Deputy Ahern was in possession. He was 25 minutes.
Private Members' Business. - Social Welfare Payments, Delay: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy O'Connell on Tuesday, 6 May 1980:
That Dáil Éireann, in view of the failure of the Minister for Health and Social Welfare to ensure that eligible persons receive their social welfare payments on time, resolves to appoint an all-party Committee of the House to investigate and report on the matter.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1;
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following :—
"approves the efforts, made by the Minister for Health and Social Welfare to ensure that eligible persons receive social welfare paymetns on time."
—(Minister for Social Welfare).
As I was saying when we adjourned last night, there were very unfair remarks from the Opposition parties concerning the staff in the Department of Social Welfare who have for almost a year now worked continuous overtime to get the backlog of work following the postal dispute up to date. They worked Friday night, Saturday and Saturday night and all day Sunday. There were allegations that there was complecancy and a go-slow among the staff of that Department. This was an unfair and mean attempt to criticise people who cannot defend themselves and are trying their best ot deal with a very difficult situation.
There were also allegations that the Minister for Social Welfare was complacent about the payments of social welfare benefits and assistance. I wish to put on record that I totally refute this allegation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Minister is and has been actively pursuing a policy to ensure that all persons entitled to benefit receive payment of the full amount to which they are entitled at the earliest possible date. The substantial increases in benefit in the budget and the fact that the budget was late this year naturally made that all the more difficult. As everyone in the House will appreciate, the budget this year was a month later than in the past two years. The fact that the revised payments took effect such a short time after the budget rendered it a physical impossibility—not for officials but for printers and others—to have these booklets published, especially the pensioners' bookets. In fairness the Department did all they could. The printed 330,000 pension books twice—one on the old rate to cover people up to the time when the new rate was brought in. As the Minister said last night, 80 per cent of these payments have now been made. There was not a lot more that could possibly have been done.
With regard to delays last year, it was hardly a question of the Minister for Social Welfare being responsible for all the delays. There was, as everyone knows, a serious industrial relations problem within the postal service last year. As the Department of Social Welfare deals mainly through the post all over the country the postal strike seriously affected their working. In spite of that they made numerous temporary arrangements, using the good offices of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the traders in various towns around and country to solve the problems. It has been generally accepted by social welfare recipients last year that a fair job was done by the Department of Social Welfare in this regard. The fact that people were not getting their new rates last year naturally led to an increase in correspondence with the Department, and in a number of cases employers took avantage of the situation not to return their social welfare cards. A new system was brought in last year which led to all sorts of confusion with a number of employers. Taking all these reasons into account, any reasonable person would have felt that delays would take place within the Department of Social Welfare.
It was said last that the Minister was far too busy with the Department of Health and that there should have been a separte Ministery. However, the Minister pointed out that the Minister of State at the Department had some special responsibility concerning delays. Apart from that, it is almost ludicrous to suggest that a Minister, who in his first few months in the Department of Social Welfare was able to achieve, in a year of cuts, economies and stringencies, the biggest increases ever for social welfare recipients, was not fulfilling his role in a satisfactory manner. In answer to Deputy McMahon's questions, which seemed to be of a constituency nature, regarding claimants for disability benefit who had to consider selling their houses, the Minister said that he is anxious to obtain particulars of the two specific cases mentioned by the Deputy.
I deal as much as anyone else with the Department of Social Welfare and am satisfied that all possible steps are taken to eliminate delays in payments as expeditiously as possible. It is only fair to say, as is known on both sides of the House, that a number of the faults which arise within the Department of Social Welfare are the responsibility of the claimants themselves. Frequently they use the wrong reference numbers and consequently this causes some delay.
We were told that 100,000 cards for men and women were still outstanding for 1978 and 1979. This gives some indication of the extra work involved for the Department. I do not know how anybody can say it is the fault of the civil servants concerned. In 1979 a total of £13 million arrears of social insurance contributions was collected by the outdoor inspectors. I know the inspectors have a difficult task in tracing employers throughout the country. If the officials adopt a heavy hand and use their statutory powers the individuals concerned will run to their Deputies complaining about the matter. On the other hand, if there are delays with regard to payment of claims the public have no hestiation in approaching their Deputies on the matter. Deputies at least should understand this problem more than people outside this House.
There are delays with regard to social welfare payments, but I accept that they cannot be paid on an ad hoc basis. Money must be spent in the best possible way and given to those who require it most. If it was to be paid in a random way, without checking and verifying the facts, the system would be chaotic. The controls that exist naturally cause delays but they are essential and poeple will have to live with them.
Last night the Minister gave some figures with regard to delays and referneces to this matter was made also when we discussed the Estimate. Last year was disastrous because of circumstances outside the control of the Department. What we are debating here tonight is the situation inside the Department. I agree with the Minister that an all-party committee—probably it would not even be well attended—would do little to alleviate the situation in the Department of Social Welfare. It would be only another talking shop and would cause delay in any short-cuts the civil servants can take in coping with the backlog.
It is fair to say there are delays in every Departments and indeed in every business. If one tries to order something in this city it may take four to five weeks to get the item in question. The Department of Social Welfare is a complex organisation, dealing with many people and having a budget involving an enormous amount of money. Last night it was almost suggested that the Minister should check that all letters are answered promptly. That is an administrative matter and we would not help the situation by haviing a separate Minister to deal with the problem. The Minister's role is to make sure that schemes are administered as fairly and as promptly as possible. This motion was put down several months ago before Christmas when the postal backlog was creating large problems. It has little relevance to the present position. If we compare the situation now with that existing six months ago we will see that delays are less common and they are in respect of short-term paymetns only. Long-term payments are always dealt with reasonably promptly and, as the Minister pointed out last night, most of the pension books have been issued.
One of the major problems in this Department, as in other Departments, is the fact that the staff are over-worked. The services provided by the State have become so numerous that a very grave burden has been placed on Departments. The rates for social welfare benefits changea number of times each year and consequently the whole system has to be changed. This affects the computerised systems in the Departments and it entails more than merely pressing a button. It is a complex operation and it takes time.
There are comparatively few offices dealing with social welfare payments and many of those throughout the country are cramped and small. In fact Garda stations are used for the payment of such benefits. Last night the Minister told us that Gandon House on the north side of Dublin will be opened within a few months. Last year and early this year the very large queues outside Oisin House caused many comments. That centre could not cope with the enormous number of inquiries that were made. The Minister's announcement will be welcomed by all. I agree with Deputy O'Connell that the old and infirm should be helped as much as possible. The opening of Gandon House, which will deal with the whole range of social welfare services, willl be enormous benefit.
The remarks made last night by many Deputies have no relevance to the situation today. When the motion was put down six months ago there were serious delays because of the postal dispute. Any allegation that there is a flaw in the Minister or in his Department is totally unfair. It is unfair to attack the civil servants who worked all last summer on Saturdays and Sundays and at night time and it is unfair to attack the Minister who has introduced the highest increases ever in social welfare. The people who have made these allegations should take them back. To say that the Minister is complacent or that the Department are on a go-slow is absurd and this should be corrected in the House.
I congratulate the Minister on his efforts and for the assistance he has given to Deputies from all sides of the House in dealing with problems. The Minister, more than any other Minister, has gone out of his way ot make sure that there is a clear understanding as to what people are entitled to as a result of the budget. He sent out posters and so on to community centres, health centres and institutions catering for the old people so that it can be ensured that they will get their benefits. If any Deputy still feels that the Minister is complacent, anythign I or the Minister will say will not change it.
Before Deputy Tully starts I take it that we intend to finish this motion this evening. We lost five minutes on the division on it could carry over.
What is the significance of that comment?
The Chair wants to get it agreed at this stage, because he has to call the final speaker and all the rest of it. There is no significance other that that. If the House does not agree I could carry for five minutes into next week.
When the time comes I am sure the decision is for the last speaker as to whether or not he wants to conclude or take the time allowed by Standing Orders. It is up to him. There is no necessity for further agreement on it.
There is, because, if not, the last speaker might not get in until 20 minutes past.
If he is in at 20 minutes past he is entitled to agree to finish or to carry over.
All right, if the Deputy waste it that way. We have always decided otherwise, but no matter.
We have not always decided it otherwise. I am longer in the House than the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I know the situation. In expect that it will finish tonight, but I will not speak for the last person to talk on this debate.
I have always had the greatest respect for the Department of Social Welfare. Since I came into House in 1954 I defended them on numerous occasions, but I believe in calling a spade a spade. While preople might take exception to the Minister being attacked for the shortcomings of his Department, that is what he is accept the same thing. The last speaker, who talked about the Minister being attacked, rightly said that officials should not be attacked as they are not responsible to the House. I will confine my remarks to the Minister as head of the Department but not in a personal way.
The motion put down sometime ago was reatined on the Order Paper and given priority by the Labour Party because it is more necessary now than it was when it was put down. The Minister in his amendment makes our point. We say in our motion:
Dáil Éireann, in view of the failure of the Minister for Health and Social Welfare to ensure that eligible persons receive their social welfare payments on time, resolves to appoint an all-party Committee of the House to investigate and report on the matter.
The Minister's amendment is:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:—
"approves the efforts, made by the Minister for Health and Social Welfare to ensure that eligible persons receive social welfare payments on time."
The Minister does not say, as one would expect if the Minister and the last Deputy to speak are correct, that social welfare receipents receive their benefits on time. Everybody knows that there are hundreds if not thousands of people who weekly have to do without a benefit to which they are entitled.
Over the years, no matter what Government were in power, social welfare recipients always got their benefits unless something extraordinary occurred or somebody gave the wrong number on a certificate. I have great admiration for those who go to great trouble to ensure that people get their benefits. However for the past six or eight months since the postal strike we have had an extraordinary situation where week after week I get phone calls and letters from people complaining that they have not received their social welfare benefits. I get letters from old age pensioners who sent away their books and did not get them back, from people on disability benefit, on unemployment benefit, on the unmarried mother's allowance, and from deserted wives and widows who from time to time complain that they have not received their entitlements.
This is not good enough. There was a time when it was possible to taken up the phone, get on to the Department of Social Welfare and be told in a matter of minutes if an error had been made, if the matter could be cleared up or if not, how it should be approached. That cannot be done now because one cannot get on to the Department except once in a blue moon. Last week I dialled the Department 32 times before I got a lone clear. Nobody answered the phone. When I inquired yesterday from the Minister's office I was told that there was some trouble with the switch and they just could not deal in the normal way. Because 31 times before that the line was engaged somebody must be getting service. Having, done that and having made my inquiry I had to wait for as long as 15 to 20 minutes and then for some extraordinary reason the line went dead. It does not cost me anything from the House, but what would it cost the unfortunate person who makes such a call from the country and who must keep feeding the machine again and again until eventually they may get a reply? There is something radically wrong and there is no use in whitewashing it.
I am amused by the people here who do not know what it is like to be without a week's income. From the day they were born until the day in which they get up here to speak, some people do not know what it is like to go through a week and have to worry about buying what is needed. But hundreds of thousands of people are depending on weekly social welfare benefits. If these people do not get their benefits on time they either go hungry to try to get in touch with the health board to get what used to be called home assistance—it now goes under a more respectable name—while they are waiting for their entitlements from the State. There is no reason why the State should not pay out the money to the people who are entitled to it.
One of the most common complaints is from people who have been told that they cannot be paid because the card was not stamped. When I hear this in relation to people who have been in constant employment for periods up to 30 years it makes me wonder whether somebody is being codded or somebody is being terribly careless. There is something wrong. It is all right for a Deputy to say that, if somebody makes a mistake in the application or in the certificate or whatever, it is put aside and dealt with in another way. But that is of little use to the person who is left waiiting. If there is an error surely the least people can expect is that the Department of Social Welfare will notify them immediately of what error has been committed so that they can get their weekly money in the shortest possible time. That just does not happen. I am aware of this because many people told me they were a number of weeks without receiving benefit. When I checked with the Department I got the reply eventually that there was an error in the digit, or some other error.
There was a period when I found it possible, particulary with regard to disability benefit, to dial the number or to write to the Department. People who work in the Department will admit that I have a record of always trying to give all the inforamation required. Occasionally I cannot do that. If I do not get it I cannot do it. Ninety-nine times out of 100 I will give the number, the period of illness, and the correct name and address. When that is done, it should be possible to address the application or the query to the section dealing with it and get a fairly quick reply. I had to stop doing that because I was getting no reply.
Now I have to write to the overworked secretary of the Department about every complaint, and he sends me an acknowledgement at least. I may not get anything further for several moths although within a week, a fortnight or a month the person with the complaint gets his money. Several months later I will be notified of that. Very well, the people have been paid and the rest does not really matter, but it appears slightly political. If not, there is no reason why a duplicate could not be made when the person is notified and sent to the person who made the inquiry. I am aware that under previous Fianna Fáil Governments it was not uncommon for certain Departments to be instrcuted to send out notices like this later to members of the Opposition then to the Minister's supporters. I would hate to think the Department of Social Welfare would stoop to that sort of antic.
The Deputy need not worry. That does not happen. There is no question of that whatsoever, to put the record straight.
I receive a reply to my query when the person is being paid his benefit, I will accept that there is no rason for me to think something like this could happen. When I was in charge of a Department I insisted that everybody who sent a query got a reply at the correct time, with no delay, no putting it aside in a file for a couple of weeks until the heat had gone off. It was not the practice of the Department of Social Welfare to delay replies and I should hate to think a new practice is arising here.
These letters go directly to the secretary and are dealt with directly by the secretary. In case anybody would get a false impression, there is no political involvement in such letters. If there is any delay I will take up the matter internally in the Department. By courtesy that is the way they are dealt with.
Would the Minister not agree that if I or anybody else makinig representations send the application directly to the section dealing with it, it should be possible to have the matter dealt with immediately? I had to write three times about three different cases to one section where the matter had not been dealt with correctly. I sent in a number of pretty serious cases. In one case I gave the name of the insured persons, the name of the employer, the insured persons's number and I asked to have something done about it because the man was married with a family. that was three months ago and I still have not got anything more than an acknowledgement.
If the Deputy would like to give me the details I will have to dealt with.
I will do that, but I do not think I should have to, and I do not think the Minister should have to. This is a normal routine matter which should be dealt wiith in a different way. I have vice generally and particularly for the people in the Department of Social Welfare. I would hate to think that an odd person in the Department—and this appears to me to be the case—attempts to put a twist on something which should not be put on it. It is the sick poor who suffer as a result. Therefore, I do not want to see it continuing.
Reference has been made to the postal strike. During the postal strike it was really disgraceful to see people having to stand outside offices for hours waiting to get their benefit. It was also disgraceful that the delays should be so greate out on the street in bad weather. We many blame anyone we like, but we know ithappened. There is talk about opening further offices in this city, but what are we promised now? When this was going on, the number of social welfare certificates and complaints which were going in were being dealt with in an entirely different way. There should not have been extra delay because of the fact that these people had to call personally. Normally their claims would have gone in through the past.
I listened to the last speaker saying the Department of Social Welfare should not be expected to send out books to pensioners because they had to print, I think he said, 225,000 books. I am not aware that the Department of Social Welfare print those books. The order would be given, the books would be printed and, I assume, would have to be handled by the Department of Social Welfare. The printing of the books would be a matter for someone else.
There is also the question of delays which have occurred. The Minister, his predecessor, and indeed many before him, did not seem to be prepared to take much action on the failure of employers to stamp insurance cards and now to include PRSI. The case was made that if pressure is put on certain people they will stamp the card but that it may effect them. In fact, one of the tricks played by people who do this sort of thing is to say the firm will have to close if they pay in the money which they have taken out of workers' pockets and have not forwarded to the Department of Social Welfare or the Department of Finance.
I do not know why the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Finance do not make some effort to stop not alone small firms but also large firms from getting away with not sending in the money which they collect for this purpose. A tremendous amount of money was collected last year. It was mentioned here by the previous speaker and by the Minister last night.
£13 million.
The Minister will agree it is a disgrace that this should happen. Will he take my word for it that if he or his Department went about it, there are many more millions that could be collected? I know that because people write, or call, or telephone to me and say they have been informed that their cards are not stamped and they cannot draw benefit. Some special effort should be made to ensure that people who are employed and who pay for their insurance get credit for it from the State.
Another thing which, possibly, many people may consider to be a small item is the question of the changeover between the time the insurance cards were in operation and PRSI was introduced. As the Department know, because neither stamps nor PRSI were available to show what work was being done, they introduced a rule of thumb giving credit for four stamps for every three weeks worked the previous year. In other words, over a period of three months there would be 16 stamps as against 12. They completely ignored the fact that everybody who would be claiminig benefit would not have been working during that period. I cam across several cases where people were not entitled to benefit, not because they had not got their stamps on in the normal way, not because they had not worked and stamped their cards, but because of the Department's decision to estimate in a certain way. This put them out of benefit. I broughth the matter to the notice of the Department and eventually a number of them were paid their benefits. I wonder how many more who were entitled to such benefits did not get them. Before a decision is taken in such matters there should be discussion with a body such as the ICTU who would be dealing with workers in a big way and who would be able to tell them what should be done.
I was amused to hear the last speaker say that social welfare benefits should be index-linked. I do not know whether the is a little ahead of the Minister in that regard. Perhaps it is an indication of forthcoming events casting their shadow already but I shall not comment further on that.
There is the question also of people who apply for the old age pension. In the normal way and if the person applies in time it should be possible to have the pension paid to him on his reaching pension age but that it now always so. People find sometimes that, after working for a long number of year as but having been in receipt of disability benefits for a year prior to reaching old age pension age, their benefit ceases and it is only when the matter is queried by someone that is transpires that that person should be receiving an old pension or at least should have appelied for it. While it may be said that such a situation arises that should not happen. It can cause a good deal of trouble for public representatives.
There is also the question of children's allowances. If somebody applies for children's allowances, particularly in respect of additional children and supplies all the necessary information and certificates that are required, it is not fair if their is a long delay before the additional money is paid.
What most insured workers resent most is the difficulty experienced in having their queires to the Department replied to. Today I had a complaint from somebody to the effect that he had not received benefit for the past four or five weeks. Luckily I was able to get through to the Departments on the matter. That person had been in receipt of disability benefit and the reason for the stopage in payment was that he did not have the necessary 156 stamps. However, he was not told that by anybody and the payments were simply stopped. This should not happen. The whole system of applying for benefit—and I am talking particularly of people who have been stamping cards for many years—is wrong. For instance, if somebody who has been drawing benefit dies and if there is a spouse remaining, that spouse should be informed of her entitlement, that is assuming that the Department have been notified of the death of the beneficiary. Perhaps such situations arise because the people involved in this sort of work have too much to do, but if it is a question of there not being sufficient staff in the Department, the remedy is in the hands of the Minister, but it is not good enough that letters to the Department are ignored.
Any of us who read the column in The Evening Press dealing with complaints from readers find that the Department of Social Welfare come in for more than their fair share of complaints. I imagine that people who take the trouble of writing to the newspapers about some grievances must be fairly annoyed. Apparently it is not unusual to find that people have been left for a considerble time without their queries being replied to by the Department. Recently I had a compalint from a woman to the effect that she had been waiting since the middle of last year for children's allowance. The matter was striaghtened out within a relatively shhort time of the delay being brought to the notice of the Department. It is possible that when she was writing to the Department in the first place she failed to give all the necessary details but she is a poor woman and could ill afford long. Similarly, I met an old age pensiioner who told me that he applied in January of last year for the old age pension for which he qualified in the in the following month. When the postal strike ended he was notifiied that he had been granted the pension, but up to March of this year he had not received the arrears and when somebody made an inquiry to the Department on his behalf he was informed that it might be several weeks before the money would be paid. That is not the right way to deal with poor old people who in most cases are of a quiet nature and have no wish to certain a fuss.
Although the Department have had a very good record down through the years, there is a grave danger that as a consequence of the disruption last year which was due to the postal strike, their having found that the public were prepared to accept less than the best, matters are allowed to slide now or, at least, if something is pushed to one side it is left there. Of course, many people receive their benefits without any bother but they are many others, and if we include the dependents of those we are probably talking in terms of hundreds of thousands, who cannot exist without their social welfare payments. There is a tendency to be complacent. It may be all right to receive arrears of about £400 when a matter has been cleared up but that is of little consolation to somebody who may have been hungry while waiting for payments.
It is very wrong that people who are entitled to benefit should be under the impression that they must pull strings in order to get that benefit. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that this sort of situation will no longer exist. We should not have to write letters to the Department in respect of payments to the Department in entitled. I am aware that every letter written to the Department adds to the workload of those dealing with complaints but in many cases benefits would not be paid if we did not write such letters. Very often documents which could not be found for a long period are found quickly after the relevant matters being brought to the attention of the Department by public representatives. This should not happen.
I appeal to the Minister to ensure that those who employ labour and who deduct from wages under PRSI or anything else, money which is due to the State, return that money to the State and that it is not used to keep the company going which they have gone off to the Bahamas on a holiday and when the worker looks for his dental or sickness benefit he cannot get it because it was not paid in time.
I support the Minister's amendment which is to make sure that all eligble on time. We are all aware of delays in the payments of benefits and assistance but we should get our persepctive right. As public representatives we hear about the delays but we must not forget that the majority of benefits and assistance are paid regularly and on time. When one considers that there are 522,000 payments made weekly and a further 420,000 children's allowance payments made monthly, it is a great tribute to the officials and the Minister that so many payments are made with such regularity.
There are, there have been, and, unfortunately, there will be delays but it is not always the fault of the Department. There are delays in short-term benefits. I spoke on the Estimate for Social Welfare and mentioned the cfonfusion that can be caused with the PRSI number and the insurance number. I believe the abolition of the post of social welfare agent did not help the situation. He was in a position to check disability certificates, to see that the number was correct and that the name and address was on the certificate. If there was a problem, the Department got in touch with the agent and he could easily identify the problem and give the correct name or number on the particular certificate.
Occasionally when an industry closes down it is discovered that contributions have not been collected by the employer, which is something I see as deplorable. When a person applies for benefit —unemployment or diability benefit— there can be a delay because an officer has to investigate his entitlement. If a social welfare officer investigated all those employed in that industry and had it recorded on their cards, this might speed up the process of investigation for others when they apply for their benefits.
The Minister said last night that £13 million had been collected last year through outstanding contributions. This was more than twice the amount collected in any of the previous three years. This, too, is a tribute to the officials of the Department.
There are over 70,000 people in a given week in receipt of disability benefits. The majority of these people receive their payment regularly and without question, but in some cases that are delays. The majority of the delays are due to the fact that for one reason or another the record card is not correct. Once the record card is correct there appears to be very little delay in payment. The situation has improved considerably in the last few months. There was a problem during the postal strike but when one thinks of the numbers involved iit is a tribute to all concerned—the Minister, the officials, those working in the field, St. Vicent de Paul and the other organisations who helped—that payment were made to so many people and that the effects of the postal strike were not as hard on them as might have been expected.
In relation to long-term benefits, there does not appear to be any great delay from the Department's point of view. There are delays in investigation but many of them are due to the difficulty the applicant has in producing the necessary documents. One example is the case of the widow's pension. When a husband dies suddenly the widow will receive six weeks' payment. To qualify for her pension she has to produce her marriage and birth certificates.
I am sorry to interrupt, Deputy, but you are required in the resturant. You are the only doctor in the House at the moment.
If Deputy O'Hanlon returns he can take up where he left off. It is unfortunate that he had to be called out.
I agree with this motion. The setting up of this committee is very necessary. The difficulties in the Department and the efficient payments of social welfare benefits have been of concern for quite some time. It was a fact of life with the Minister's office and his predecessor's office on numerous occasions and said the Department was not properly looked after or effeciently run. I make no reservations about that because that is very important to people who claim benefits and who are depending on benefit and assistance for their existence. The people who unfortunately are out of work due to illness are the greatest suffers, in my experience, and I have a wide-ranging experience in this area. I know many people do not get their social welfare payments in time. If the Minister doubts my experience, he can consult the file in an office in his Department which will show the number of times I contacted his office. I have asked on a number of occasions to speak to the Minister to inform him of the unfortunately, I never managed to get the Minister in.
That is most unlikely. I find that hard to understand.
If the Minister consults with his Private Secretary he will discover the number of occasions I called. I understand that because of the number of complaints an official has been appointed to deal exclusively with them. The situation was just as bad when the Minister's predecessor was in office and I hoped that the arrival of a young, energetic man would alter the situation but that did not happen. In most cases those who claimed disability benefit have worked all their lives but are unfortunate enough to fall into ill-health as they get older. It is my experience that most of those who claim are not paid for many weeks. I have made representations on behalf of many of those people and have discovered that benefit has not been paid for up to three weeks later. That should not happen if the Department is being run efficiently. I do not blame the officials because they are doing the job that is laid out for them. The boss is to blame and the boss in this case is the Minsiter for Social Welfare.
When discussing this matter with an hotelier recently he pointed out that those who visit his hotel were not concerned whether his staff were ill or there was a breakdown they weere only concerned about getting the service they went to the hotel for. Those on social welfare are entitled to the same service. That Department should be run in a businesslike manner. There is no excuse for people entitled to benefit being left without their money. On a number of occasiions I have discovered that medical certificates were not received in the Department of Social Welfare although certificates submitted on the same day were received. I do not know how that can be explained. I know of a man on sickenss benefit who drove to Dublin to deliver his medical certificate in an effort to get his benefit on time but, ironically, he did not receive his benefit the following week. That man had a child for confirmation and he had no option but to drive to Dublin the following week in an effort to get his benefit. The Department at first refused to pay it because of the absence of identification, but after representations by me they paid the money. The Minister must be aware of the hardships caused by the inefficiency of his Department with regard to the payment of benefits.
Many people have epxerienced difficulty when trying to contact the Department by telephone to iron out their complains. I have compalined to the Minister's officials about the difficulty of getting through to the Department. I accept that there is a problem with regard to the telephone service but on many occasions I got a dialling tone and no reply. When I compalined I was told that this was a matter for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, that the Minister concerned had been made aware of the problem and was dealing with it. This is not a case of lines not being available or blackage; it is a case of the phone not being answered. Why is it that the phone is not answered to deal wiith queries from Members, officials of the Department based in other parts of the country, employment exchanges and supplementary welfare officers? I am sure the Minister read the story in one of the national newspapers of the difficulty a reporter experienced in trying to get through to the Department on the telephone.
Last night I stated that there was a major problem in the Department in relation to the telephone system. I made an announcement then that the Minister concerned has given me a firm assurane that this matter would be dealt with immediately and for that I thank him. This is being treated as a major priority. It is a substantial problem.
Surely it is not a major problem for somebody to answer the telephone?
It is a question of overloading.
If this motion only solved that problem it would have been well worthwhile. People do not look upon social welfare benefits as charity. I do not accept that in relation to the payments made the number of compalints are small. If other Members, county councillors, social welfare officers and information centres get anything like the number of complaints I receive then those numbers are substantial. It is a major problem and must be regarded as such for these unfortunate people who, as Deputy Tully said, have paid into a fund all their lives to provide a benefit which is not available when they most need it.
We are often told that the supplementary welfare officer is a sort of in-between man, an anchor man, for people who do not get their benefit. The supplementary welfare officers are sick and tired of dealing with these cases. Some wise boys realise they can now get two benefits, supplementary welfare and disability benefit, which is entirely due to the Department not sending out the benefit. Nobody else is to blame. If one leaves an opening for a certain element they will always take advantage. This is causing a great drain on local authority finances. This year I was appalled to see the demand from the South Eastern Health Board on Kilkenny County Council increased from £160,000 to £260,000, occasioned by the fact that the supplementary welfare officers had to unload money that was not made available to people who did not receive their benefits in time. The money could not be recouped and had to come from local authority finances. It should be remembered that local authorities were confined to a 10 per cent increase in revenue from the Department. But the South Eastern Health Board's demand was for a 60 per cent increae on an already substantial figure. This is very unfair and will have to be investigated both by the Department of the Environment and the Departments of Helth and Social Welfare. All of the local authority services, housing, road and so on are being directly affected by the inefficiency of the Department of Social Welfare. I make no bones about it; it is inefficient and is not being run properly.
I would ask the Minister to wirthdrawn his amendment and accede to this reasonable demand that an all-party Committee investigate these problems and, hopefully, be of help to the Minister. We do not want to be critical. We want to see the Department being run efficiently. Indeed it pains me to telephone the Department and to have to be abrupt with officials doing their best, but it is sad when there are people queuing at one's door who have not received their benefit. As public representatives we want to help the Minister. I would ask the Minsiter to give us a chance of so doing and of making helpful suggestions. Indeed the whole administrative arm of the Department has become too large. The paymentof social welfare benefits should be regionalised and be paid in county or health board regions. There is no reason whatever why the Department of Health structure could not deal effectively and efficiently with these claims. Unemployment benefit is paid weekly in the employment exchanges around the country. There is no reason why a structure could not be devised under which disability benefit could likewise be paid efficeintly at local level. This is all we are seeking.
There are problems in other areas alos but they are not quite as bad because they are not so urgent. Recently also I have come across delays in the payment of children's allowances. I did not encounter this problem 12 moths or two years ago. It is one which has arisen in the past six months. I do not know its cause but the Minister would need to investiage it and put it right immeidately rather than allowing it to gain momentum.
I should draw the Minister's attention also to delays experienced in some cases in the return of old age and widows' pension books when requested by the Department for investigation of one kind or another. Indeed the Department should be complimented on always having returned these books within two or three days of receipt. But it must be realised that the postal service is no longer effective for dealing with social welfare matters. That is anothe reason for having the payment of all of these benefits regionalised or paid on a country basis. I know that now such books are not returned to old age pensioners or widows with the same expedition. Perhaps the Minister would investigate these matters with a view to divising some other means of handling them rather than through the post.
Perhaps the Minister would afford us an opportunity of helping him, and through him, the unfortunate people who suffer most through lack of payment or delayed payment.
While I am pleased to note that the motion in the names of Labour Party Deputies has brought some assurances from the Minsiter that some improvements will be effected, I must press it because its discussion has exposed the very serious deficiencies there are at present in the social welfare payments system.
The Department of Social Welfare is the most important Department of State because it deals with the most needy of our people. It is in effect the Department of Social Security and one likes to feel secure when one thinks about that Department. In the past 12 months its name has become more synonymous with insecurity than security. I have been a public representative for almost 20 years and I do not make that statement lightly. I have always had to deal with problems in relation to the Department of Social Welfare; that is inevitable. But in the past ten to 12 months I have never experienced anything like the volume and extent of problems arising. Every Member of this House would have to admit that fact. Those of us with a number of years' experience in public life would have to admit that recent within that Department. This should not be the case. The postal strike has been blamed for most of these difficulties, but my experience during the postal strike was that the system worked reasonably well having regard to the fact that there were no paostal services. The real difficulties seemed to arise after the postal dispute. The position at present is so bad that it can only improve. There are problems in every area but they are most serious in regard to the payment of disability benefits.
I cannot agree with the Minister's claim that half their problems are caused by claimants not filling in forms correctly. The reason for this is that people have no the information and knowledge about social welfare benefits and claims. Many people caliming benefit for the first time have no experience of the procedure and very little information is provided as to how they should proceed. Advertisements in the newspapers deal with increase in the rate of benefits but none of them gives real advice to an insured person as to how to go about making a claim.
Recently I came across a case of a young worker in his first job who was involved in an accident at work ad rushed to hospital. His parents were small farmers who never had any experience of insurance contributions When he had recovered partially he was sent home and his parents were extremely worried about him. It was not until seven or eight months later that they inquired about the benefit to which he might be entitled. By that time 26 weeks from the date of the occupations injury had expired and the parents were told in the usual letter from the Department that they could not make a claim expect in regard to disablement benefit. This is one example of the Deprtment making money because claimants are not fully aware of their rights.
I could give many other cases in which claimants entitled to benefit would never have received those benefits were it not for the fact that they approached me and I am sure other Deputies on all sides could tell of similar cases. Thhis is a very sad state of affairs because we like to believe that a person who is entitled to somethign will receive it without seeking the influence of public representatives. That has not been the case in recent months regarding social welfare payments and there is something wrong in the system.
These problems arose mainly during thhe time of the Minister's predecssors and we were hoping that this Minister would take immeidate action. Heis still relatively new on the job and we want to give him every chance to put this very important service on a proper footing. People whose weekly income is suddenly cut off must have an alternative income as quickly as possible and cannot wait weeks and months. Quite a number of people have gone back to work by the time their cheques arrive and a number of claimants do so against the advice of their doctors because they cannot get their entitlements. In most cases these people suffer a relapse of illness and a much longer claim results.
Deputy Crotty mentioned the worry and anguish of people calling to say they have not received their cheques. One tries to contract the Department and this is now almost impossible. One could spend all afternoon dialling 786444 without getting any result. This is a relatively new situation because up to last year it was not too difficult to get through. I want to pay a deserved tribute to the courtesy of the officials in the Department who do their utmost to help when one finally makes contact with them. They must be working under servere strain because telephones are jammed all day and correspondence is piling up. These problems could be solved if people received their entitlements promptly.
I strongly urge the Minister to accept this motion. All Deputies have experiene of this problem and an all-party committee could make some contructive suggestions as to how to resolve this matter. I ask the House to reject the amendment. It is not a matter of whether we approve of the efforts of the Minister; we want results. This motion has been down for a number of months and was nominated for this week because results are not coming through. Nothing but good could come by the passing of the motion and there might be a rapid improvement in the position. At present the health board community welfare officers are overburdened doing the work of the Department of Social Welfare and are not able to devote themselves to the area of community welfare and health. They must fill in for the shortcomings of the Department.
Amendment put.
The Dail divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 43.
Tá
|
Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Kit.Andrews, David.Andrews, Niall.Aylward, Liam.Barrett, Sylvester.Brady, Gerard.Brady, Vicent.Browne, Seán.Callanan, John.Calleary, Seán.Cogan, Barry.Conaghan, Hugh. French, Sean.Gallagher, Dennis.Geoghegan Quinn, Maire.Gibbon, Jim.Herbert, Michael.Hussey, Thomas.Kennneeally, William.Kileen, Tim.Lawlor, Liam.Lamass, Eileen.Leniham, Brian.Leonard, Jimmy.Leomard, Tome.Leyden, Terry.McCreevy,Carlie.Meancy, Tom.Molloy, Robert.Moore, Sean. |
Connolly, Gerard.Cowen, Bernard.Crinion, Brendan.Crinion, Jerry.de Valera, Vivion.Doherty, Seán.Farrell, Joe.Faulkner, Pádraig.Filgate, Eddie.Fitzgerald, Gene.Fitzsimons, James N.Flynn. Pádraig.Fox, Christopher J. Morley P.J.Murphy, Ciaran P.Murjphy, Caiaran P.O'Connor, Timothy C.O'Donoghue,Martin.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Leary,John.Power, Paddy.Reynolds, Albert.Smith, Michael.Tunney, Jim.Walsh, Joe.Walsh, Sean.Wilson, John P.Woods, Michael J.Wyse, Pearse. |
Níl
|
Barry, Myra.Barry, Richard.Begley, Michael.Belton, Luke.Berminglham, Joseph.Boland, John.Burke, Joan.Burke, Liam.Cluskey, Frank.colins, Edward.Conlan, John F.Cograve, Michael J.Creed, Donal.Crotty, KiearanD'Arcy, Michael J.Desmond, Barry.Enright, Thomas W.FitzGerald,Garret.Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghn).Griffin, Brendan.Hert, Patrick D. |
Hegarty, Paddy,Horgan, John.Keatinng,Michael.Kelly, John.Kenny, Enda.Lipper Mick.McMahon,LarryMannion, John M.Mitchell, Jim.O'Brien, Fergus.O'Brien, William.O'Tom.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Toole, Paddy.Pattison, Seamus.Quinn, RuairiTaylor, Frank.Timmins, Godfrey.Treacy, Seán.Tully, James.White, James. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Moore and B. Ahern, Nil, Deputies W. O'Brien and B. Desmond.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.