JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 18 Jul 2006

Social Welfare Payments: Presentation.

Chairman

Today's meeting will involve a presentation by officials from the Department of Social and Family Affairs on the allegations of overpayment of allowances in regard to the children of immigrants and the delays in processing claims for respite care, carer's allowance and pensions in general. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the departmental officials: Ms Bernadette Lacey, director general of social welfare services and Deputy Secretary General of the Department; Mr. Brian Ó Raghallaigh and Mr. Gerry Daly, both assistant directors general of social welfare services. Mr. Ó Raghallaigh attended a meeting of the committee some weeks ago and I am pleased to welcome him once again. We look forward to the delegation's presentation.

The allegations of overpayment of allowances are serious, although not of the scale alleged on the "Newsnight" programme on BBC last week, where a figure of €1.74 billion for the United Kingdom for 2003-04 was cited. I did not see that programme but understand the mechanism of tax credits was mentioned. More allegations have emerged in the media in this jurisdiction since the clerk to the committee contacted the Department on this matter. The clerk will give delegates copies of articles from last Wednesday's Irish Examiner and Evening Herald and The Irish Times of last Saturday. Although these articles have not heretofore been brought to their attention by the secretariat, we would appreciate any comments delegates can offer on them.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members who wish to make a declaration in regard to any matters being discussed may do so now or at the beginning of their contribution. Members are also reminded that if there is a possibility of there being a conflict of interest, they should make a declaration of that interest now or at the beginning of their contribution.

I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but that this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. While it is generally accepted that a witness would have qualified privilege, the committee is not in a position to guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it.

I ask Ms Lacey to make the initial presentation.

Ms Bernadette Lacey

I welcome this opportunity to address the committee on various issues in regard to the activities and operations of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The committee has raised concerns under five headings regarding the administration of social welfare schemes and the operations of the Department. I will address each of these items separately.

In order to ensure members have a broad understanding of the work of the Department and set the discussion in context, I will provide some statistics. The Department of Social and Family Affairs administers more than 35 schemes to provide income support for those who need it and supports for people of working age who wish to re-enter the labour market. During 2005 the Department administered a budget of some €13 billion. Some 1.87 million new claim applications were received during the year and each week, on average, payments issued to approximately 1 million people in respect of some 1.5 million beneficiaries. In 2000, by comparison, the Department had a budget of €5.3 billion and issued payments to some 870,000 people in respect of 1.4 million beneficiaries. This is an indication of the growth in recent years.

As with other areas of the public service, the Department is required to operate within an overall staffing limit set in 2003 in the context of the Government's overall public service staff numbers policy. The staff and other resources available to the Department are regularly reviewed having regard to the volume of claims, budget measures to be implemented and other competing demands. We do our best to assign these resources in the most efficient and effective way. Our objective is to deliver a service to our customers while, at the same time, implementing cost-effective controls to prevent and detect fraud and abuse. The Department is engaged in this process on an ongoing basis.

Committee members expressed concerns about the recent headline in a daily newspaper which proclaimed "€6.5 million missing in immigrant child allowance blunder". This headline is both inaccurate and misleading. The figure of €6.5 million relates to overpayments which arose over a five-year period from 2001 to 2005. Furthermore, the figure is not, as suggested in the article, related solely to asylum seekers. Rather, it represents the level of overpayments incurred in respect of all child benefit claims in that period.

Overpayments on child benefit claims arise in a variety of situations, such as when a child leaves school, goes to live in a different household or leaves the State. During 2005, 46% of overpayments arose in respect of children leaving the State to go, for instance, to live in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. While the Department does not believe any level of overpayments is acceptable, I ask members to note that during the period 2001 to 2005 some €7.76 billion was paid in child benefit and that overpayments of €6.5 million represent just 0.83% of the amount paid out.

Several controls on expenditure in respect of child benefit claims are in place. The automation of claims in recent years and the checks carried out in this regard are particularly significant. The procedures in place for administering claims for children coming from other countries involve examination of the validity of the documentation such as birth certificates, proffered by customers. We issue informational mailshots on an ongoing basis and we follow up where the letter is not delivered or where there is no response from the claimant.

We recognise that the growth in immigration in recent years has affected the issue of control. The Department is actively considering what further we must do to ensure that new measures can be put in place to address the issues that arise. At the same time, we must have regard to ensuring an equal treatment approach to all persons with whom we deal.

Members have also expressed concerns in regard to the delays in administering the carer's allowance. There are more than 26,000 claims in payment, which equates to an increase of 5% in claims since the beginning of this year and 13% since the beginning of last year. We receive some 1,000 new claims per month and there are some 2,000 claims currently awaiting finalisation.

We have made some improvement this year on the processing times and the turnaround in decisions. The improvement was achieved despite the fact that 5,570 new claims for carers were received in the first six months of this year as compared to 4,200. That is an increase of 32% in the number of new claims. In my note I outlined the various approaches taken to improve claim processing. Regardless of the actions we take to reduce the number of claims, time lags in processing claims will occur because of the need to assess the carer's allowance under a variety of headings, including means, medical and residence. As we took a number of actions to improve processing and the claim load is increasing, the scope for further improvement is extremely limited.

The position on the respite care grant is that 28,000 grants have been paid this year. Of these, 26,000 were paid to people entitled to receive it automatically without the need for an application such as those in receipt of carer's allowance, carer's benefit, prescribed relative allowance or constant attendance allowance. Up to last Friday, the Department had processed 1,900 applications from people not entitled to receive the grant automatically.

This year we will solicit applications in two phases. We wrote to people who received the grant last year and invited them to apply. On foot of this, approximately 6,000 applications were received to date, of which one quarter have been processed. The second phase will involve a press and publicity campaign later in the year. In addition to dealing with grant applications for this year, we still receive applications for grants for 2005, of which 1,600 cases have been processed.

By its nature, receiving a large volume of applications in a relatively short period of time puts pressure on processing sections. We appointed an additional nine staff on a temporary basis. However, familiarisation and training issues arose which had to be overcome. We are confident that staff members are now working at full capacity and we will be able to process the applications much faster.

I will address two aspects of delays in issuing pensions. The Department experienced an increase in the level of claims in recent times. We administer three schemes for people of retirement age, namely, the old age contributory pension, the retirement pension and the old age non-contributory pension. In 2005, approximately 201,000 people received either a contributory or retirement pension and 84,000 received a non-contributory pension. Today some 220,000 people receive either contributory or retirement pension and 84,000 receive an old-age non-contributory pension. That is an increase of 9.4% over the figure for 2005.

From January to March last year we received 9,000 new claims for contributory or retirement pensions and 2,500 for non-contributory pensions. In the first quarter of this year we received 10,200 new claims for contributory or retirement pensions and 2,900 for the old-age non-contributory pension an increase of 14%.

As the committee is aware, the Department is undertaking a major service delivery modernisation programme. At the end of May this year, the system was implemented for contributory and retirement pensions. Approximately 220,000 customer records were successfully moved from a 20 year old computer system to the new system. The change also involved a major reorganisation of work to take advantage of the new technology. This, in itself, involved intensive training of all staff.

It is inevitable in a major change programme that the capacity of a processing claims section would reduce, and a backlog of work has accrued. Approximately 7,500 claims await decision and 3,280 people have been identified as having reached the age of 66 years. The area's management has taken a number of actions to reduce the backlog and bring the level down to the normal number of 3,000. These actions include prioritising cases where the person has reached pension age, deploying additional experienced staff to process the new claims, applying additional overtime and deprioritising other work.

We issue a letter of acknowledgement when we receive an application from a customer and we return any documentation such as birth certificates to the person as soon as possible. We have revised the wording of this letter to avoid any concerns for the customer. In all cases, the original date of receipt will be used as the date of the claim and customers will not lose out on payments.

I regret the delays in processing pensions. I assure committee members the staff and management of the Department make every effort to ensure this temporary situation is resolved in the shortest time possible. Our intention at all times is to ensure customers receive their pensions as soon as possible after reaching pension age.

The delays referred to relate to new claims for contributory and retirement pensions. A substantial amount of work is involved in managing and maintaining existing claims such as where people change address, lose books or experience other changes in circumstances. This work is kept up-to-date to avoid any gaps in payments for those already on pensions.

We normally ask people to apply for their pensions at least three months before the due date, a policy which has been successful in the past. In the past 12 months it has taken on average less than seven weeks to process a claim and less than six weeks to process a retirement pension claim. Where applications are made in advances, approximately 80% are awarded before the person reaches pension age.

While we do experience difficulties from the implementation of service delivery modernisation, I assure the committee that in time we will be able to offer our customers an enhanced service by proactively inviting them to make pension claims in advance of reaching pension age. We will also be in a position to provide an integrated service to these customers in respect of free travel allowance and household benefits by eliminating the need for customers to make separate applications for these services.

We receive approximately 10,000 new applications per year for non-contributory pensions. These often involve a home visit by a social welfare inspector to assess a person's means. However, it takes approximately nine weeks on average to process these claims and more than one third are in payment by the time the person reaches the age of 66 years. Only 124 such cases await decision.

I am sorry to hear the telephone service to members of the committee is unsatisfactory. During the years we tried to improve on the quality of services provided to all Members of the Oireachtas. The Department has dedicated phone numbers in 45 of its business areas to enable Members of the Oireachtas to quickly contact us on behalf of their constituents. Each year, a list of the numbers and contact names is circulated and these are updated on a regular basis.

Where a person cannot give an immediate answer to the caller, a return call will be made within an agreed timeframe, normally on the same day, or at most, within 24 hours. We surveyed the numbers on the list, and with two exceptions, all contact details are still valid. We are arranging to replace those two names. I invite members of the committee to contact my office if they experience difficulties in contacting the Department. I will be happy to investigate any specific instances where they experience problems to ensure I can ensure a quality service resumes as soon as possible.

I hope the situations I outlined have given committee members an understanding of the issues addressed by the Department and the actions we take to overcome difficulties and delays. I assure the committee it is our intention to continue the policy of delivering a quality service to our customers.

Deputy Stanton

I welcome the delegation and thank Ms Lacey for her presentation. It was very enlightening and helpful. Yesterday I received a letter from an Irish citizen living abroad. He raised an issue which I will pass on in writing to the delegation at a later stage. He has been in communication with an office of the Department. As he travels a great deal, he has also communicated with similar offices throughout the world. He stated of all the offices with which he had dealings, the Department is the best he has come across. It was nice to see that in writing and I want to pass it on.

Ms Lacey

I thank the Deputy.

Deputy Stanton

I appreciate the efforts the Department makes to provide a proper service for its customers and Members of the Oireachtas, for which I thank it. I understand six mail shots were issued to recipients of child benefit in the past five years, the postage costs of which were over €500,000. Staffing and investigation costs are not included in that figure. Ms Lacey has explained that one of the ways the Department can determine if people are in receipt of illegal payments is through the return of said letters by An Post. When does the Department decide to send out such letters? Is it done on a routine basis? There does not seem to be any pattern to the mail shots. Is that a deliberate strategy on the part of the Department?

When sending out the aforementioned letters, does the Department take the opportunity to inform families of other payments such as family income supplement? I suggest the Department should consider doing so when it next embarks on a mail shot because one of the concerns of this committee is that people are unaware of such payments. I ask that members of the committee be provided with copies of the letters that have been sent to the recipients of child benefit in the past five years.

I note that claims were terminated as a result of each mail shot and such terminations are recorded. However, the corresponding overpayments are not recorded separately but form part of the overall statistics. Why is that so? How detailed are the records in this regard? Does the Department make note of the methods of payment through which the child benefit overpayments were made and can Ms Lacey give us a breakdown of that information?

Ms Lacey has outlined the four reasons why overpayments are made. One issue of concern is the number of people who leave the State but do not notify the Department, many of whom may be Irish citizens. It was implied recently that those leaving are all foreign nationals, but that is not actually the case. I ask Ms Lacey to give us more details on this matter. How many Irish citizens leave the State but still receive child benefit payments even though they are not entitled to them? Am I correct in assuming that most of the payments are made by electronic fund transfer? Is it harder to keep track of such payments relative to other payment methods like post office collection and so forth?

Although the Department claims the amount of overpayments is low, approximately €3.4 million is still outstanding. Is that figure correct? If the early child care supplement payment is also to be paid through electronic funds transfer, is the Department worried that the amount of overpayment might increase in the next few years, particularly given the fact that child-related payments will almost double?

How does the Department pursue people when overpayments arise? Are additional costs incurred when recovering overpayments from people living abroad? Has the Department been successful in pursuing such people? Is there a minimum amount which an overpayment must exceed before the Department decides to pursue a claimant?

A very small number of people were taken to court by the Department but the amount of money recovered, very often, was quite high. Was that because the overpayments spanned a number of years or because people were fined as well as forced to repay the money to which they were not entitled?

Ms Lacey has acknowledged that there are delays in the payment of the old age contributory pension, which the Department regrets. Older people become worried when payments do not come through. Another issue of concern is the respite grant. People who received the grant last year were paid in June and expected to receive payment again this year in the same month. However, the payment did not come through then. Some had made plans based on their expectation of receiving the payment in June. One woman contacted me who had made arrangements to put the person she was caring for into a nursing home in early July to give herself a break. When the grant payment did not come through she had to cancel her holiday, which caused a great deal of upset.

According to Ms Lacey, 6,000 applications have been made, one quarter of which have already been paid and the remainder will be paid over the summer period. What is the deadline? What does the term "summer period" mean? Does it mean the end of July, August or September?

Chairman

The Deputy has posed an exhaustive list of questions for the Department officials to answer.

Ms Lacey

I will try to remember them all and respond accordingly.

The mail shots to which the Deputy referred have long been a control mechanism we use to ensure people are still entitled to payments. They are particularly useful with regard to child benefit because we do not have regular contact with claimants, to determine where they are. I will arrange to supply committee members with copies of the letters sent out previously.

To date, we have not included information on the family income supplement with letters to child benefit claimants. However, it is a very good suggestion, which we will take on board. We will do so in future. We are examining family income supplement to try to improve people's access to the payment and inclusion of information in the mail shot would be a good mechanism for doing so.

On the issue of who is involved with regard to overpayments, it is only in the past two years that non-Irish people have come here to work and claim child benefit. The figures we have concerning people going abroad without informing us only cover up to last year. The 46% of people who had left without us knowing were mainly Irish people or possibly people from the common travel area. We do not have details on how many were Irish, European or from other countries. There is no way that we can track people who are coming to or leaving the country other than by the process of issuing mail shots.

Deputy Stanton referred to the early child care payment and we are examining this matter in that context. We may need to increase the frequency of the mail shots and to follow up with home visits by our inspectors. The latter is not something we would traditionally have done with the child benefit payment but the value of the new payment is such that it would be economically justifiable to embark on such an approach.

We are aware of the issues surrounding electronic funds transfer but a balance must be struck between providing people with an efficient, effective and convenient payment method and controlling the payments issued to people within the State. However, EFT is not necessarily the area where we have the highest level of fraud. There are other mechanisms people use to defraud the system. Unfortunately, some are very well versed in this area and as we close down one loophole, they find another.

Once a claimant has left the State, the Department has no way of recovering overpayments. Until the last year or two most of the people involved were Irish and in their cases a note was placed on the relevant files. If they returned to the country we attempted to pursue them at that stage. Our policy has traditionally been to recover overpayments from other social welfare payments. However, we have been assessing our policy on debt management in the last year and are examining the possibility of pursuing people who have taken up employment. Economic questions arise such as how much money should one pursue and what is the value of the exercise. Technically, all overpayments are recoverable and we record all such payments on an individual basis. However, we do not record the reason for the overpayment, although we may revisit that as we develop our new systems. Overpayments are an area of concern, particularly with regard to the increases in child benefits and early child care supplements.

We consider court actions in cases involving overpayments of between €1,500 and €2,000 and where we are satisfied that fraud was involved. However, we keep that policy under constant review because there is no point in clogging up the courts with petty cases. We have investigated other possibilities in terms of applying controls but measures such as administrative penalties are not easy to introduce and have not worked in the United Kingdom. We do not record the fines issued by the courts as part of overpayments because these are not recoverable by us.

The respite care grant scheme was introduced last year and we had only a few months to develop the system. This year we decided to be proactive by inviting people to apply for the payment. We should have clarified in the letters we issued that the processing of payments would take several weeks. We will provide notice to that effect next year but, unfortunately, it will be a case of learning from this year's mistake. An additional nine staff have been assigned to the scheme and we are confident they are now up to speed. We hope to clear the backlog of applications by the middle of August while also working on applications for 2005 which continue to stream in. When we have cleared the backlog, we will invite applications from those who have not previously contacted us.

Deputy Finneran

I welcome the representatives from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The figures circulated to members reveal that between 2000 and 2005 expenditure rose from €5.3 billion to €13 billion, an increase of over 140%, and the number in receipt of benefits has increased from 870,000 to 1 million, despite the fact that unemployment is at an all time low. Will Ms Lacey explain these increases?

The increase by 32% in claims for carer's allowance is welcome and I found the response to the respite care grant to be very positive. With regard to the increase in claims, there must be a greater expectation among people that they will qualify.

It was disappointing to find that people continue to apply for non-contributory old age pensions, even though PRSI for self-employment was established in 1988. Unfortunately, some did not avail of the scheme. It appears numbers are falling, with only 2,900 new claims made between January and March. The maximum qualifying level of income for a non-contributory old age pension has been very low for a long time. Will new arrangements be introduced in September or later this year and, if so, what will be the revised cut-off point?

Ms Lacey

The increase in the level of payments from €5.3 billion to €13 billion was due to the increase in the numbers in receipt of benefits, as the Deputy noted, and because of substantial increases in the rates of payment. The figure of 1 million claimants refers to all forms of social welfare payments. The main increase has been in respect of people claiming pensions and disability and carers' payments. Unemployment rates have been low in recent years. Therefore, the growth has occurred in areas which are not related to unemployment.

Deputy Finneran

There may be many more than 130,000 extra people if unemployment numbers are included. The increase of 27%, despite the decrease in unemployment rates, seems high. In what areas did increases occur?

Ms Lacey

Old age and disability payments are the main areas of increase, although there have also been increases in carers' payments, which is related to disability, and child benefits.

Mr. Brian Ó Raghallaigh

Deputy Finneran referred to comparisons between 2000 and today. Unemployment reached an all-time low in 2000. Therefore, while unemployment as a percentage of the workforce is currently very low, the actual number on the live register has increased by approximately 20,000 in the past six years.

Ms Lacey

The new State old age non-contributory pension will be introduced at the end of September and will replace the majority of means tested payments for people over 66 years of age.

Deputy Finneran

How much will people be able to earn while still being entitled to a full pension?

Ms Lacey

They are entitled to earn up to €100 per week and the disregard on other capital allowances is currently €20,000, increasing to €28,000.

Deputy Finneran

Therefore, from 30 September, an applicant for a non-contributory old age pension will be entitled to earn €100 per week with a capital disregard of €28,000. Is that the case?

Ms Lacey

Yes.

Deputy Finneran

Most of the difficulties arise in the calculations on farmers with small holdings. The method of calculation is always a matter of contention with some of us who represent rural constituencies. Are any changes proposed on how those calculations are to be made?

Ms Lacey

No.

Deputy Carty

Could Ms Lacey examine that matter because some of the calculations are ridiculous? I have a case where a man has been assessed as earning €360 per week from his farm, but the entire townland where he lives would not pay him that amount. This is ridiculous. The only way to overcome this was to say he was renting the land and getting a yearly income from it. Although the yearly income was €500, the Department assessed his income at €360 per week. It does not stand up. There is no logic behind it.

I am delighted that the director general and her staff are here today and I welcome them. I want to raise an issue I have raised in the past. Young people who received unemployment benefit and returned to school stayed on unemployment benefit because they were not aware that they should not have done so. Approximately 12 to 15 months later this has been discovered and they face a whopper of a bill, between €2,000 and €3,000, to be repaid to the Department. I cannot understand why when a person applies for a benefit his or her PPS number is not looked up to see if he or she is already drawing anything and anticipate such situations before they arise. There is no hope of getting that kind of money back from those young people.

Ms Lacey

People who sign on for unemployment payments are required to be available for and genuinely seeking work. They are required to sign on with the Department and in doing so acknowledge that they have been complying with the rules and regulations. Students who return to school without notifying the Department have failed to do that, although they have signed each week to say that their circumstances have not changed.

Chairman

I support Deputy Carty. There is no excuse. I have a number of issues I wish to raise. A woman on disability allowance became a widow and was entitled to survivor's benefit, for which she applied. She did not have much contact with the Department and did not know her way around it. She was granted the second payment, to which she was entitled, and continued to receive the disability allowance. That was an error. The Department tackled the matter fairly early and the overpayment amounts to approximately €1,200 or €1,300. In a situation like that the Department should come out hands up.

There is no use in showing the innocent woman whom I met, living at the back of God speed, the heavy hand of the Department by telling her she owes €1,200 or €1,400. The Department of Social and Family Affairs is one of the best Departments we deal with, and with over 1 million payments there are bound to be hiccups. As we make hiccups ourselves as Deputies, let us not be holier than thou.

The Department of Social and Family Affairs provides for €5 and €10 per week, and is probably the most humane Department. Some of the other Departments could learn from it. However, this woman's husband died three or four months ago. This is not fraud. This is a person who did not know the system and was in innocence delighted to receive the extra money when her husband died and the crutch of his income was gone. The woman has been billed for €1,200 or €1,400.

I dealt with this issue last Friday. I wrote to the Department and said the big boys in there have the machine, a computer into which one pumps a PPS number. If they did not know what this woman was receiving, they should have known. She was not entitled to it from day one. That was the time to cut the cord, not ten weeks later. It was lucky the matter was caught so early while it is still a relatively small amount. The Department should examine that situation.

I have the same issue with a person receiving €140 per week disability allowance and whose husband, who is approximately 60 years of age, drove a taxi part time and paid PAYE and PRSI. It was simple to enter the PPS number and find out the details. The Department has the details because there are cross-references everywhere and the Department knows where people do not go as well as where they go. When such an error is made the Department must come out with its hands up and accept the liability for the overpayment without seeking repayment.

The second woman I mentioned has been landed with a bill for €13,500. To add to the poignancy, she has gone to hospital for a serious operation which may involve an amputation. In such situations we must take a humanitarian and compassionate view when people who may not have two pennies to rub together are asked to make such repayments. The woman's husband who is 62 years of age was not able to continue work and is now receiving disability benefit. The Department is asking them to pay back €10 per week, which is a significant amount to two people on disability benefit with prices going through the roof.

In such cases of innocent mistakes rather than fraud, the Department is more a culprit than the recipient of the money and I ask that the Department exercise its discretion in a positive way so that it can ascertain that it was a genuine mistake. Neither of the cases I mentioned was a deliberate attempt to get money from the Department. I concur with Deputy Carty. Where such a situation arises the Department should exercise its discretion in a positive way and not be heavy on the people. They have enough difficulties without adding another layer to them.

To receive a letter from any Department, particularly a letter of demand, sends shivers through such people. They become fearful of the next step. I met a quiet, inoffensive woman last week who was shaken because she has been asked to repay €1,100. I told her it is a small amount of money in the overall context but she replied that while it may be a small amount of money, it is a lot when one does not have it. That sums it up. I am not saying the Government is big brother, but we are close to it. We have a machine into which one can enter a person's name and date of birth. I was the beneficiary of it recently when I asked one of the Department officials whether I will be entitled to a pension if I live another few years because I was self-employed for a number of years. As the official reminded me of a place I worked 25 years ago, I was grateful for that machine but something must have gone wrong on day one. When the other application form was received from the woman to whom I referred somebody should have decided she was not entitled to claim as she was in receipt of survivors' benefits. I agree with Deputy Carty that an appeal should be open to people who are genuine and who are not milking the system. If they could be proven to have acted reasonably and not mala fide then the Department should view their application in a sympathetic fashion.

Ms Lacey

If an overpayment arises the Department is obliged to seek recovery of it, particularly in the circumstances outlined. When a person claims a benefit, he or she is advised that he or she must notify the Department when there is any change in his or her circumstances. We send him or her notifications at various stages to remind him or her.

Chairman

I must stop Ms Lacey. If a woman's husband dies, it is a change of circumstance the Department knows about. The Department cannot always depend on the claimant who may not be Einstein or have several degrees. People do not always read letters from Departments and one cannot expect everybody to have a PhD. What about the machine that we are told will be the equivalent of Magna Carta? All officials need to do is press a few buttons and they will know what people are in receipt of. I am not satisfied with Ms Lacey's answer. I know the Department must seek to recover overpayments but does the Department ever feel it is at fault itself?

Ms Lacey

If the Department makes a mistake, it accepts it. As part of our service delivery modernisation programme we aim in the next few years to have a system wherein everything will be integrated in the computer to which the Chairman referred. However, currently that is not the position and information is held on various machines.

Information relating to PAYE and PRSI for a person who is working is not received in the Department for at least 18 months. If somebody started working last year he or she would only make returns to Revenue at the end of the year. It then takes a number of months for the information to be transferred to the Department. We receive information on an individual taking up employment but not on any increase in income during the years. We do not have the facility to link all the schemes together but that is what we are working towards. In the interim, the legislation as it stands obliges us to recover the money. If we do not, the Comptroller and Auditor General would raise it with the Committee of Public Accounts and we would have to respond in that forum.

Chairman

In that context, has the Department no discretion? Does it mean that widows might have to find money to repay what they owe? Does the Department oblige people to pay, come hell or high water? If a person is culpable for not reading letters is the Department not culpable to some degree for allowing the situation to develop? I am perplexed by this. It cannot take so long for the Department to receive information. I have met several lone parents who did not realise they were over the limit, which is approximately €90 per week. Some had worked overtime as attendants in a hospital. However, the Department ascertained it. Therefore, it must have received the information from somewhere.

Ms Lacey

We received it from Revenue in arrears. One of the problems of that programme was the fact that we had to revert to lone parents after the event.

Chairman

Well after the event.

Ms Lacey

We take a positive approach to recovery and would not reduce a person to poverty by deducting sums they could not afford. We are also restricted in so far as we cannot bring a person's payment below the equivalent of the supplementary welfare allowance rate. We try to balance on two tightropes, one the need to manage the Exchequer and social insurance funds correctly, the other to deal with customers in a sympathetic manner.

Deputy Carty

I am delighted to hear the Department will consolidate all its records in the near future. The sooner the better.

Ms Lacey

I would not like to say it will be in the near future. It will take a matter of years.

Deputy Ring

Does the machine work?

Ms Lacey

The machine works but it only deals with contributory pensions and retirement pensions and there have been problems with those. The extent of the task means it will take a matter of years.

Deputy Wallace

I welcome the director general and her assistants. It has been an interesting debate. We, as a committee, are at the coalface of what the Department has to deal with. Ms Lacey said there were in excess of 35 schemes that affect many of the most vulnerable people in the community. Payments are made to more than 1 million people every week affecting 1.5 million people. One in every three euro the State spends goes on social welfare, which is a huge figure.

There is regular criticism of the Government, in the Houses and elsewhere, for not being accountable for the moneys it spends. All Departments receive criticism for not being accountable. I have also come across people in situations to which members referred. In the majority of cases, when I have contacted the Department its officials were sensitive and approachable and put in place appropriate arrangements to deal with the problem. We must face up to the fact that some people set out to defraud the system. It is the responsibility of all of us to ensure people receive what they are entitled to and are treated properly.

From time to time one encounters individuals in the Department who are not nice people. However, my experience is that officials generally help to address any serious issue that has arisen. We cannot put all the responsibility on the Department because people must bear the responsibility for applying for benefits to which they are not entitled. All my political life I have articulated the needs of people most in need in our community and the Department of Social and Family Affairs is one of the most important in that context. People with no voices depend on us to articulate their case. We need to strike a balance because departmental officials implement what we have legislated for.

Deputy Ring

Does the public service embargo on staff create a problem? I understand it does in that staff who leave offices around the country are not being replaced. Those at the top will be replaced because their interests will always be looked to but are those at the bottom, who deal with customers on a day to day basis, being replaced?

Does the Department send out mailshots to claimants in schemes other than that for child benefit? If so, what level of response has there been? Does the Department follow up on people who do not respond?

Are the officials present aware that the form for carer's allowance is 32 pages long? It is like reading a book and we have to help people to complete it. Could it not be reduced, to reduce the work for the Department and everybody else?

What is the problem with FIS? I have been here for a number of years. Every year in the national budget we see the amount allocated for computers in Departments. Nevertheless, there are problems with computer systems.

I am glad the delegation is present and I welcome its members. I would like staff of the Department to make a few telephone calls to places around the country. Letterkenny is an example. People come to me to complain about child benefit. I know there was an ongoing problem in the relevant section but I do not care about such problems. I care about those who are looking for what they are entitled to receive. They ring offices but cannot get anyone to answer. Voicemail is employed extensively all over the State, including the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Health Service Executive and county councils. If a person calls one of these bodies, he or she will only connect with voicemail.

The respite care grant section has excellent staff. A number of staff in the corresponding section dealing with one parent families have been transferred. I hope they will be replaced by good staff to save time and money for the Department and the taxpayer. We would not have to submit parliamentary questions if the Department answered queries. However, there has been an improvement in that regard. On carer's benefit and carer's allowance, have those entitled to the respite care grant received it, or has it been paid to date? Have they been paid? I would also like some information on family income supplement.

The social welfare system is both good and bad, as many have said. It is good when schemes work well but bad when they do not. Pension payments are a good example. I have listened to others comment on the amount made available for social welfare payments. A person applying for a State pension may have made pension contributions for 30 or 40 years. He or she is not asking the State for any special service. The first time a person may contact the Department is when he or she is entitled to receive the State pension. People should not think it is Government, Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil funding. They become eligible to receive a pension having worked hard all their lives. They may have risen at 6 a.m. and arrived home at 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. They expect to receive the pension due to them. They do not expect to wait 14 or 15 weeks despite applying two or three months in advance. They are looking for their own money.

Some sections in the Department work well and some staff are excellent. However, others, including the one in Letterkenny, must be dealt with. It is not fair on the public that those ringing about child benefit cannot get anyone to answer the telephone. This issue should be dealt with.

Chairman

Where a person reaches 66 years, or is within three months of that age, has the Department not reached the point where an application can be dealt with if it is received within the requisite three-month period? If a person turns 66 years in July and applies for a pension in April, it is not unthinkable that he or she should automatically receive his or her pension on the first Friday it is due to him or her. Deputy Ring is correct. The people concerned have worked for over 30 or 40 years and are only receiving what is due to them. The money does not belong to anybody else and it is what the people concerned have worked for. I have been informed that while the 12 to 14 week delay caused by the computer system is evident, a person can go to a community welfare officer to get him or her over the hiatus. As Deputy Ring stated, this may be the first time many make contact with the Department.

The delegation has explained what has happened. We are not here to point the finger, but if there was a bedding-in process, why was the computer system not put into operation over a longer period? That would be the retort of the committee, although I am not a computer buff and never will be. People were aggrieved and contacted us in huge numbers to indicate their annoyance. If a person works for 40 years, the last thing he or she expects is a delay in receiving his or her pension on reaching 66 years. I have indicated that if a person goes to the community welfare officer, he or she will not go hungry, but I am relaying what the Department stated in reply to a Dáil debate. People were not satisfied with that reply.

We should look to the future. Will those who turn 66 years automatically receive payment? If the people concerned have made PRSI contributions, it only remains to be seen if they are married or single. If they are married, they may qualify as a dependant. Everybody has a PPS number. Somebody in the Department should be able to press a button and within two or three weeks the payment should be made.

Ms Lacey

As I indicated in my opening statement, we had a system under which 80% of those who applied in advance of reaching pension age received their pension payment on time. We not only hope to return to that level but to exceed it. I again apologise for the inconvenience caused. We did not anticipate that the problems would arise. We hope to overcome them as soon as possible and improve the service.

There will always be a number of claims which cannot be decided by the due date, as not everybody will have a 40-year contribution record. People may have a mixed employment record. For example, they may have been self-employed, in modified employment in the Civil Service or the Garda Síochána, etc., followed by employment in which they made full contributions. They may also have worked abroad for periods and such variations have to be dealt with. Not only will we be able to deal with such claims, we will also be able to deal with claims for free travel and other household benefits. We are working towards developing a system that will encompass everything such that a single claim will suffice.

This brings me back to the issue raised by Deputy Ring. We have tried to make the claims forms as simple as possible. I know a 32-page claim form probably looks ridiculous but we use the services of the National Adult Literacy Association, NALA, to check our forms and the English used to ensure they are understandable. Let us take carers as an example. Information on a person's means, medical condition and residency is required. If such information was not gathered on one form, we would have to seek further information. At the time it may appear difficult and look cumbersome to the customer but in the long term it is probably more beneficial from a customer service point of view. That is not to say, however, we do not constantly look at the issue. We will consider it again with a view to making further modifications.

I accept that in certain parts of the service we have a difficulty in responding to all the telephone calls we receive. In the first six months of the year we received nearly 3 million calls. This does not include the calls received in all our local offices, but those received in head offices and some of the larger local offices. It is a large number with which to deal but we try to respond to all customers' calls as quickly as possible.

We hit various bumps at this time of year. As September approaches, we will have the issue of children reaching 16 years of age and whether they will qualify for child benefit. This must be established each year and imposes a certain pressure on the section which we try to address by bringing in temporary support staff. The problem is this entails a training overhead which detracts from the ability of the experienced staff. We are examining our telephone policy and how the situation can be improved. We hope by developing our computer systems we will have more information to hand which will enable us to answer phone queries anywhere in the country. If one has a child benefit query one must go into the Letterkenny office for an answer. As this system is rolled out, we hope people in different areas of the country will be able to tap in and access the information. I accept the system is not as good as it could be, but we are working towards improving it.

Deputy Stanton

There are reports on delays in the payment of family income supplement to people who had been in receipt of it and are reapplying. This is occurring even when such people reapply four weeks in advance, as required. They may be told it will be a further three to four weeks before they receive the payment and in the meantime they will be down in income. Is Ms Lacey aware of this issue? Can she tell us the extent of the issue and what is being done about it?

A central means database has been developed in the Department of Social and Family Affairs and much work was done on shared means services. Does this make it easier to move from a social assistance payment to carer's allowance? I understand half of the people applying for carer's allowance are already on unemployment assistance. The Department, therefore, already has their data. Does this fact facilitate the use of the system, with 1,000 new claims for carer's allowance per month, or is it necessary to go through the whole process again?

Do delays in the respite grant only affect those who must apply each year? Have all those on carer's allowance automatically received the payment already? Is the application process easier for people who apply each year, those caring full time who do not qualify through the means test for carer's allowance? Are these details used in subsequent applications?

Ms Lacey stated that additional staff were used to help process claims forms more quickly. Are these employees new or have they been moved from other sections? If the latter is the case how are other sections affected? Is the embargo on recruitment affecting the Department and, if so, how?

Ms Lacey

Where there are delays in service delivery in the front line area, we move staff from back office work to help deal with backlogs and delays. We move staff from less critical areas into higher level areas. We are subject to the cap on employee numbers in the Civil Service. In the past few years we have examined our processes and procedures with a view to making improvements that will increase efficiency.

On FIS, respite care and carer's allowance, I will hand over to Mr. Ó Raghallaigh as he is the expert in the area.

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

To start with, I refute that allegation. As regards FIS, there are around 2,500 cases of the kind mentioned by Deputy Stanton in hand. This arises because FIS, unusually among social welfare payments, is awarded for a 12-month period. Each year it must be renewed as though it were a new claim. There are 2,500 such cases due to the success of the information campaign run earlier this year seeking new claims from people not previously on the books. To put that in context, so far this year we have made decisions on 1,600 of those new claims. Last year the overall total of claims was 1,890. We have done almost a year's work already in 2006, though one focuses on the backlog rather than what has been achieved.

Deputy Stanton

Therefore, there is a delay in renewing applications. Could these delays be between four to six weeks?

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

They could be as many as eight weeks.

Deputy Stanton

How soon will these delays be cleared to ensure people can be paid on time? Does Mr. Ó Raghallaigh accept that people may be down in their income due to this issue?

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

Absolutely. They may be down by a significant amount in their income.

Deputy Stanton

What can they do to make up for this? Could they approach a community welfare officer? The income lost may affect the household.

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

The community welfare officer is not an option because people in receipt of FIS are, by and large, in employment. I cannot guarantee that the backlog will be cleared in the short term because with summer holidays and so on this is the worst time of year for such a problem to occur. We are working on it as best we can, but I am reluctant to say we will clear it by September because the committee would merely call me back at that stage to tell me I did not deliver on my promises.

A question put was whether those entitled to automatic payment of carer's allowance had been paid. The answer is yes.

Regarding respite care and those who must apply each year because they do not qualify on means grounds, we use the same details each time. This year we did not ask anyone reapplying to renew his or her medical evidence, we accepted that the medical evidence provided previously is still correct.

We are only starting work on the central means database and have not put anything significant in place along the lines described by Deputy Stanton. We aim, using the computer system referred to by Ms Lacey, to rationalise information in order that means established for the purposes of one scheme will qualify for use in other schemes. We have not reached this point yet.

Deputy Stanton

Is Mr. Ó Raghallaigh saying the central means database has not been developed yet?

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

It has not.

Deputy Stanton

Has much work been done on shared means services?

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

We have commenced work on it but it cannot yet be used in ensuring means applying to one scheme can be applied in making a decision in another scheme.

Deputy Stanton

I was told, in answer to a parliamentary question on 10 May 2006, that the interdepartmental report on the development of an integrated social services system, published in August 1996 recommended:

Simplification of the assessment of means and introduction of a central means database disregards significant complications and variations in policies and processes in different areas identified ... A central means database was developed for my Department and considerable background work done on shared means services.

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh

The latter part is true but I do not believe we ever set up a central database as described. I am sure there is a rational explanation for this.

Chairman

The delegate is not in a position to comment on such matters.

Ms Lacey

In case there is any confusion about the figures mentioned, Deputy Finneran mentioned the disregard for old-age non-contributory pension. The figure is €28,000 per individual plus €100 per week earnings. There is also a figure from September allowing a person means of up to €35,000. The €35,000 includes the €100 per week earnings plus the €28,000 capital disallowance. We always have complications in these areas.

Chairman

That is appreciated and we thank Ms Lacey for making the correction. I thank her, Mr. Ó Raghallaigh and Mr. Daly for attending. We had a useful exchange, from which we all learned something. Some of the points raised were brought directly to us because we are out at the coalface also. We acknowledge that for the most part the Department of Social and Family Affairs is excellent. There will always be hiccups, hiatuses and problems, about which we may whinge, but it is our duty to deal with them as best we can. We are satisfied with the replies given today. Some of the issues in the public realm have been clarified. The reasons some arise have been set out for the committee in a useful interchange between the members of the committee and the delegation.

I again thank the delegation for attending. We appreciate its regular attendance at this committee and look forward to continuing dialogue with a view to improving the lot of those in receipt of approximately 1 million payments per week. The Department of Social and Family Affairs is extremely important for the community. I am aware that some of our suggestions may not be readily applicable in many areas but hope some of the ones we made will be applied or at least examined as practical suggestions for continuing the improvements we have noted in the Department.

Ms Lacey

I thank the Chairman.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.45 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 25 July 2006.