Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

We all accept the community welfare officer service plays a valuable role and, as colleagues have said, provides a key point of contact with the health service initially and now the Department of Social Protection since it moved across. I recall individuals such as Eddie Bourke in Strokestown and previously in south Roscommon, who knew not only the family, but also the previous generation and their particular circumstances. While from an administrative point of view, the paperwork would show sufficient income coming in, Mr. Bourke would know the addiction issues or the domestic dynamic in a particular house and know where assistance was needed. That level of knowledge has been lost because the CWOs do not have that understanding. Part of the difficulty and the frustration of members is that as staff retired, the newer staff that came in are based in central offices. They are not out in the community and they do not have the same level of understanding of the issues on the ground through no fault of their own. They do not understand the schemes either.

I came across a situation where a victim of domestic violence was told to go to the local authority for assistance when there is a clear strand of funding that is supposed to be made available. The case was certified by a domestic violence organisation. It should have happened automatically but I had to intervene for that payment to be made. That is a standard case. The level of understanding is not there because we have a lot of new staff coming in. There has been a changeover and the staff are not being given support through the system. That is part of the problem. The past 12 months have been an especially challenging time for everyone and for the CWOs trying to deal with challenging individual circumstances. Conscious support needs to be provided to the staff. Part of the difficulty is that there is much more paperwork with centralisation. The CWO must justify making a payment that is out of the ordinary. That creates an additional administrative burden and from talking to the more senior CWOs, I understand the newer people see that as a discouragement or barrier to sanctioning a payment.

I will pick up on Mr. Hession's comment that a CWO should not be seen as a sweeper role. That is the purpose of the CWO. It is not only an arm of the Department of Social Protection. It is supposed to deal with housing issues in situations, for example when the alternative is for people to go into long-term nursing home care because they do not have the resources to meet the top-up payment to carry out adaptations to the house. Housing accommodation - not white goods and furniture - was always a key aspect of the role of the CWO long before it came under the Department of Social Protection. It is important that is not lost in the process.

I will come to the reorganisation. I understand the logic for it during the Covid-19 pandemic. Some of the face-to-face contact was lost in the reorganisation that took place as a result of Covid-19. I accept that having access to a senior CWO who has experience via the helpline is a good avenue, but we are losing local impact and engagement. For example, in my constituency of west Roscommon - Mr. Henry knows it well - people should not have to come physically into Roscommon town to access a CWO. The reality is the number of times the CWO goes out whether to Castlerea or Ballaghadereen is minimal and I understand it is being frowned on or discouraged. People must come in or make contact over the phone and they do not have the financial resources to do so. If people are in a situation of financial difficulty, they do not have the money to put petrol in the car or to pay a taxi to come to Roscommon. That is part of the problem.

I raised an issue regarding a constituent who contacted me with the Minister when she came before the committee a few weeks ago. This typifies some of the challenges. A woman contacted my office because she needed the assistance of a supplementary welfare payment. We sent her the SWA1 form which she completed. This woman is certified as blind and in receipt of the blind pension. With the assistance of some relatives she filled out the form and submitted her bank statement because most of her transactions are done through the bank. She received an unsigned letter from the Intreo office asking her to fill out all the same information again. The first thing she did was ring me to tell me that I got her to fill out the wrong form. I told her I did not. I have looked for the form from the Department and cannot get it. Yet this woman who is certified blind had to submit a second form. It was submitted a month ago and she still has not had any response. This is for assistance to purchase oil. The documentation has been sent a second time yet there is no engagement. There is no contact number or name on the form. While we are being told we are being more proactive, there is an individual whose case should have been dealt with. If it was not dealt with, someone should have contacted the woman because it was obvious she was in receipt of the blind pension in the past. She is now a pensioner and it is not easy for her to do this. These are the types of things that are happening. This is what is leading to the frustration we are dealing with and it is adding immense pressure for staff who are overworked in terms of demands but also in terms of the psychological pressure they are dealing with. They are making significant decisions on challenging circumstances.

I vehemently defended the culture of discretion down through the years. As Mr. Henry knows, we sometimes heard the criticism that CWOs had too much discretion. It has gone too far the other way now. The level of discretion and encouragement to use it need to be actively supported by senior levels in the Department. It would be better to make one or two mistakes in giving a payment unnecessarily than to leave people in a desperate situation. That was always the culture in the CWO service and it led to job satisfaction for staff. The reality is that many of the experienced staff are frustrated with how the service has developed. Many of the more senior people are moving out of the service into other areas and the staff who are left do not have the institutional knowledge and understanding of how this system has traditionally worked. It has resulted in the frustration we and the customers are feeling and is leading to a more difficult and challenging experience for staff who work in the service on a day-to-day basis. I hope the witnesses will take that away and provide the necessary support to the staff who are dealing with a difficult challenging situation.

They are the most vital cog in our support service right across the system in terms of the financial challenges families are dealing with on a daily basis.