JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 27 Jun 2006

Community Welfare Officers: Presentations.

Chairman

Today's meeting is a discussion with officials of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Health Service Executive, IMPACT and SIPTU regarding changes in the position of community welfare officers and superintendent community welfare officers. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the officials from the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Health Service Executive: Mr. Brian Ó Raghallaigh, assistant director general at the Department of Social and Family Affairs; Ms Frances Spillane, assistant secretary general at the Department of Health and Children; Ms Simonetta Ryan, principal officer at the Department of Health and Children; Mr. Leo Kinsella from the Health Service Executive; and Mr. Philip Cox, principal officer at the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I will invite the Department to make the first presentation. I also welcome Mr. Greg Price, Mr. Ramon O'Reilly, Mr. Christy Grogan and Mr. Michael Cunningham, representing SIPTU, and Mr. Stephen O'Neill, Mr. Des Stone and Mr. Aidan Reddy, representing IMPACT. We will hear their presentation when the first presentation has been completed.

Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment upon, criticise or make charges against any persons outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members who wish to make a declaration in respect of any matter being discussed may do so now or at the beginning of their contribution. Members are also reminded that if there is a possibility of a conflict of interest arising, they should make a declaration of interest either now or at the start of their contribution. I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but that this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. While it is generally accepted that witnesses would have qualified privilege, the committee is not in a position to guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses.

Deputy Ring is particularly disappointed that he is unable to attend this meeting because he is participating in a cross-party delegation which has travelled to Washington to lobby US counterparts regarding the plight of the undocumented Irish. On his return, he will be briefed in detail on these proceedings and will participate in any follow-up action required.

I invite Mr. Brian Ó Raghallaigh to make a presentation on behalf of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and this will be followed immediately by the presentation from the trade union delegation. Having heard both sides, members will then be in a position to ask questions and it is hoped one or both delegations will be able to deal with the issues raised.

Mr. Brian Ó Raghallaigh

I thank the committee for the opportunity to make this presentation. The Department circulated a briefing document to members some time ago. I do not propose to go through the document but rather I will highlight some of the main points and thus make the presentation more brief, which will be a relief to members.

The subject of this meeting is to discuss the Government decision to transfer certain functions from the health sector to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I am anxious to assure members there are no proposals to cease any function or to reduce any service to the public. The briefing document circulated to members outlines the recommendations of the report on which the Government decision is based. One of the recommendations relates to the transfer of the General Register Office, GRO, to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I cite this as an example of the simplicity of this decision in that it is a decision relating to a transfer of functions. The GRO will transfer to the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the functions of the organisation such as the registration of births, marriages and deaths will continue as before. This is also the case with the other functions, including those undertaken by community welfare officers.

Given that this is a matter of transferring and not reducing functions and services, two questions arise. The first question relates to the reason for any transfer of functions and the second is that if functions are being transferred, the reason they are being relocated to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The background to the decision is set out in the paper.

A major programme of health sector reform is currently under way. One of the recommendations of the Brennan report published in 2003 is that the Government should examine the functions of the health sector and relocate those that might be more appropriately located elsewhere, thus enabling the health sector to concentrate on its core functions. Hence, the title of the later report from the core functions group. Those recommendations are set out in the briefing document circulated to members.

The group to which I refer had a number of reasons for choosing the Department of Social and Family Affairs for the transfer of a number of functions. The first reason is that the Department has modernised its services in recent years. Members will be aware of these changes because they affect their dealings with the Department on behalf of their constituents. A further reason is that the Department has in the past assumed responsibility for functions from the health sector. Members will recall that disabled person's maintenance allowance, DPMA, was taken over in the mid-1990s. The Department renamed this the disability allowance and made various improvements to it.

A further reason the Department was chosen with regard to community welfare officers — the main focus issue for the delegation from the trade unions — is that approximately 98% or 99% of the cost of the service is met by the Department. In the current year, the service will cost in the order of €745 million, of which €734 million will be provided by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The transfer also makes sense in terms of organisational approach.

The transfer of the General Register Office is an important component of the Government decision. Members may be aware that the Department of Social and Family Affairs invested heavily with the Department of Health and Children in the modernisation of the service. As a result, child benefit payments are now paid more promptly in the case of second and subsequent births because of the automation of the registration process and the links between the computer systems in registration and the Department.

The relocation of the functions fits in with the Department's strategy, which is set out in various papers and other documents, such as the disability sectoral plan, that are about to be released. The strategy is also captured in the draft national partnership agreement, which sets out various commitments of the Department. This means more commitment on the part of the Department to go beyond merely making payments but to seek ways of improving the life of the recipients of such payments. Other examples of initiatives taken by the Department include the back to work allowance and the family income supplement, which supports people in employment.

The decision was made at the end of February. To date, the Department has set up a number of groups, details of which are provided in the briefing document. In view of the scale involved, the Department regards this as a major undertaking that will directly affect 1,000 people working in the health sector and 100,000 recipients of supplementary welfare allowance payments. Those using the services provided directly by the HSE, including domiciliary care allowance payments, etc., are affected. As we are very conscious of this, we have a very robust set of committees and groups to examine the matter in detail. This will ensure the baby will not be thrown out with the bath water. As the principal tasks we see for the groups are set out in our submission, I will not go through them. As I stated, the proposal is simple. It involves a transfer of functions from the health sector to the Department of Health and Children. It does not involve a change in functions.

The proposal was made before by the Joint Committee on Social Welfare in the mid-1980s. A review of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme in the early 1990s by the Combat Poverty Agency also came to the same conclusion. Last year the NESC report on the developmental welfare state outlined the importance of aligning services with payments to create a package of supports for those dependent on welfare. This move is consistent with these.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Ó Raghallaigh. We can use the submission in asking questions.

Mr. Stephen O’Neill

I am an assistant general secretary with IMPACT and making a submission on its behalf and that of my colleagues in SIPTU, the two unions which represent community welfare officers and superintendent community welfare officers. Mr. Ó Raghallaigh has acknowledged that a number of community welfare officers and superintendent community welfare officers with us today can answer any questions the committee wishes to table with regard to the submission and our views.

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for giving us the opportunity to make this submission. A written submission has already been made to the committee. There is a slight change in paragraph 3 on page 3. We state the Department of Social and Family Affairs was party to the drawing up of the core functions of the health service report. I understand that it was not. That is the only change to be made to the written submission.

This opportunity is particularly important to our two unions and the people we represent as it is the first time we have been asked to express a formal view on the proposal to transfer the community welfare service from the health sector to the remit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Those represented by the two unions believe this proposal could have profound adverse effects on the service and undermine the quality and range of services community welfare officers provide for some of the most vulnerable people in communities across Ireland. However, there has been no public debate on the issue. The report of the interdepartmental review group, Core Functions of the Health Service, which recommended the transfer was drawn up without a study of the work done by community welfare officers and significant consultation with those who manage, deliver and use community welfare services. Had they been properly consulted on the potential impact of the proposal, I suspect it would not have been brought forward, at least not in its present guise.

The committee will note from the written submission that we believe this potentially disastrous recommendation was made on the basis of a profound misunderstanding. It is difficult to believe it was a deliberate misrepresentation of the role of community welfare officers and superintendent community welfare officers. We refute the report's description of the role as "more welfare supports than personal social services". This totally disregards the key information advocacy roles community welfare officers perform, as well as referral links they provide with statutory health and personal social services. As a committee of elected representatives, members are familiar with these functions to some degree. As I am not a community welfare officer, if the committee seeks an insight into these roles, my colleagues will answer such questions.

There is a fundamental flaw in the proposal because unless the intention is to radically change the role of the community welfare officer, it will make the Department of Social and Family Affairs responsible for what are essentially health service functions. This will seriously undermine the range of quality community welfare services because it is unlikely the Department will continue to devote resources to health functions for which it is not ultimately responsible. There are tensions over what community welfare service functions the Department of Social and Family Affairs should fund, but this is a straw in the wind. The approach of the Department has always been to distinguish between the cost of delivering various supplementary welfare allowance payments such as supplements, exceptional needs payments and the back to school allowance and the cost of other health and welfare functions. This is an understandable approach from the counting perspective, as it seeks to attribute costs accurately and identify the agencies to which they should be allocated. The problem with this approach is that other agencies have no particular incentive to countenance or identify any welfare or health functions relating to payment functions. For obvious reasons, they do not wish to be pressurised into bearing the burden of these costs.

SIPTU and IMPACT are, therefore, concerned that the poor understanding of the totality of the CWO function will inevitably diminish over time following the proposed transfer. The Department of Social and Family Affairs cannot be realistically expected to develop an interest in identifying or meeting health or personal social service needs in the way community welfare officers do at present. These are not the Department's responsibility and it would be highly unlikely to continue to devote resources to functions for which it has no responsibility.

As stated in the written submission, the recent decision to withdraw crèche payments on the grounds that they were not a legitimate function of the Department is a stark example of the potential fallout of transferring the CWO function out of the area of health. We fear that, over time, the Department of Social and Family Affairs would instinctively — and in some way understandably — seek to curtail the vital CWO functions on which so many vulnerable people depend.

There is also a threat to the primary care strategy. Both IMPACT and SIPTU have strongly supported the primary care strategy and we are pleased that the proposed new social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, makes concrete commitments regarding implementation. The community welfare service is a key component of the strategy, which proposes an integrated approach involving interdisciplinary teams of health professionals providing treatment and preventative care in the community.

Other health professionals and primary health care teams have acknowledged the need to involve community welfare officers and have expressed concern regarding the proposal to transfer the community welfare service out of the health sector. There are fears that the local responsiveness of the service and the safety nets of supplementary welfare allowances may be lost. Vulnerable groups, including addicts, people with mental health issues and disabilities, single parents, victims of abuse, the elderly and those with chronic social, behavioural and psychological issues will find it more difficult to access health services if the transfer proceeds.

Health professionals recognise that members of the primary community in community care, PCCC teams, community welfare officers bridge the gap between health and income maintenance. They are an essential link in joined-up, person-centred service delivery. The links between community welfare officers and the voluntary sector are also essential for effective service delivery of both health and income maintenance. In short, the proposal to transfer the service is likely to undermine a key element of the primary care strategy.

We also believe that there is a significant threat to discretionary payments. The ability of CWOs to make discretionary payments will inevitably be undermined with the passage of time. If a transfer takes place, discretion is vital to the flexible and speedy reaction that characterises the community welfare service. The Core Functions of the Health Service report makes clear the intention of restricting community welfare officers' discretion after transfer. It explicitly identifies "a more uniform approach to benefits" and combining payments and supplements as objectives behind the recommendation to move the community welfare service. This justifies the fear that, if implemented, the decision would fatally undermine community welfare officers' discretion to respond to individual needs to relieve extreme hardship in extraordinary cases. The unspoken agenda is to limit or abolish the discretionary payments that make up a tiny part of the overall social welfare budget.

Even if this were not the intent, it is difficult to see how the discretionary elements of payment could survive within the culture, structure, operation and practices of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. This is not a criticism of the Department but rather a recognition of the fundamental difference in approach between community welfare officers, in granting social welfare allowances, and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Within the social welfare allowances scheme, community welfare officers can make immediate payments to meet identified needs and, where required, can use discretion. Community welfare officers will generally conduct the appropriate means tests, visit clients in their homes and assess entitlement within a matter of days. Immediate payments can be made in urgent cases.

There is no separation of function because a community welfare officer will conduct an interview, investigate the case, apply the means test, decide, in consultation with superintendent community welfare officer, on eligibility and, subsequently, sanction and issue payment. The ability to deal with the case in this manner is a major strength of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. My colleagues can elaborate on that, if necessary.

On the other hand, the Department of Social and Family Affairs administers entitlement-based payments to thousands of people. This is necessarily a slower and more rigid procedure. A single application is processed by a number of different people, including clerical officers, investigating officers and deciding officers. The separation of the application into its component parts makes it extremely difficult to prioritise and respond quickly to urgent need. The ability to respond rapidly to urgent individual circumstances and needs are lost because claims generally must be returned to be processed. There is more detail in our written submission, on which my colleagues will elaborate, if required.

We believe the proposal to transfer the community welfare service to the Department of Social and Family Affairs is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the role, requirements, purpose, operation and function of the service. It would inevitably result in a separation of health and personal social services over time. This would damage clients, as well as contradict the first recommendation made in the interdepartmental group's report. A transfer would inevitably make services more remote from the community through which community welfare officers operate and over time adversely affect vulnerable clients by substantially lengthening response times and undermining the discretionary nature of the service. It would also undermine a key element of the primary care strategy.

IMPACT, SIPTU and the front line professionals we represent are deeply opposed to the proposed transfer of the community welfare service and seek the support of the committee in preventing such a move. At the very least, we call for a proper study of the service and full consultation about the likely effects of the transfer, including with those who manage, deliver and use the service, namely, voluntary health bodies, health professionals, elected representatives and others. This must happen before there are any moves towards a transfer. Such a study would demonstrate the folly of this proposal.

Chairman

I thank both delegations for their brief, clear and concise presentation of the various issues involved.

Deputy Stanton

I welcome the delegates and thank them for their presentations. Two main issues spring to mind with regard to the Department. What consultation or discussion, if any, took place prior to the decision being made? We heard from one side that there was no discussion. If this is true, why not? Second, what study has been done of the nature of the work done by community welfare officers, CWOs? Will the delegates, please, outline their health service functions? Will Mr. O'Neill outline what their functions are in his view?

Let me ask Mr. Ó Raghallaigh a question. If this goes ahead, will CWOs remain in health centres or be transferred to other locations? If so, where will they go? Will they move to social welfare offices? If they move to the Department, under what structure will they operate? Will they have their own unit or sub-unit? What will happen to the existing discretionary payment process? Will it be changed in any way? Will decisions be based on legislation, standing operating procedures, as with other social welfare claims, or guidelines? What changes will be made? Can an argument be made for greater flexibility in the service when there are no strict rules governing the allocation of payments? How have the role and nature of the supplemental welfare allowance payment changed since its introduction and what role does the Government see for it? There has been talk of the need for joined-up government, one-stop shops, etc. Will Mr. O'Neill tell us if that is happening?

When is it expected the change will be completed and what are its targets? What will be the benefits for constituents? Mr. O'Neill said he thought the change would undermine the service in some way. Will he be more specific and give us some examples?

Do IMPACT and SIPTU see any payments, responsibility for which could be transferred to the Department? Some social welfare offices say they are overburdened with work, but could responsibility for some payments be transferred to the Department to relieve the burden on them? Would they agree that community welfare officers work extremely hard? They are always out and about and the demands on them are ever increasing.

There appears to be an important difference between welfare support and personal social services. Many of us interact with community welfare officers in respect of welfare support but not as much is known about the personal social services. I would like to hear the views of both sides on the nature of these services, how they are delivered and what they mean to people suffering from poverty who find themselves in emergency situations? Can the Department guarantee that the availability of these services will not change? In other words, will the citizens we represent see a difference in the delivery of the services in the short to long term?

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

The first question of which I took note related to consultation prior to the making of decisions. In our brief, we set out from where the decision emanated. It arose out of the reform of the health sector and the Brennan report, which suggested to Government a standard management response — there is no surprise that this was put forward by a professor who specialises in management — to the effect that the organisation needs to examine its core functions and concentrate on them so that it can do them better. I am not aware of the basis for that because I do not know what Professor Brennan and her team did in reaching that conclusion.

Mr. O'Neill pointed out that the Department of Social and Family Affairs was not represented on the core functions group, so I do not know what consultation was involved. Over a number of years, however, the Department has had an extensive array of consultation arrangements in place. For example, a number of colleagues and I will meet many of the delegations of the two unions tomorrow as part of a regular series of information exchanges. We also have advisory groups of various descriptions and we are in daily contact with community welfare officers, often in response to parliamentary questions. In terms of consultation, therefore, it is not the case that departmental people live in some sort of ivory tower; they are in daily contact with the community welfare service.

The Deputy asked where the service would be located and whether it would still be available at health centres. I emphasise what I said at the outset. This is a transfer of functions, but the latter will remain the same. It will not be the case that a day will come when community welfare officers will no longer be found in their habitual residences.

The Deputy also asked about the benefits for constituents. If the service was not going to be better as a result of this decision, the decision would not be made. We all accept that community welfare officers deal with the most vulnerable people in society, almost all of whom are already social welfare clients. We expect that there will be scope for improvements in the service. For example, if someone applies for unemployment assistance, a one-parent family payment or some similar payment and does not meet the requirements for the payment immediately — perhaps because of the lack of documentation — but still needs income, the community welfare office is the obvious port of call. Under the current arrangement, such a person must come to the Department, tell his or her story, complete the form, etc. and he or she might receive a payment or his or her application might be refused. He or she must then go to the health centre and undergo the same rigmarole with a community welfare officer in order to obtain a payment. The Comptroller and Auditor General commented on the duplication in the process in a 1998 study of the administration of the scheme. We will come to grips with this in time and eliminate unnecessary and wasteful duplication. One of the hidden benefits of having an even closer relationship with community welfare officers is that those with experience at the coalface will influence the way policies are developed and recommended to Government.

Deputy Stanton referred to community welfare officers acting on their own discretion, an issue also raised in the presentation by the unions. Under the provisions of the Social Welfare Act and the related guidelines, community welfare officers were given the power to use their discretion in taking account of the circumstances. One of the reasons for this, as the Deputy stated, is that people may need an immediate response. It is important that there should be a place within the overall welfare system where an immediate response is provided. That power rests with community welfare officers and that is where it will remain. There is no intention whatsoever of removing it from the system.

The Deputy also asked about changes to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme since its introduction. We would be here until the Word Cup final if I were to give a comprehensive reply to that question. I will, however, briefly outline the position. The SWA scheme was introduced in 1977, 30 years ago next year. Its genesis lay with the Poor Law Act in the 19th century, which gave rise to the home assistance scheme administered by the local authorities. That scheme has changed enormously, reflecting the change in the nature of poverty. It is completely different from what it was 30 years ago, which, in part, is motivating our enthusiasm for this Government decision. The country is richer and we have an opportunity to do things in a different way. The roadmap was set out in last year's NESC report, which identified the need to bring services and payments closer together. This decision is consistent with the direction of the SWA scheme.

The Deputy asked about the transfer target date. That date has not been fixed but the Department's mission is to see what must be done to make this happen. We are taking the appropriate steps and, for example, we had a meeting on the matter this morning. We will not recommend a transfer date until we have a detailed roadmap of how we will set out to achieve it, highlighting the care we need to take in respect of issues that arise in the course of deciding upon such a date.

That brings me neatly to the issue of personal social services. I do not wish to be unfair to the union side, but it was suggested that much of their members' work in the area of personal social services goes unrecognised. Deputy Stanton alluded to this and asked Mr. O'Neill to outline how these services are delivered. The Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Health Service Executive are engaged in identifying how they are delivered and, having done so, ensuring that things from which people benefit at present will not be removed following the transfer.

Chairman

I call on Mr. O'Neill or one of his colleagues to respond to that.

Mr. O’Neill

I will deal with some of the issues and my colleagues will assist by giving more specific information on certain matters.

A question was raised on the payments that could be transferred from the HSE to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. There have already been changes regarding the rental assistance scheme and rent supplements and interim payments could be transferred. It is strange that the only parties not consulted in the formulation of the Core Functions of the Health Service report were the Department and the community welfare officers and superintendent community welfare officers service. The only ones at the consultative forum are the two parties which were not consulted in the construct of the report. That puts holes in the forum. The consultation about which we are talking is rounded, not only on the basis of the interests of community welfare officers and superintendent community welfare officers, but is also clearly applicable to service users. We believe the proposal, as put, will have significant implications.

When somebody goes to the dole office, he or she gets a chit and can then go to somebody else in the health service. As I understand it, a person can have an issue dealt with at one of the approximate 1,000 health service locations and that community welfare officers are very responsive in dealing with these issues. However, the Department of Social and Family Affairs has only 60 to 70 locations and we cannot help if the Department decides not to pay. All we can do is receive the client and deal with the issue sent to us. We are not against resolving issues of that nature without taking such a significant step. I do not think anybody could deny there is a clear link between poor health and poverty and that we must respond. Unfortunately, there are people who are not able to look after their health and the State must intervene. There will be emergencies from time to time.

One of the central pillars of the reform of the health service is community care and the development of multidisciplinary teams which provide care packages in the community. The community welfare officer is a pivotal axle within that strategy. Community welfare officers are dealing with social workers, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and psychologists — the entire spectrum. Where there are needs, the immediate response path is within the health service, not the Department of Social and Family Affairs. If we are to have health service reform, it seem a significant leg of the stool is being removed before the reform starts. That is not the correct way to go.

The community welfare officer plays a very important role for vulnerable persons. Mr. Ó Raghallaigh from the Department of Social and Family Affairs states the role of community welfare officers will not change when they transfer from the Department of Health and Children to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. What is the purpose of the transfer from one Department to another? If there are issues that need to be raised, this could be done without transferring this important and central element of community care services.

I invite my colleagues, Mr. Greg Price and Mr. Christy Grogan, to respond to some of the issues raised.

Mr. Christy Grogan

I am a superintendent community welfare officer in the north west inner city and a member of SIPTU. There are fundamental differences in the functions of community welfare officers and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. An application to the Department is dealt with through a staged process. First, it goes to a clerical officer, then an investigating officer, on to a deciding officer and back to the clerical officer. This is a time consuming process.

Community welfare officers have the advantage of being able to perform these functions within a relatively short time, particularly in light of the fundamental differences in respect of the helping relationship that they bring to such situations. In the case studies, we have illustrated how that can happen. I refer, for example, to the linkages to mental health. Issues that appear simple when someone appears at the hatch may not be quite so simple. Community welfare officers, in the privacy of the relationships that exist, can get to the bottom of some of the issues and discover the reasons that clients cannot progress their payments quickly.

It is not all about inefficiencies within systems, although that certainly is part of it. In the case of unemployment assistance, interim payments increased between 2004 and 2005. The number of registered cases in 2004 was in excess of 26,000. In 2005, there were in excess of 28,000 applications. The community welfare service continues to take up a significant amount of the deficit that arises out of difficulties within the Department. It is our position that those difficulties could be resolved in part within the Department. Mr. Brian Ó Raghallaigh alluded to the fact that the Department could learn from certain of our processes. Those issues could be dealt with without us moving over to the Department of Family and Social Affairs.

As to why it is important that the community welfare service should remain within the Department of Health and Children rather than moving to the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the reason is that in terms of the health linkages and primary care strategy, we have the relevant knowledge, we are there within the community and we can make immediate linkages with individuals within the health sector. That is an extremely important part of our helping relationship and supporting role, and it could be lost within the Department of Family and Social Affairs.

In terms of the limitation of our discretionary scope, history indicates that this has already happened in certain instances. I refer, for example, to the crèche supplement and changes in dietary supplement regulations, which are already causing difficulties for people with diabetes. There is a range of issues on which our view differs from that of the Department, where we see our discretionary role being undermined in certain respects.

Deputy S. Ryan

Many of the questions I wanted to ask have been already posed. The proposed change is fundamental in nature. Having representatives from the Departments and the unions in attendance means that the meeting resembles a Labour Court or conciliation process. It is an utter disgrace if, on an issue of fundamental change such as this — which was recommended and approved by the Government — there has not been detailed consultation between the parties. Given the amount of technology and everything else involved, it is an utter disgrace that an attempt is being made to push something through without consultation or discussion. All I want is for the vulnerable people in society that I represent to obtain the best possible deal. Community welfare officers are flexible and can deal with emergencies. Mr. Ó Raghallaigh stated that there will be no change in that regard, even though responsibility for the community welfare service may move from the Department of Health and Children to the Department of Family and Social Affairs. Is he saying, in the context of the current proposals, that the role of community welfare officers will not change?

Will there be meaningful discussions and negotiations with the community welfare service so that its expertise, competence and experience can be put to the best possible use to ensure that those in receipt of basic supplementary welfare allowances, rent and mortgage interest supplements, exceptional and urgent needs payments and back to school clothing and footwear allowances will not lose and that their situation will be improved? Improvements are required and there is a need to provide additional staff and better accommodation so that people will not be obliged to queue on the street before gaining entry.

There is a need to immediately examine the possibility of transferring responsibility for rent and mortgage interest supplement back to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and local authorities. Issues such as this could be dealt with immediately rather than attempting to push something through without consultation. I would like a commitment to be made in respect of this matter this afternoon. Everybody is saying the same thing. They want to provide the best service. They should make arrangements to do that rather than having a dispute.

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

I agree with Deputy Seán Ryan that this is a fundamental change. It is a change for the better. There seems to be some confusion regarding what I said and I would like to clarify the position. I would also like to correct something Mr. Stephen O'Neill said, namely, that the Department was not consulted in the course of the creation of the report, Core Functions of the Health Service. That is not what I said. The Department was consulted. The views of the trade unions were presented to us some time ago in a blueprint document relating to a recently completed review of services under SWA. I add that to what I said about ongoing consultation.

Deputy Seán Ryan implied that there has been no consultation. There has been a fair amount of consultation. Tomorrow, we will again meet the union representatives we met three months ago. We meet on a quarterly basis. The nub of the Deputy's point is that we should enter into meaningful negotiations with the unions. We have every intention of doing so.

The Deputy requested a commitment that the role and functions of the community welfare service will not change. I can guarantee that nothing will change in the areas to which I referred, namely, the use of discretion, the commitment to help the most vulnerable and so on. We are 100% committed in that regard.

Deputy Seán Ryan suggested that we should provide additional accommodation so that people will not be obliged to queue in the street. I understand that there is pressure on health centres, particularly in parts of west and north Dublin where there has been a great deal of housing development. That issue will be high on our agenda when the transfer takes place. There is also overcrowding at social welfare offices in certain areas, such as, for example, Blanchardstown.

In regard to the possibility of transferring responsibility for rent and mortgage interest supplements to local authorities, that problem has been cracked after many years of hard work. There is a scheme with which community welfare personnel would be familiar, under which people in long-term receipt of rent supplement will be moved into some form of social housing — be it traditional social housing, voluntary housing or being maintained in their current accommodation under a contract between the relevant authority and landlord — that local authorities deem appropriate. I am satisfied that, on the rent supplement front, we are in good shape and we are doing as the Deputy outlined.

Mr. Christy Grogan mentioned that the number of basic payments increased between 2004 and 2005. I am glad to report that the figure has fallen again.

Mr. O’Neill

What I said was that the Department was not a party to the construction of the report. I did not say that it was not consulted. I was not aware of whether it was consulted because we were not informed about the process. A statement to that effect was made by Brian Ó Raghallaigh at the consultative forum, which he lauded earlier as a wonderful facilitator of change of this nature.

While the task, role and function of community welfare officers will not change, people will be moved from an integrated and developing service to a Civil Service Department away from the health services. The Department of Social and Family Affairs has no responsibility to fund any element of health provision. Such provision is the function of the HSE and the Department of Health and Children. We have seen with the crèche payment and other services that the Department of Social and Family Affairs will not, quite rightly, take on the responsibility of funding elements of provision which do not come under its remit. Community welfare officers and superintendent community welfare officers will either be an integral part of developing Health Service Executive community care provision or they will not. We must ask if the service is simply a method of delivering payments or if it has a wider role. Brian Ó Raghallaigh stated that this wider role will be protected. If that is the case, however, why is the service being moved from the Department of Health and Children, of which it is an integral part? The service is currently part of a significant strategy that we are all trying to put in place and make operational. It does not make sense to remove one of the pillars of the strategy. The two suppositions do not add up. We are either providing elements of a health service or we are not.

Questions were asked about the pressures on community welfare officers and superintendent community welfare officers. We are battling in the industrial relations arena to ensure that the required number of officers is in place and we have had some success in that regard. Hopefully, the additional staff appointed will reduce pressure on hard-working community welfare officers.

Deputy Seán Ryan referred to the negotiation of these changes. We have not come here to discuss what will happen to community welfare officers, we have come to talk about what will happen to those who need to access the service. That is not an industrial relations matter, nor would it form part of a negotiated settlement. At issue is the right of people, which was articulated very eloquently in the Oireachtas when the service was established in the 1970s. The structure was created by the late Frank Cluskey in recognition of the clear differences in the way that public servants in the health sector and civil servants provide services. If those differences are to be ignored in the report, a fundamental issue will fail to be taken into account. It is essential for the committee to understand that the service was carefully constructed a certain way for a specific reason. The discretion officers may use in responding to emergency circumstances is an absolute necessity. We point out, respectfully, that civil servants, for what are probably very good reasons, do not have that level of discretion. I do not see how the culture of the community welfare service can survive the move.

Deputy Boyle

I welcome the opportunity to ask questions. I hope that we will benefit from the law of diminishing returns and that subsequent speakers will be required to ask fewer questions. I do not have many questions to ask.

Is it fair to say that the report on the core functions of the health service had a very narrow remit and was focused, in essence, on administrative convenience? It did not explore in great detail ways to improve the service to end users in any of the areas examined. The criticism applies as much to the general registration office as it does to the community welfare service. Any review of public services should have the reverse focus. The question should be whether services are working and being delivered to citizens, rather than how they are being administered by Government agencies and who has ultimate responsibility. It is important to stress that while we could adopt a black and white approach to the issue, it would be unfair to say the Department of Social and Family Affairs is entirely condition-bound in the delivery of payments, whereas the community welfare service has complete discretion. It is fair to note, however, that the Department is bound by conditions to a greater extent, while the community welfare service has a greater degree of flexibility. To what extent does the Department believe it is flexible in the delivery of its services and to what degree is there discretion within the community welfare service? Depending on geographical location or an individual community welfare officer or inspector, it appears the service may be more or less rigid in its application.

My final question is a development of my first on the quality of the service. Mr. Ó Raghallaigh said the service was provided largely at health centres, but it is also the case that many community welfare officers operate from community centres and other informal settings. The environment and ambience for those who resort to the community welfare service and the conditions in which the service is provided may not be adequate. It would be useful for the Department of Health and Children which is currently responsible for the service to respond. I would like to hear what resources are required, how they will be provided and how the service will be improved. Other members have asked the obvious questions about the survival of the culture of the service, but we need to hear how the service will be improved for users and what resources will be provided to achieve this end.

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

The core functions review arose from a desire to improve the service the health service provides for its end users. For better or worse, the conclusion reached was that, in part, the health service was prevented from performing its core functions on foot of having become enmeshed in provision which could more appropriately be provided elsewhere.

The discretion which community welfare officers have is provided for under the Social Welfare Act. It has been provided for by successive Ministers, most recently under the consolidation Act, with which the committee was involved last year. There is a clear recognition of the need for this discretion. We do not intend to remove a provision put in place 30 years ago which we have maintained ever since.

Deputy Boyle asked a good question about the Department's discretion in making payments. We have statutory and non-statutory schemes — the latter are covered by guidelines which we publish on our website. There is a greater degree of flexibility under the non-statutory schemes, the guidelines for which we change from time to time. Recently, for example, we reduced to two years the length of time an applicant has to be unemployed to avail of the back-to-work allowance. However, if someone applies who has not been unemployed for a full two years, we will not take a black and white approach and say "No". We will examine the case on its merits.

It is something of a caricature to present civil servants as wearing pin-striped suits and state that we operate according to the book. That description belongs to a different era and matters have moved on somewhat in the interim.

The Deputy asked an interesting question with regard to how rigid the community welfare service can be and cited the example of the different quality of service in different areas. There is a legitimate reason why this may occur and my conclusion is that it is part of having discretion. If community welfare officers and superintendents are given discretion, they will come to a decision to deny or grant assistance in various instances. The reverse will happen in the next parish where two different people are involved in making a decision. This is part of granting discretion.

It is interesting that we sometimes receive calls from community welfare officers and superintendents seeking more explicit direction. We must bear in mind that the service operates under the direction and control of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and that it is a social welfare rather than a health function. A recent example relates to EEA workers and the habitual residence condition. Members will be aware that in November 2005 we issued a guideline to the community welfare service explaining how, as a result of EU commitments, that condition would operate. It involves whether a person is a worker. As a worker, a person is not subject to as strict a regime as a non-worker. The response to the guideline was a request for more explicit direction as to what to do. This represented a flight from discretion. Such issues arise and are dealt with on a day-to-day basis. This illustrates that the situations in which civil servants operate are not black and white in nature. It also shows that they are not all rigid and rule-bound while community welfare officers are the opposite.

Deputy Boyle referred to the quality of accommodation. I am conscious that some community welfare officers work from inappropriate locations. Following the transfer, we will work to resolve that problem. In part, this is a carry-over from another era when, for example, a person living in Glanmire might only visit Cork once a year or once a month at most. Transport is now more accessible, there is more mobility and people are more likely to go to larger centres for their weekly shopping. There is, therefore, less need to operate at inappropriate locations that lack privacy. Equally, provision is made in this proposal for one-stop-shops through which it will be possible to create a much better service for people who depend on the social welfare system.

Not all the vulnerable in our society are in contact with the community welfare service. The service is in contact with approximately 100,000 people each week, while approximately 1 million people receive social welfare payments each week. What about the 90% who do not have contact with their community welfare officers? They also deserve an improvement in the service they receive. The integration proposed with this transfer provides the possibility to do that.

Mr. Michael Cunningham

Deputy Boyle made some comments on the core services report, which is a fundamental part of the problem. I have a shortened version of the report in my possession. With reference to the transfer decision and the reason it was made, the report cites a short research document compiled by the department of social services at TCD. It almost admits that the research is inadequate in so far as it only looks at six different administrative regions and says that it was only able to draw general conclusions. However, it seems that this radical decision is based on that research.

Those making a decision as radical as this would be best advised to employ a researcher to engage with as many people within the service as possible in order to obtain an overview of that service, who it serves and how it serves them. The research might even find improvements in the service. The report in my possession does not seem to confirm that the research document to which I refer goes so far as to support the decision it is claimed to support. I have not seen the research. Has anyone seen it? I find the report flawed because it does not address the issue of the community welfare service in detail. It seems to make a decision concerned with administration rather than day-to-day best practice and delivery of the service.

Deputy Keaveney

I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. While I am not a member of the committee, I have an interest in this issue and the more I listen, the more confused I become. The question that comes to mind is: why should we change something that is not broken? Are we merely trying to introduce more middlemen or women into the system? Where we had a community welfare officer making a good decision, it now seems we will have a clerk going to a deciding officer who will go to the investigating officer and then back to the clerk. We spoke about duplication, but surely this expands rather than reduces the number dealing with the issue.

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh said the location of the community welfare office would not change and that we would still have the same number of officers. However, I was interested to hear that the office in Glanmire might be relocated to Cork because transport was easier. I challenge him to come to my area to see the health centres from which some CWOs operate. Let him try to find public transport and a service there. This is not just a comment from me as a representative for the area but the reality. Surely, consolidation of the service and the move to nice locations in larger towns undermine the service to existing clients. Did I pick Mr. Ó Raghallaigh up wrongly on this issue as he said there would be no change in locations?

Is there a difference between rural and urban CWOs? In that context, can one broad solution fit all? I do not want to say my area is different from other places, but in rural areas there is a strong sense that CWOs know the seed, breed and generation coming to them and will quickly know whether people are coming to them with a tall tale or a real issue. On the other hand, they also have the knowledge and ability to deal with the extreme circumstances surrounding particular issues, for example, access to health services in County Donegal. They can make a payment knowing a person from village X or Y needs to get a taxi to collect payment. Is there an urban-rural difference that may be brushed over if there is a particular solution?

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh spoke about integration of the existing service. As an observer, I see this as a move from an integrated to an segregated service. Currently, CWOs can lift the telephone and ask the Department of Social and Family Affairs for direction. It is a bonus that they are already working in the health service. I know from political interaction that when we have a question for the Department, for example about decentralised offices, we are told to contact the OPW which then refers us to somebody else. In the case of CWOs, working across the two Departments should be an advantage and the way to eliminate duplication in delivery of the service.

Some of the work done by CWOs involves means-testing for a medical card. This takes up a significant amount of time. They also deal with other health issues. If this process goes ahead and the transfer is made, will CWOs become SWOs?

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

The last question is the easiest to answer. The answer is no. The Deputy suggests that as the current system is working fine, there is no reason to change it. Perhaps I could turn the question around. Why would we want to change something if it was working? We are not stupid. The Deputy must agree we run the welfare system in a reasonable manner. We will not tread on a flower that is doing its job. We will seek opportunities to make improvements, such as cutting out the inappropriate centres. We will also cut out the nonsense to which Mr. O'Neill referred of a person being given a chit to take to another office around the corner. We are driven by the opportunity to make improvements and not by anything else.

I recently spent a week in County Donegal and I am conscious of the great distances between centres on the various peninsulas. The position is similar in west Cork. We will not remove a service that is being used. However, I am sure the gentlemen present will attest to the time wasted when community welfare officers attend a clinic to which clients do not turn up. There are advantages in the way that things are set up and we will not seek to change that. However, we will try to make improvements when the opportunity arises.

The Government decision will transfer responsibility for this service from the Department of Health and Children and the Health Service Executive to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The transfer will not delve into changing the role of community welfare officers, removing their discretion or any other issue that has been raised at these proceedings. The transfer will create a different administrative responsibility at Cabinet level for this service. There are good reasons for this. The Core Functions of the Health Service report is not the only report which suggests that this be done. There was a suggestion that no research was carried out and that, therefore, this is a bad idea. As I mentioned earlier, the Commission on Social Welfare recommended this change in the 1980s. I will not repeat the list of references in respect of this matter.

If one stands back and questions whether community welfare officers are providing a welfare service and, if so, whether it is appropriate to place that service within the Department of Social and Family affairs, the answer is yes. I am 100% confident that this will result in an improvement in the service to vulnerable people, all of whom are social welfare clients.

Mr. O’Neill

There is no impediment to any review of the service and to discussing how it can be improved. It is reasonable to review a service. However, the suggested change has significant dangers for the service. We are not arguing the point that there are no flaws or gaps in the service. We are suggesting that we should sit down and resolve the issues. As Deputy Seán Ryan suggested, we would be happy to become involved in round-table discussions.

We are being presented with a case that has not been proven in terms of whether what would occur under the transfer would be better than what is already in place. The case has not been proven but the decision to transfer the service to another Department has been taken. When that transfer is made, we will be obliged to try to make the best of it. Our point is that, in its current form, the community welfare service is best placed to be of maximum benefit to those who avail of it. Issues relating to locations and the manner in which changes might be made can be discussed at the forum.

It was stated that the situation relating to the General Register Office is similar. However, that is not my understanding because that the staff of that office are both civil servants and employees of the Health Service Executive and will remain as such. The situation relating to the GRO is not, therefore, similar because it will involve moving civil servants from one Department to another. I would be surprised if the position was different.

The point we are making is that the case in respect of the transfer has not been proven. If it can be demonstrated that the transfer will lead to a significant improvement in service delivery to the vulnerable in society, community welfare officers will beat down my door and inform me that we need to do this and that the reports are correct. When questions are raised about research and the best someone can come up with is a Combat Poverty report from the mid-1980s, which, by any standard, has been gathering dust and would need to be reviewed, I contend that our point on the efficacy of the research that has been carried out stands. It is clear that no consultation took place with those who run and manage the service. It is impossible for anybody, in light of the shallowness of the information that exists, to make a statement to the committee that there will be improvements in the service. The point we make is that the way research has been conducted has not allowed people to determine that. We are playing for high stakes in making a decision of this nature if solid groundwork to indicate that it is the right move has not been done. We know that it is not the right thing to do.

In fairness to Mr. Ó Raghallaigh, he stated that his Department is conducting research on the breakdown of the different aspects of the role of community welfare officers. We can give him that information because it is available to us. We know that the proposal will not improve the service. In our opinion, it will seriously undermine it. At the risk of repeating the point, let me state that the community welfare service is placed in the area of health for very good reasons, which are as relevant today as they were when the decision was made to so position the service.

Mr. Cunningham

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh commented that nobody may turn up at a clinic attended by a community welfare officer. Did he arrive at that view because payments were not issued?

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

I was informed that this happens by community welfare officers who have experience of going to clinics to which people do not turn up.

Mr. Cunningham

I imagine that only one or two people attend. However, in very remote parts of the country — I am based in a homeless unit in the city — it may be the case that some people have brief interventions with local community welfare officers and that more people may attend the clinics the following week. Just because those interventions are minor in terms of scale does not make them unimportant. The nature of the community welfare service is that it can intervene locally and even in remote areas where no other service exists. That can be a lifeline for people who perhaps come to the office seeking a payment. In my work, a person may present to seek a payment or he or she may seek an interim payment while he or she is waiting for the Department of Social and Family Affairs to process his or her payment.

The way we conduct interviews is different from the way they are conducted in a social welfare office. It is possible to glean from the interview that there may be other issues involved. That is part of the process which would be fundamentally undermined by the move to the Department of Social and Family Affairs, which has a different culture. The Department of Social and Family Affairs must have its own ethos and culture for a specific set of reasons. By the same token, community welfare officers must retain their ethos and culture because it is a way of personalising the service. In many ways, the Department of Social and Family Affairs offers a product, while what we offer and are keen to continue to offer is a service that is holistic and that takes into account the needs of the people who present to us. We think that would be fundamentally undermined by any move into a Department, which must be bureaucratic, uniform and universal in its responses. The latter would not suit the community welfare service and the people it serves.

Deputy D. Wallace

Most of the relevant questions have been asked so I will not delay proceedings. This has been an interesting debate. The community welfare service has served people well. However, it must be accepted that there is an overlapping of services between the Departments of Health and Children and Social and Family Affairs. There is no doubt that the systems need to be examined. Whether the change should be as radical as that outlined by Mr. Ó Raghallaigh is debatable. There are people present who know more about this matter than I and who can develop that argument.

Reference was made to the Comptroller and Auditor General and value for money. However, in an attempt to obtain value for money, services can sometimes be impinged upon. There are many services in Ireland. They include free travel for old age pensioners, etc. If we were to apply value-for-money criteria to these, there would be no services. Change occurred previously. For example, responsibility for transport was transferred from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That was a big change, but it has been successful.

I pay tribute to community welfare officers. They are very close to the situation on the ground. We need to examine whether this move has major implications for them. The unions have a job to do and they are right to do it. Change is never easy. Fear of the unknown is certainly in people's minds. I want to be fair to everybody. There is a need for change but the question of whether it needs to be as radical as proposed must be carefully examined. Two groups are involved, namely, the people who provide the service and the those who avail of it. They must be our priority in this debate.

Chairman

I am strongly of the view that when a service such as the community welfare service is subsumed within a Department, it ends up being strangled and, regardless of what Mr. Ó Raghallaigh says, the ethos of the service changes. He speaks from his own perspective when he says that it will not change. However, it will change because the Core Functions of the Health Service report did not properly address the existing functions.

Deputy Dan Wallace is correct to state that the functions to which I refer cannot be measured in terms of the expenditure of money. The function of the scheme is to provide money but it also provides a multitude of other things. It involves a caring ethos and community welfare officers talk to people who are stressed and help them deal with that. They give socio-economic advice and deal with people with health problems. What will happen in regard to the medical card administration system if responsibility for medical cards becomes a HSE function? What functions that are currently administered by the community welfare service will remain with the HSE? Community welfare officers know more about some people then do their parents, politicians or anyone else. They know much more than the Comptroller and Auditor General will ever know about them. Value for money is all very well. It is the method of evaluation used by bureaucrats. However, it can never evaluate the human aspect of the matter and that is very important.

The Department has already informed the community welfare service that the Department would consider it a misuse of the discretionary scope available to community welfare officers if, under internal HSE pressure, they routinely assisted with the transport costs incurred by patients by using SWA payments. What will happen to a person living in a rural area — such as that in which I live — who needs transport at 6 a.m. to keep an appointment at the Mater Hospital at 8 a.m., when there is no bus or ambulance available?

In the event of an emergency occurring at 9 p.m., I contact Mr. Finbarr Murphy, the chief community welfare officer. Imagine having to ring the Department of Social and Family Affairs at that time. I speak from personal experience. The people here are giving a true account of what happens. I have often been obliged to contact the community welfare officer in order to deal with an emergency in the depths of winter. Will that change? Will people be obliged to pay to attend a health centre? Will the Department of Social and Family Affairs be obliged to pay rent to the HSE for the use of the health centres, particularly as community welfare officers will remain in most of these centres because there is nowhere else they can go in many rural areas? Health centres are used for everything and they keep the areas to which I refer alive.

Will this be cost effective? Is somebody hell-bent on trying to get their paws on the big pot of money that is available? Is that the real motive for this change? The drastic proposals being made could not be based on the report on core functions. No one would emasculate a service on the basis of that report. Is there some other motive?

The late Frank Cluskey who led my party and whom I knew well never intended that this sort of letter would be sent to anybody. I soldiered with that man and I can assure everybody of that. He created the community welfare service to replace the home assistance system. People could avail of the immediacy and flexibility of the CWS in order to address a pressing need. One cannot evaluate discretion without knowing the individuals and families involved. They are people who go quietly to their local CWO and who do not want a local politician or anybody else to know that they are doing it. There is great privacy about the system, but that will disappear. Will people be brought before officials of the Department of Social and Family Affairs who are already overstretched?

Every change involves savings. Will there be any savings in this instance? Deputy Dan Wallace put the matter succinctly. The value of these functions cannot be measured in terms of money.

Deputy D. Wallace

I wish to clarify something. I certainly do not agree with everything the Chairman said. A genuine attempt is being made to provide a better service. I do not accept that there is a hidden agenda. Regardless of whether Mr. O'Neill or Mr. Ó Raghallaigh is the boss, we will still have the service on the ground and we want to improve it.

Chairman

I disagree with Deputy Dan Wallace. However, that is neither here nor there. We are entitled to disagree. My view is clear. Why change something that works well? If there is fine tuning to be done, why not do it? Why not call in the operators and inform them that certain systems must be sorted out, expanded or whatever? Why use a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh said that the service will remain the same and, as he is a person of his word, I have no doubt that he believes that very firmly. However, I disagree with him in that regard. Mr. Ó Raghallaigh may say that he will make me eat my words and I will have no problem apologising to him if I am wrong. However, I would like to know what will happen as regards the current discretion exercised by community welfare officers. Will the Department end up sending letters, such as that before me, people in various parts of the country? The letter to which I refer states "The adequacy or otherwise of funding for travel vouchers for the carriage of people referred to above is entirely a matter for resolution by the HSE and the Department of Health and Children". It continues "SWA funds are not available and must not be sought from the CWS for these purposes". My case is proved.

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

May I respond?

Chairman

Yes. Mr. Ó Raghallaigh may, and is entitled to, respond.

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

It is unfair to quote from a letter of which I do not have a copy. I will, however, speculate on the possible context relating to it. The Health Service Executive has moneys available to fund people travelling to hospitals, etc. I assume that the letter was written to make the point that those rather than SWA funds — which are provided for a different purpose — should be used. I would be amazed if the import of the letter was to suggest that somebody should not receive support for travelling to hospital.

The Chairman referred to the emasculation of the service. I ask him again why we would emasculate a service that is working well. We have not lost the run of ourselves. The service works as it does because it is a creature of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, provided for in legislation that the committee passed. The most recent example of such legislation is the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. There is no proposal to change any of the provisions the Oireachtas has enacted.

Deputy Keaveney asked if community welfare service staff would be become social welfare officers and I gave her a direct and short answer, namely, "no". The discretion that is currently available to community welfare officers will continue to exist after the transfer.

What we are concerned with is transferring the functions of the Department of Health and Children and the HSE in the community welfare service to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. This is perfectly appropriate. Deputies know better than anybody else how we operate our services and they will agree that we have taken steps to improve and modernise them over the years. The current proposal is a further step in that direction. We are not so bone-headed that we will change something that works well. To refer to something Deputy Seán Ryan said, we will seek opportunities to improve the service, where possible, but we will not disimprove it. We would not be allowed to disimprove it and we have no intention of doing so.

The Chairman made a number of other points, including one relating to the operation of the medical card scheme. I ask my colleagues from the Department of Health and Children to address that point. Other points might have been raised which they may also wish to address.

Ms Frances Spillane

I will comment on some of the background to the report on core functions, in respect of which a number of criticisms have been made. It is important to note that the report was commissioned as part of the health reform process. Members may recall the 2001 health strategy, which was followed by two very important reports. The Prospectus report, the Audit of Structures and Functions in the Health Service, led to the establishment of the Health Service Executive. The second report, which is generally called the Brennan report, related to the reform of structural, organisational and financial management systems in the health sector. The Brennan report strongly emphasised the broad remit of the HSE and the importance of ensuring a focus by the health service on its core functions. It was in that context that the working group on core functions was established. From its report, members will see that the group decided at its first meeting to assess issues in light of discovering ways to improve delivery of public services. To respond to the question as to whether this will improve matters, that aim was central to the group's thinking. The second focus of the group was value for money.

The group was unusual. On foot of a joint decision by the Minister for Finance and Health and Children, only three assistant secretaries general served on the group. These individuals were drawn from the Departments of Finance, the Taoiseach and the Health and Children. As we have seen today, suggestions to move functions are extremely sensitive. Changes of Government can lead to changes of responsibility. My colleague, Ms Simonetta Ryan, was secretary to the group. There was consultation to a certain extent. I met the group and spoke to its members about various aspects of personal social services and matters I had dealt with during the years in the Department. Of necessity, the way the group conducted its work was somewhat unusual.

As the group states in its report, the suggestion that there might be changes to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme has been mentioned for many years. Mr. Ó Raghallaigh mentioned the social welfare commission. Various other reports were produced, including that of the Combat Poverty Agency. It is important to note that the Comptroller and Auditor General has also commented on the issue.

Members asked if the transfer would improve services for clients. There was a very positive response to the move of the DPMA to the Department of Social and Family Affairs in the mid-1990s. I dealt with the transfer myself. The disability lobby groups are very pleased with developments in that area and I hope to see a similar reaction to the proposed changes. It is generally recognised that the Department has extensive expertise in this area and very useful systems in place to administer allowances. While I acknowledge that change is not easy, some of the benefits have already been seen in the disability sector. They are tied to mainstreaming and Government policy as set out in the national disability strategy.

My colleague will address the medical card scheme.

Ms Simonetta Ryan

I was the secretary to the working group for most of its work. Reference was made to research carried out for the group. The purpose was not to examine the SWA scheme per se, but to consider a much wider question. The core functions review group had to consider the functions of the health service which interfered with its ability to deliver health care services. Among these functions was the provision of social care services. The research was broad and covered disability services and care of the elderly, rather than specific matters such as SWA. It involved an examination of systems in other countries. In the United Kingdom local government provides many of the social and personal services that the health service supplies here. The research concluded that it would not be feasible to provide for the same separation in Ireland, although it did not consider the SWA scheme specifically.

Deputy S. Ryan

No research was done on this aspect of the matter.

Ms Ryan

The particular research referred to considered the broader issue. As Ms Spillane pointed out, the operation of the SWA scheme has been the subject of research and examination on a number of occasions, before and after the core group had met.

The Chairman raised the question of medical cards. Mr. Ó Raghallaigh has mentioned that, as part of the implementation of the Government decision following the recommendations of the report, a number of working groups have been established. Among the tasks being carried out is an examination of the work being done specifically by community welfare officers, the aim of which is to ensure none of the functions falls through the cracks on transfer to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Some officers deal with the issue of medical card eligibility, which function will be dealt with as part of the implementation process. There is consultation with all parties as part of the implementation process.

Mr. Greg Price

There has been no consultation with either SIPTU or IMPACT. While we were informed of the proposed transfer, such communication does not constitute consultation. We attend consultative forum meetings which can be a useful way to exchange ideas. I have been attending such meetings for ten years. While we sometimes get something from them, most of the time we are simply told what changes are being brought about.

The expenditure review commenced in 2000 and we made a submission. We appeared at this committee shortly afterwards on more or less the same theme but have not been involved in any further discussions. Six years later we are told the review is imminent. Despite what Mr. Ó Raghallaigh will say, my understanding is that it will set about abolishing SWA but we will have to wait to see the content of the review.

I agree with the Chairman that the issue is about control of the service and nothing else. Why not transfer responsibility for the Vote to the Health Service Executive rather than the services when everything is working well?

Of course, we see the need for change. The Department needs to get its act in order to ensure we will not have to make interim payments. Local authorities, too, need to get their act in order. The rental accommodation scheme is coming unstuck as we speak.

The letter read out is just one small example of where discretion is fettered by the Department. Crèche and diet supplements are another example. The Act is very clear. Any person in the State whose means are insufficient to meet needs is entitled to supplementary welfare allowance. It is all very well to say a payment is not appropriate but if it is not appropriate to the scheme, to where is it appropriate? If SWA cannot cover it, the community welfare officer is legally obliged to meet the person's need. Otherwise, we would be operating ultra vires of the legislation.

Deputy Stanton

I asked where the community welfare officers would be located and was told they would be located in health centres, which will — correct me if I am wrong — remain the property of the HSE. Does this mean the Department of Social and Family Affairs will have to come to an arrangement with the HSE, or how will this operate? Who employs CWOs and will this arrangement change? Is it the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Social and Family Affairs or the HSE?

Deputy S. Ryan

We have had a very informal discussion and see that a major change is envisaged, on which there has been no real consultation or negotiation. Where can we go from here to ensure there will be full consultation, discussion and negotiation?

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

On the question related to offices, during the years we have had free use of health board property. However, we may find that we will have to pay rent for this property in the future. If we do, I am sure colleagues in the Department of Finance will make an appropriate adjustment in the HSE Vote to ensure there will be no net cost to the taxpayer. The Health Service Executive is the employer of community welfare officers and superintendents.

Deputy Stanton

Will they not remain as they are?

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

No, that is the import of this part of the decision. We are here today for a particular purpose, but the decision is much bigger than the people concerned. It also has to do with the General Register Office, disability payments, etc.

Deputy Ryan has asked where we go from here. I think I said — it is included in the brief — that we are committed to a consultation process and associated communications strategy. I emphasise that we are at the beginning of the process. Clearly, we will negotiate with the trade unions in the appropriate forums — industrial relations forums and elsewhere — to obtain their members' views. The consultative forum meeting due to take place tomorrow will form part of the process.

Mr. Price suggested that the expenditure review initiative report would provide for the abolition of SWA. That is not the case.

Mr. Ramon O’Reilly

Deputy Wallace has left, but I would like to make it clear that we do not oppose change just for the sake of opposition. Our members' jobs are not at risk from the proposal. Our opposition is based on the belief the change will destroy the service.

Chairman

That point has been debated back and forth. Mr. Ó Raghallaigh gave the official view that it will not happen. Irrespective of my view or that of anybody else, he disagrees. It is useful to have disagreement in this debate on the various issues involved.

I thank all those who attended from the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Health Service Executive. We have had a very frank discussion in which everybody has been able to express a view. I thank the representatives of SIPTU and IMPACT who also gave their time. All contributions have been useful. I hope the debate on the issues ventilated today will lead to a meeting of minds in the near future as we all recognise the value of the CWO service. All we would urge is that whatever changes are made, they should not dilute or diminish the service as we know it. Our objective is that any change should enhance the service for end users. We hope that is clear, irrespective of the various views expressed.

I again thank all those who attended and gave so much of their time to this debate. The many questions asked show it is a topic of interest that will not leave the radar quickly.

The joint committee went into private session at 5.17 p.m. and adjourned at 5.18 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 4 July 2006.