JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 26 May 2010

Review of Jobseekers Arrangements: Discussion with Department of Social Protection

Chairman

I welcome Ms Anne Vaughan, assistant secretary, Ms Celine Moore, principal officer, Mr. Dave Dillon, principal officer, and Ms Kathleen O'Donnell, higher executive officer, Department of Social Protection.

I ask Ms Vaughan to commence the briefing on the proposal to review the arrangements affecting and information available to jobseekers who sign off for temporary periods or for one day projects. Members may then ask questions.

I draw witnesses' attention to the fact members of the committee have absolute privilege by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House or a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I have a short opening statement and I apologise for sending it late yesterday. By way of explanation, I now have responsibility for our regional and local office operations and as it happened, I had a meeting of my regional managers yesterday and wanted to talk to them about this before I sent the statement to ensure it was all okay.

I thank the Chairman and committee members for the opportunity to meet them to discuss the arrangements and information available to jobseekers who sign off the live register to take up temporary periods of employment. It has always been a feature of the schemes for jobseekers that people can take up work for short periods of time or on a casual or part-time basis. There are many different arrangements and the Department does its best to facilitate these. We want to encourage people to take up any opportunities available, whether for work or training. Currently, there are almost 100,000 jobseekers who work for part of a week. I set that out in a tabular statement which I circulated to members.

Perhaps it would be helpful to go through the various categories. There are approximately 82,000 casual workers. The principal features of casual work are as follows: on the termination of each period of work, the person has no assurance of being re-employed with the same employer; the person is normally employed for periods of less than a week; and the number of days and the days of the week on which the person is employed varies with the level of activity in the employer's business.

The principal features of part-time work are as follows: the employee will have an expectation of work from week to week but the hours worked will not equate to full-time work; the employee is employed to work for less than the normal full-time number of days or hours worked in the particular job; and part-time workers will normally have the same privileges as full-time workers in terms of holiday entitlements, etc.

There are almost 15,000 systematic short-time workers. Short-time work is where an employer has, for the time being, temporarily reduced a person's normal working week. In order to be classed as systematic short time, a number of conditions must be satisfied. The person must have had a history of full-time working with the employer, the short-time working must be systematic, that is, there must be a clear repetitive pattern to it and the person must work at least one day in each week that he or she would have normally worked before claiming.

Under the week-on, week-off arrangement, a person works a pattern of a week's work followed by a week of unemployment or, in some cases, two weeks work followed by two weeks of unemployment. Typically, the week is a calendar one but it does not have to be so.

In regard to some improvements, the committee is well aware of the unprecedented increase in the volume of jobseeker claims in recent years. Almost 660,500 jobseeker claims were received in 2009 and almost 220,000 so far this year. This has led to delays in deciding entitlements in some areas.

There was anecdotal evidence to suggest that once a claim went into payment, some customers were reluctant to sign off to take up short periods of work or short training courses as they believed they would be left waiting for a considerable time if they needed to sign on again when the work or training was completed.

At this point, I should perhaps outline the reason it was necessary to close off a claim once a person found work. As members will be aware, the Central Statistics Offices compiles a statistical analysis of the live register based on information supplied by the Department of Social Protection. Heretofore, the computer system used to pay jobseekers was fairly rigid as regards the head count for the live register and it was not possible to exclude claims that were temporarily suspended. Consequently, when a person took up full-time work, it was imperative that the claim be closed off to avoid over-inflating the live register figures.

However, in the last quarter of 2009, the compilation of the live register statistics moved to a more up-to-date system with enhanced functionality which permits the Department to exclude particular types of suspended claims from the live register count. This flexibility has enabled us to introduce new arrangements for customers who take up temporary work or who avail of short-term training. If the person signs on again after the period of work or training, the claim can be reactivated very quickly and payment restored within a few days.

All local offices were advised in November last to introduce this fast-tracking system for customers signing on again after a short period of work of up to four weeks or training of up to eight weeks. At the end of last week, almost 4,000 claims were suspended because the customer was working or availing of a short training course. I set that out in a table circulated to members, so they can read the figures.

Most customers who are fully unemployed attend local offices on a four-weekly cycle to certify that they have remained unemployed since they last signed the unemployed register. From time to time, customers may notify us that they have got an odd day's work in the preceding four weeks. In such cases, if the customer is on jobseeker's benefit, we deduct a day's benefit for each day worked. If the customer is on jobseeker's allowance, the earnings are assessed as means. We apply a disregard of €20 for each day worked up to a maximum of three days in any week and assess 60% of the balance. For example, if a person worked two days and earned €100 for those days, we would disregard €40 and assess 60% of €60 or €36 for each day worked.

When a person makes a claim he or she is provided with a general information leaflet, a copy of which I have circulated. This outlines the conditions of the scheme and gives details of the employment support services. In light of the committee's query, we will review this leaflet and our website to make customers more aware of the current arrangements. We do not want to make any leaflet too complicated but we will insert something and keep it to two pages.

As I said earlier, the Department at all times wishes to facilitate people to take up employment, training or education courses. We have always tried to have fast-tracking arrangements in place for people returning from training. As I said, these have been enhanced since last year. As part of looking at the information end of the business, I fully appreciate we may believe we have a very good system in place but if our customers do not know that or if there is a perception that there is a delay, we need to address that and we will do so.

As I said, we are anxious for people to take up any opportunities. As part of looking at this — it will be done very quickly — we will obviously take account of the committee's views which I look forward to hearing.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I thank Ms Vaughan for the presentation. I apologise that I must leave in a minute to raise a matter on the Order of Business, as does Deputy Byrne.

The presentation was quite informative but the biggest complaint I get is from people doing FÁS courses for which they get the same payment they would get if they were on social welfare, although sometimes there is a child care allowance. Even if the course is only of very short duration, they must sign off social welfare and on to FÁS and then sign off FÁS and back on to social welfare. I raised this issue a number of times with the former Minister, Deputy Hanafin. On the last occasion, she said it had changed, although I do not know if it has changed everywhere because I still receive some complaints about it. I would like some information on that.

I refer to part-time teachers. I received an e-mail from a principal of a college of further education. He has six teachers who are all on 11 hours, or fewer, per week. They were refused a pro rata jobseeker’s allowance on the basis that they each worked just under two hours a day. If they were to complete their hours in one day, they would be eligible, but the college is not in a position to adjust its timetables to let them do this. However, based on their incomes, they should be entitled to a pro rata payment. I imagine similar problems arise throughout the country and it should be possible to address them.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I welcome the delegation and thank Ms Vaughan for her presentation. The problem before us has two aspects, namely, a lack of information and the complexity of the rules applied. From my personal experience of dealing with clinic cases, a significant number of people do not know they are permitted to take up casual or part-time work while retaining part of their welfare payments. Persons in receipt of jobseeker's benefit which does not require a means test, as well as those on jobseeker's allowance, lack an awareness of the thresholds that apply. This lack of awareness encourages participation in the black economy, with consequent costs for the State. There is potential to make savings in this area if the rules were clarified or streamlined. This would also facilitate people in availing of work opportunities. Most would prefer to be above board than working in the black economy, but sometimes the system makes it too difficult for them to do so.

There is great uncertainty about the consequences of breaking a claim. Large backlogs and long waiting times have received extensive media attention. Particularly where dependants are involved, persons who have already experienced a long wait would dread the prospect of breaking their claims and once again facing the difficulties arising from not having an income and applying to the community welfare officer for assistance.

The rules relating to part-time, systematic short-term and casual work are complicated and I hope the Department will seriously consider streamlining them. I have found in dealing with cases that they are time consuming, even with the benefit of all the information and experience available to me. It is a bad system if newcomers who are trying to be above board find it virtually impossible to negotiate the enormous obstacles placed in their way.

Would the Department consider appointing an officer with expertise in this area to each local office? Such a person would deal specifically and on a confidential basis with queries on the effect of temporary work on payments and secondary benefits. I acknowledge that office staff have come under pressure in recent times, but perhaps an attempt should be made to advertise this option, for example, by posting signs in offices. A dedicated official who knows how the system operates could advise a claimant on a confidential basis on how taking up work would affect his or her claim. The Citizens Information Board maintains a very good website, but it provides little, if any, information on this issue. Much more could be done in this regard.

The presentation sets out the allowance that applies to temporary work taken up while a claimant is on jobseeker's allowance. Have these allowances been revised since the unemployment crisis began? If tax is factored in, the withdrawal rate can amount to an effective tax rate of 56%. This is a further barrier to declaring one has taken up work. Has the Department of Social Protection explored the possibility of adopting a joint approach with the Revenue Commissioners to easing the withdrawal rate?

Casual and systematic short-term workers are treated differently from part-time workers. Is any work being done to standardise the rules that apply to the various categories of persons who are under-employed? Everybody does not fit neatly into one of these categories.

The claim period stretches over five days in a week in some categories but six in others, with the result that different rates apply to individuals working the same number of hours and receiving the same pay. This is very confusing and appears to lack logic.

Why are some categories counted in the live register figures, while others are not? I get the impression from the presentation that one of the main drivers of the system is the need to control live register figures rather than flexibility in facilitating people to avail of work opportunities.

Part of the problem is there is a lack of clarity on the impact of casual or short-term work on secondary benefits, particularly the medical card and fuel allowance. Do the delegates have figures for the numbers signing off in the past year to take up temporary employment? I recognise the pressures the Department faces, but the byword for the approach to the unemployment problem must be "flexibility". Every avenue must be explored to facilitate people to avail of work opportunities.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

I apologise for my late arrival. I have a deep interest in this issue for the unfortunate reason that self-employed persons and farmers attend my clinics on a daily basis to seek my help. Having worked with social welfare officials for many years, I acknowledge the goodwill and flexibility they exhibited. Unfortunately, these traits are no longer apparent. I say this with a great deal of sadness because a significant number of self-employed persons are coming under severe pressure. The other day I dealt with an individual who had been involved in a farm building business which had collapsed as a result of changes to the grant structures made in January 2009. He received social welfare payments until February this year, but, even though he still has a massive debt on his business, he finds he has an estimated income that bears no relation to what he is actually earning. He is no longer receiving one penny for himself, his wife and three children. Unfortunately, the labour dispute does not make it any easier for me to contact somebody who might give me relevant information.

Another young man who was making furniture — everybody knows what has happened in that sector — was told by a social welfare officer that he was not eligible under the scheme. He is currently in receipt of €15 a week. He has told the social welfare officer that he may be able to obtain work one or two days a week. While he is running his own business, he is not making any money and has nothing on which to live. These are people who have never broken the law and do not wish to break it. They want to work with the system, but they are seeing others who make no effort whatever to do so being given money, while they cannot receive any. I have spoken about this issue to many Ministers, although the current incumbent to a lesser extent. This is happening not just in one inspector's area but right across my constituency.

At a meeting last Friday in County Cavan on the Quinn Insurance issue, the potential for job creation in the farming community and food industry was discussed. Some of the top people in the sector were in attendance. One person involved in the partnership emphasised the problems he was encountering in self-employment and with the farm assist scheme. While I had been led to believe I was the only person experiencing problems in this regard, clearly this is not the case. I acknowledge Ms Vaughan has been in her current position for some time and understands how the system works, but we need to ensure we have in place more realistic structures for the making of payments.

I have received from Ministers replies to questions on this issue, many of which have been passed on to inspectors, but this has made no difference. The price of milk fell by 50% last year, but social welfare officers are not prepared to take this into account. One young man who was in receipt of €14 a week prior to the budget is now receiving only €2 a week. Another young man who previously received €6 a week is no longer receiving a payment. While according to the books they are in receipt of assistance, in reality this is not the case.

I accept we are discussing a slightly different and important topic today, but I ask the Department to re-examine this issue. I recall arranging for a neighbour, a small contractor, a meeting with a social welfare officer, at which it was agreed that any time my neighbour obtained work he would sign off, which he did. When he was involved in an accident a couple of years later, I recall thinking he might have been working with another neighbour, which he was, but he had signed off. He was completely and utterly above board with the social welfare officers. People should be encouraged rather than discouraged to do so.

Ms Vaughan has stated people believe they will be left waiting for a long time. They know they will; that is the reality. They encounter difficulties in signing on having signed off to take up temporary employment. They are required to supply again information which they previously have supplied. Surely, this must be wrong.

Senator Nicky McFadden

I am happy to allow Senator O'Donovan to put his questions first, as he has another meeting to attend.

Chairman

Agreed.

Senator Denis O’Donovan

I thank my colleagues, Senator McFadden and Deputies Carey and O'Connor, for allowing me to contribute before them. I will be brief. I am attending this meeting in the absence of Senator Butler.

My query refers primarily to the operation of branch offices. During the past couple of months I have received at my clinic a number of complaints and queries about jobseeker's benefit and allowance and the delays in processing same, some of which I have raised with a number of local offices. There are five branch offices in west Cork, including one in Bantry. There is also a branch office in Kenmare and 64 throughout Ireland. I have been advised that, even though under a Social Welfare Bill enacted three or four years ago branch offices are entitled and have the capacity using computerised information to deal with all claims, they must refer such applications to another office. For example, a social welfare officer in Clonakilty is obliged to refer applications to another officer in Carrigaline. Even though this procedure is simple enough, it is often cumbersome, slow and not cost efficient. A claim is forwarded from the office in Clonakilty, Bantry or Kenmare to the control office which must often ask the local office for further information. This often results in delays of up to two or three months, which I find incredible, given that branch offices, under social welfare legislation, have the capacity to deal with these issues on the ground.

A CPSU test case on the issue failed. It was decided that branch offices had the capacity and the ability to deal with such claims. Why, given that the legislation is in place, is the practice of referring claims to a control office for authorisation continuing? This is exasperating people on the ground and is not user-friendly. As a consequence, the consumer is suffering. If claims can be dealt with quickly, efficiently and accurately by local branches such as those in Bantry, Clonakilty and Kenmare, why is it necessary to refer them to a control office for further scrutiny, given that they are often referred back to the local office for further information, inevitably causing delay and frustration? This system is not cost efficient. I look forward to hearing the response of the delegates.

Senator Nicky McFadden

I acknowledge how hard the staff in Athlone work. They are exemplary. My question relates to the differences between one area and another in County Westmeath. I would like to know the reason for the delays encountered in Mullingar. Staff in the Athlone branch appear to be on top of their job. What is the reason for the discrepancy between the two towns in terms of the delays in processing the claims of persons who have fallen on hard times? I acknowledge the unprecedented level of claims with which staff are dealing and the courtesy and care with which they are treating applicants, which I really appreciate.

Deputy Joe Carey

I, too, compliment the staff who work in social welfare offices. The branch in my constituency in County Clare is inundated with claims. There are huge pressures on the system, with almost 450,000 people currently out of work.

There is an information deficit on the issue before us, namely, the arrangements made for and the information available to jobseekers who sign off the live register to take up temporary employment. I concur with Deputy Shortall. We need to be flexible and provide information for clients in a human way. It is a tragedy to lose one's job and to meet such a rigid system does not help. The availability of a dedicated information officer in social welfare offices would ensure a more personal approach and people were dealt with in a more confidential and human manner. Perhaps this proposal could be examined. There are delays in processing claims and decisions on many claims are the subject of appeal. Like other elected Members, I am inundated every day with queries about claims. It should be made easier for people to access this information, which is available, but the way in which it is presented makes it difficult for people to access. Deputy Shortall's proposal is a novel one.

Deputy Charlie O’Connor

I would like to be associated with the welcome extended to our friends from the Department and to wish them well. Like other colleagues, I receive many calls daily and weekly from people concerned about the fact that they have lost their jobs. I have often made the point in recent times that there is now a new poor comprising people who were employed up to quite recently and who have had suddenly to face the difficulties and trauma of going to their local social welfare office. I have done that in the past. Other colleagues mentioned their local offices and therefore I will mention mine. I live in Tallaght and the local social welfare office there is processing almost 11,000 jobseeker's benefit and allowance claims. That is a huge number and it has created pressure in terms of the workload in the office. As other colleagues have complimented staff in local offices, I compliment the staff in the Tallaght office. It is a first-class, modern office, which is as it should be. People are entitled to that kind of service and I compliment the staff providing that, although there will always be ways in which the service can be improved.

I have often made the point that the provision of information is important. An unemployed person who goes into his or her local social welfare office seeking an allowance should be able to deal with all aspects of the challenges he or she faces during that visit. In each local office people sign on the dole on a particular day. People received letters in Tallaght yesterday requesting them to sign on during a confined number of hours, which is reasonable given that many people are signing on.

I hope that the client will remain the focus of attention and that a client when signing on, as he or she is required to do, will be able to obtain any other information he or she needs and that there will be a one-stop-shop approach to service provision. We often talk about such an approach and it is a simple but important term. People should not have to call to the office one day for one aspect of the service and another day for another aspect of it.

I agree with the thrust of the business before us, namely, that people should be encouraged where possible, and it should be made as easy as possible for them, to take up temporary employment. I know there is a need for some bureaucracy but we should continue to assist and facilitate people to take up such employment if that is what they want to do. We should remember that an unemployed person on leaving a social welfare office wants to be able to believe he or she can take up a training course, return to education or take up a job. Otherwise the system does not make sense.

I said at a meeting of this committee last week that the Minister responsible participated in an open forum meeting in my constituency a few weeks ago at which he engaged with people in the categories I mentioned, namely, those who are unemployed, newly unemployed, participating in schemes and who want to return to education. I am not being critical of the Department in this aspect but the message we hear is that people want access to the services to be easy. I appreciate that safeguards and the enforcement of regulations are necessary, with which I have no difficulty, but we should continue to ensure people are facilitated through what I know from my experience to be a difficult period for everyone involved. Often when people lose their jobs, they have to reinvent themselves. I repeat what I have said on other occasions, namely, that the Minister should examine all the schemes, including the back to work scheme and back to education scheme, to ensure they are as far as possible client friendly. I hope the officials will continue to support us in that regard.

I wish the officials well. Important political issues must be dealt with every day in the Dáil and each of them deserves our special attention. The important issue is jobs. Bill Clinton was right in this respect when he said: "It's the economy, stupid." We have to continue to work to ensure people will have jobs.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I apologise for being late. I also apologise in advance if the issue I wish to raise has been raised. It relates to young unemployed people in receipt of the lower rate of payment of benefit. What is their position when they have to sign on after having signed off to take up training or work? If they were in receipt of the higher benefit, signed off to take up a job or to do training course for a few weeks and then signed back on the dole, would they be in receipt of the lower rate of payment even though they were in receipt of the higher rate of payment when on the live register previously?

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I welcome our visitors and add my voice to the compliments extended to the departmental staff throughout the country, especially in my constituency, on the way they have dealt with the large numbers that have besieged them owing to the mass unemployment that has occurred in the past 18 months or so. I compliment them on the way they have dealt with people, given the pressure of work they have had. They do their best to impart knowledge and to assist people to participate in whatever scheme best suits them.

Chairman

Before I call the officials to reply to the questions raised, I would like them to comment on a simple fact. While the ordinary person who becomes unemployed does not have a problem qualifying for benefits on completing the necessary forms, those in my constituency who have been self-employed, in possession of a C2 certificate and who have had no further work following the collapse of the market have not been successful recently in qualifying for social welfare benefits.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

Before the witnesses respond, I wish to clarify that situation. Demands are being made of those people to close their structures, wind up their business in terms of VAT payments and C2 certificates and prove they are no longer in business. They would gladly be prepared to go back into business in three months' or six months' time if they got the opportunity to do so, but such demands put obstacles in their way of going back into business if they have to wind up their companies. The situation is crazy.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I have a final point on that matter, which I thank the Chairman for raising. It is a major difficulty for the people concerned. We need these people to be ready, willing and able to go back into business and employ people when there is an upturn in the economy and opportunities arise. This is a particular category of people who are experiencing a great deal of hardship.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I thank the members for their comments. I have taken note of them all and will go through them sequentially. If I miss any, I am sure the members will tell me. I acknowledge what they said about our staff and I will relay their comments. The position has been difficult in local offices and it was good to hear those comments from the members.

We need to be flexible in how we deal with changing situations. We cannot expect that people will fit into our arrangements or schemes. We believe we are flexible but I would be the first to say that there is always more progress that can be made and we are often in a catch-up situation. From my experience over many years, increased flexibility, almost by definition, leads to complexity because one is trying to accommodate different arrangements, although members may believe that should not be the case. One hat does not fit all. That is just a comment and, as administrators, we obviously need to work on this.

Deputy Enright asked about FÁS courses. My understanding of the arrangement we made is that if the FÁS course is for less than or up to two days a week, we will continue to pay the person. FÁS runs its courses and has its budget. It would not make sense for us to continue to pay those on long-term courses. As late as yesterday one of my regional managers showed me correspondence to do with a very short FÁS course. Strictly speaking, we would not pay for that but may review the situation. We might make some changes at the edges.

The situation of part-time teachers who work one hour a day is a policy issue but also an example of where the system is out of date with current practices. The committee may have discussed a version of this situation some weeks ago. Jobseeker arrangements are out of date and no one will argue about that. The difficulty is in trying to make them more modern, responsive and flexible. Deputy Enright is correct about this. There was a review some time ago of our arrangements for atypical workers and this is something we are trying to bring forward. It is obviously in the policy domain but we acknowledge we must modernise. There are a number of very obvious areas where we should modernise but it is easier said than done. It is definitely on the radar of the Department and the Minister.

On the points raised by Deputy Shortall, again I acknowledge there is a lack of information. We may feel we provide the information but if people cannot access it or if it is not readily accessible or whatever, obviously we must improve. My understanding is we have an information officer in each local office. I do not say they are 100% dedicated to giving information because if there are difficulties and backlogs in parts of the office, they will be used for that work. There is an information office and officer whose job is to go through the kind of detail mentioned by the Deputy.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Will Ms Vaughan outline that?

Ms Anne Vaughan

In the offices I have been in there is a sign saying "Information Office". Perhaps this is an issue and we may need to look at the office from the client's point of view. There certainly is an information officer in our offices to whom one goes to ask. If there are particular offices with which the Deputy is not——

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I was merely asking. Is this advertised? Is there a sign up explaining it and encouraging people to talk?

Ms Anne Vaughan

Absolutely. If the Deputy goes to a local office and does not see the signage there, she must tell me. That is the way it should be.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

What if there is neither a sign nor a person?

Ms Anne Vaughan

They should be there. The rules and thresholds are too complicated and people do not understand them. I agree. Flexibility and complexity are related, unfortunately. We are striving at all times to streamline our arrangements. Again, our review of working patterns and atypical working is looking at that as well.

We need to look at the Citizens Information Board, as mentioned by the Deputy. It is one of our agencies and we will talk further to it. This sort of work must be done one on one because everyone is slightly different. It is very time consuming but if we want people to take up arrangements, as we do, we need to be able to do that. I fully accept it is far from ideal if people fear they will lose everything if they go out or fear they cannot get back in. That work is ongoing.

The withdrawal rates can be quite high. Again, because it concerns policy, this is something about which I will not say much. The whole space of our support is to working age people generally and in the area of child income support, the role of child benefit and family income supplement, FIS. It is concerned with how they all play and whether we are in the business of supporting employment or unemployment. That whole area is now very grey, and rightly so, because that is the way the world is. That is also very much on our radar and we are reviewing it. I would not disagree with some of the points the Deputy made.

Rules, categories and live register counting were mentioned. It was not my intention to give the impression that our focus is on the live register. There is much debate about the value of the count of the actual live register but, that said, it is a formal statistic gathered by the Central Statistics Office and we must be clear what we are counting for the CSO. That was just a point I was making. Regarding rules and categories, I fully accept we may define different categories in different ways. Other Deputies made this point as well. Our focus is on the customer who does not care how he or she is categorised.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I am not sure I agree. I would stake anything on saying that none of the public representatives present, who are all experienced people, would be able to tell Ms Vaughan the rules. Perhaps I underestimate them but I bet anything they would not be able to outline the different rules concerning persons who are working casually, systematically, short-term or temporarily. These are impossible to work around.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I do not disagree. My point is that, as a Department, we believe we are very customer focused. There is always room for improvement. I take the point that it is important to deliver the service to the customer. While it does not matter to him or her how he or she is classified, I accept the point.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

It matters a lot if they do not understand how the system works and the rules are so complicated that they cannot find a way in.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I agree. It is up to us to make it understandable. I accept absolutely the Deputy's point on the effect on securing benefits. It is a very difficult and very fraught area about which people are especially fearful in taking up work.

If I understand her question correctly, Deputy Shortall asked the total number of those who obtained temporary employment and signed off. I shall come back to her on that.

Deputy Crawford, the Chairman and other members made a point about the self-employed and flexibility. This matter has been raised with us a number of times. The best thing to do is to look at some specific cases, if that is what the members wish to do. We have instructed our inspectors that the world has changed and that a person's past income as a self-employed person is not an indication of his or her future income. That, effectively, was the point members made. If we still have difficulties locally, which I accept, we need to address them. Members are probably aware the country is divided into seven regions for social welfare purposes. Each regional manager's role is up to me so this is a matter I will take up and try to get to the bottom of it.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

I would gladly go through genuine cases with anyone. I have no use for and never follow up bogus cases but when one sees genuine people in dreadful hardship, one cannot help but feel sorry for them. All I want is some structure to provide a clear understanding and knowledge of where people should be.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I agree. I should emphasise the point that the purpose is to deliver the appropriate service to people and pay them. No one wants to withhold entitlements from people. A number of Deputies made the point that it is a very difficult issue. I have visited many of our offices recently and officers are very conscious of how difficult it is for people who suddenly have found they have effectively fallen off a cliff and are unemployed. It is very difficult taking into account the current economic period. Deputy Crawford mentioned the supports and information being put in place for Quinn Direct employees, and my Department is involved in all these areas. It is doing a very good job in that respect.

Senator O'Donovan raised the issue of branch offices, especially in west Cork, and delays in processing. If I understand the point, the argument was they should be capable of doing the work. I am pleased to be able to inform the committee that we are about to select a number of branch offices where for certain categories of jobseeker's benefit claims, the branch office will make the decision. That will certainly speed up the process. As late as yesterday we were discussing which branch offices would be involved. It will be rolled out to all offices but, for a start, we will select a small number of branches for specific categories of claims to see how it goes. I take Senator O'Donovan's point in that respect.

Senator McFadden asked why one office can be different from or better than an other office. We present Deputies with monthly statistics for processing times for various types of claims by various offices. Offices are like individuals in that everyone is different and has local issues and conditions. In the case of Mullingar, additional staff were assigned to the local office in February and April and are being trained. When the volume of work increases, additional people are required to cope but these people must be trained. The Department is very open to taking staff from any agency that can redeploy staff, which is great, and we have taken from many Departments. People need training, however.

There is a central support unit in Carrick-on-Shannon and in Sligo which are processing some of the claims for Mullingar as well. I hope we will see an improvement but different offices have different issues. They are all on our radar and we are trying to address them. Some offices may experience a physical problem in that the office cannot accommodate the business, which may need to be split. We are trying to resolve these problems.

Deputy Carey raised the issue of flexibility and dedicated information, which I have addressed.

Deputy Joe Carey

More emphasis should be placed on the information officers attached to branches. Applicants and clients should know they are in the offices.

Ms Anne Vaughan

We have information officers and every year there is a seminar in which they are brought together to share what is happening and outstanding issues. They are a group, but in addition to that we should consider electronic solutions, bearing in mind that not everyone has access to the website. Deputy O'Connor spoke about the Tallaght office, which I attended very recently.

Deputy Charlie O’Connor

It is impressive.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I was very impressed. It facilitates the one-stop shop approach as every service is available. Such service is not available in all our offices but it works very well for all sorts of reasons.

Deputy Charlie O’Connor

It is a fair point in that such service should be available everywhere.

Ms Anne Vaughan

Absolutely, and the client is the focus. That is not always possible. Deputy Thomas Byrne asked about the higher rate relative to a person's age and what rate a client would return to. The short answer is that one is saved in that if a person goes out on a certain rate, he or she comes back on that rate.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I know of a case where that is not happening.

Ms Anne Vaughan

We can have a look at that. Deputy Mattie McGrath complimented our staff and raised the issue of the self-employed, as did the Chairman. I dealt with that matter.

Deputy Crawford asked about de-registering, as some self-employed people were de-registering themselves as self-employed. That is not something we are in favour of and we have told staff that a self-employed person should not be advised to do so.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

It is being demanded.

Ms Anne Vaughan

We can discuss that.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

These people will not get anything until they do so.

Ms Anne Vaughan

That is not the departmental view.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

I am relaying the reality on the ground.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I accept that as the members have clinics.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

People are not being accepted as a client until they prove they have de-registered.

Ms Anne Vaughan

It is important that when somebody is signing off for a short period, he or she tells the local office that it is for a short period. If a person signs off, it is assumed that he or she is gone for the medium term. The two pages we attached to the presentation are geared to the supports and what is available. One of the first issues is that a person may work part-time and we may need to consider beefing that up to take on board the members' points.

Chairman

Deputy Shortall and Senator McFadden have additional points.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I thank Ms Vaughan for her comprehensive response to all the questions. She mentioned people going on FÁS courses and breaks in claims, etc. The tendency within FÁS is to run very short courses so this is a major issue. I recognise that some improvements were made recently but there is a perception among clients that if they participate in a course, they will be back to the same rigmarole of delays in a claim.

Under the new arrangements with FÁS employment services in the Department, the issue seems to be about the budget. There is a training budget with FÁS and there is a payments budget as well. Will the problem be overcome when that element of FÁS comes to the Department. If there is one payment, will the person stay on the social welfare payment irrespective of whether they are seeking employment or participating in a course? Will this difficulty be overcome and will the system be streamlined so that people can leave and rejoin courses without their payments being impacted? Surely this is the way it should work.

On where to go from here, our guests recognise that many of the problems raised by members are genuine. A review was mentioned as being under way, but is it formal and when will it conclude? We are bordering on the policy area, but will our guests give the committee grounds to expect significant improvements or that concerns will be addressed in the short or medium term?

Senator Nicky McFadden

I have received two queries, one from a Portuguese national and another from a German national, both of whom have been living in Ireland for a long period. One has been working here and both are in long-term relationships with Irish people, but they have been told by citizens information that they are not entitled to anything. This is extraordinary. Will our guests confirm whether it is true?

Deputy Seymour Crawford

I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. My question is not specific to the Quinn issue, although the matters are related. If someone living in Northern Ireland worked and paid taxes in the Republic before finding himself or herself redundant in the short term, for how long would he or she receive social welfare payments based on his or her stamps?

Deputy Charlie O’Connor

In connection with Senator McFadden's comments, what is the joined-up thinking between the local citizens information centre, CIC, and Department of Social Protection offices? In Tallaght, many people would go to the CIC with their queries in the first instance. It is an important facility, so I am wondering about the level of co-operation between it and the Department.

Ms Anne Vaughan

Deputy Shortall asked about FÁS. I will answer the easy question first. I take the Deputy's point on short courses and we have told FÁS about our arrangements for people on those courses. Obviously, it is an in-flow issue. I cannot comment on the budget issues but the changes have been made from a customer focus point of view, not an organisational point of view. The idea in bringing the organisations and the placement service together is to streamline the business. We are at the beginning of a large project to facilitate the placement service and the Department's integration with it. While the Deputy's comments do not seem unreasonable, we have not gone into that degree of micro-detail. We should consider it, however, and it is on our radar.

The atypical review to which I referred is on our website. It was a report published a number of years ago. The Deputy need not go to the website since I will post her a copy. We do not want to fell too many trees. The review examined jobseeker's allowance and jobseeker's benefit, the changing patterns and how to facilitate the move towards part employment, part unemployment. Its proposals are being considered actively in the Department with a view to making changes, but this is more easily said than done. An obvious example would be that referred to by Deputy Enright, namely, working for one hour per day at a school. Another obvious example is how we treat Sundays. These seem like basic issues, but effecting change can be difficult.

Chairman

If the clerk is e-mailed the report, she will circulate it to all members.

Ms Anne Vaughan

Senator McFadden had a query.

Senator Nicky McFadden

I do not want to be specific.

Ms Anne Vaughan

If she wants to give the details to us, we will examine them.

Senator Nicky McFadden

I thank Ms Vaughan.

Ms Anne Vaughan

As referred to by Deputy Crawford, an issue has arisen in respect of people living in Northern Ireland and working in the Republic, including with Quinn. I will revert to the Deputy because the arrangements and the question of who pays depend on the nature of the unemployment, namely, permanent or temporary. We have an officer to deal with cross-Border issues.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

Living near the Border, I know the complexity of the matter.

Ms Anne Vaughan

Deputy O'Connor asked about the CICs and the Department. As with many issues, the relationship is very much at the local level and should be worked out there. We can do much at the top level, but departmental offices and the CIC should work closely together. If a general query touches on a range of services, the CIC is more appropriate. When someone wants to discuss his or her specific situation, the CICs will not have the details.

If the information is not yet on the website. It is about to be and I can make it available to members. We conducted a review of the CICs last year. I am not 100% sure whether it has been printed and put on the website, but it is finished. As soon as it is available, I will provide it since the Deputy might be interested in it. The review discusses the roles of the CICs and the Department and who is doing what in the information space.

Deputy Charlie O’Connor

That would be useful.

Chairman

I thank the officials for attending and briefing the committee in such a comprehensive way.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.20 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 16 June 2010.