When Deputy Higgins does not like the answer he receives, he quickly wants to move the goalposts to discussion of the Gateway scheme.
I did not get an answer.
I suggest that the Deputy should table an oral question on the Gateway scheme. I would be very happy to debate the scheme with him in the House.
The Minister of State, Deputy Humphreys, is getting good at the waffle.
Gateway will prove to be an exceptionally successful scheme in helping people who have been more than two years unemployed to connect back into the workforce. My business, and that of the Government, is to get people back to work. We have been quite successful in doing that recently.
I did not get an answer.
I am sorry but I must move on to Deputy Ó Snodaigh's question.
You have a role, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, under the new Standing Orders to require a Minister to answer the question. Was any Department barred? Perhaps no Department has been, but the Minister of State should tell us.
85. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if her Department is insisting that community employment supervisors must retire at the age of 66, regardless of their ability to continue in the post; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39795/14]
Why does the Minister insist that community employment, CE, scheme supervisors must retire when they reach the age of 66, regardless of their ability and their willingness to continue in their post, especially in light of the Department's decision not to put in place a pension for those same employees as instructed by the Labour Court in 2008? The case arose last week of Elizabeth McAuliffe, a CE supervisor in Limerick, for 20 years who was forced to retire, despite the fact that she wishes to continue to work and that the scheme will also continue. Is the Minister aware that there is no legal retirement age in the State and that both in the UK and in the US, compulsory retirement age has been outlawed?
The Minister of State's party colleague, Deputy Anne Ferris, has put forward legislation to outlaw such a practice in this State.
I thank the Deputy. The Department does not provide funding for any participant or supervisor who has reached the State pension age. This has been Government policy since community employment commenced in April 1994 as a working age specific active labour market intervention. The details of the employment contract issued by the sponsoring organisation are a matter between the CE sponsor, as the employer, and the supervisor, as the employee. The CE procedures manual outlines the conditions under which the Department will fund the sponsoring organisation for the CE positions.
The Department advises the sponsoring organisation to include retirement arrangements in any contractual agreements with employees of the scheme, including the CE supervisor, in order that all parties are aware of the conditions under which funding is provided. Where a sponsor has other financial resources and wishes to continue to retain the employment of a supervisor who has reached State pension age, the Department has no role with such arrangements.
I do not know who wrote the reply for the Minister of State. He is well aware that no CE scheme or very few CE schemes have other financial resources and would not be in a position to continue to pay a CE supervisor. In that instance, the CE supervisor would probably not be acknowledged because the CE scheme was not set up in that way. It is the case that the community employment scheme and the Department have never properly acknowledged the role of CE supervisors and they will not pay their pensions as recommended by the Labour Court in 2008. When will the Department begin paying those pensions? Is the Minister of State aware that there is a possibility that a number of CE supervisors are being forced to retire, despite the fact that their contracts do not stipulate a retirement age and that they will be taking cases for unfair dismissal? If the CE schemes had the financial means to do so, they would probably be willing to pay them, but they should not have to do so because the role of the Department should be to ensure those people are paid in full and that their pension rights are recognised. In the case where a pension age is not stipulated in the contract, the Department has a duty to ensure they are allowed to continue working.
I am not fully aware of the cases to which the Deputy refers, but I suggest we could have that discussion at a later stage.
We have had that discussion here but there has been no action.
Does the Deputy wish to hear my reply or does he wish to have a conversation with himself?
I refer the Minister of State to the 2008 Labour Court recommendation. The Minister of State is in government, not me.
I acknowledge the work of the CE schemes in all parts of the country. In my reply to Deputy Joe Higgins I said I have made it my business over the past three months to visit CE schemes throughout the country. I acknowledge the work of CE workers, CE supervisors and sponsoring agencies. I refer in particular to a CE scheme I visited where the supervisor had achieved a 64% rate for the number of people returning to employment. This is highly commendable. We hope to work with the supervisors to achieve similar rates throughout the country.
I hope that supervisor got a bonus.
The contract of employment is with the sponsoring group and the sponsors have been issued with guidelines as to what the contract should contain. If sponsoring groups are in a position to retain supervisors beyond the pensionable date, they are quite entitled to do so.
The Minister of State has not answered my question. The Department sets the terms and conditions. In the case to which I refer, the woman was in employment for 20 years. The guidelines issued by the Department have changed several times since then but no one bothered to look at her contract. The sponsoring organisation is now open to a charge of unfair dismissal because the Department did not take the proper action and did not recognise the fact she should have had a proper pension. One of the reasons supervisors wish to continue in some cases is that their pensions will be too low on which to survive.
The supervisors are employees under the individual CE sponsored organisation. Under the terms of the employment Acts from 1994 to 2001 an employer is legally obliged to provide certain information in written form, including what Deputy Ó Snodaigh has outlined. The sponsored groups were responsible for providing the information to the supervisors as they came on board. The Deputy knows as well as I do that some sponsoring groups have the resources to retain their supervisors, but CE is an activation measure and when people reach retirement age it provides an opportunity for other people to come through the scheme. There is a logic to it. I know individuals are very highly committed to the schemes and-----
It is an activation measure for the participants not the supervisors.
86. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection how the Department’s policy to migrate to electronic payments affects the Government’s stated objective of protecting the post office network; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39805/14]
I tabled this question to ascertain how the Government can reconcile its repeated commitments to preserve the post office network as we know it with the headlong rush to an electronic payment system for social welfare recipients.
I am very conscious of the important role of the post office around the country, not only in respect of social welfare payments but also the extent to which it is now becoming a one stop-shop where people can pay bills, purchase mobile telephone top-ups, use the passport application facility, pay local property tax or Garda fines and carry out a range of banking and other financial services. This is the way to go for anybody who, like me, is very interested in seeing post offices do well. In 2013 the cost to the Department of issuing payments was in the order of €86 million. The Department must continue to ensure that the most cost-effective ways of delivering its services are employed to ensure best value for the taxpayer. In this regard, an issue for the post office network is that electronic payments are less expensive and many people who have bank accounts or are anxious to use electronic payment mechanisms choose to do so. I was very happy to sign a new contract with An Post last year for over-the-counter cash services for welfare clients following a public procurement competition. This contract is very valuable business for An Post. For example, approximately 3.5 million payments were cashed by welfare clients in local post offices in August.
One must bear in mind that with the development of bank accounts many customers who use Post Office services do not have other bank accounts. At present 72% of all child benefit clients and 84% of new clients to the scheme choose to receive payment directly into their accounts. This undeniably creates a challenge for the current business model of An Post.
Nobody in the Government has contradicted the opinion of the Irish Postmasters Union, which clearly states a move to electronic payments in the timescale envisaged by the Government, which is by 2017, would result in the immediate closure of 600 post offices out of the network of 1,100. This is supported by Grant Thornton and various other independent organisations. How does the Government reconcile this move to electronic payments within this timescale and this consequence with its commitment to preserve the post office network?
I am glad to say the post offices won the contract for over-the-counter cash services. Increasingly people with bank accounts who receive a State pension on retirement choose to use their bank account. I do not know whether the Deputy is suggesting that such customers should be forced to use the post office when they have a bank account. The same is true for people who receive child benefit.
In 2013 the Department used An Post for 14 million mail items with a value of more than €11.5 million and 44 million over the counter cash payments, with the transaction value of more than €58 million, were made. An Post has taken a range of other services which it offers, primarily to people who do not have a bank account, and it is very important that these services continue. If An Post wishes to expand these services it would need to have an offering in the electronic payments and banking area also, as this is a service of choice for many people because they already have a bank account and electronic banking facilities, which they are inclined to use.
